H-evolve
Member
Where did you take that? My grandmother was pretty religious and I'm preettttyyyy sure she didn't think that way. My hairdresser is also quite religious, and she doesn't think that way either. I can keep going...
Thoughts on Trump after his first couple weeks?
- Thread starter Genius Gone Insane
- Start date
Where did you take that? My grandmother was pretty religious and I'm preettttyyyy sure she didn't think that way. My hairdresser is also quite religious, and she doesn't think that way either. I can keep going...
H-evolve
Member
Loren Littlejohn
Lover of all boobage.
Here is what you are missing:
Are there violent muslims? Yes
Are there violent Americans? Yes
Can you rape your wife in many muslim countries? Yes, there is no law that says you can rape your wife, it is assumed that all sex under marriage is consensual even if it isn't.
Can you rape your wife in the USA? Yes and you will get thrown in jail for doing it.
Do muslim countries allow for certain violence under the law? Yes
Do Americans tolerate violence? Depends on if you are a peaceful protestor or not, mostly though no we don't.
The issue is what is tolerated, not necessarily what is done.
H-evolve
Member
OK but what's the argument about now...? Am I not understanding something? I thought it was, at the start (at least for me), about how all muslims are violent and want to conquer the world. I just argued it was a quite general statement....
That I didn't talk about the fact that their culture (and countries) tolerates rapes and the like is not an omission I did because I'm either ignorant of that fact, or forgot about it. It just I thought it was not that much relevant with regards to my point about "generalization".
But! If now you move the argument from "they are all violent and rapists" to "we can't accept that those countries tolerate rape and violence", well... That is a whole different conversation!
For me, this is a completely different conversation, purely because the two are not mutually dependant. Therefore, I think one can argue about "how violent" each individual is without touching the subject that legislation in their countries is quite tolerant towards violence.
I hope we understand each other now. Because, I start to think we don't necessarily disagree. We just talk about 2 different topics (2 related topics, yet still different)
SocialNumb
Damn Christians!
If you go by Pew Research, and the likes, it shows that support among Muslims for Sharia is very high. One only needs to look into Sharia to see why that's a bad thing.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/
As for the the seven countries from the ban recently. All of them are under Sharia Law. All of them ban Israeli Passports. I've collected some numbers from Gallup, news outlets and state level polls, among other sources.
Iraq: Ruled by sharia. There's an estimated 403,800 slaves. In the last 30 days alone there have been 66+ terror attacks resulting in 400+ deaths of men, woman and children, plus too many injuries for me to count at the moment. 895 terror attacks in 2016.
Libya 70,900 estimated slaves. Legal system based on sharia. 1 terror attack in the last 30 days, 59 in 2016.
Somalia 121,900 estimated slaves. Sharia law. 8 Terror attacks in the last 30 days. 97 attacks in 2016.
Sudan 454,700 estimated slaves. 2 terror attacks in the last 30 days. 4 in 2016. Sharia law. Like Iran, very little terror attacks within it's boarders, at least reported.
Syria 316 terror attacks in 2016. 18 in the last 30 days. 257,300 estimated slaves. Dual system of sharia and civil courts.
Yemen 303,200 estimated slaves. 6 terror attacks in the 30 days. 71 in 2016. Combination of sharia, old Egyptian laws, and Napoleonic tradition.
Iran, hoards of people who literately chants death to America. 495,300 estimated slaves. 1 terror attack in the last 30 days. 3 in 2016, 8 in 2015. Apparently the least terror active place on the list, within it's boarders, reported anyways, however very organized as a nation, dedicated to killing us and transforming the world to Islam. Sharia Law
Seeing a pattern yet? We bombed 5 of those countries to add to the crap heap.
Other relevant data:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/19/5-facts-about-the-muslim-population-in-europe/
http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/04/27/the-divide-over-islam-and-national-laws-in-the-muslim-world/
So while we may know many good Muslim people in the west and can safely assume most Muslims aren't going out and committing acts of terror, there is support for this rather large minority that do. There is wide spread support for Sharia law. This religion/political ideology is dangerous imo. To make a comparison to current day Christianity, the scapegoat religion, to Islam, the war lord religion, is oranges and meat.
