Happy New Year DDO!Posted 5 years Ago

At 1/1/2017 8:35:57 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/1/2017 8:18:39 PM, Daltonian wrote:
I just realized that I'm also assuming any of the same people are actually still regular contributors here, as they were back in 2014-2015, haha.

Anyone remember me? Just skimming through the recent forum posts I recognize a few familiar faces, I'll check my inbox later tonight.

I know ya, but you probably don't remember me ;_;
We played mafia together often, of course I do!

Regardless, welcome back!
Thanks!
Forums Home > Debate.org

Whites becoming a minorityPosted 5 years Ago

At 1/1/2017 8:23:31 PM, Reformist wrote:
At 1/1/2017 6:58:18 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 1/1/2017 2:28:33 AM, Reformist wrote:
At 12/31/2016 4:05:23 AM, Peepette wrote:
At 12/31/2016 3:49:13 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/31/2016 3:47:50 AM, Peepette wrote:
At 12/31/2016 3:24:55 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/31/2016 3:08:16 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/30/2016 9:54:30 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/30/2016 9:45:53 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
White people only

Do you care if whites become a minority in America?

As long as we get to colonize space first, the Earth can burn.

What is your serious answer?

I mean, let's get real, 3rd world cultures wouldn't even immigrate here if whites were not here. Since apartheid isn't feasible, then exodus is the only logical answer. White flight is a real thing.

But what is the fear to flee based upon?

Ask any of the syrian refugees.

Oh yes the rhetoric that a few bad apples spoil the whole barrel. With over a million people immigrating to anywhere ( white, brown or of any specific religion) there is a statistical probability that some crime will occur. If I were in a war torn country and near by countries were not friendly to my particular religious sect or I could not find work or have the ability to feed may children, I too would immigrate to a stable secular nation for safety. Common sense would dictate how I wish to survive.

Why would you want more muslims, potentially terrorists, into this country. Their way is not compatible with ours


At one time the Chinese who immigrated during the gold rush, Jews in the 1920's and Irish Catholics were considered incompatible with our culture.

Islam is not compatabile with our democracy because its not democratic. Its about enslavement
Anyone who has studied religion in an intellectual setting knows this is objectively wrong. Extremist, fundamentalist Islam is not compatible with our democracy. Neither is extremist Christianity, for that matter. Religion is so dependent on interpretation that to label an entire group of people incompatible with democracy based on a religious demographic is absurd.

There are swathes of moderate, respectful Muslims in this country that you never hear about or are ever forced to think about because, put simply, they are ordinary people. Are you saying that Syrian refugees who fit that definition deserve no sympathy or empathy whatsoever simply because of their religion and heritage? I would hardly call that a very "Christian" stance to take.
Forums Home > Politics

Whites becoming a minorityPosted 5 years Ago

At 12/30/2016 9:45:53 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
White people only

Do you care if whites become a minority in America?
As a white person, why does race matter so much to you? Why even ask this question? I think your being so afraid of becoming a minority is just a subtle admission of how poorly the white majority in America has historically treated other ethnic minorities..

I don't care so much about whites becoming a minority in America, so much as I care about the free and liberalminded culture that has developed here being overridden by waves of immigrants that either refuse to or have no incentive to assimilate whatsoever. I don't believe that maintaining racial and religious diversity and maintaining the basis of our existent culture have to be exclusive ideas. That's a pretty moderate stance to take, IMO. Liberals who don't believe in any form of assimilation whatsoever are usually extremist SJWs and they exist far less than conservatives make it out to seem.
Forums Home > Politics

Happy New Year DDO!Posted 5 years Ago

I just realized that I'm also assuming any of the same people are actually still regular contributors here, as they were back in 2014-2015, haha.

Anyone remember me? Just skimming through the recent forum posts I recognize a few familiar faces, I'll check my inbox later tonight.
Forums Home > Debate.org

Happy New Year DDO!Posted 5 years Ago

I'm back, for a while.

Being in college + having a social life has taken out most of my free time that I had during high school which allowed me to be a regular contributor on this site.

I don't have a lot of time right now, but post here or message me if you'd like to catch up and I'll respond some time later today. :)

Sorry for going MIA for a year <3
Forums Home > Debate.org

FBI and Comey Agree: Russia Wanted TrumpPosted 5 years Ago

At 12/29/2016 5:49:59 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/29/2016 5:42:00 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/29/2016 5:40:02 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/27/2016 3:55:16 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/26/2016 8:48:21 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Also what's the big deal with us being friendly with Russia? Libs want love and peace... except with those dirty Russians.

If the Chinese hacked the RNC and exposed Donald Trump having sex with a 15 year old girl, would you say "what's the big deal with us being friendly with China?"

Given the state of the world today we have more in common with the Russians than almost anyone else and I think budding up to them would be beneficial to both parties.

Why on earth do you think "we" have more in "common" with the Russians than anyone else on earth?

Who is this "we" you are speaking of?

