politics thread

[gkekoa]

Theres some pretty crazy stuff in the bible too. There's a reason the overwhelming majority of muslims aren't terrorists - cuz it isn't what the religion teaches.

Trump has no interest in finding out what was going on. We do vet people coming into the country. How is banning a group that is overwhelmingly peaceful the solution?

Tell me about the crazy stuff in the Bible because within context, it isn’t crazy at all.

I have had a Muslim try to teach me about the context of the Quran. It was a short conversation because I ask questions. When I asked him to explain a verse, he tried to explain it with context. Ultimately, if you read the surrounding passages, contextually, you do not reach the conclusion he claimed. Finally, he admitted it was what he was taught and it had nothing to do with context.

You say he has no interest, yet, he did push for better vetting. Our vetting process consisted of asking unverifiable questions of people and accepting their answers as truth. It is a solution if the terrorists come from those nations. Again, we do not need these or any other people. If we allow one bad apple in, that is one too many.

 

[Sharkinva]

Tell me about the crazy stuff in the Bible because within context, it isn’t crazy at all.

I have had a Muslim try to teach me about the context of the Quran. It was a short conversation because I ask questions. When I asked him to explain a verse, he tried to explain it with context. Ultimately, if you read the surrounding passages, contextually, you do not reach the conclusion he claimed. Finally, he admitted it was what he was taught and it had nothing to do with context.

You say he has no interest, yet, he did push for better vetting. Our vetting process consisted of asking unverifiable questions of people and accepting their answers as truth. It is a solution if the terrorists come from those nations. Again, we do not need these or any other people. If we allow one bad apple in, that is one too many.

Leviticus 24:16
Embed

16 Whoever qblasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.

Kinda fucks with that whole free speech thing if we were to start stoning people for blasphemy in this country dontcha think.
But yea its all about context.

As for your short conversation on the Quran, I suspect it was a short conversation because you had your mind made up before a word was spoken in the first place. I would suggest you actually take a month and READ it, then you might get the proper context. Key word might.

 

[Sharkinva]

Also Duets does instruct to kill non believers....


Deuteronomy 13:6-10 ESV / 12 helpful votes
“If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

 

[gkekoa]

Leviticus 24:16
Embed

16 Whoever qblasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.

Kinda fucks with that whole free speech thing if we were to start stoning people for blasphemy in this country dontcha think.
But yea its all about context.

As for your short conversation on the Quran, I suspect it was a short conversation because you had your mind made up before a word was spoken in the first place. I would suggest you actually take a month and READ it, then you might get the proper context. Key word might.

Let’s examine this. It wasn’t calling for mob rule. It was the law of the land, and it is understood all nations have sovereign laws. From there, two or three had to witness the event and lay hands on the offender. After that, the entire congregation carried out the sentence passed down by God.

Show me where God calls for stoning of blasphemers in the US. Again, context matters. This was the law of Israel, after being freed from Egypt. So please....get the context right.

Actually, it was a short conversation because he stopped responding on messenger to my questions. Again, I looked at context, which did not exist. He simply said trust me.

Also Duets does instruct to kill non believers....


Deuteronomy 13:6-10 ESV / 12 helpful votes
“If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

Again, sovereign law of Israel. Notice it only calls for death to Israelites who turn idolator. These were the chosen people of God. These people received the law for them. It isn’t calling for us to stone anybody.

 

[Sharkinva]

Let’s examine this. It wasn’t calling for mob rule. It was the law of the land, and it is understood all nations have sovereign laws. From there, two or three had to witness the event and lay hands on the offender. After that, the entire congregation carried out the sentence passed down by God.

Show me where God calls for stoning of blasphemers in the US. Again, context matters. This was the law of Israel, after being freed from Egypt. So please....get the context right.

Actually, it was a short conversation because he stopped responding on messenger to my questions. Again, I looked at context, which did not exist. He simply said trust me.




Again, sovereign law of Israel. Notice it only calls for death to Israelites who turn idolator. These were the chosen people of God. These people received the law for them. It isn’t calling for us to stone anybody.

Seriously dude, you are going to try and "context" this now?? I know you have never actually read a Quran, but Im starting to wonder if you ever read the bible as well.

