Printable View
"I regret that President Trump is slandering our country in his attempts to find reasons for what he wants to do in closing off the United States. I suspect that his actual knowledge of the issue is extremely limited. If it were not for the massive turmoil that could ensue, I would urge him to skip one of his golfing weekends and come to us and see for himself."
--Carl Bildt, former Prime Minister of Sweeden
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Moon:
*Screw Carl Bildt...He is just another snobby, 'elite', weasel word, BSing politician who hasn't given a sh*t about Swedish immigrants, and immigrant assimilation for over 20 yrs. Therefore, he didn't give a crud about the safety of his own citizenry.
Yes, there are big problems with mass immigration in Sweden, as well as other parts of Europe.
"Trump is right about Immigrants"...
*****
..."I am afraid of this place exploding"...
..."they can't calm us down with nice words"...
--Residents of Rinkeby. '93
..."Rinkeby is nice"...
--Carl Bildt. '93 (weasel word, Carl Bildt, after meeting with frustrated and angry Rinkeby residents at a town hall).
"The no go zone of Rinkeby - Then and Now!"...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0SmKcdg5pQM
*****
An immigrant in Sweden posts about immigration in Sweden.
"Welcome To Sweden"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3KSJY0c8QWw
*****
"THE STATUS IN SWEDEN 2017 - By a Swede"
"I, as a Swede, would say that Sweden is in a crisis."..
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UAWkTrtuhMw
*****
"Head of Swedish Ambulance Drivers Union...No Go Zones are Reality for Us."...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ta5a02MzWjE
*****
"Swedish reality today 55 no go zones for police and locals"...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oCsEqKjP9p0
*****
Swedish Mainstream Media Is "Hiding The Full Picture": Trump Is Right About Immigrants"...
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...out-immigrants
*****
"Swedish Feminists Leaving Stockholm Suburbs as Islamic Fundamentalists Now "Ruling" Those Areas"...
https://newsline.com/swedish-feminis...-ruling-areas/
*****
"Swedish police were forced to run for their lives after being attacked by a mob of asylum seekers as they tried to relocate amid allegations a 10-year-old boy had been 'raped repeatedly' at a refugee centre. Read more:"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...#ixzz4czkLJ3HX ..
(I am assuming you maybe know of the practice of Bacha Bazi in Afghanistan...culturally acceptable boy slave rape).
*****
"SWEDISH police are being attacked as they struggle to cope with crime in "no-go" areas of the country with high migrant populations, a report has revealed"...
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...-crime-rockets
*****
"Sweden on the Brink" An interview with Dr. Tito Sanandaji
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/swede...matias-tavares
*****
Hand Grenades...Sweden
"Along with a number of shootings, the summer of 2015 was dubbed "the summer of unrest" by Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven, who during a speech said the attacks would "not be tolerated".[74] Some hundred new police officers were set to be appointed in Malmö in the following months, after concerns were raised by the regional police union.[75] Police began work the same summer of attempting to thwart "mass hysteria" among terrified Malmö residents.[76]
In 2017 the Swedish government has proposed harsher punishments for possession of grenades.[77]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...acks_in_Sweden
*****
*Posting above was composed before terrorist attack in Stockholm, Sweden, on April 7, 2017.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/328925...-a-no-go-zone/
https://narrative-collapse.com/2017/...ce-riot-day-2/
https://www.dn.se/sthlm/dn-fotograf-...lad-i-rinkeby/
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...e-its-not-safe
https://www.government.se/articles/2...ime-in-sweden/...
All of our governments need to take in refugees and let them know, as soon as they apply and repeatedly therafter, that grossly brutal practices are illegal and will lead to years of imprisonment, followed by deportation. (Well, of course, good luck with that when, even in California, we can't keep our own cops from routinely carrying out grossly brutal practices.) Then we need to ride herd on the populations from regions where those practices are accepted and educate the public to be alert for the signs of such behavior. How to pay for that supervision? How about we do what the most senior generals and admirals have been requesting for years--mothballing nine-tenths of the nuclear arsenal--and fund it for the next 20 years?
right, 'cuz he's a politician, so he must be evil. And a snob. You know what they're all like - just the same as all immigrants are alike.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by snake:
I don't know enough about most of the sites you quoted to know if they're the equivalent of the New York Times (yeah, I know, a liberal rag) or something reliable like Breitbart. I do know the Sun, though, and for those of you who don't, here's the page referred to by the OP.
Looks like a reputable source to me!
I'm sure Sweeeden has problems with immigrants. It can't be easy for immigrants to fully assimilate. Even here, we have a lot of crime perpetrated by immigrants. Of course we have a lot more crime perpetrated by natural-born citizens. I don't know why the Sweeeedish experience would be all that different.
What do we know about Sweden? Do you know anyone from there? I know three, yes they are rare, a great place too be, but they are here.
Germany too, lots of immigrants there. The news is interesting, important for here.
The point is open borders or no. We know how trump won. Shall we continue the self deception... how long is it possible? I'm a hands on man. I've benefited and suffered from our current policy. Where is the world going? Open borders or no, or continue the current confusing self deception?
my point exactly. A lousy choice of boogeyman. A few anecdotes from questionable sources is good for entertainment value only. And to quote the queen, "I am NOT entertained".Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:
no, that's not the point. We've never had anything close to an open-border policy. This country's always been rough on immigrants. They're always demonized. Even when the native population had open borders, the European powers controlled immigration here.Quote:
The point is open borders or no. We know how trump won. Shall we continue the self deception... how long is it possible? I'm a hands on man. I've benefited and suffered from our current policy. Where is the world going? Open borders or no, or continue the current confusing self deception?
