American Politics

[xi0]

Because the big companies bypass the law, and he runs a big company himself, thus he knows all the tricks they use, but also knows their common weak points and the best way to make them go into several terms of a negotiation. Not saying it's a great and believeable reason, but from what I know that's how Trump and his followers claim he can do it. The rest is simply "trusting" him on it.

And trusting him should be a simple matter? So because he was part of the problem, and probably still is part of the problem, he's the best to deal with that? A rabid, hypocritical liar? Even if I grant you that, he's still offering no solutions to it from a business standpoint. It's only the dirty immigrants faults for taking advantage of the opportunities here, not the businesses that are actually responsible for said opportunities. Most conservatives would probably blame the government for making it so hard for them, instead of just attributing simple ethics to it. Fuck them being illegal, how about them not even being paid a living wage by our standards?

That would depend on how bad the solution is and how big the problem it's supposed to solve is. But you could argue the same about ignoring that problem which would then grow and create additional problems. And as bad as the solution may seem at first it could still be decent. Turning a blind eye to it because of a lack of good solutions will make it impossible to ever do something about it. That's my logic behind that.

Yeah but the "solution" is objectively pretty damn bad. The only people for building a wall and deporting 12 million people are the ignorant and xenophobic. It would cost us billions and billions to actually complete, depending on the size of the wall, and it'd cost even more and take even more resources to round that many people up and deport them. As much as he likes to talk about it, there's nothing humane or practical about it at all.

I don't think a blind eye is really being turned here. Maybe it's a problem that can't really be dealt with in any practical way and this is why government agencies have gradually failed at stemming the tide. Maybe policies do need to be revisited and bureaucracy done away with. But the wall seems like a gigantic resource-sink that won't actually solve issues as much as it creates them. Even if it does get built, it'll likely drive the price of drugs up as well. Not like the cartels give a shit about the walls/fences that do exist either.

 

[Hamy]

Yeah but the "solution" is objectively pretty damn bad. The only people for building a wall and deporting 12 million people are the ignorant and xenophobic. It would cost us billions and billions to actually complete, depending on the size of the wall, and it'd cost even more and take even more resources to round that many people up and deport them. As much as he likes to talk about it, there's nothing humane or practical about it at all.

Adding to that there is a reason why they're considered illegal immigrants, they're simply able to slip through weaknesses in the monitoring system and several other fail safe mechanisms that I doubt a wall could physically address by itself - I sincerely doubt building a wall of god knows how many miles is why they're able to slip through (I don't see any empirical studies or evidence to back up the rhetoric for using so much funds on a project that would need more justification for the resources it would consume). It is simply easier said than done because you have to consider the potential black market that is going on that actually allows for them to illegally enter the country.

The irony is by making a wall you'd only risk perpetuating the black market itself, making things stricter itself creates a security risk because this only makes the black market all the more attractive as an alternative. Incidentally, this only puts both the country and the potential migrants at more risk to human trafficking.

 

[xi0]

I forget the percentage, but a large portion of the estimated illegal population within the country got here with a legit visa and simply overstayed. A wall wouldn't address any of that, since in their cases it has nothing to do with a border or a lack of security.

There are enough holes to poke in the idea of a wall so that it'd be nothing but a symbolic thing. And the symbolism there is pretty gross.

 

[M3J]

Obama administration has caused huge job lossess, look at the loss of coal industry jobs. Republicans will ensure we wont lose those valuable jobs and more. Obama and people subscribing to his indoctrination simply just care about people being in jobs even if the jobs pay is low or the job is pointless.

Proof? Because an unbiased source says unemployment rate went down under Obama.

Coal industry has nothing to do with Obama and more to do with wanting cleaner sources of energy.

Republicans won't ensure shit but making sure rich people will profit. They're too happy with people losing jobs.

No one said anything about forced segregation...

The irony is when Cruz and Trump bring up the idea of increased surveillance, they're probably not even aware what our intelligence agencies are doing in that area. I wouldn't be surprised if known muslim neighborhoods are already under higher scrutiny, at least as far as sigint goes.

Seems to be implied. Especially when not all Muslims live in the same areas. I mean, what if eventually they force dispersed Muslims into one or two areas in each state?

