Donald Trump

"

Poutsos wrote:

Does anybody here actually HAD AN EXPERIENCE WITH REFUGEES? Or everybody is talking out of his ass? Because as a part of the Greek Military(mandatory service), during my training in the green berrets 2+ months ago we had an emergency calling and the military, myself included build 400 Tents to accomodate 3000 refugees, plus feeding them, providing medicare and also guarding them with a loaded gun. I was part of the guard and the enseble that was building tents, so i was pretty much 24 hours a day for 15 days with refugees.

Let me tell you we had ABSOLUTELY ZERO incidents. The Syrian people were very polite, very cooperative, spoke very fuent english and they were all VERY gratefull for the (very) little we provided for them. That's MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with these people, a well rounded enough. NOt propaganda crap i read on the net, backing one side or the other.

Edit: Let me also add that if for 2 weeks you were around 3000 people, watching the the conditions they live in, and what they have to go through, many people would start changing their mind.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

As a general rule of thumb, whenever an ideal starts getting a codeword adjective, it's usually a bad sign. If someone is a fan of "justice," that's great, I'm a fan too. When people start saying "social justice," that raises the question: how is this different from the vanilla kind? Isn't "justice" already rather social?

So then the mission becomes: figure out what the modifier "social" means.

Justice is defined as "behavior or treatment in accordance with what is morally right and fair." Social justice, however, tends to have its sight set on stopping discrimination. Social justice advocates ask us to stop discriminating based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, socioeconomic status, nationality, mental health, prior felonies, furries, or anything else they feel like throwing under their umbrella of protection at the moment.

The thing is that discrimination isn't an entirely bad thing, despite the rough shake we've given the word "discrimination" over the past few decades. Some things, like ignorance, criminality, poor performance and negative attitude are 100% valid, just things to discriminate against. Unlike things like race, religion and sexual orientation, which have virtually no effect on someone's real viability as an employee or as a customer, it is actually unjust to prevent people from discriminating against others based on those things.

It seems to me that the end goal of the social justice agenda is socialism. They want it to be taboo to discriminate against people based on anything whatsoever - including merit.


But Scrotie, you're saying some discrimination is good and some is bad. Who are you to decide which is which?

You're right; I can only justly decide for myself.

I believe that if an employer discriminates based on race, they run a risk of having inferior talent as a result of that decision, so that's dumb; on the other hand, I think discriminating against prior felonies is a good way to mitigate risk and not stupid. If I'm right, then my views on discrimination are practical - with nothing more than free market forces acting, those who discriminate properly tend to be rewarded for it, those who don't punished for it. No enforcement agency is required.

And if you disagree with me, then what that should mean is: you do you differently. And you should be free to do so; your bigotry will be your own weakness, and the dangers you tolerate will be at your own risk. What it should not mean is: government dictates which people you interact with, and how.

A business should be able to reject or accept customers and/or candidates for any reason(s) whatsoever, regardless of how mind-bogglingly asinine you or anyone else believe those reasons to be. Even when - especially when - a majority believe it to be so.

So yeah, I figure I'm about as anti-SJW as possible, without having an irrational hated towards people different than me.

"

SkyCore wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Keep telling yourself everything's okay, that Islam doesn't really have as an espoused goal the establishment of a global Ummah, and that those nations in Europe whose native populations are being overrun don't have serious problems with Muslim violence, criminality, and arrogance, all derived from their enmity toward unbelievers. After all, Dearborn's Muslims aren't like that, right? They could never become like that, right?

I'm sure the former inhabitants of Malmo, Sweden thought so, too, as well as the people of Paris who now have Muslim "No-go" zones which the police are afraid to enter. The fine folks of Rotherham, England likely never expected organized gangs of Muslim men to systematically rape young girls in their community, nor their own, dhimmi government to cover for the activity.

And the common thread? These things started to happen when Muslims gained sufficient demographic power to feel safe doing them. The current administration in Washington seems hell-bent on importing more and more "refugees," the vast majority of them Muslims, as if planting the seeds for these very conditions to appear in the US.

But you keep your head buried in the sand, and it'll inevitably bite you, or someone you care about, on the ass, as surely as it has the people of Europe. ='[.]'=

That is nazi levels of bias there. How can you condemn so many people whom never hurt anyone? I fear there are far too many people like you... people whom listen to the propaganda and accept it as fact.

There is an organized effort to associate islam with negative things such as gang rape and terrorism in order to validate the bombing of hundreds of thousands of civilians. To manipulate your fears for a vote. And to distract you from our governments own atrocities.

The human mind works using associations, regardless if we are consciously aware of it or not. What we believe is a product of our environment. And smart marketers use that knowledge to their advantage by strengthening associations that contribute towards their goal. In addition, when they have control of the media at large, they can suppress or defame any opposition. In the US 6 corporations control 90% of the media! http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6

For any sufficiently large arbitrary group of individuals, there will be bad apples. If all you hear about that group is the antics of the bad apples, you may think the entire group is a terrible and horrible threat that needs to be eliminated. But there is key information missing from your understanding.

It is the media campaign (both the media whom propigate it and those whom control them) which is to blame here.