I don't get the 'self deception' part either. Nobody's being Pollyana, but there seem to be several with apocalyptic tendencies. The idea of keeping out all immigrants because some cause problems is on a par with getting all men out of the country because they're disproportionately violent. Actually, I know that idea resonates with some people.
The key to living a humane life is to care about others, and to inconvenience yourself in order to benefit them. This whole 'America First' thing is so selfish I can't believe it. As I often have pointed out, it's not something you'd expect from a 'christian' nation. The whole ethical system of christianity is based on kindness and self-sacrifice. So even if in theory the immigrants are illegal and thus deserve whatever they get, in practice taking actions that harm so many people, or even neglecting to take action that could help people in need, is pretty evil.
The problem with us is we don't think to learn from other nations. So do we want to go the way of Sweden or Canada? Both we can admire, with different immigrant policys. And as our current president ran on, neither choice is possible without stronger southern border. Myself, l'm for open borders, I'm comfortable with chaos and change.
.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
In the U.S. at least, we are suppose to have a darn tough vetting system. I'd like it to be even tougher, in light of all the terrorist wannabees around. I don't know if any Governments 'need' to take more people in...Most countries including the U.S. can't handle what they already have. Several gruesome, evil terrorist attacks, and more to come.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Moon:
I'm for doing a lot better helping our own drugged-out, mentally-ill citizens living in tent cities first, among other things.
Oh well. It's nice to help people out when we can...and people all over the world do need a whole heck of a lot of help...But, our intelligence agencies are already overloaded, and we already have enough yahoos wanting to be like those evil, sick IS bastards.
Geez, a chef, and a guy who works in a cancer treatment center, how nice.
2 Chicago men arrested for holding ISIS flag, threatening to throw homosexuals from Sears Tower
podfish wrote:
"right, 'cuz he's a politician, so he must be evil. And a snob. You know what they're all like - just the same as all immigrants are alike."
"I do know the Sun, though, and for those of you who don't, here's the page referred to by the OP."
***********
What kind of posting is that, podfish?
I didn't state the guy was 'evil', but did state he was a snobby ahole, because he was, and so are other politicians. And who stated, "all politicians', and 'all immigrants' are alike"?
Try to comprehend correctly please, because I really do not like it when people assume things, and pull assumptions out of thin air. It's a nasty human tendency when people don't like, or don't agree with what someone else is saying, or writing.
I posted a variety of links...I can't help it if some sites have sleezy ads...So, since you made a big deal, and got a kick about some sleazy ads, and not on what some citizens, and an economist are talking about, I guess that is where your brain likes to go..
rossman wrote:
" The idea of keeping out all immigrants... This whole 'America First' thing is so selfish I can't believe it. As I often have pointed out, it's not something you'd expect from a 'christian' nation. The whole ethical system of christianity is based on kindness and self-sacrifice."...
When has anyone of note recently stated something about keeping 'out all immigrants'?
And why is 'America First' 'so 'selfish'?... We are one of the most generous countries in the world...And we've got Vets killing themselves every day, a lack of proper training for vocational jobs, many inner city kids and families not doing so good, and more needy homeless, and others on the streets than I have ever seen before, etc. etc.
..."The whole ethical system of christianity is based on kindness and self-sacrifice."...And how much 'kindness', and 'self-sacrifice' would that be?
A Swedish family just lost their beautiful 12 year old daughter in this last terrorist attack. A mother with an 18 month old murdered and so mangled it took over two days to identify her, and who ironically helped rejected asylum seekers like the one who murdered her.
Is that enough 'self-sacrifice' for you? How about you 'self-sacrificing' yourself?
That rejected asylum seeker, and all the other terrorists, committed the ultimate 'self-sacrifice' for Allah, and believed they were going to paradise for their 'self-sacrifice.'
Sometimes, maybe it's better to be 'selfish', if you are 'selfish' about the right things.
I should probably insert a quote from some dictionary... The phrase "America First" is "Me first" spread around more widely. And a kid coming up to the teacher saying "me first" stops being cute after kindergarten. You're also not disputing my statement about christian ethics.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by snake:
Of course people need to act in their own self-interest and that of their family and community. But that's not a blank check, and damning a whole class of people because of the actions of a few is indeed evil. So no, it's never better to be selfish. It might be smart to be careful, but callous disregard for the needs of others is shameful.
Could we all take a deep breath?
The first c in waccobb.net stands for conscious, and I think what all of us mean by that is something beyond "not in coma." The flaming, sarcasm, ill-wishing (e.g., for someone to lose a loved one to terrorism) and just all-around uglymouth that have shown up in my Inbox have given me serious pause, though. Can everyone keep in mind that we're all trying to figure a way out of the same dilemma: how to keep the largest possible number of people safe (i.e., both people fleeing battle zone, starvation, etc., and those already living here)?
Thank you.
you don't think sarcasm is appropriate??? I can't really imagine a reassuring "sure, that's a great point you have... let me maybe possibly disagree a little bit if you don't mind?? I don't think this site's particularly troubled by flaming or trolling. Obviously not all agree, but a public forum for debate can be civil even when it's not affirming. It's certainly conscious!!Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Moon:
In other words, you are fine with illegal people coming into the country and maiming, and murdering people.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
Finally getting back to this posting...