This would be a fine notion if this mentality came from a single group, but it's pretty pervasive. This kind of action is usually stimulated by religious and political motivations. It's in effect both really, but it's clear where the inspiration is coming from. Any Muslim can read the Qur'an and find the words these extremists are using. Islamists are literalists, using the Qur'an and the hadith as reasons for what they're doing. It isn't being pulled out of thin air. Just because the majority of Muslims aren't like this, doesn't mean the inspiration isn't from Islam or that these extremists are textually incorrect. There are tons of horrible things in the Old and New Testaments as well.


It's rather natural that people care more about what is within their scope. Not sure how there's anything wrong with that. People are going to care less about things that have less or no effect on them. Don't know why you insist on making this a racial issue. Do people in MENA or India pay attention to our latest school shooting any more than we might pay attention to the atrocities over there? Probably not.

I remember the gurudwara attacks being covered. You keep bringing it up in context of this issue when it's really unrelated.

Yeah but people who are like that aren't who I'm talking about or advocating for. Just saying that people are too politically correct due to people who would act that way. But that doesn't mean there isn't a legitimate problem that needs to be talked about in a sincere and mature way.

I dunno, I hear that the extremists just twist words around.

No, more like they care about the West and what happens to white peopl. I do see it as a racial issue. And while I don't know if they do, they do seem to make fun of us for having so many mass shootings going on. Though, I suspect they might be too busy dealing with the horrors of their countries.

CNN covered it, I think, and a newspaper did as well, but still not much compared to if a Muslim attacked a Western country. the media would spend pages demonizing the Muslim suspect/s, while they didn't seem to do much with the white supremacists. Did any media cover a Muslim organization donating money to the Charleston church where Dylann Roof committed the mass shooting? It's not unrelated.

I know. I personally am too PC on this because of how people keep reacting. If they weren't targeting or demonizing all Muslims, then I wouldn't be so anal about the shit they say.

Sorry guys, didn't intend to insult or blame anyone. It might be just I'm just not that used such heated discussions, and thus had that unwelcomming vibe. Could just as well be completle me.

Probably more you being a coward than anything else. Don't sweat it.

Did M3J watch the evening news tonight, the news does focus on and show attacks in the homeland against muslim americans. (A woman was beat with a beer bottle at a chain restaurant for speaking her native tongue)

One incident? And how long did it focus on her for? And did it paint her as a victim or did it in a way indicate she was in fault as well for not speaking English?

 

[MBVC]

I wonder what will happen to me if I speak French at McDonald.

 

[M3J]

I wonder what will happen to me if I speak French at McDonald.

"Oh, sucks what happened to Paris, man. Sorry it happened to you, we'll get those bad Muslims!"

 

[xi0]

Seems to be implied. Especially when not all Muslims live in the same areas. I mean, what if eventually they force dispersed Muslims into one or two areas in each state?

While it's a stupid idea and I see it as only rhetoric, I think you're the one taking the leap and implying segregation, not them. I don't think that would ever happen.

I dunno, I hear that the extremists just twist words around.

Everyone does to some extent. But this is what happens when thousand year old books are taken seriously as a manual to life.

I know. I personally am too PC on this because of how people keep reacting. If they weren't targeting or demonizing all Muslims, then I wouldn't be so anal about the shit they say.

Seems you've been brainwashed by twitter activists or something. People are being super defensive about the issue and seem to automatically conflate legitimate criticism with someone being bigoted, and because they do that it's an excuse to shout them down and demonize them. This is what's wrong with the "regressive" left. I'm a liberal really, but no true liberal should tolerate illiberal policies for the sake of not being seen as a bigot or racist. It doesn't matter if the issue is a touchy one or not. As an example, there's no place for Sharia law in Western democracy. The notion that people should tolerate such things for the sake of multiculturalism is bullshit.

No enlightened individual is encouraging violence or discrimination against Muslims or people who they think might look like one (in the case of the violence against Sikhs) as a solution to criticisms levied against Islam or Islamism.

 

[GrySun]

The people should look into the candidates carefully instead of being mindless drones and picking a president merely on the fact that a president is from a certain party and nothing more.

Politicians from either of the two parties often all share similar-ish values and stances, so your typical voter who doesn't want to invest too much time into politics is safest to just stick with someone from the party that technically share some of his views. Not great, but I've heard far worse reasons for voting someone. "He's black and so am I; She's female and I'm female" etc...