 

[gkekoa]

Seriously dude, you are going to try and "context" this now?? I know you have never actually read a Quran, but Im starting to wonder if you ever read the bible as well.

That is the context in which it is written. Go read professional commentary by Biblical scholars if you would like to. Which part are you questioning within context?

I never said I read the Quran. I asked about verses. He tried to explain them to me. So I looked for context, which was non-existent. I asked him to explain how he came to the conclusion a verse about killing infidels is actually about divorce. He basically said to trust him and that is what he was taught.

 

[Sharkinva]

That is the context in which it is written. Go read professional commentary by Biblical scholars if you would like to.

I never said I read the Quran. I asked about verses. He tried to explain them to me. So I looked for context, which was non-existent. I asked him to explain how he came to the conclusion a verse about killing infidels is actually about divorce. He basically said to trust him and that is what he was taught.

So basically you are saying you took some one elses opinion on both. And not to be a dick, but as a self professed Christian, Im going to hedge a bet and say you were not very open to the idea that the Quran is actually no more violent than the Bible.

I guess I have a unique perspective as my Mother is Muslim, and My Grand Father was a Baptist Minister. So I was exposed to Both as well as Jewish religion and given the freedom to make my own decision. I believe in God, but detest religion as most believers have never really looked into their own religion much less others and simply believe what their leaders have told them.

 

[gkekoa]

So basically you are saying you took some one elses opinion on both. And not to be a dick, but as a self professed Christian, Im going to hedge a bet and say you were not very open to the idea that the Quran is actually no more violent than the Bible.

I guess I have a unique perspective as my Mother is Muslim, and My Grand Father was a Baptist Minister. So I was exposed to Both as well as Jewish religion and given the freedom to make my own decision. I believe in God, but detest religion as most believers have never really looked into their own religion much less others and simply believe what their leaders have told them.

Nope. I didn’t take the word of the person. I read the passage and the commentary. I reread the passage to ensure I knew what it was saying.

In Exodus, Moses leads Israel out of Egypt. In Exodus 31, Moses receives the law. Leviticus is the law book.

Leviticus 24;10-12, states a half Israeli boy among the Israelites blasphemed.
13-16, states the punishment handed down by God to the Israelites for blaspheming the Name.
17-22, discusses punishment for other crimes. These are laws to be handed out by government...eye for an eye...let the punishment fit the crime.

The laying of the hands is to be done by the witnesses so they can bear witness. Deuteronomy 19:15, gives a little more detail on witnesses by saying one witness is no true enough. There has to be at least two or three witnesses.

This is context.


I am very open, if you can explain it to me, and back it up with evidence. I understand your perspective and can appreciate it to an extent. One thing I always do is question everything. I listen to others and do my own research.

My friend is another pilot, graduated Annapolis. I messaged him on Facebook in private so I could ask questions and develop a better understanding after seeing a post that listed around 100 passages in the Quran calling for death to infidels.

Honestly, I do believe Islam is far more violent than Christianity, and the actions of Muslims acting in the name of Allah backs that up. That being said, I do not believe all Muslims are evil nor violent...I don’t even believe they are in the majority. I do believe the animosity goes back to Abrham and Bathsheba with Ismael being the first born. That is what later spawned Islam because the surrounding nations believe Ismael was the son of promise and it is their jealousy that creates the hate for Israel. They fail to understand the promise wasn’t made to Abraham...it was made to Abraham and Sarah.

 

[Sharkinva]

Nope. I didn’t take the word of the person. I read the passage and the commentary. I reread the passage to ensure I knew what it was saying.

In Exodus, Moses leads Israel out of Egypt. In Exodus 31, Moses receives the law. Leviticus is the law book.

Leviticus 24;10-12, states a half Israeli boy among the Israelites blasphemed.
13-16, states the punishment handed down by God to the Israelites for blaspheming the Name.
17-22, discusses punishment for other crimes. These are laws to be handed out by government...eye for an eye...let the punishment fit the crime.

The laying of the hands is to be done by the witnesses so they can bear witness. Deuteronomy 19:15, gives a little more detail on witnesses by saying one witness is no true enough. There has to be at least two or three witnesses.

This is context.


I am very open, if you can explain it to me, and back it up with evidence. I understand your perspective and can appreciate it to an extent. One thing I always do is question everything. I listen to others and do my own research.