I think it depends on what a particular person means when they say, 'America First'. I don't automatically think of it as 'selfish' in a bad way like you do. Obviously, people have very different perceptions about such statements. The original "America First", was formed in 1941 as an isolationist group to stay out of the war, but the bombing of Pearl Harbor changed that. It would be absurd, of course, to try and be isolationist now, but I do understand the frustration and anger towards "Globalization" with the U.S. losing thousands of jobs, and the anger regards the apathy and demeaning attitudes towards the 'deplorables', towards those who don't think like many 'Liberals' on the West or East Coast.
Feeling patriotic, and wanting to have a better life doesn't automatically mean you are a 'selfish' person. As an elder friend of mine use to ask, "What is wrong with taking care of your own first?" Having said that though, it is of utmost importance that the U.S. be the leader in the world, because we still are 'the best' in many ways. The more sane world looks to us to lead the way, so we better get our act together and stand up for those values our ancestors fought and died for, and stop being so cowardly, and PC., and listen to those suffering and facing death and torture in the oppressive Islamic world, and other places as well.
So, what is 'selfish' and what is 'being careful' these days? Where is that balance between 'self, family, community preservation', and 'Christian ethics'? What does that look like? (The Western world as a whole, sure hasn't shown much interest in the suffering Christians, and Yazidis in the ME. See below).
This Polish priest speaking here (along with many of his compatriots) is quite clear where his 'balance' is between 'being careful' and 'Christian ethics'.
..."It's obvious to me the leftist propaganda does it's best to destroy us, destroy the Church, and destroy the Polish people"...
https://m.youtube.com/watch
*****
"A few"? How many is 'a few'? And I never said anything about 'damning' a 'whole class of people', nor do I have a 'callous disregard' for the needs of other's, simply for thinking our citizen's needs and protections should come first. I do however know we need to be super-duper extra careful. All the Islamic terrorist attacks show us that there very much is a problem with violent fanaticism in Islam. Not to mention all the Muslims supporting it, support for Sharia law, underage marriage, polygamy, FGM, Jew hatred, homo hatred, etc. There is no such thing as 'free speech', or, 'freedom of religion' in the dominating Islamic countries of the world, and many carry that attitude with them.
No-one is willing to print Mohammed cartoons now. Terrorism is working. You want that?
The Islamic doctors being prosecuted for FGM in Michigan are going to use the 'religious freedom' defense. If that doesn't sicken every single sane western person, and make them realize many people wanting to come into our country DO NOT care about integrating, and upholding our good western values, and laws, I don't know what would.
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2017/0727/Michigan-FGM-case-could-test-bounds-of-religious-liberty
*****
I don't expect people to believe me about how serious these problems are, but after all the Islamic terrorist attacks happening (and thwarted) almost every day all over the world, including almost all western countries now, I don't understand people who still want to deny the reality of how much violent fanaticism, extremism, is within Islam. The perpetration of the term 'Islamophobia' to shut down critical discourse of Islam, failure of 'our own' to stand up to abuse and cruelty for fear of being called 'racist', or 'bigot' is particularly weak and shameful. Maybe some people will be willing to listen to those Muslims and ex-Muslims who live inside that culture, and others who have been harmed by it.
"By The Numbers" (Raheel Raza narrates - A Sunni Canadian Muslim who has received death threats).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pSPvnFDDQHk
*****
"Islam and the necessity of Liberal critique." (Sarah Haider, U.S. ex Muslim).
..."So, why is it so difficult for many on the left to criticize Islam? Why do they shy away from it? I believe that the primary reason is that many are simply incapable of separating the criticism of an idea with the hate directed towards the people, and immediately call the first, racism. That idea should not be entertained for very long"...
..."Islamophobia is a meaningless term. It serves to confuse and to muddle two very different forms of intolerance, based on two very different reasons towards which there should be two very different reactions"...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0plC24YuoJk
*****
Hamed Samad on Islamic 'Fascism'. (Egyptian Ex-Muslim under Fatwa)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkJGD4bMw8o
*****
Zineb El Rhazoui (Charlie Hebdo Writer)
"She leads a clandestine existence, on the move and under 24-hour guard as France’s most protected woman. Yet Zineb El Rhazoui, the Charlie Hebdo journalist who happened to be in Casablanca on January 7 last year, the day terrorists “avenging the Prophet” massacred nine people at the satirical magazine in Paris, believes she has a duty to defy Islamists desperate to silence her."...
https://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2016/10/18/zineb-el-rhazoui-charlie-hebdo-survivor-discusses-why-the-world-needs-to-destroy-islamic-fascism/
*****
Why did the U.S.Senate Ignore Aayan Hirsi Ali, and Sara Nomani?
..."She went on to make it even clearer, adding, “There is no point in denying that political Islam as an ideology has its foundation in Islamic doctrine.”
But Democratic senators on the committee didn’t want to hear it."...
https://clarionproject.org/senate-ayaan-asra/
*****
The Betrayed Girls: The Rochdale Scandal
How British police and others allowed Pakistani male 'gangs' to continue raping white, underage vulnerable girls. Aka, 'Sex Grooming'.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9srYOqHIrbk
*****
"Muslim children attending mosques and Islamic schools are being taught to hate America, our government, our military personnel and its non Muslim population. In this article I will identify three significant mosques in America that are leading the way in teaching Muslim children to hate and influencing them to commit violent acts inside our country."
https://clarionproject.org/american-muslim-children-taught-hate/
*****
"East London mosque has filed formal complaint about CEMB to Pride."