 

[M3J]

While it's a stupid idea and I see it as only rhetoric, I think you're the one taking the leap and implying segregation, not them. I don't think that would ever happen.


Everyone does to some extent. But this is what happens when thousand year old books are taken seriously as a manual to life.


Seems you've been brainwashed by twitter activists or something. People are being super defensive about the issue and seem to automatically conflate legitimate criticism with someone being bigoted, and because they do that it's an excuse to shout them down and demonize them. This is what's wrong with the "regressive" left. I'm a liberal really, but no true liberal should tolerate illiberal policies for the sake of not being seen as a bigot or racist. It doesn't matter if the issue is a touchy one or not. As an example, there's no place for Sharia law in Western democracy. The notion that people should tolerate such things for the sake of multiculturalism is bullshit.

No enlightened individual is encouraging violence or discrimination against Muslims or people who they think might look like one (in the case of the violence against Sikhs) as a solution to criticisms levied against Islam or Islamism.

Given how loud anti-Muslim people are, I don't think my fears or suspicions are unfounded. How else are they going to monitor Muslims who don't live in a Muslim-dominant area? Citizens need to stop focusing so much on Muslim threats and focus on other threats, given Muslims are monitored well enough that they're barely a threat. If we didn't have as good a security or as good a vetting process, I'm sure America would see its fair share of bombings done by Islamist extremists. Why can't we leave the worrying to the people whose jobs are to protect us? They're doing a good job against the Muslims, but we still see violence from gangs, right wings, gun owners, and immigrants.

How have I? I've seen tweets, posts, and heard people want Muslims to die or Muslim countries to be carpet bombed or some shit. That's disturbing and why I get defensive. But what kind of fucked up liberal thinks Sharia law should be allowed? I mean, I defend Muslims, but I disagree with at least 95% of their ideas and views, at least when it comes to religion/practicing religion. Doesn't mean we can target Muslims, accuse all of them of being terrorists, or act as if we're better/not violent.

Not many people are enlightened, and I've been in arguments with people who actually think all Muslims are bad.



Also, Birdie Sanders ftw. I hope this helps people realize why he's a great choice, better than Hillary, Trump, or Cruz. If not for his plan to increase taxes on the middle class, he'd be a very good choice. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how he is for the economy.

 

[GrySun]

How have I? I've seen tweets, posts, and heard people want Muslims to die or Muslim countries to be carpet bombed or some shit. That's disturbing and why I get defensive.

I'm not sure why you're making such a huge issue out of it. Doesn't such generalization always happen on the internet shortly after some major event? Many innocent people died and even more were injured, so naturally people would be pissed and would irrationally direct their anger.
That doesn't just affect muslims either. For example, remember the shootings in America? I've read so many people say white people are dangerous, need their guns taken away and blaming it all on white people several days after every incident. Or how they blame it all on the gun laws.

By the way, don't you also do the same thing whenever it suits you? If one Trump supporter does something bad, then they're all horrible right?
And it wasn't even long ago since you wanted all republicans and conservatives thrown out of America lmao. Double standards much?

Also, Birdie Sanders ftw. I hope this helps people realize why he's a great choice, better than Hillary, Trump, or Cruz.

Not sure if you are joking? I dunno, maybe the significance of the (quite laughable) bird event just eludes me? How does a bird show people Sanders is the better choice?

 

[xi0]

Given how loud anti-Muslim people are, I don't think my fears or suspicions are unfounded. How else are they going to monitor Muslims who don't live in a Muslim-dominant area? Citizens need to stop focusing so much on Muslim threats and focus on other threats, given Muslims are monitored well enough that they're barely a threat. If we didn't have as good a security or as good a vetting process, I'm sure America would see its fair share of bombings done by Islamist extremists. Why can't we leave the worrying to the people whose jobs are to protect us? They're doing a good job against the Muslims, but we still see violence from gangs, right wings, gun owners, and immigrants.

But why pay so much attention to the noise? You're not going to stop people from being intolerant by shouting them down.

I'm imagining there are some muslim neighborhoods aside from somewhere like Dearborn, but the flaw of this nonsensical rhetoric is that they're attributing what's going on in Europe to the US. We don't have the same issues within our borders. But saying that they're going to segregate in an effort to monitor them is a bit too much of a leap compared to what was said. At least as far as what I've seen.

