Political Beliefs

[Peacity Peace]

This explains a lot.

 

You had a good opportunity to roast him.

 

 

And you pull this lame mainstream garbage... sigh

[Peter Quill]

You had a good opportunity to roast him.

 

 

And you pull this lame mainstream garbage... sigh

ayy lmao

TOO MAINSTREAM ENOUGH FOR YOU?

I'm a nice guy (sort of) and I'm too lazy to type so I'll just leave the roasting to others.

[Peacity Peace]

ayy lmao

TOO MAINSTREAM ENOUGH FOR YOU?

I'm a nice guy (sort of) and I'm too lazy to type so I'll just leave the roasting to others.

 

I see, it's not that you chose not to roast him.

 

 

You're incapable of roasting.

 

 

 

He completely exposed himself, allowing any insults to go straight to him. Yet you seem to only be able to insult a group, as shown in, well, whatever it is you call that.

 

 

Go big or go home.

[Peter Quill]

I see, it's not that you chose not to roast him.

 

 

You're incapable of roasting.

 

 

 

He completely exposed himself, allowing any insults to go straight to him. Yet you seem to only be able to insult a group, as shown in, well, whatever it is you call that.

 

 

Go big or go home.

Did you just roast me?

 

 

Anyway, I'm going to stop responding to Peacity here. Might derail the thread further.

[Peacity Peace]

Did you just roast me?

 

 

Anyway, I'm going to stop responding to Peacity here. Might derail the thread further.

 

click

[Shadowstar1922]

I agree that Israel has a right to exist ,however that is no excuse for the Government to commit war crimes and breach international through acts of aggression and forced displacement of Palestinians. Furthermore what you said about Palestine is like saying,Italians only have one nation in the world, Damn French they are Catholic Europeans there are lots of similar countries around them if French neighbours don't take their own brethren then they are bad people. What you said gross oversimplification of the situation and I say you should take a deeper look into what is really happening there 

you know that they do not know much about the situation when they think the Palestine v Israel thing is all about religion rather than land and ethnic cleansing and settler-colonialism. 

[Odin]

I agree that Israel has a right to exist ,however that is no excuse for the Government to commit war crimes and breach international through acts of aggression and forced displacement of Palestinians. Furthermore what you said about Palestine is like saying,Italians only have one nation in the world, Damn French they are Catholic Europeans there are lots of similar countries around them if French neighbours don't take their own brethren then they are bad people. What you said gross oversimplification of the situation and I say you should take a deeper look into what is really happening there

 

You're american or?

French doesn't sound like Italian, even though they're both latin languages. And the religion isn't much of a factor anymore in Europe. I hope you didn't just say "They're all the same Europeans in Europe." I don't want to start a lecture about the origin of races here. Cheeki Breeki.

But, sometimes it is easier then you want to accept it. 

 

Goy, do you even have the slightest idea how the borders in that region would have been without the first World War, without the Balfour-Declaration etc.?

I can tell you 2 things: Either still Ottoman, but united. Or some big Levantine Arab blob. The current borders were drawn by France and GB randomly across the landscapes.

 

Problem with you social-liberals (I take you as example for all, not personal here) is, that you tend to overcomplicate things that much, that you basically never get a result. At the end of every 20 pages forum thread filled with felt 1000 words per post the final answer is always the same:

you should take a deeper look into what is really happening there

instead of giving an answer how to solve Problems. Critizising others for their problem solution suggestions, but never providing own solutions.

And for the lack of innovation you even invented a fine word to silence the opposition and cover your own lack of capability: Populism. 

 

 

For example: Wouldn't the settler problem be solved if they just finish their settlements? 

What you call war crimes here is just a logical conclusion of a lost war with territorial gains. Would you say the complete german relocation from Silesia and Prussia to west of the Oder-River was a racist and/or criminal act? Probably not.

Was it a solution to the German-Polish tensions? I'd say yes. (Not that i like it of course as a german, but it still solved the problems, there is no discrimination anymore.)

 

Okay, could be a religious thing then, since poles and german are christian, and it can't be compared.

you know that they do not know much about the situation when they think the Palestine v Israel thing is all about religion rather than land and ethnic cleansing and settler-colonialism.

 

 

Whatever, i give up, GG no re.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Odin

[Sketchy]

Let's see.

 

I'm Pro-choice, (within a certain timeframe). That being said, I believe both the mother and father should be present and the decision should be a joint one. Mothers shouldn't be allowed to abort the children if the father doesn't want them to. I don't buy this "it's her body" crap. It's their child. 