..."The East London Mosque has a long history of hosting hate preachers who incite against blasphemers, apostates and homosexuals so we felt naming and shaming them was very apt."...
..."Self-appointed “Muslim leaders” say our placards were “Islamophobic”. But in our point of view, Islam, like all religions, is homophobic. Why is it not possible to say this without accusations of Islamophobia?"...
..."The only reasons our signs are seen to be “provocative” are because criticism of Islam is deemed to be impermissible, because there is the constant threat of violence by Islamists against ex-Muslims but also dissenting Muslims and others in order to silence and censor, and because criticism of Islam and Islamism is erroneously conflated with an attack on Muslims."...
https://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/east-london-mosque-has-filed-formal-complaint-about-cemb-to-pride/
*****
Tarek Fatah (Muslim under Fatwa). Muslims against M-103 Canada. (Unfortunately, after this speech, M103 passed ). Tarek speaks passionately about the hypocrisy of elected Muslims wanting to pass an 'Islamophobia' bill in Canada. (If you don't want to watch all of it, the last ten minutes is worth it).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GB1Dx5NplxY
*****
"Dr Rifi and Tawhidi condemned the attack. Tawhidi went further, saying young people were being radicalised, even in Australia, “because of the Islamic scriptures that we have”
“They push the Muslim youth to believe that if you go out there and you kill the infidel that’s how you will gain paradise.""
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/islam-infested-by-extremists-moderate-muslim-cleric-says/news-story/e4020668bba6c222d83141f10e58070a
*****
Arabic writer Shtiwi Al-Ghithi on ISIS/Arabic ideology
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QKhu4jBZDd0
*****
Exclusive interview with Yazidi Leader: West to Blame for Our Genocide.
..."“We are peaceful people that just want to live how God created us. If God didn’t want us, he would not create us. There are many different faiths that suffered genocide by the Muslims. The Mandeans, the Zoroastrians, the Assyrians, etc. The region used to belong to them. The West knows that the Muslims came via genocidal forces. There were Jewish people in many parts of the Middle East. Where are they now? Where are the Zoroastrians? They were all killed or converted to Islam.”...
https://clarionproject.org/exclusive-interview-yazidi-leader-west-blame-genocide/
*****
And KRBC shows it's cowardly face by cancelling Richard Dawkins Interview because he criticizes Islam...Wow, imagine that...Mr. Atheist criticizing a religion. Maybe, they were afraid of getting blown up?
Complete cowardice by KRCB along with Universities like Berkeley for not supporting free speech...Shame on them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/us/richard-dawkins-speech-canceled-berkeley.html
Just to distinguish between Islam and certain Muslims, as one might distinguish between Christianity and certain Paulists: Not only does the Q'ran not prescribe FGM, it explicitly forbids child abuse in any form, as well as anything that would tend to interfere with the bond between husband and wife.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by snake:
boy, I thought I made long posts...
That's what's wrong with the selfish 'America first'. As you prove in your post, it leads toward disregard of or hostility to those in groups that are not-us. It asserts that it's fine to treat individuals primarily as members of some group. That's the definition of acting from racism or bigotry. Just because some individuals of that group somehow manage to sneak through and become honorary 'ones of us' doesn't make people who think that way non-racists or non-bigots. Also, claiming that many people deny that there's any violent fanatics who follow Islam is ridiculous. It's ground to tread carefully, because it so easily slides into Islamophobia, but sure, you can compare religious traditions to find some more peaceful and others more accepting of violence. Christianity and Islam both fall into the second group. If this country was close to becoming an Islamic state, maybe it would be a discussion worth having, but currently we're fighting against being controlled by Christian fundamentalist views instead.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by snake:
no, I insist only legal people get to do that.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by snake:
what a weird thing to draw from his post....
podfish, i think i love you.
Snake is focused on potential violence and deep cultural difference. My experience is that our immigration policy, which is an open back door, suppresses working class wages. This is a big factor in income inequality.
And the alienating experience in second class noncitizen communities contributes to criminality. The policy is by design, the last two two term presidents tried reform and failed.
Fortunately in the us most backdoor immigrants are from latin america so cultural difference is minor. Europe not so, time will keep telling. This is important, the trend is for more desperate immigration.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
I completely agree. Maybe addressing income inequality and not treating some communities as 'second class' would be a good idea. How you phrase an issue dictates how you deal with it. Seeing this as 'them' hurting 'us' implies that keeping 'them' away would make everything hunky-dory again. But hmm... there's still income inequality, and still second-class citizen communities. That's not so great. And maybe those are more important issues after all. Maybe addressing those issues would lessen the impact of illegal immigration a lot more than directly attacking the immigrants.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:
Our immigration policy is not "an open back door." As a farmer, I would like to report that California ag. would not be possible without immigrants. Most white people would not take the really hard work, especially since the corporate wineries and others pay such low wages.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:
Immigrants are not nearly as criminal as billionaires and the rest of the 1%. My family immigrated, as most of yours did. Let's honor the Statue of Liberty.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
"That's what's wrong with the selfish 'America first'. As you prove in your post, it leads toward disregard of or hostility to those in groups that are not-us."...
Oh yeah? And how's that? I'm not even part of 'America first', so my post doesn't 'prove' anything.