And saying we should stop focusing so much on terrorist threats is a joke dude. ISIS does exist, they threaten us all of the time. It's our most pressing national security issue. It's a problem we helped create, but that doesn't mean it should just be ignored because we have other issues domestically. Like Paris and Brussels, it's not a matter of if, but when. You continue to act like only one thing can be paid attention to. We deal with domestic idiots, people do that on a daily basis. They're horrible, but they're not actively trying to kill innocent people as part of an ideology espoused by some communities and even governments. This is why it's an issue of foreign policy as well.

How have I? I've seen tweets, posts, and heard people want Muslims to die or Muslim countries to be carpet bombed or some shit. That's disturbing and why I get defensive. But what kind of fucked up liberal thinks Sharia law should be allowed? I mean, I defend Muslims, but I disagree with at least 95% of their ideas and views, at least when it comes to religion/practicing religion. Doesn't mean we can target Muslims, accuse all of them of being terrorists, or act as if we're better/not violent.

Again, is this what the majority of people think? People say horrible shit about many different things, do you pay attention to all of those as well?

The "progressive" movement often justify people having regressive stances. It's the great irony of the left at the moment. They tolerate such ideas for the sake of some warped vision of multiculturalism usually, even though conservative religious views go directly against what they stand for. There are some countries in Europe where Sharia "tribunals" are allowed to handle some issues of private and family law and are considered legally binding. This just adds to the pile of why the lack of integration in European countries is a major factor in the prevalence of extremism.

The people who do what you're saying should just be ignored. They have nothing to do with any sort of solution to the issue. You're wasting time and energy on nonsense.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 27, 2016, Original Post Date: Mar 27, 2016 ---

Not sure if you are joking? I dunno, maybe the significance of the (quite laughable) bird event just eludes me? How does a bird show people Sanders is the better choice?

 

[GrySun]

@xi0

 

[SharkBait]

Sanders swept the board last night only one with major numbers was washington. I saw his speech didnt like how he said hes doing better now tht were out of the south and out of the black vote...does he not like us black voters?

 

[GrySun]

Well black people aren't exactly voting for him so...yeah.

Sanders suddenly winning some states is impressive.

 

[M3J]

I'm not sure why you're making such a huge issue out of it. Doesn't such generalization always happen on the internet shortly after some major event? Many innocent people died and even more were injured, so naturally people would be pissed and would irrationally direct their anger.
That doesn't just affect muslims either. For example, remember the shootings in America? I've read so many people say white people are dangerous, need their guns taken away and blaming it all on white people several days after every incident. Or how they blame it all on the gun laws.

By the way, don't you also do the same thing whenever it suits you? If one Trump supporter does something bad, then they're all horrible right?
And it wasn't even long ago since you wanted all republicans and conservatives thrown out of America lmao. Double standards much?



Not sure if you are joking? I dunno, maybe the significance of the (quite laughable) bird event just eludes me? How does a bird show people Sanders is the better choice?

Yes it does, but when said generalization results in bad actions, it's when I have an issue. When white people are blamed for the shootings, you don't see minorities or other white people attacking them and calling them terrorists. the media even calls them lone wolves with mental issues. Same issue with police brutality - bad officers kill black people, which causes some fucked up people to retaliate and kill officers, after tons of people against police brutality talk about fighting back. Talking about shit is disturbing enough, but I draw the line at doing horrible things.

One Trump supporter? Try hundreds at any chance they get. I don't see how it's double standards when nearly all republicans and conservatives do bad things or hurt America while few "Muslims" do bad things.

You daft? It's more about Bernie's reaction, how he just smiles where someone like Trump or Hillary would shoo it away or get angry.

But why pay so much attention to the noise? You're not going to stop people from being intolerant by shouting them down.

I'm imagining there are some muslim neighborhoods aside from somewhere like Dearborn, but the flaw of this nonsensical rhetoric is that they're attributing what's going on in Europe to the US. We don't have the same issues within our borders. But saying that they're going to segregate in an effort to monitor them is a bit too much of a leap compared to what was said. At least as far as what I've seen.