My friend is another pilot, graduated Annapolis. I messaged him on Facebook in private so I could ask questions and develop a better understanding after seeing a post that listed around 100 passages in the Quran calling for death to infidels.

Honestly, I do believe Islam is far more violent than Christianity, and the actions of Muslims acting in the name of Allah backs that up. That being said, I do not believe all Muslims are evil nor violent...I don’t even believe they are in the majority. I do believe the animosity goes back to Abrham and Bathsheba with Ismael being the first born. That is what later spawned Islam because the surrounding nations believe Ismael was the son of promise and it is their jealousy that creates the hate for Israel. They fail to understand the promise wasn’t made to Abraham...it was made to Abraham and Sarah.

will give you that Islam in todays world, is much more(openly) violent that Christianity. But that is a byproduct of the leadership. Much as the Crusades were a byproduct of the Christian leadership at that time. I tend to Not get into the take of another man or woman on a religious text, because simply put if they get it wrong, and there is a God.. its my soul on the line. Which again is why I actually read, repeatedly at one point, both texts. I also took into account the time frame and the social climate when the bible was written vs when the Quran was written.

All BUllshit aside, if we were closer I would suggest we sit down and actually read both texts together. Because at the end of the doy, the only way this world gets fixed is real understanding across religious/racial and yes gender/sexual differences.

 

[Skins2021]

will give you that Islam in todays world, is much more(openly) violent that Christianity. But that is a byproduct of the leadership. Much as the Crusades were a byproduct of the Christian leadership at that time. I tend to Not get into the take of another man or woman on a religious text, because simply put if they get it wrong, and there is a God.. its my soul on the line. Which again is why I actually read, repeatedly at one point, both texts. I also took into account the time frame and the social climate when the bible was written vs when the Quran was written.

All BUllshit aside, if we were closer I would suggest we sit down and actually read both texts together. Because at the end of the doy, the only way this world gets fixed is real understanding across religious/racial and yes gender/sexual differences.

What gets me is that the Christian Crusades are mentioned every time people talk about the violence associated with Islam today. I mean there are literally historical arguments that can be made that the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades was kicked off and put into motion because of the militant nature of Islam. Regardless, its not even worth getting into because its irrelevant to 2018.

Its similar to people mentioning Timothy McVeigh (20+ years ago) and Dylan Roof every time there is a suicide bomber or a radical muslim drives a car into a crowd of people in Europe.

There is no progress if people keep apologizing and attempting to minimize violence by pointing out other violence. The scale is not equal and its not even close, so what is the point in pretending it is? What does that even accomplish?

I went to a Jesuit University. I was required to take 15 credits in theology. I took a 3 credit class studying Islam in an attempt to become a bit more enlightened. This was in 2007 mind you. I'll never forget the open discussion when we are on the pillars of islam. We the students asked difficult questions, I asked difficult questions. Our questions were met with vagueness and beating around the bush. Granted our professor was a theologian. The text is pretty violent and militant. Its really undeniable. I mean Mohammad was a war general. The religion was founded on conquering and submission. These are facts. Not a huge portion of the text is violent in nature, the vast majority is about love and faith etc. but there is definitely enough to take notice.

Now I think religion in general can be BS and it is susceptible to be misinterpreted for evil personal gains. I have a bunch of problems with the Catholic church as well. However comparing violence from the old testament to the koran as if it is somehow equal with or without context is wrong.

As I mentioned in an earlier post I feel very bad for American and other westernized Muslims. Their religion was hijacked by radicals. However I dont believe the majority of people practicing Islam are moderate worldwide. In the ME Sharia, Fatwa, treatment of women and gays is widely practiced by the majority of the people. Just because they arent strapping bombs to themselves, to me, doesnt mean they are not radical.

Honest conversation needs to happen without people worrying about offending. Stronger leadership is needed. Fact is Islam is way more susceptible to perversion then other religions around the world.

and yes... U.S. and European occupancy has been a bit of a catalyst to said perversion. The occupancy IMO has provided propaganda and made the text a bit more literal to those who have embraced the radical aspect.

 

[Sharkinva]

What gets me is that the Christian Crusades are mentioned every time people talk about the violence associated with Islam today. I mean there are literally historical arguments that can be made that the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades was kicked off and put into motion because of the militant nature of Islam. Regardless, its not even worth getting into because its irrelevant to 2018.