All your post does is take your bias and whip it around to suit yourself. You are more critical about my concern in regards to people committing murder and abuse, than the murder and abuse itself.
You are conflating criticism, and concern with automatically being 'hostile'.
Ya' know what is 'hostile'? When those evil Jihadi's run ya' down while yelling the religious cry, 'Allahu akbar' (Allah is the greatest) so they can go to paradise and hang out with their 72 virgins. Their God is greater than yours, (if you have one), so you don't mean crap.
If it makes ya' feel any better, I could rant on about the evils of commie China, and the evil cover up of child abuse in the Catholic church, and other religions as well.
"Just because some individuals of that group somehow manage to sneak through and become honorary 'ones of us' doesn't make people who think that way non-racists or non-bigots."...
What the heck is "sneak through", "honorary ones of us", and "think that way" suppose to mean? I am attempting to decipher some of your odd language. If you are referring to people that believe in free speech, and speak about things important to them, well, I don't think people who happen to get death threats because they support free speech are 'sneaking through' anything. Nor, does their speaking up, and being critical mean they are racists, or bigots either.
"Also, claiming that many people deny that there's any violent fanatics who follow Islam is ridiculous."
And where do you get that ridiculous idea, that I claimed such a thing? Please re-read what I wrote, if you are willing. If you are not willing, who cares, right? It's not important to you anyway.
"It's ground to tread carefully, because it so easily slides into Islamophobia, but sure, you can compare religious traditions to find some more peaceful and others more accepting of violence. Christianity and Islam both fall into the second group."
Oooh, and there's that warning...Careful not to slide into 'Islamophobia'...And what exactly do you mean by that? Who is going to be the one defining 'Islamophobia'? You? All kinds of people have their own definition of 'Islamophobia'. And let's say someone is 'Islamophobic', so what? Some atheist types despise all religions, but it really is no big deal unless they actually do something mean and violent to someone, or try to pass an unconstitutional law.
"If this country was close to becoming an Islamic state, maybe it would be a discussion worth having, but currently we're fighting against being controlled by Christian fundamentalist views instead."
Well, I did almost choke upon reading that sentence. It's pretty darn disturbing, and doesn't give me much confidence in Americans such as yourself, to note that (according to you) we'd have to be on the verge of becoming an 'Islamic state' before it's worth it to discuss such trivial matters as free speech, Jihad attacks, (9/11, Boston marathon bombing, Orlando slaughter, Burbank slaughter) FGM, child rape, etc. I guess terrorist Jihad attacks that kill children, splatter people's guts and blood all over the place, and have changed the way EVERYONE in the world travels through airports, is just no big deal. Okey, dokey.
..."we're fighting against being controlled by Christian fundamentalist views instead."
Maybe, you need to be careful YOU don't slide into 'Christianophobia.'
If someone states they are fine with chaos...not weird at all...Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
it's nice not to have everyone here being part of the echo chamber. That being said...
you reveal the core of the problem here; it's also prominent in the right's view of the Charlottesville event. It's possible to address one facet of an issue at a time, and consider it more relevant. I'm pointing out your assigning blame for acts of murder to whole categories of people. Murder bad. Prejudice bad. Assigning group blame for individual actions bad.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by snake:
good observation. Jihadi's are bad too.Quote:
...Ya' know what is 'hostile'? When those evil Jihadi's run ya' down while yelling the religious cry, 'Allahu akbar' (Allah is the greatest) so they can go to paradise and hang out with their 72 virgins. Their God is greater than yours, (if you have one), so you don't mean crap.
so.. why is that relevant?Quote:
If it makes ya' feel any better, I could rant on about the evils of commie China, and the evil cover up of child abuse in the Catholic church, and other religions as well.
from your post: .....I don't understand people who still want to deny the reality of how much violent fanaticism, extremism, is within Islam.Quote:
"Also, claiming that many people deny that there's any violent fanatics who follow Islam is ridiculous."
And where do you get that ridiculous idea, that I claimed such a thing? Please re-read what I wrote, if you are willing.
from the latin: fear of islam. Kinda simple, really. To return to my theme: categorizing individuals by their membership in a group. Not a good thing.Quote:
Oooh, and there's that warning...Careful not to slide into 'Islamophobia'...And what exactly do you mean by that? Who is going to be the one defining 'Islamophobia'? You? All kinds of people have their own definition of 'Islamophobia'. And let's say someone is 'Islamophobic', so what? Some atheist types despise all religions, but it really is no big deal unless they actually do something mean and violent to someone, or try to pass an unconstitutional law.
it's pretty defensible: where is Sharia being put into law? Where are Christian fundamentalist views being put into law? and you did it again. Why is Burbank, or for that matter the Bowling Green Massacre, relevant to my point? I'm saying that you cannot deal with individuals and individual threats as if they were characteristic of a whole group of people. That goes for Catholic priests as much as jihadis.Quote:
"If this country was close to becoming an Islamic state, maybe it would be a discussion worth having, but currently we're fighting against being controlled by Christian fundamentalist views instead."
Well, I did almost choke upon reading that sentence. It's pretty darn disturbing, and doesn't give me much confidence in Americans such as yourself, to note that (according to you) we'd have to be on the verge of becoming an 'Islamic state' before it's worth it to discuss such trivial matters as free speech, Jihad attacks, (9/11, Boston marathon bombing, Orlando slaughter, Burbank slaughter) FGM, child rape, etc. I guess terrorist Jihad attacks that kill children, splatter people's guts and blood all over the place, and have changed the way EVERYONE in the world travels through airports, is just no big deal. Okey, dokey.