Because it results in them attacking or committing crimes or actions of hate? I mean, Sikhs and anyone who looks Muslim are attacked by people, even told to go home.

I agree, we're doing much better than Europe because we have a great vetting system and competent security that stops or prevents any acts of terrorism. If not for the security, I'm sure we'd be seeing at least 10 attacks by "Muslim" extremists from 9/11 to now.

I have no reason to believe otherwise, given the general attitude of the loudest public.

And saying we should stop focusing so much on terrorist threats is a joke dude. ISIS does exist, they threaten us all of the time. It's our most pressing national security issue. It's a problem we helped create, but that doesn't mean it should just be ignored because we have other issues domestically. Like Paris and Brussels, it's not a matter of if, but when. You continue to act like only one thing can be paid attention to. We deal with domestic idiots, people do that on a daily basis. They're horrible, but they're not actively trying to kill innocent people as part of an ideology espoused by some communities and even governments. This is why it's an issue of foreign policy as well.


Again, is this what the majority of people think? People say horrible shit about many different things, do you pay attention to all of those as well?

The "progressive" movement often justify people having regressive stances. It's the great irony of the left at the moment. They tolerate such ideas for the sake of some warped vision of multiculturalism usually, even though conservative religious views go directly against what they stand for. There are some countries in Europe where Sharia "tribunals" are allowed to handle some issues of private and family law and are considered legally binding. This just adds to the pile of why the lack of integration in European countries is a major factor in the prevalence of extremism.

The people who do what you're saying should just be ignored. They have nothing to do with any sort of solution to the issue. You're wasting time and energy on nonsense.

How is it a joke when we're so well protected? I never said ISIS doesn't exist, I'm saying that we need to focus on other stuff like gun control, economy, and improving infrastructure and leave the worrying of terrorism (for the most part, as citizens can help too) to security. If our security wasn't good, we'd be seeing a lot of terrorist attacks instead of our police force foiling the attempts of the terrorists. Though admittedly, I can only remember the NYPD foiling the attempt to bomb Times Square few years ago.

Aren't they attackin and even killing minorities or people who look remotely Muslim?

I pay attention to those that threaten lives, like the members of black community who say police must die or threaten to kill police officers. Two NYPD officers were killed by a black man with mental illness who claimed he did it for the Michael Browns and Eric Garners. We had a white man execute three Muslim teenagers, whose wife claimed it was over a parking dispute. Events like these are fucked up, and they don't just happen overnight, they happen because of the noise, the ideas and conversations that go on.

That's dumb. But who does Sharia laws affect? Just Muslims or anyone that lives near a Muslim family who believes in such laws?

They make it worse when they do shit like throwing a severed pig's head in a mosque or sell paintings and artwork of Mohammad just to piss off the Muslims.

Sanders swept the board last night only one with major numbers was washington. I saw his speech didnt like how he said hes doing better now tht were out of the south and out of the black vote...does he not like us black voters?

He does, and he's fought for the blacks during the civil rights movements and cares about the black community.

I find it so weird that a black person can support the current republican party, much less Trump (a black supporter attacked a protester at one of his rallies). But then again, you were probably born to a well-off family and never had to struggle for you to have the views that you do towards laborers like fast food workers.

 

[xi0]

How is it a joke when we're so well protected? I never said ISIS doesn't exist, I'm saying that we need to focus on other stuff like gun control, economy, and improving infrastructure and leave the worrying of terrorism (for the most part, as citizens can help too) to security. If our security wasn't good, we'd be seeing a lot of terrorist attacks instead of our police force foiling the attempts of the terrorists. Though admittedly, I can only remember the NYPD foiling the attempt to bomb Times Square few years ago.

Because you literally said we should focus less on it and more on rightwingers, white people, and gun owners. Regardless of whether this notion is misguided or not, none of these things are a matter of foreign policy, nor are they going to be prominent election topics for Republicans.

Well-protected or not, saying that we should leave the worrying of terrorism to security is something we already do. That's just a fatuous remark honestly.

Aren't they attackin and even killing minorities or people who look remotely Muslim?

Who's they...?

I pay attention to those that threaten lives, like the members of black community who say police must die or threaten to kill police officers. Two NYPD officers were killed by a black man with mental illness who claimed he did it for the Michael Browns and Eric Garners. We had a white man execute three Muslim teenagers, whose wife claimed it was over a parking dispute. Events like these are fucked up, and they don't just happen overnight, they happen because of the noise, the ideas and conversations that go on.

