Author Topic: Shame on Trump for Muslim Ban  (Read 21112 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Shame on Trump for Muslim Ban
« Reply #345 on: January 31, 2017, 07:34:58 PM »

Offline saltlover

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11255
  • Tommy Points: 2424
Exactly. You look for the distraction and you hope you can get off the hook for your poor comparison.
That you consider jihadism to be more widespread than it actually is is not a distraction. It's likely the reason for the rather outlandish defense you've mounted here.

And because you haven't sourced your "42 million" claim, now seems like a good time to point out that ISIS has low and decreasing support rates in the Middle East:

Of those surveyed, just 7 percent expressed a positive view of ISIS, compared to 89 percent who said they disapproved of the group, Middle East Monitor reported. That percentage of support is slightly lower than it was in a survey conducted by the same organization last year, which found that 11 percent of respondents held positive views of ISIS.
Even if your info is correct it still comes out to roughly 28 million Arabs who sympathize with ISIS which is way too many people.

There was millions of Catholics that "held a positive view" of the Nazi's both during and after WWII. Does that mean we should've banned everyone from majority catholic countries like Portugal, Ireland and France. The Nazi's killed a LOT more Americans than ISIS after all. If we did that, I (a grandson of Portuguese immigrants) wouldn't be here today.

Religious freedom and tolerance is one of the core ideals of the American way. It has been since before our country was even founded. Even in the face of danger, we can't abandon these principles NO MATTER WHAT. With our staggering amount of income inequality, these personal liberties guaranteed to ALL Americans is one of the few things left that make this country so great. People died for these liberties, resistance is absolutely warranted. Our most fundamental freedoms are at stake.
This example is just baffling. If there were large number of Catholics outside of Germany who were murdering innocent Jewish people then of course. Why would we want to allow any radical terrorist group into our country? As far as the Nazis yes yes and yes on banning them from coming to the US during that period.

Thanks for the laugh.

Why is it baffling? You just tried to say that 7% of Muslims having "a positive view" of ISIS is a kind of justification for the ban. Millions of Catholics and Christians held positive views of Nazi Germany, a lot even actively helped their cause too, yet we didn't ban a bunch of Catholic-majority countries from coming to the US.

Not one Syrian refugee has committed a terrorist attack on American soil. Millions of good Americans came from these 7 banned countries.

I don't get what's so hard to understand. A lot of Americans think protecting one of our most fundamental freedoms is more important than using false fearmongering and prejudiced nationalism to destroy it. Seems reasonable enough
I guess you missed the point that there were no mass murders outside of Germany by the Nazis or Catholics who sympathized with them. They weren't running people over with trucks or blowing up common leisure places. They weren't going to other countries and raping women and disregarding laws. I think your comparison attempts need to stop.

I think the people of Poland and Czechoslovakia, as well as the Jews, Gypsies and other "undesirables" in France and other places, who were rounded up with the acquiescence or complicity of the local population, would disagree.
Lets continue to ignore what has been posted. Yes I would had banned the nazis or people from that area on coming over. Other areas there were no mass murders like we see today in the name of their radical beliefs.

Only an alt left liberal would bring up nazi Germany when discussing the travel ban going on.

Please don't use made up terms that try to legitimize the white Nationalist "alt-right."  No one identifies as alt-left.  Clearly, you identify as alt-right to use a phrase like that.  Which brings me back to my last comment towards you.
you continue to call me a racist and you provide no proof. There has to be some kind of rule against this on here.

Simple question: Where did you pick up the term "alt-left?" Something you started using today?  Last week? Last summer?
I'm not a fan of the alt right or alt left. What difference does it make when I first started using the term? When did you start calling people racist with no proof?

Baloney.  That's a term invented by the alt-right to disparage the left, once people realized that "alt-right" wasn't just your average conservative group.  It's a pretty new term.

You espouse alt-right arguments and use alt-right insults.  And I've never called you a racist.  I said you were being racist.  Those are two different things, and I made that distinction on purpose.  I don't know what's in your mind, I only know what you're saying.

But you've got a lot of dog whistles going there, and "alt-left" is just the latest.
Koz if you are reading the above - this is what back pedaling is.

Salt. You called me a racist. Stop. I have given you views from a republican. Please tell me which views are alt right. Further there are extremes in both parties. It's become very common among republicans to call some liberals alt left.

I can dislike the Alt left without being in the alt right. I'm sorry but your view is just wrong about it.

You've given me views from an alt-righter.  There is no such thing as the alt-left.  Stop using insults to deflect your flawed arguments.
Calling someone alt left does not belong only to the alt right.

It also doesn't prove your claims that I'm a racist. I can call someone an alt left the same way I can call someone an alt right.

From the article:

“Alt-right” was a term first used by white nationalist Richard Spencer, who recently appeared at a Washington alt-right gathering and yelled “Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!” while some in the crowd made Nazi salutes. The alt-right has long used the term to identify itself. And Bannon himself previously embraced the term, saying this summer that Breitbart served as a “platform for the alt-right.”

The alt-right is a thing.  A very real thing.  It runs the country right now.  Bannon, an avowed alt-righter (in other words, an avowed White Nationalist, and in still other words, an avowed racist) was a principle architect of this executive order.  In other words, it is an alt-right (i.e. White Nationlist, i.e. Racist) policy.  By design.  You are parroting their talking points (quite valiantly, I must say) as you defend their policy. 

Alt-left is a made up perjorative to disparage those on the left.  It is an insult.  You clearly know it is.  Please stop using it.

Again: Alt-right -- a self-named political movement that espouses white nationalism and has a major voice of the movement on the national security council.

Alt-left -- an insult created by those on the far right to describe their opponents on the left.  They are not the same thing.  Please don't pretend they are.

Anyway, let's get back to talking about this executive order crafted by the alt-right.

Re: Shame on Trump for Muslim Ban
« Reply #346 on: January 31, 2017, 07:37:18 PM »

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24388
  • Tommy Points: 1094
  • What a Pub Should Be
Better yet, let's lock this thing.  Looks like it has completely gone off the rails of our posting guidelines. Name calling, generalizations, labeling posters, even a good old fashioned circumvention of a ban with a different user account among other things. 

If you want to discuss Trump policy, feel free to start a new thread and go ahead.  I recommend being a heckuva lot more civil if you want that thing to remain open

2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team


Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.


Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required