..."we're fighting against being controlled by Christian fundamentalist views instead."
Maybe, you need to be careful YOU don't slide into 'Christianophobia.'
Hopefully we can all agree that there is plenty of undocumented immigration to us. As someone who has worked proudly with my hands and brain my whole life, and both competes and hires noncitizens, I find the management class trope that natives wouldn't do that work highly offensive and completely lacking in class understanding.
To me it's obvious why the trumpet won. Sweden has tightened their border through proxy countries and active deportation. Nation states controlling human movement is getting bigger. While it's not my choice at least I understand why.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:
Like it or not we live in an adult competitive society where if you don't have it together you are more and more likely to be shelterless. And that might be your choice even if you do have it together. Choice about this is harder in Sweden since it's colder.
Would there be less income inequality here with more exclusive borders? Does the safety net matter lots to income inequality Too? Yes yes, Canada.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
I have to agree that, from everything I've seen and heard, the majority of US whites would go on the dole before they'd take on the really hard physical labor required in agriculture. At the same time, there is a small minority of immigrants, documented and un-, who I'd rather had stayed at home; we have enough violent criminals of our own.
which is why Bill Clinton (who's policies would be considered center-right republicanism in todays world) instituted welfare to work. It is extremely difficult to have a rational conversation on immigration. It seems to me there are only two choices: 1) completely open borders; 2) limited immigration with enforcement.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Moon:
I'll not speak to1) above, but with 2) if you want a country where rule-of-law and not rule-of-what-feels-good-at-the-time prevails, then you must have some form of enforcement. None of the Calif. delegation takes any stance at all on the proper form of immigration. They all fall back to the "comprehensive immigration reform" trope without saying what that means. No rational person could claim that illegal immigration does not reduce wages in many job classifications. A rational person might claim that it is beneficial to the nation to have a brown under-class work in those occupations. Shepherd says" I would like to report that California ag. would not be possible without immigrants"; please be explicitly clear: do you mean LEGAL immigrants or ILLEGAL immigrants, or you don't care as long as they provide the low-cost stoop-labor to you? Cesar Chavez, hero of the left, was strongly opposed to ILLEGAL immigration.
Myself, I find it very convenient to hire contractors that use illegals as they provide high value for low wages. So in my own self interests I look the other way and get good service for low prices. I would be happy with nearly open borders, but I realize that means that we cannot have a very generous welfare state as it will be unsustainable.
So, what means "Immigration reform?" (be specific, give examples).
The most important reform I'd like to see is that families be kept together. If the parents entered illegally but had children here so that generation is citizens, then--if there's really some legitimate reason to remove the parents--let the family stay together while their appeal is processed. And, yes, I realize that can take a long time--and they might disappear somewhere within the US; but it's intolerable for children to be afraid to go to school lest they come home to find their parents have been "disappeared."
no, there are always more than two choices. The one that has been chosen in the past is to have laws, but random and arbitrary enforcement. We're cool with that regarding traffic laws. Or most laws, for that matter.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by spam1:
It's intolerable to you, but apparently it is NOT an intolerable risk for the parents. Why are you more concerned about keeping their family together than they are?Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Moon:
If I choose to ride a bike with my child in a seat behind me, without a bike helmet, I would be arrested for child endangerment; if I did it repeatedly I would have my children taken away. Isn't what these illegal immigrant parents doing even more dangerous to their children, and yet you sanction it.
If you think the law of the land should be "any one who sets a foot in the US and manages to have a child here gets becomes an automatic permanent resident" then please be so brave as to actually state that. I'm not necessarily opposed to that view point, I just don't see how we sustain our existing safety net if that is our policy.
Or do you propose an addendum "as long as they stay in the shadows".
So, what IS your position on immigration?
Indeed, I should have added a third choice: 3) some sort of restrictions, arbitrarily enforced, according to the pull and whims of the local community. But that third choice means we have abandoned rule-of-law. That way leads to Venezuela, the Philippines, and Russia.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
I was being rather flippant in the first reply, but more seriously, I disagree that it's a bad way to do things. Traffic laws are the most convenient example, but I think we really approach most things that way. There's always both discretion and constraints on the ability to do perfect enforcement of laws, which somewhat balances the fact that laws are never perfect. If we cared to, we could cite everyone who breaks the speed limits ever. We don't - we limit the number of LEOs and refuse to adopt technological solutions. Admittedly, there are great injustices when discretion is used for the benefit of one part of the population over another. But that's a different question.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by spam1:
But this whole thing is a bit O.T. - I think we all agree that the laws are important regardless, and those regarding immigration are way overdue for adjustment.
Which still begs the question: what do YOU think the immigration laws should be. Myself, I'm not sure the current law isn't the best approach. But I'm open to suggestions.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
fortunately for everybody, the things I'm responsible for creating aren't laws. Like every endeavor, you better have mastered the technical side of it before you try to create your blueprint. But I can be like the customer giving perhaps conflicting specifications. I tend to think of the goals that we need to achieve, then figure a way to balance the ones that are inconsistent with each other.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by spam1:
The hardest one is to be humane. Treating people in the aggregate can hide the fact that these are individuals who only get one life each. Basic principles of kindness, generosity and fairness are easy to lose when you build a system for handling populations rather than people. Being fair is a good thing, though you always have the cop-out that 'life is unfair' when fairness conflicts with other goals. Another image - you don't want to fill the lifeboat till it sinks, but maybe it's fine to let more people in it as long as we can bail it out fast enough. Preserving comfort and privilege is nice but feels like a goal that can be abused. And effectiveness/efficiency matters too. It's good to have an immigration policy that supports the economy rather than burdening it.