 

I'm pro-euthanasia, the idea that some people can suffer immensely prior to their death, and not be able to end it sooner, because of a bunch of uptight idiots is ridiculous.

 

I believe a countries first responsibility is to it's citizens, not foreigners. I'm generally against interfering in the sovereignty of other countries, and only believe in giving aid if it stands to benefit us in some way.

 

I'm against the immigration of muslims in western countries due to the dangers they pose. I recognize that some of them aren't bad people, I just don't consider that to be a factor that is important when it only takes one bad apple to endanger the lives of people within the country. Similar to what I said above, the government should prioritize the protection of the lives of the citizens in it's own country over people outside of the country.

 

I'm a firm believer in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. I'm against things like affirmative action, as that just creates inequality in itself. I believe all are equal, regardless of race, gender, sexuality. That being said, I also recognize the reality that people are !@#$. I don't believe people should be given "safe spaces" and the victimhood culture is childish and all involved need to grow the !@#$ up.

 

I'm an Anti-Feminist, I believe women in most western countries, have equal rights, Rape culture doesn't exist, the gender wage gap is a myth. Feminism has a devolved into a movement whining about social issues. Instead of realizing !@#$ exist, they prefer to pin their problems on men while ignoring the reality that men face many of the same problems.

 

I support lesbian and gay rights, specifically their right to same-sex marriage, although I'm generally against marriage as an institution anyway, as I support a more secular government, and marriage is a religious institution. I believe transgender are mentally ill, and need help, although I don't think any less of them because of it. 

 

I'm Pro-Gun Control, as an Australian living in a country with much stricter gun control than america, I find the arguments against gun control to be, well stupid. 

[Sailor Jerry]

Let's see.

 

I'm Pro-choice, (within a certain timeframe). That being said, I believe both the mother and father should be present and the decision should be a joint one. Mothers shouldn't be allowed to abort the children if the father doesn't want them to. I don't buy this "it's her body" crap. It's their child. 

 

 

What if the father is not in the picture, or in the case of rape?  At what point in the process do you decide, when the father can't be found/contacted, does he lose his right to decide....1 month....2 months....6 months.  Hell by that time it's pretty much too late.

[Peter Quill]

click

So you roasted me?

 

 

I'm going to stop now.

[Peter Quill]

Let's see.

 

I'm Pro-choice, (within a certain timeframe). That being said, I believe both the mother and father should be present and the decision should be a joint one. Mothers shouldn't be allowed to abort the children if the father doesn't want them to. I don't buy this "it's her body" crap. It's their child. 

 

I'm pro-euthanasia, the idea that some people can suffer immensely prior to their death, and not be able to end it sooner, because of a bunch of uptight idiots is ridiculous.

 

I believe a countries first responsibility is to it's citizens, not foreigners. I'm generally against interfering in the sovereignty of other countries, and only believe in giving aid if it stands to benefit us in some way.

 

I'm against the immigration of muslims in western countries due to the dangers they pose. I recognize that some of them aren't bad people, I just don't consider that to be a factor that is important when it only takes one bad apple to endanger the lives of people within the country. Similar to what I said above, the government should prioritize the protection of the lives of the citizens in it's own country over people outside of the country.

 

I'm a firm believer in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. I'm against things like affirmative action, as that just creates inequality in itself. I believe all are equal, regardless of race, gender, sexuality. That being said, I also recognize the reality that people are !@#$. I don't believe people should be given "safe spaces" and the victimhood culture is childish and all involved need to grow the !@#$ up.

 

I'm an Anti-Feminist, I believe women in most western countries, have equal rights, Rape culture doesn't exist, the gender wage gap is a myth. Feminism has a devolved into a movement whining about social issues. Instead of realizing !@#$ exist, they prefer to pin their problems on men while ignoring the reality that men face many of the same problems.

 

I support lesbian and gay rights, specifically their right to same-sex marriage, although I'm generally against marriage as an institution anyway, as I support a more secular government, and marriage is a religious institution. I believe transgender are mentally ill, and need help, although I don't think any less of them because of it. 

 

I'm Pro-Gun Control, as an Australian living in a country with much stricter gun control than america, I find the arguments against gun control to be, well stupid. 

I love you.

[Stefan Thorne]

 

Quote

I am actually a Canadian living in Australia, on my analogy I think you read to deeply into it I know the clear difference between cultures and ethnic groups in Europe I also tend to know clear differences in culture in the Middle East something from, what you typed appeared as if you assumed because Palestinians are predominately Sunni Islam that the neighbouring countries of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria they have the exact same culture. This is not true all those nations have quite unique cultures similarly to what i was trying to say in my analogy.