Just my fews cents.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/
As for the the seven countries from the ban recently. All of them are under Sharia Law. All of them ban Israeli Passports. I've collected some numbers from Gallup, news outlets and state level polls, among other sources.
Iraq: Ruled by sharia. There's an estimated 403,800 slaves. In the last 30 days alone there have been 66+ terror attacks resulting in 400+ deaths of men, woman and children, plus too many injuries for me to count at the moment. 895 terror attacks in 2016.
Libya 70,900 estimated slaves. Legal system based on sharia. 1 terror attack in the last 30 days, 59 in 2016.
Somalia 121,900 estimated slaves. Sharia law. 8 Terror attacks in the last 30 days. 97 attacks in 2016.
Sudan 454,700 estimated slaves. 2 terror attacks in the last 30 days. 4 in 2016. Sharia law. Like Iran, very little terror attacks within it's boarders, at least reported.
Syria 316 terror attacks in 2016. 18 in the last 30 days. 257,300 estimated slaves. Dual system of sharia and civil courts.
Yemen 303,200 estimated slaves. 6 terror attacks in the 30 days. 71 in 2016. Combination of sharia, old Egyptian laws, and Napoleonic tradition.
Iran, hoards of people who literately chants death to America. 495,300 estimated slaves. 1 terror attack in the last 30 days. 3 in 2016, 8 in 2015. Apparently the least terror active place on the list, within it's boarders, reported anyways, however very organized as a nation, dedicated to killing us and transforming the world to Islam. Sharia Law
Seeing a pattern yet? We bombed 5 of those countries to add to the crap heap.
Other relevant data:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/19/5-facts-about-the-muslim-population-in-europe/
http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/04/27/the-divide-over-islam-and-national-laws-in-the-muslim-world/
So while we may know many good Muslim people in the west and can safely assume most Muslims aren't going out and committing acts of terror, there is support for this rather large minority that do. There is wide spread support for Sharia law. This religion/political ideology is dangerous imo. To make a comparison to current day Christianity, the scapegoat religion, to Islam, the war lord religion, is oranges and meat.
Just my fews cents.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
H-evolve
Member
If you wanna be a smart ass fair enough. I'm 100% certain. I'm letting you know now.
Moreover
Very simple mathematics: You country needs 1000$ to run its course. 1% of the population pays 230$, while the rest (99%) pays 770$. However, somewhere in that 1%, there is a fraction of people, hiding money somewhere. Say10% of the 1% (0.1% of the total population), should technically provide for 150$ of the 230$. But, they hid money, therefore only provide for 75$ of that 230$. You can see that, if they wouldn't hide money, the 1% would provide 305$. You'd be in excess of 75$. Then the 0.9% of the population (90% of the 1%) which were legit, could perhaps be required to provide less, like just 80$. Or maybe the rest of the population, the 99%, could be given some slack... Or you split it between them. But who fucking cares, that is not the point.
You can see that I could fucking well do the same explanation, but changing the numbers everywhere, the conclusion would be the same. It is a simple fact that if somebody is not paying its taxes somewhere, then YOU, yes YOU! And everybody else! has to compensate for it. And guess what, even that 1% from your video is paying for it! Because, yes, indeed! Tax evasion is performed by a small fraction of people with a shit ton of money, and obviously, that means their share that they are not giving is quite substantial, when counting it in dollars.
Now, by linking your video, did you mean: "Yes but they pay more than enough, they should have the right to do tax evasion!" If really that is what you mean, then you are either a billionaire doing tax evasion, or you are just dumb.
Last edited:
H-evolve
Member
Are you saying this to argue in favor of Trump's immigration legislation?
Cause you know he purposely omitted Saudi Arabia out of the restriction... Saudi Arabia is under Sharia laws. You really think the legislation is for the greater good?
And about Sharia, when you do look into it, you find that there is a disagreement among Muslims on how it should be interpreted and applied. So when you say in very broad general terms "One only needs to look into Sharia to see why that's a bad thing." well actually it's more complicated than that. This is, actually, the main criticism that is made to it: it's subject to interpretation and evolution... It is known that the way it is applied from country to country varies widely.