Of course I have opinions about how to balance all these things, but they're just fodder for discussion over beers. They won't have any effect on the world, so they're for entertainment value only. Sorry if anyone feels that's trivializing an important subject, but it's an accurate representation of the situation. I'd prefer a solution that doesn't disrupt the lives people have made for themselves. I'd like to use the wealth of this country to help as many people as possible, even if it means rebuilding the economy and redistributing wealth. (I think that anyone who's too certain that wealth is distributed the way it is for some good reason is absolutely fooling themselves). That's a bit beyond the subject at hand, but the fear of somehow losing wealth is motivating much of the discussion of this and many other topics.
You jumped on the assumption bandwagon...and that is what is too easy for many people to do.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
Bring up problems within certain groups, or factions, and some people tend to think, ah, they are 'blaming' the whole group, which I never did.
I can't stop you from doing that, but it's not a good thing to do. Assuming things is often a major flaw in our human nature.
And no, you do not have a good point in regards to 'Sharia Law'. We've had terrorist attacks, and people willing to abuse girls now using the 'defence' of 'religious freedom'.
Just what we needed--more nastiness (presumably masquerading as forthrightness.)
Are you saying the parents missed some way to get their immigration status regularized? It's damned hard.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by spam1:
I have no idea where you come up with 'assumption' or 'blame' from what I actually wrote. I'm also a bit baffled at your transition from Sharia law to terrorist attacks. You clearly still feel that if there are any Islamic people doing things, treating it in the context of the group is reasonable. That's not the same as saying all Islamic people are terrorists, I get that. Most terrorists seem to be male, too. Why is this less compelling to you than their religious beliefs?Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by snake:
It was not intended as nastiness (and this is why one can't have a discussion; all side are ready to pounce on any one as a Hater for just asking a question they don't like); and I don't see how you can claim it is anything but the logical extension of the choice the illegal-immigrant parents made (perhaps even before they were parents) that leads to the situation which they tolerate: they are susceptible to deportation under our existing laws, and their children are not.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Moon:
Explicitly: I am saying when the parents entered the country illegally, they knowingly put their future children at risk of separation and accepted this risk on their behalf. So they are responsible for the consequences under the current law. And no one, not dems, not reps, (I'm neither) has made any attempt to change this, even when each had full control of both houses.
This is what the law is today (unchanged from 2009, when both houses of congress and the president were democratic and could have changed it); what I asked, and you don't to answer in any post I've seen, is what do you propose the law should be; further, why doesn't our Ca delegation to congress propose it?
Even under today's law, the family need not be broken apart. They could return, children with them, to their country of origin. They choose not to; thus they choose to put their family at risk of separation.
of course you're objectively correct. And for some, they may have risked family separation so they could be living closer to a Best Buy. And to be less of a wise ass about it - some may have not really thought through the risks and have come for an easier life. But to me it shows how much they're willing to risk to improve the prospects for their children; the consequences of failure are so severe that they must perceive the benefit to be great. The 'choose not to' must be a Sophie's choice for many.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by spam1:
Sure, I know it's not that simple or extreme - the risk-reward computation changes with the odds of being deported. When the risk is low, it's an easier decision to make.
This is why I find the idea that this issue can be addressed by clearly written laws, strictly enforced (even retroactively) to be inadequate. It's too rational, in the Spockian sense, to be completely relied on for dealing with intimately personal and emotional decisions people make as to what's best for their families. Doesn't mean that laws and enforcement aren't hugely important, just that those are in some ways the easiest and most obvious part of a bigger solution.
Moon you only write for yourself. I know plenty of pinkskinned people, me included who would love to be farmers if the pay was better. At this point I have a hobby farm, and while retired I aspire to be a teacher farmer at my daughters school.
Take for example the lucrative farming strategy of wine. Most of the owners are white, and most of their workers are brown. They all work hard and the white ones started by doing what the brown ones do. If you think the majority of people accessing the social safety net are white... I know how I have benefited from racism, do you?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Moon:
there's a difference between being a hobby farmer and a picker. You're cherry-picking. (sorry). It's true that most grape-farm owners are white, but it's not true that any randomly-chosen vineyard worker has equal odds of being an owner someday. Wine-growing families tend to have the kids work in the vineyards to learn the business. It's analogous to the factory owner having his kids working the floor.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:
and if you're implying most people accessing the social safety net are non-white:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...g-class-whites
.. and that's ignoring all the government spending that supports (majority-white) business owners and the (majority-white) middle class.
If you look at my posts, there answer to this question will be abundantly clear.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:
IF the pay were better is the crucial point; it's completely possible that your circumstances have led you to a lot more whites who would be willing to face years of physically arduous labor for a pittance than I have, but all I can report on are the hundreds I've known.
BTW, thanks for maintaining civil discourse in your post.
The point is that the pay would be better with less immigrant labor. There are huge parts of us economy, ag and food processing, cleaning, caregiving, landscape, restaurant, construction ect. where there is a brown ceiling on wages. This means greater income equality, increased gdp, and lower consumer prices. Both dominant political parties continue current policy of open back door and resident third world work fodder.
