I think we should just start turning lifeboats back around. We’ll start with yours, for Merica!
1 Like
2 Likes
No, you aren’t the last one on the life boat. If we adopt your line of thinking, we didn’t (and don’t) need you here. It’s been a problem for a very long time.
So, leave. Solving this terrible problem you insist we have begins with you.
Right, I don’t see anything wrong here. How could anyone miss this guy. A Muslim guy holding a bright yellow sign at a Florida rally, in the land of red neck gun-totin’ ballsack-of-the-south Florida, and no one noticed. The news station must have gone flat broke finding this guy in the crowd, he was only sitting right behind Hillary.
I have yet to hear of someone dying from the shouts of the word “nigger.”
Madeline Albright said there was a special place in hell for young women who don’t vote for Hillary. Will Smith suggested there be a cleansing of Trump voters. Little to no blowback at all. The party of equality isn’t really about equality, their view of tolerance goes only one way. That’s what the fuck I am talking about.
1 Like
So, to recap:
– No, you don’t have the slightest hint of evidence that Mateen was wittingly asked to be at the rally.
– You don’t have the slightest hint of evidence that anyone with the Clinton campaign was aware of who he was until after the rally had happened. All evidence, in fact, points to the contrary, including Mateen’s own statement to the press. And the Clinton campaign has disavowed Mateen’s support (more than could be asked of Trump vis-a-vis David Duke on the first couple tries, amiright?).
– Neither campaign background checks for its open rallies, because that would be a monumental waste of money
– You said Duke is supporting Clinton when in fact he says a vote against Trump is treason and Trump voters are Duke voters
– Somehow, Will Smith and Albright now figure into your vague and immensely confused sense that there is still some kind of point or grievance buried in all this garbage you’ve made me wade through
That looks like a good place for us to conclude this most recent chapter in your ongoing series of amorphous, fact-free, stream-of-consciousness paroxysms of political phantasmagoria.
1 Like
Seriously, therajraj. If you are so fixated on this political issue – and you are fucking fixated on it, which is ludicrously entertaining given that are literally an immigrant working a job in the United States of America – you should either leave or admit that you’re a coward who won’t live by the principles you’re nonetheless looking to shove down the rest of our throats.
4 Likes
Well… 
Never ever did I suggest closing the borders completely, I’m against mass immigration.
Try harder.
I notice you guys never discuss whether immigration in its current form is actually good for the country. Gee I wonder why?
Actually it’s a topic containing some very uncomfortable facts. A country has to choose between a high standard of living with immigration/foreign workers or a lower one without.
Let’s start with the most extreme example - Nazis. They’ve taken racial purity to it’s genocidal extreme, yet they were forced to abduct/cajole/force millions of foreign workers into Germany proper to meet the needs of it’s industry at the time when Germany was the de facto economical center of continental Europe. This doesn’t include millions of slave laborers in concentration camps.
Second example - apartheid South Africa. After the National Party won the 1948 election bent on formalizing already existing white supremacy and racial segregation, there was an intense debate on how to achieve this morally reprehensible goal.
One wing of the Party advocated the concept of total segregation - whites and non-whites living and working in physically and geographically separate entities, thus creating a whites-only area.
Unfortunately, the plan hit a snag - labor. Rapid industrialization of SA during and after WW2 created a huge demand for cheap, skilled and semi-skilled African labor. Thus, any introduction of “total segregation” would cripple the nascent industries, drive wages and prices sky high and drastically reduce the standard of living of the white minority.
Since the affluent part of the white electorate was not prepared to sacrifice it’s luxurious standard of living with black maids and gardeners, as well as third world wages for their industry’s workforce, apartheid was born - a concept where a non-white person, residing in a designated non-white area traveled to work through an intricate system of checkpoints and passes to work in a white area. Called nominally a “transitional period” towards a time when whites would fill all employment positions, it created a veritable tide of non-white labor as well as illegal immigrants from other African countries, as even the lowest paying jobs in SA were better than what they had at home.
Notice a pattern here? Two systems hell bent on racial purity couldn’t function without what you would call immigrant/foreign labor.
So either your country is a net exporter of human capital or a net importer. If you’re a net importer, you need a country-wide consensus against immigration and the negative effects on the economy this stance entails. Hungary seems to be accepting this, from a justified fear of migrants, at least for the time being. I understand there is a tacit cultural barrier in Japan as well.
1 Like
And you’re part of the mass immigration that has caused all sorts of our problems, so you’re part of the mass that needs to leave.
“Mass” just means “a lot” - well, you’re no special snowflake, you’re part of that mass that Trump insists we need to ship back to their respective homelands in order to make America Great Again.
So, on your way.
1 Like
Nonsense, sure we have - earlier a number of us said we had no trouble with accommodating a million immigrants a year (a miniscule percentage of our population).
1 Like
It wasn’t clear, but that still is not true.
I’m not sure I’m understanding your point… Are you saying banning or lowering immigration will lead to white supremacy and lead to subjugation of minorities?
Gotcha.
I’m also paying my taxes even though I don’t support a lot of things they go paying towards. I’m a hypocrite.
That’s not an argument, that’s just you stating your preference. I’m asking you WHY you want immigrants coming into the country at the current rate and to prove how it’s good for the country accepting so many (that 1M number doesn’t even include illegals)
That’s a stupid (non)analogy - you have a legal obligation to pay the taxes. That isn’t an example of hypocrisy because there is no choice involved.
We touched on that, too - and the advantages of immigration are obvious, which is why America has welcomed immigrants since the birth of the republic (a history you’re obviously unfamiliar with). Immigration benefits our economy, and benefits our national security.
Not according to Harry Reid
Thanks. That wasn’t helpful or additive in any way.
1 Like