Therefore, when using the word "Sharia", you basically imply multiple things. I know you probably mean the worst "versions" of it, but though I am not an expert, I assume there are lighter versions of it.
So again, more complicated that it looks like, that's all I mean.
Last edited:
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
H-evolve
Member
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
AD Chaos
MGTOW
- Aug 3, 2009
- 1,602
- 14
- 38
Those ''Muslims you know'' (I assume people who live near you) are the higher IQ ones, who fled their (probably messed) country & religion, for a better life. They're largely westernized, so, in a sense, they're 'bad Muslims’ (not 'real Muslims’) as long as they don't practice the radicalism of their ''religion'' (read: ideology), instead just identifying with their place of origin.
That doesn't make Islam (the ideology of world dominance) any less unacceptable. It just means your 'Muslim' friends are more westerners than Muslim.
The migrant refugees overflowing Europe, on the other hand, are largely low-IQ population. Two thirds of them are illiterate/can't even read or write in their OWN language, according to refugee center tests. And they’re coupled with infiltrated jihadists, as you know. 25% of ALL Syrian refugees declare themselves as ISIS sympathizers, for instance.
Forget any illusion/deceit by the left that those refugees are ever going to become functioning tax-paying members of society within Europe, with productive, high-skilled jobs to replace the local population. Reports from asylum centers show most of them can’t even perform menial jobs, due to language barrier. Those refugees are the equivalent of a human Molotov bomb, sent namely to make the welfare super state of Europe implode, and become violent occupying forces, once the state can’t provide them with benefits anymore.
Why would you possibly want to bring people like that into your country? The left wants them simply to grow their voter base, as that’s been part of their political strategy for the last couple decades. If they would REALLY want to help those people out, they’d help relocate them inside safe zones in the Middle East (that’s what Trump is negotiating with the Saudis and governments in the region right now).
For the cost of resettling 10000 refugees in the US, you could settle 121797 of them in the Middle East. And for the money spent on every 1 refugee brought into a European country, you can help more than 12 of them in their own region. But of course, then they don’t become voters in western nations, and the left doesn’t get to virtue-signal their fake (or misplaced) compassion; plus, those refugees you didn’t help are then going to get bombed, murdered in the crossfire, or will die of starvation and disease.
Inside their own country, they share language, culture, climate, etc. Brought into the West, these migrants are simply unable to adapt, and grow resentful and antagonistic as they feel out of place, frustrated, discriminated against, and humiliated. That’s part of the reason why a good number of them become radicalized, once inside Europe. Not good for Europeans. Not even good for the refugees, who are being used in this way by both the mullahs, and by power-hungry politicians in Europe.
I’m guessing Trump could eventually come up with an ‘IQ test’ (coupled with personalized interviews performed by competent psychologists) as a solution for the migrant crisis, by reframing it that way. If you are around 85 (the sweet-spot for high criminality), sorry, you cannot pass.
You can’t ‘read the minds’ of migrants, to discriminate which ones want to immigrate in pursuit of a better life and will contribute to society, and which ones want to blow things up. But, you could get close to it with a specialized psychological exam, and an IQ test.
Whatever the case, expect protests from the liberals.
Loren Littlejohn
Lover of all boobage.
Trump couldn't include Saudi Arabia because he can only act within the confines of the law that Obama signed.
Since you asked:
1. I am straight, white, and male, and I work in the financial industry so Trump is good for me personally, at least in the near term. I find the man disgusting, however.
2. I still fail to understand how half the women in America and 1/3 of Mexican Americans voted for Trump.
3. The best thing about electing Obama is very similar to the best thing about electing Trump; electing a non white male was a huge step, and electing a non politician was absolutely wonderful. I am optimistic about our future for that reason.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
SocialNumb
Damn Christians!
As Loren said. Trump did not chose them. You think he would have stopped at 7? We will never know.
So the fact that we bombed 5 of those countries under Obama isn't a good reason to restrict travel from those 5 countries?
The insane amount of terror activity not a good enough reason?
How about the broken sharia based governments who we in the US have to trust to background check their citizens for visa's? How reliable is that?