Its similar to people mentioning Timothy McVeigh (20+ years ago) and Dylan Roof every time there is a suicide bomber or a radical muslim drives a car into a crowd of people in Europe.

There is no progress if people keep apologizing and attempting to minimize violence by pointing out other violence. The scale is not equal and its not even close, so what is the point in pretending it is? What does that even accomplish?

I went to a Jesuit University. I was required to take 15 credits in theology. I took a 3 credit class studying Islam in an attempt to become a bit more enlightened. This was in 2007 mind you. I'll never forget the open discussion when we are on the pillars of islam. We the students asked difficult questions, I asked difficult questions. Our questions were met with vagueness and beating around the bush. Granted our professor was a theologian. The text is pretty violent and militant. Its really undeniable. I mean Mohammad was a war general. The religion was founded on conquering and submission. These are facts. Not a huge portion of the text is violent in nature, the vast majority is about love and faith etc. but there is definitely enough to take notice.

Now I think religion in general can be BS and it is susceptible to be misinterpreted for evil personal gains. I have a bunch of problems with the Catholic church as well. However comparing violence from the old testament to the koran as if it is somehow equal with or without context is wrong.

As I mentioned in an earlier post I feel very bad for American and other westernized Muslims. Their religion was hijacked by radicals. However I dont believe the majority of people practicing Islam are moderate worldwide. In the ME Sharia, Fatwa, treatment of women and gays is widely practiced by the majority of the people. Just because they arent strapping bombs to themselves, to me, doesnt mean they are not radical.

Honest conversation needs to happen without people worrying about offending. Stronger leadership is needed. Fact is Islam is way more susceptible to perversion then other religions around the world.

and yes... U.S. and European occupancy has been a bit of a catalyst to said perversion. The occupancy IMO has provided propaganda and made the text a bit more literal to those who have embraced the radical aspect.

Look I freely admit that Islam is a bit more fire brimstone and wrath. So yes it is a bit more violent, but I also think that might be based on the climate of the the world when Islam became a religion. BUt much like Christianity, it was based on teaching people to worship GOD. I dont think at the heart either religion is flawed, I think men did that. And still do that.

Secondly, I think one of the main problems especially in this country is, when you have a Tim McVeigh type, how its presented to the people is radically different from how a Muslim bomber is presented. White Christian Male... well he must have been sick.. we arent all like that. Muslim farts in a tunnel, and its labeled as a culture thing, and they are all just terrorists waiting to destroy us. Thats the real problem I see is America is quick to label OTHER as a group problem, and just as quick to distance one of their own as an aberration. Just as our President is currently pushing a narrative of Illegal Aliens are here to sell drugs and harm Americans, granted some are.. most are not. And its a slippery slope he is dancing on, because far too many are willing to take the leap that if you are of Latino heritage, you might be an illegal, thus you must have come here to harm us.

I seen this movie before, the fine upstanding countrymen were called the Germans, and the questionable element the Jews. We know how that ended. I would rather NOT see that happen here.

 

[Skins2021]

Look I freely admit that Islam is a bit more fire brimstone and wrath. So yes it is a bit more violent, but I also think that might be based on the climate of the the world when Islam became a religion. BUt much like Christianity, it was based on teaching people to worship GOD. I dont think at the heart either religion is flawed, I think men did that. And still do that.

Secondly, I think one of the main problems especially in this country is, when you have a Tim McVeigh type, how its presented to the people is radically different from how a Muslim bomber is presented. White Christian Male... well he must have been sick.. we arent all like that. Muslim farts in a tunnel, and its labeled as a culture thing, and they are all just terrorists waiting to destroy us. Thats the real problem I see is America is quick to label OTHER as a group problem, and just as quick to distance one of their own as an aberration. Just as our President is currently pushing a narrative of Illegal Aliens are here to sell drugs and harm Americans, granted some are.. most are not. And its a slippery slope he is dancing on, because far too many are willing to take the leap that if you are of Latino heritage, you might be an illegal, thus you must have come here to harm us.

I seen this movie before, the fine upstanding countrymen were called the Germans, and the questionable element the Jews. We know how that ended. I would rather NOT see that happen here.

And it wont... I think people today are too educated for that to ever happen.