Personally I just don't get it. When young and I was doing physically arduous labor, sweating in the hot sun while groveling in the dirt, I would cheer myself up by thinking, at least I am getting paid for working Out! Now, when I should be hiring other people (and often do), I think, I really need this Workout! The most common new business in seebasstoepull seems to be workout Studios! Why? I'll pay you to work out for me;)
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Moon:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Moon:
Screw the Q'ran. It's been around 1,400 yrs., and a bunch of Imam fartheads around the world promote child abuse, and abusive, male dominance over women. Ph*ck em'.
The west has increasing problems with child marriage (rape), FGM, rape of women, polygamy, etc., and it's not because of immigrant Protestants. Are wimped out western countries going to stand up for underage children, and tackle the increased rape problem, or not? I'm sick of it. I'm sick of our weak-kneed bs.
https://www.independentsentinel.com/judge-approves-marriage-child-bride-appears-mature/
***
Many Muslims state FGM is not Islamic, so that makes the defense of 'religious freedom' in this case, pretty darn ironic. Many Muslims go not only by the Q'ran, but also the Hadith/sunnah.
According to "Islamqa", it is in the Hadith, so FGM is A OK for these Imams, and obviously certain groups of Muslims.
"Circumcision is not an inherited custom as some people claim, rather it is prescribed in Islam and the scholars are unanimously agreed that it is prescribed. Not a single Muslim scholar – as far as we know – has said that circumcision is not prescribed.
Their evidence is to be found in the saheeh ahaadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), which prove that it is prescribed, for example:
The hadeeth narrated by al-Bukhaari (5889) and Muslim (257) from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him), that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "The fitrah is five things – or five things are part of the fitrah – circumcision, shaving the pubes, cutting the nails, plucking the armpit hairs, and trimming the moustache."
This hadeeth includes circumcision of both males and females."...
..."With regard to the criticism of circumcision by some doctors, and their claim that it is harmful both physically and psychologically,
This criticism of theirs is not valid. It is sufficient for us Muslims that something be proven to be from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then we will follow it, and we are certain that it is beneficial and not harmful. If it were harmful, Allaah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would not have prescribed it for us."...
"Thus it is clear that female circumcision is prescribed in Islam, and that it is one of the Sunnahs of the fitrah and it has a good effect of moderating the individual’s behaviour. As for the opinions of doctors who say that female circumcision is harmful, these are individual opinions which are not derived from any agreed scientific basis, and they do not form an established scientific opinion."...
https://islamqa.info/en/60314
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Female_Genital_Mutilation
*******
As far as marriage goes, the Q'ran is fine with polygamy, and a 'little bit' of 'wife beating'.
Nothin' like tit for tat...
..."c) If the husband beats a wife without respecting the limits set down by the Quran and Hadith, then she can take him to court and if ruled in favor has the right to apply the law of retaliation and beat the husband as he beat her."
https://www.themodernreligion.com/women/dv-4-34-shafaat.html
The 'modern religion'?.......Riiiight.
*******
I liked the video from the marriage therapist in Saudi Arabia on 'wife beating'. 'The Onion', or SNL couldn't have done better!
"Alyasum Allyukum" (Allah's blessing upon you). Welcome to our show which will deal with wife beating. I am aware that this issue is a thorny one."...
Yeah, bud...Ya think so?
..."The necessary Islamic conditions for beating must be met."..."Unfortunately, some wives want to live a life of equality with their husbands". This is a very grave problem."...
Yikes, when that little lady get's out of hand, or wants some 'equality', she needs a little discipline from hubby. Well, at least 'the therapist' stated it shouldn't be a big ol' hairy stick, or a sharp object to beat her with. Just like it says in the Koooran, use a little tooth cleaning stick, or, a handkerchief will do. What a relief!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eAZOag43T-w
In response to podcasts post above...."I have no idea where you come up with 'assumption' or 'blame' from what I actually wrote. I'm also a bit baffled at your transition from Sharia law to terrorist attacks. You clearly still feel that if there are any Islamic people doing things, treating it in the context of the group is reasonable. That's not the same as saying all Islamic people are terrorists, I get that. Most terrorists seem to be male, too. Why is this less compelling to you than their religious beliefs?"
*******
If you don't understand, then you can go over what you wrote, and what I wrote. I don't have the patience to repeat myself. I think I was quite clear in my postings.
Basically, your postings made FGM, child rape, Jihadi terrorist attacks, threats to free speech, etc., no big deal, while bringing up 'Shariah law', and 'Islamophobia.' I don't have patience for such dismissive sideswipes.
If you don't care about certain issues, fine. But please don't throw out that weak-kneed bs., and make cruel, and evil Islamist acts unimportant just because 'Sharia Law' isn't being implemented. That is pathetic.
..."Most terrorists seem to be male, too. Why is this less compelling to you than their religious beliefs?"
Huh? Jihadi's commit their evil acts of terror due to their religious beliefs.
***
Maybe, I got a little lucky...Unless, you want to conveniently dismiss this guy too...
"Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam."
... "The West must stop ascribing any and all discussion of these issues to “Islamophobia.” Or do people want to accuse me — an Islamic scholar — of being an Islamophobe too?"...
..."Within the Islamic tradition, the state is a single, universal entity that unites all Muslims under the rule of one man who leads them in opposition to, and conflict with, the non-Muslim world."...
https://time.com/4930742/islam-terrorism-islamophobia-violence/
Another reminder that this is nothing new...
"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share"...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War