Don't see what most of this has to do with my topic, but in the case of the Chapel Hill shooting, it still isn't clear whether that was motivated by hate or not. As far as I know the guy wasn't a white supremacist, but more of a militant atheist. He had a history of parking disputes with a lot of people who lived near him. Not sure if there's even a basis to blame it on "islamophobia" or hate speech. From his writings he talked as badly about Christians as he did anyone else. Seems like the media might have been a bit quick to jump on it as some sort of anti-Muslim crime, when the guy had a history of confrontation with his neighbors over parking spots and owned a dozen guns. I think it's a safe bet that he would have found a reason to use them at some point and he didn't really need any help from noise/ideas/conversations, as you put it. People are either capable of killing someone over something so frivolous as a parking space, or they're not. Not even sure how much environment has to do with it, especially in a civilized country as ours.

Not really saying that it couldn't be considered a hate-crime, but not sure I've seen strong evidence for that. Pretty sure investigations into that have been opened by the FBI and the DOJ and so far the charges against him haven't changed. People who say that it is seem to be making assumptions because he was white and the victims were Syrian/Jordanian-American. Or because he was apparently openly atheist and the victims were Muslim.

That's dumb. But who does Sharia laws affect? Just Muslims or anyone that lives near a Muslim family who believes in such laws?

It seems like it's an opt-in thing for people who want that sort of arbitration. It's not supposed to conflict with the laws in the UK for instance, but it's been long said that the judgments tend to be biased against women.

They make it worse when they do shit like throwing a severed pig's head in a mosque or sell paintings and artwork of Mohammad just to piss off the Muslims.

I don't see the first thing you mention here is anything like the second thing. Throwing severed pig heads into a mosque is basically an act of terrorism in it's own way...or at best a hatecrime. Drawing Mohammed out of some sort of protest isn't and is protected under free speech.

 

[SharkBait]

One incident? And how long did it focus on her for? And did it paint her as a victim or did it in a way indicate she was in fault as well for not speaking English?

Well she was speaking her native language in an american chain restaurant so I wonder if she wouldnt have been attacked if she had spoke english. The whole five minute segment was on rising discrimination on Islamic believers in America.

I find it so weird that a black person can support the current republican party, much less Trump (a black supporter attacked a protester at one of his rallies). But then again, you were probably born to a well-off family and never had to struggle for you to have the views that you do towards laborers like fast food workers.

Whats that supposed to mean? There are democrats that are well of and loaded with millions of dollars.

 

[M3J]

Because you literally said we should focus less on it and more on rightwingers, white people, and gun owners. Regardless of whether this notion is misguided or not, none of these things are a matter of foreign policy, nor are they going to be prominent election topics for Republicans.

Well-protected or not, saying that we should leave the worrying of terrorism to security is something we already do. That's just a fatuous remark honestly.


Who's they...?

I'm not talking about foreign policy, I'm talkin about our country and how people feel the need to monitor Muslims when they're the least dangerous. Most European countries are the ones who have to worry about their security.

Doesn't seem like it. They, aka anti-Muslims, racists, and whatnot, are attacking brown people. We don't really leave the worrying of terrorism to security like we should. Though, I'm not saying citizens should be passive; if they see someone leaving a suspicious package somewhere and walking away, then they should report it. I don't know if political correctness played a part in San Bernadino attack as there are reports saying this lady didn't report the couple due to PC.

Don't see what most of this has to do with my topic, but in the case of the Chapel Hill shooting, it still isn't clear whether that was motivated by hate or not. As far as I know the guy wasn't a white supremacist, but more of a militant atheist. He had a history of parking disputes with a lot of people who lived near him. Not sure if there's even a basis to blame it on "islamophobia" or hate speech. From his writings he talked as badly about Christians as he did anyone else. Seems like the media might have been a bit quick to jump on it as some sort of anti-Muslim crime, when the guy had a history of confrontation with his neighbors over parking spots and owned a dozen guns. I think it's a safe bet that he would have found a reason to use them at some point and he didn't really need any help from noise/ideas/conversations, as you put it. People are either capable of killing someone over something so frivolous as a parking space, or they're not. Not even sure how much environment has to do with it, especially in a civilized country as ours.