I guess it comes down to how much of a problem you really think it is. When there is an act of terrorism you can literally see the anchors on CNN and MSNBC holding their breath and at times even vocally rooting that the perp is not Muslim. I dont understand it. Aside from disease, epidemics, and natural disasters I think radical Islam is the single biggest threat to humanity today.

Dylan Roof and Timothy McVeigh are terrorists, as is Stephen Paddock (though his story/lack of is outrageously fishy). Terrorism is committed by all colors, but please, the scale isnt equal and its really not close either. Its counter productive for the former president of the United States and the attorney general to refuse to even acknowledge islamic terrorism in reference to fort hood, san bernardino, chattanooga, Garland TX, little rock, boston bombing, etc. O then has the gall to say there was no terrorism under his watch.

I agree that white christian male terrorist are probably treated differently in the media by some. I think that is probably because it happens much less frequently and 9 times out of 10 they are lone wolves who arent backed financially or supported by groups. As long as they arent treated differently in the justice system and suffer the same fate. It shouldnt be minimized and there shouldnt be any need for perspective.

Terrorism needs a political/social motive to be considered as such. McVeigh and Roof were racists.... Paddock was some sort of left winged nut with a lot of conspiracies, all terrorists. School shootings for the most part are about attention and carnage, not about striking fear/intimidation and swaying beliefs, thus to me it does fall under mental illness, not terrorism.

Look I am harsh on Islam. Even pre 911 I was harsh but it intensified after 911 when I'm sitting in HS 10 miles outside of NYC and fellow students are getting pulled out of class bc their parents work in the WTC, when I can see black smoke from my bedroom window over the ridge coming from NYC. I have a relative who was very very high up in the post office in NJ. There were some crazy things that went down pre 9-11 that was pretty freaking suspicious. Like small communities completely vanishing week(s) before 911. They were working with homeland security... never really published or covered. Dancing in the streets after 911 is now accepted as more of a urban legend, I can tell you first hand that it did happen in Patterson NJ. I think the coverage shown on news was from ME so many believe it was "debunked" but it happened.

I'll say it for the 3rd time but I firmly believe radical islam is not pigeonholed to active militants. Its the sympathizers, the supporters, people who harbor, people who elect muslim brotherhood, and people who believe in and practice sharia, fatwa, and treatment of women as property and gays as subhuman. If this was categorized as extremism, which I believe it should be, the % of radical Islam as it related to Islam worldwide would tip well over 50%. Theres a long way to go and I refuse to believe that our Western values arent the right values.

On the flip side though, American/Western Muslims have caught the short end of the stick and should not have to apologize for the perversion that has run rampant through their faith.

 

[ehb5]

Again, what makes your source credible?

Again, you go against the law of supply and demand. They give no evidence that immigration would increase wages and to believe so would go against common sense. They make a claim that can neither be proven nor disproved; however, if we think critically, we can come to a conclusion. More workers, leads to lower wages...simple supply and demand. Workers from other countries would lead to lower wages because those workers would settle for lower pay. Employers making a larger margin means more money in their pockets while immigrants accepting lower wages keeps money away from lower class.

Bloomberg is owned by Michael Bloomberg...he is far left.

Again, the estimates are based on self reporting. Would you self report a crime you commit?

Typically, first generation illegals are not.

Thats its a large widely accepted news source that we have a good idea of where it lies in terms of bias. It has reputable reporters and has a long running history of being a solid source of information. The economist who wrote what i linked to is also highly respected.

Youre assuming supply and demand perfectly models the labor demand market. Thats not really true. And secondly you arent properly accounting for the changes to labor demand. You're assuming theres only a change to labor supply which makes no sense.

Uhhh how is Bloomberg far left?? Hes even run as a republican in the past. Bloomberg (the news organization) is pretty highly respected and considered center to center left. This isnt a far left blog posting propaganda or some other BS.

Uhhh they really arent that based on self reporting. And a large part of their estimation attempts to account for the fact that it's hard to get a straight answer to that question. There's no reason to think the estimates are wildly inaccurate.

 

[ehb5]

You stated the flaw was the founder is a white supremist. First, who is the founder and what makes him a white supremist. If he is a white supremist, does that make the information incorrect?