What are the traits or qualities that are held in "common"?

1. Yes I would.

You are ok with foreign countries meddling in US politics?

2. We value stability. We are not religious extremists. We value, for the most part, the status quo. We are fighting the same enemy in the Middle East. We are non OPEC energy exporters. Etc etc.

Russia can be a great ally if people stop acting like its 1965.

What is this "status quo" of which you speak?

If the "meddling" is simply dissemination of information we can't get on our own or won't share with the people then yes sure. The more public info the better. We have a right to know.
You're being misleading. Russia's interest is not to enable the spreading of free information to the American people; the Russian interest is to have someone who is more easily manipulatable and a borderline Russian puppet in office. That is, someone will be more amenable to doing things that align with Russian interests (the appointment of a SoS like Rex Tillerson is first evidence of this).

Russia did not intervene with the best interest of Americans in mind, or with some morally righteous goal to make sure Americans had access to all of the relevant information and facts surrounding both candidates.

They clearly and objectively interfered selectively, and disseminated information selectively, in such a manner which would serve to benefit THEIR national interests, and not ours. Even if you're claiming that ours and theirs national interests are aligned, that is absolutely unacceptable, and to claim otherwise is to prioritize your individual political interests over the grander sovereignty of America as a state.

The post-WW2/post Communism world order based around US-Russia super power status and UN Security Council. The fact that we don't want all the chaos bubbling up to spill over into our spheres of influence.

They can be the best ally for stability we have in the world. That's why they're fighting for Assad. Syria as a failed state benefits no one.
Okay, sure, believe that the USA and Russia should become allies. The fact does not change that as a sovereign state, the American people should have made that decision on their own, not under the guiding hand of Vladimir Putin.

The fact that Trump supporters are so deluded as to support Russian interference in our electoral process as a "good thing" speaks volumes as to how blinding this wave of anti-establishment fervor is. Even most higher-up Republicans are not denying the role the Kremlin played is unacceptable and setting a dangerous precedent for our electoral process; it is the deluded conservative base that is blind.
Forums Home > Politics

DW Mafia - EndgamePosted 6 years Ago

At 2/20/2016 2:46:48 AM, SolonKR wrote:
Eh, let's make things exciting. Anyone who thinks the game is over and doesn't post by tomorrow at midnight is dead.
And what if I think this game is over, but post anyways? Because that is the case.
Forums Home > Games

Maybe we really DO need a temporary shutdownPosted 6 years Ago

At 2/13/2016 1:10:20 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:30:06 PM, Daltonian wrote:
At 2/12/2016 5:22:14 AM, thett3 wrote:
If somebody offered you a skittle when you knew that 1 in every 500 was poisoned, there's no way you would eat it even if it's just a small proportion of the skittles that are poisonous. Our current system doesn't even try to weed out the poison.
This argument is so flawed, it's ridiculous. Every time a Republican used this comparison on the news, they sounded like an idiot to anyone who had the slightest idea of the nature of the problem itself.

Do you really think that the number of muslim refugees who commit acts of terrorism, proportional to the total number who we have accepted, is 1 in every 500?

Considering that the only quibble you had was with the proportion, which I never claimed was representative, it doesn't seem like a flawed argument. As it stands, Muslims commit 25-50x more terrorism than we would expect given their proportion of the population, suggesting that yeah there is a problem. In the OP I gave two pieces of evidence indicating that our treasonous officials look the other way when it comes to potential terrorists and that this insane policy cost 13 people their lives...likely many more, as the first article notes.

How is it a bad policy to shut down Muslim immigration until we can establish a system that actually screens out the bad ones? It's exactly like the skittles example. If 3 in 800,000 skittles killed the people who ate them the factory that created that batch would absolutely be shut down until they could figure out what was going on.
The system already "screens out the bad ones".. can you imagine what America would be like if it didn't? In the context of your metaphor, the skittles came out of the factory perfectly; they were just poisoned afterwards. Islamic radicalization is that poison. Many of the shooters and terrorists you've named in this thread immigrated here as teenagers and children -- teenagers and children don't come here terrorists. They are indoctrinated and radicalized. That is the core problem. Not the immigrants themselves.

The actual number is something more in line with something like three in eight hundred thousand that have immigrated here since 9/11... how can you speak so urgently about a shutdown of basically all immigrants coming into this country, given the reality of the numbers?

Your fears are misguided and misplaced. The real problem isn't at all correlated with influxes of fleeing refugees and migrants into the country. It is home-grown self-radicalization of people who are already permanent citizens and residents living in the country -- and that's from Muslim and ethnically white family backgrounds alike.