Not really saying that it couldn't be considered a hate-crime, but not sure I've seen strong evidence for that. Pretty sure investigations into that have been opened by the FBI and the DOJ and so far the charges against him haven't changed. People who say that it is seem to be making assumptions because he was white and the victims were Syrian/Jordanian-American. Or because he was apparently openly atheist and the victims were Muslim.

How many people did he kill, much less kill them in an execution style? Given atheists are against theism, why choose Muslims instead of any other religion? I'm sure it had nothing to with atheism or race itself as much as it has to do with Islamophobia. Parking dispute is a shit excuse given his method of killing.

It seems like it's an opt-in thing for people who want that sort of arbitration. It's not supposed to conflict with the laws in the UK for instance, but it's been long said that the judgments tend to be biased against women.

It is, and it's why I'm against said laws. I know there are plenty of Muslims who believe in Sharia laws, unfortunately. I don't mind having a Muslim president, but as long as he/she doesn't believe in Sharia laws. Bad enough politicians are against abortion and women healthcare.

I don't see the first thing you mention here is anything like the second thing. Throwing severed pig heads into a mosque is basically an act of terrorism in it's own way...or at best a hatecrime. Drawing Mohammed out of some sort of protest isn't and is protected under free speech.

Definitely hate crime. Not sure how it's terrorism? But then I associate it with murder.

they're different, but the end result is to piss off Muslims, not because they think Mohammad is a beautiful figure who should be shown to people.

Well she was speaking her native language in an american chain restaurant so I wonder if she wouldnt have been attacked if she had spoke english. The whole five minute segment was on rising discrimination on Islamic believers in America.



Whats that supposed to mean? There are democrats that are well of and loaded with millions of dollars.

Highly doubt it.

Yes, and they suck if they look down on laborers, fast food workers, and the likes or are against increasing minimum wage.

 

[kkck]

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/25/11293258/tax-plan-calculator-2016

This was an interesting read. Quite an ambitious plan Sanders has. On the other hand clinton does not seem to be aiming to do much... The cruz and trump thing is predictable. I guess their plan is to cut taxes and then complain about the increasing deficit....

 

[xi0]

I'm not talking about foreign policy, I'm talkin about our country and how people feel the need to monitor Muslims when they're the least dangerous. Most European countries are the ones who have to worry about their security.

You brought up this gripe with it being talked about more than the other things you mentioned. I'm saying it's obvious why that is, it's topical now more than ever due to what happened in Brussels. There's always overreactions to such things by someone, but nothing is really gained by manipulating the narrative and acting like the only thing being talked about is terrorism. Whatever is topical is what is talked about. And of course loudmouthed republicans aren't going to go after right-wingers or white people or gun owners. That's just ludicrous.

Doesn't seem like it. They, aka anti-Muslims, racists, and whatnot, are attacking brown people. We don't really leave the worrying of terrorism to security like we should. Though, I'm not saying citizens should be passive; if they see someone leaving a suspicious package somewhere and walking away, then they should report it. I don't know if political correctness played a part in San Bernadino attack as there are reports saying this lady didn't report the couple due to PC.

Why are you acting like it's something people shouldn't be concerned about? I'm not talking about it consuming your life, but you did live through 9/11, no?

How many people did he kill, much less kill them in an execution style? Given atheists are against theism, why choose Muslims instead of any other religion? I'm sure it had nothing to with atheism or race itself as much as it has to do with Islamophobia. Parking dispute is a shit excuse given his method of killing.

He killed 3 people after getting the guy to open his door. What does the method of murder have to do with this? He seemed to choose them because they were neighbors. I'm not saying it had nothing to do with race or that it wasn't a hate-crime really. What I'm objecting to is the idea that others in some way bear responsibility for criticizing religion. People are still responsible for their own actions. Atheist aren't collectively planning to murder people who believe in God.

they're different, but the end result is to piss off Muslims, not because they think Mohammad is a beautiful figure who should be shown to people.

It doesn't matter why it's being done really. People do many things in the media or art to provoke a reaction. If you believe in the first amendment, you support their right to do it. You're sort of wading into regressive left territory when you look at it like that or say things like Charlie Hebdo deserved what happened to them.