The net gain data isn’t data. It is people wanting you to conclude their statement is true without data.

I don’t care if we are humanitarian as a nation. Charity should be an individual choice, not forced extortion from government.

How do immigrants make this country stronger? Be specific.

As for a wall, we have walls around homes for protection...same principle. If the wall costs 100 billion, which it doesn’t, but we spend 100 billion annually on illegals, I think you get the point.

John tanton. Theres plenty linking him to white supremacy. When you regularly spout racist comments and make friends with white supremacists well...

Btw google is your friend. Im not sure why you can't dothis research yourself.

Im not sure why you think thats not data but your welcome to present evidence that it's actually false rather than just claim it.

I agree charity should be chosen not extorted. That seems pretty obvious. Its also pretty irrelevant to this discussion.

Immigrants making the country ialready showed in another post.

The wall. If you can show it actually will do what its supposed to and would legitimately save money than of course id support it too. I just think both those arguments are questionable at best and im not big on spending huge amounts of money on questionable investments.

 

[ehb5]

1- How were his methods questionable? Again, your sources are net center left...they are far left with little data given. They spit out a conclusion while lacking the data.

2- Measuring illegal immigration: How Pew Research Center counts unauthorized immigrants in the U.S.. Pew research says they take census numbers of total immigrants and subtract lawful immigrants to find out unlawful ones. That is laughable. Not everyone fills out a census first off and then people can easily lie.

3- The unemployment rate isn’t a good indicator. Labor participation is much better. Again, common sense says immigration would not be good for wages.

4- I am for stopping all foreign aid.

5- You can say it but it doesn’t make it true.

6- only if they are employed and making enough money to not be a burden. Illegals would not help here at all.

7- illegals do not. Most first generation legal immigrants do not.

10- Their job is to provide aid in the countries that need them...the countries that have fleeing refugees.

11- I agree with DACA to an extent and with strings, that may surprise you. I believe we need a multi-faceted approach in stopping future illegal immigration but I do not believe we need to increase legal immigration. One is a wall but more importantly is punishing employers hiring them to include going after personal assets.

12- The left understands one thing about immigration and that is votes.

13- What has Trump done to hurt Americans?

14- I have never liked Trump. I don’t care if I like him if his policies are good.

16- press 2 for Spanish. Let more illegals in. DACA. open borders

1. The "study" assumed worst case scenario at every opportunity with little to back it up then extrapolated that. Pretty sketchy.

Why you think my sources are far left is beyond me. On second thought its not but nevermind. But it is puzzling that you keep claiming im not justifying my claims against the FAIR source even though i clearly outlined themfrom the get go yet you claim my sources are far left with no justification.

2. Why would you lie about being an immigrant? How is census data inaccurate? Glad you finally looked up how it's actually calculated though.

3. Why is labor participation better than unemployment rate? Not sure common sense does actually say that but either way use data not subjective common sense.

4. Cool

5. Lets break down whats happening. You say something without a source. I correct you with a statement backed by a source i have provided. You claim that me saying something doesnt make it true. Oh the irony.

6. Im not sure why you assume illegals arent working.

7. Source?

10. Ok? Have them get on that. Seems off topic no?

11. I think punishing people already here is pretty rough.

12. What?

13. Ugh remind me to discuss that later. But immigration and trade is a nice start.

14. Ok

16. Literally none of those things you said are evidence of that

 

[Skins2021]

I just think both those arguments are questionable at best and im not big on spending huge amounts of money on questionable investments.

except for the paris accord
ACA
stimulus bill

I'd assume

 

[ehb5]

i know exactly who george soros is , what he has done and what he plans to do

you can research those yourself . he finances a ton of site , moveon.org Occupy democrats with obama and others

academia is flooded with liberals as is the MSM . all you have to do is look . i find it funny that any source from the right is automatically labeled FAR right by leftist

the issue you have with my source is it included daca people . well news flash it should have . doesnt make it far right nazi crap

you are the one who attacked sources first not me and again accepting your source as fair , as i did for the sake of argument i still say no illegals . my identity was stolen by an illegal and it took me years to fix everything so you arent convincing me of anything about anybody s right to be here

i dont support illegal immigration period . if you do you are for open borders whether you believe it or not

Yea hes an uber rich liberal who donates money to political causes. I dont see anything suggesting hes corrupting or connected to bloomberg yet you seem to be claiming that. Do you have something to back that up? Or is that not what you're saying?