Bullsh1t. Muslims are far, far (like 25 times) more likely to commit terrorist acts than we would expect.
I never said they weren't. I said that ethnically arabic/middle-eastern and white families alike were affected by islamic radicalization. I never said that they were equally represented. Just that they were both affected - which is true.
Moreover given the incompatibility of Western and Islamic culture, we have to be very very careful that we don't enter into the kind of situation that Europe is in...and I'm confident we'll be able to.
The situation is different. We have an ocean separating us. The only migrants that could ever feasibly reach America are ones that come here on our terms. The context of the situation here vs in Europe is entirely different, imo.
Like I said, I know lots of Muslim people and I love them. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss these issues, because the stakes are simply too high for us not to. We absolutely DO need to figure out what the hell is going on. Why was the San Bernardino terrorist not properly screened?
The San Bernardino shooter was never screened because he was born a naturalized American citizen (in Chicago, to be exact) -- that's what you're missing, Thett! It isn't IMMIGRANTS who are committing most of these atrocities and terrorist acts, it is AMERICAN CITIZENS who are recruited abroad and radicalized by Islamists and groups like ISIL. We need to dedicate our resources to preventing that from happening, not to shutting thousands of innocent asylum seekers out.


A mass shutdown of our immigration system that targets muslims *specifically* is going to be the opposite of productive or useful, all that has potential to do is stir up more animosity towards the west and give ISIL easier means to spread their propaganda. Rather than talking about ridiculous and infeasible proposals like that, you should be addressing how we can combat the self-radicalization of American Youths.

So your argument is that Muslims are so prone to radicalization that immigration restrictions will turn the quiet Pakistani kid into Jihadi John? Bullsh1t.
That's an exaggeration of what I'm arguing. Me saying it would make the situation worse doesn't at all imply that things would get that bad. It is objectively true that directly discriminating against Muslim people sends a negative message and incite further resentment for the west.
What radicalizes Muslims most is the fact that the United States has killed at least a million of them in the past decade...a policy that only Trump (and Rand) has shown a willingness to stop.
I don't contest this point.

There's also the issue of the incompatibility of Islamic culture and Western culture, but for a number of reasons that issue is far more grave in Europe than it is here and most Muslims assimilate to a large degree. But the fact remains that there is indeed a problem with a small minority and I don't understand how it's at all extreme to enact policies to keep that small minority as small as possible.
I don't really contest the basis of this either, but I do contest your generalizing. "Islamic culture" is a very broad term to be using when discussing something so serious -- Islamic culture variates. There are liberal muslims who are perfectly capable of assimilating peacefully into Western societies and becoming contributive citizens in western nations, yet the policies you are proposing would group them in exactly the same category as literal terrorists just because they fall under the blanket of being a part of the "Islamic culture". And I know that you acknowledge that there are good and amazing Islamic people out there, but the ideas that you support leave those people in the dust, and without any recognition whatsoever -- they treat those people like criminals and animals, which is unjust.

I sympathize with where you are coming from, but I really do genuinely believe you're just looking at the issue the wrong way, Thett. You should be less afraid of immigrants and more afraid of the people who already live in your neighbourhoods becoming radicalized into Islamic extremism and terrorism, if you're going to be afraid.
Forums Home > Politics

Maybe we really DO need a temporary shutdownPosted 6 years Ago

I think the biggest problem with the conservative stance on this issue is that they are approaching the problem from the wrong angle. Most of the examples of criminals and terrorists named in this thread weren't refugees who had migrated recently; they were instances of muslims who were granted asylum or migrated as children and were then later indoctrinated or radicalized. Rather than seeking to completely halt immigration flows like Trump would suggest - which is unfeasible and very likely to be counterproductive - the government should invest more if its time and resources into counteracting the channels and outlets in which these Americans are being radicalized...
Forums Home > Politics

Maybe we really DO need a temporary shutdownPosted 6 years Ago

At 2/12/2016 5:22:14 AM, thett3 wrote:
If somebody offered you a skittle when you knew that 1 in every 500 was poisoned, there's no way you would eat it even if it's just a small proportion of the skittles that are poisonous. Our current system doesn't even try to weed out the poison.
This argument is so flawed, it's ridiculous. Every time a Republican used this comparison on the news, they sounded like an idiot to anyone who had the slightest idea of the nature of the problem itself.

Do you really think that the number of muslim refugees who commit acts of terrorism, proportional to the total number who we have accepted, is 1 in every 500? The actual number is something more in line with something like three in eight hundred thousand that have immigrated here since 9/11... how can you speak so urgently about a shutdown of basically all immigrants coming into this country, given the reality of the numbers?

Your fears are misguided and misplaced. The real problem isn't at all correlated with influxes of fleeing refugees and migrants into the country. It is home-grown self-radicalization of people who are already permanent citizens and residents living in the country -- and that's from Muslim and ethnically white family backgrounds alike. A mass shutdown of our immigration system that targets muslims *specifically* is going to be the opposite of productive or useful, all that has potential to do is stir up more animosity towards the west and give ISIL easier means to spread their propaganda. Rather than talking about ridiculous and infeasible proposals like that, you should be addressing how we can combat the self-radicalization of American Youths.
Forums Home > Politics

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.