What about the particular sharia practices in the 7 countries in question?
Iraq sharia sharia applies in full, covering personal status issues as well as criminal proceedings.
Libya sharia applies in personal status issues (such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and child custody)
Somalia sharia applies in personal status issues (such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and child custody)
Sudan sharia applies in full, covering personal status issues as well as criminal proceedings.
Syria sharia applies in personal status issues (such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and child custody)
Yemen sharia applies in full, covering personal status issues as well as criminal proceedings.
Iran sharia applies in full, covering personal status issues as well as criminal proceedings.
Regardless of what version of sharia any given government and it's people practice and or support, I don't want any versions of it here. I don't want sharia light with a side salad and croutons or sharia the main platter. I want none at all. Our law does not allow the cutting off body parts and such for stealing in any circumstance. Our law does not allow punishment of any kind for criticizing a so called "holy book" much less death in many of these places. Our law does not allow death or punishment of any kind in any circumstance for criticizing a so called "prophet". Our law does not allow death or punishment of any kind in any circumstance for leaving a religion. Our law does not allow death or punishment of any kind in any circumstance for denying or not believing in whatever "god". Nor for leading others out of religions, nor for marrying a Muslim woman while not being Muslim yourself. We don't allow in any circumstance child marriage, FGM, multiple wives while not allowing multiple husbands, beating your wife with anything at all, and on and on. One or many of these are practiced in all of these countries in question. Some of these places have public executions, including death by stoning, and torture, including flogging and amputation.
I do not want any religious system of law at all, least of all Islamic law. Some 1+ billion Muslims support some kind of sharia.
In case it is not clear, No sharia at all, any version of it, should be allowed in the US ever. If it were up to me, as the grand controller of all things, no person that believes in sharia would be allowed to live here at all. That's how fucking intolerant I am towards sharia law.
I forget where I read it: Immigration without assimilation is invasion. I 100% agree with that.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/section-1-a-demographic-portrait-of-muslim-americans/
SocialNumb
Damn Christians!
AD Chaos
MGTOW
- Aug 3, 2009
- 1,602
- 14
- 38
http://nypost.com/2017/02/12/clinton-reminds-us-why-were-lucky-she-lost-the-election/
The relationship between the US and the Saudis is quite complex, but here's some few ideas on it:
- For one thing, they haven't dumped the petrodollar for their massive oil sales. That alone makes them a big US ally. The Saudis still produce between 25% and 40% of global demand (for dirt cheap), their market profit margins are still gigantic when compared to US fracking.
- ISIS threatens their border too, so the US can use them as allies (for migrant relocation); I'm not sure the US would want them as very visible military allies (or that they would like to be seen like that by the rest of the arab world), even though the Saudis are also a big purchaser of US arms.
Trump does want to ally with Putin (the main exporter of natural gas to Europe) to go against ISIS, maybe even with Assad? (who is offering to ally with the US right now).
- The Saudis are said to own several US companies and lots of stock. Even if that weren't the case, going against them would probably send markets tumbling worldwide, it would put all other Muslim countries on panic mode, and make it even easier for Trump's opposition/The FED (or whoever else) to make the dollar bubble explode. That's the really big challenge ahead for Trump, imo; he's 'going after' Goldman Sachs now, no less.
Going against The House of Saud would probably be a rather dumb idea. It's one thing to go after the poor (or piss poor) countries of Islam, but another to all of a sudden declare war on a powerful ally, possibly escalating the 'Islam vs the West' thing to unimaginable heights.
Also, by putting Obama's ban into effect, the double standard becomes evident when Trump gets attacked for it.
And yes, most perpetrators of 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. The ''official'' letter of why 9/11 happened became published this week, btw:
http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com...letter-to-obama-heres-why-we-attacked-america
Last edited:
Keregioz
Kimon Zeliotis
I do not understand how a woman could vote for a leader who treats women the way Trump does. I would not vote for a leader who says "just grab them by the dick."
I do not understand how Mexican Americans could vote for someone who wants to put a wall between the USA and their homeland. I would not vote for a leader who wanted to put a wall between the USA and Europe.
I simply do not understand it.
Similar threads