George Soros isnt the boogeyman. Hes just a super rich dude you disagree with. Shrug. Who cares.

Ehh theres plenty of right wing media too. Ever heard of fox news?

No not any source from the right is far right. My preferred news source is the WSJ which learn leans right. There are plenty of solid conservative leaning sources.

What? Thats not my issue with the source. I never said that. Where are you getting that?

Yes i did attack your source. Because not everything you read on the internet is true. Being aware of sources is important. Don't post bad sources and i won't criticize your sources. That simple.

So you're essentially admitting to being motivated by anecdotal and emotional evidence. That's not a good defense of your argument.

Im not advocating for illegal immigration. Not sure why you think that.

 

[gkekoa]

Thats its a large widely accepted news source that we have a good idea of where it lies in terms of bias. It has reputable reporters and has a long running history of being a solid source of information. The economist who wrote what i linked to is also highly respected.

Youre assuming supply and demand perfectly models the labor demand market. Thats not really true. And secondly you arent properly accounting for the changes to labor demand. You're assuming theres only a change to labor supply which makes no sense.

Uhhh how is Bloomberg far left?? Hes even run as a republican in the past. Bloomberg (the news organization) is pretty highly respected and considered center to center left. This isnt a far left blog posting propaganda or some other BS.

Uhhh they really arent that based on self reporting. And a large part of their estimation attempts to account for the fact that it's hard to get a straight answer to that question. There's no reason to think the estimates are wildly inaccurate.

Widely accepted by whom? Why don’t people accept Fox News as unbiased when it is the highest rated? Is it possible that these news sources pander to a specific audience because it is about money?

Of course I am referring to labor supply because we are talking about more workers. Labor demand should be talked about, so let’s talk. You are saying that more people with needs to be met increases demand for labor which is a logical assumption. Let’s look at their needs and do they weight the same as Americans. Illegals do not live in excess like Americans. They will pile into a house or an apartment, are less likely to drive, are more likely to eat less, are more likely to skimp on most products, and they send money home to their relatives. So when we weight them as consumers, they cannot be looked at as equal to Americans. They do not have the same effect on the economy as an American consumer. Illegals no longer being here would likely increase the demand for labor in the US because those jobs would no longer be filled.

Bloomberg is only respected by the left. Strom Thurman ran as a democrat and republican but his views were always that of a democrat.

Measuring illegal immigration: How Pew Research Center counts unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. It is precisely how they determine the number of illegals.

 

[Skins2021]

I'm either having deja-vu or repeating myself. Which means its time to leave this discussion. Though I am probably late on that assumption since this honest conversation has become hijacked

Here is some food for thought.

Harvard study: Media has been largely negative on Trump

Harvard Institution - which leans left put out a study.

Coverage of Trump by CNN and NBC is 93% negative
CBS 91% negative
Fox News 52% negative

so before Mr. Indoctrinated, Group Think, Doesnt Know How The Real World Actually Works questions a source that he doesnt agree with such as Fox and laughs it off, Fox is actually much more fair and balanced then any of the other major news networks.

 

[gkekoa]

John tanton. Theres plenty linking him to white supremacy. When you regularly spout racist comments and make friends with white supremacists well...

Btw google is your friend. Im not sure why you can't dothis research yourself.

Im not sure why you think thats not data but your welcome to present evidence that it's actually false rather than just claim it.

I agree charity should be chosen not extorted. That seems pretty obvious. Its also pretty irrelevant to this discussion.

Immigrants making the country ialready showed in another post.

The wall. If you can show it actually will do what its supposed to and would legitimately save money than of course id support it too. I just think both those arguments are questionable at best and im not big on spending huge amounts of money on questionable investments.

So I used my friend google for a quick search, and came to the conclusion people need to reassess the word white supremacy and racism.

It looks like another effort by the left to silence another viewpoint based on science because it doesn’t like the conclusion of the science.

Forced charity is very relevant when you bring up government taxation as a positive for immigration.

You don’t accept governmental data as true. If somebody shows actual data such as the cost of first generation immigrants costing 300 billion annually, you dismiss it when they say, but the long term effect is a positive, without asking how they came to that conclusion.