 

Yes, I also do know how the map was drawn after WW1. It was poorly done with the sole purpose of consolidating colonial footholds in the region as well as carving up territory and resources 

 

In this situation, I am not overcomplicating the issue as it is already is extremely complicated due to the history and  background of the situation. If you don't believe I have a solution trust me I strongly advocate for a two-state a possibly in the far future a single state. But we cannot continue to support Israel the way we currently are with military support as well as ignoring the struggles of the Palestinians such as you mentioned illegal settlements that breach UNSC Resoultion 446 as well as the Geneva convetion by displacing citizens of the occupied state in favour of the occupiers own people. Need I mention the largest open aired prison of the Gaza Strip where they are not allowed to import or export any goods without the say of the Israeli Government also having one of the highest unemployment rates with 43% of the 1.8 million being unemployed with 60% of youth unable to find work or a sustainable job. With current issues like this, I cannot on my own accord support a government that frequently denies fair treatment and equality of another ethnic group as well as stall peace processes to further displace and assimilate another culture. 

 

I would also like to say that Populism is a weak ideology for fools who wish to follow the most current trend based on popular opinion rather than what they actually believe on the basis of getting votes and popularity. In cases like those I would rather debate with a conservative like you because at least you know where you stand   

Edited August 16, 2016 by Stefan Thorne

[Sketchy]

What if the father is not in the picture, or in the case of rape?  At what point in the process do you decide, when the father can't be found/contacted, does he lose his right to decide....1 month....2 months....6 months.  Hell by that time it's pretty much too late.

 

Obviously it's circumstantial, but I don't think those few scenarios justify the exclusion of fathers from the decision in every other scenario.

 

I'm no expert on the abortion process, I can imagine it would be a difficult issue to solve considering the number of variables involved. But considering the gravity of the issue I think it needs to be addressed regardless.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Wait. Wut?

You would pick a person who doesn't have to worry about the long-term repercussions of their decisions so as long as they get reelected and will have to pander and give special consideration to specific groups in order to do that in a system in which 51% of the people decide what the other 49% has to put up with?

If the State itself applied the same laws enforced upon the people also are applied to the Representatives, definitely. That is what is supposed to be happening, but it is not. You are also looking at the US through a very Federalized lens. You and I can effect local areas, which most countries sadly are limited to virtually no local governing elected bodies. I live in a pretty good area where many have eliminated a lot of Federal issues on a local scale, in education especially.

[Rozalia]

You know Gabranth for someone who holds these sort of views you sure do give up a lot. I'm a firm believer in such a thing as a "breaking point" myself. Even if the enemies of the people, such as those who protect and nurture plagues like Islam, cannot be defeated in the now... eventually it will be pushed too far and then who knows the horrors that will be unleashed but it can be certain that they will lose. We already see it today that the more they push the more they shift the populace to the extremes. 

As for Western values I assume your change is due to people using it against you in arguments and stating that your views are not western. I can understand, been told as such myself on a variety of topics. What I'll say there is there is no firm definitions on these things but there is something that is quite clear. Political correctness, Multiculturalism, and so on are not Western values. They are Globalist values.

[ComradeMilton]

On 9/6/2017 at 9:15 AM, Gabranth said:

 

I was looking through my post history and found this was one of my first, roughly a year ago. It is nice to reflect on the views one has had and how events have since changed them. Besides, it's a good thread overall and should have more attention really.

 

As far as this is concerned, largely unchanged. I still believe it is more important to cater to your own citizens and their needs rather than the wants of other, richer countries in order to turn a profit. This home-based market is central to the nationalist philosophy, and although globalism and late-stage capitalism are said to have lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty in places such as Asia and Latin America, the reliance these 'weak' countries have on the need for trade is almost unbearable in my eyes. It is more important to me to have a state that is capable of sustaining itself rather than relying on another country to satiate its own needs. Especially in my own country, Australia, manufacturing jobs are seeing a steady and sure decrease across the board while we continue to import manufactured goods from China and other manufacturing giants in that area. Service based jobs, to me, only stifle an economy and prevent overall growth, as you are only transferring money between the citizens of your own nation, while other nations you import from are turning a profit from their deals. This is especially apparent in Australia as mining is easily our biggest industry, and simply put, we sell stuff to Asia, and buy it back in the form of manufactured stuff for more money. Net loss. Just for clarity do you support introduction of UBI?

This has been bolstered and since expanded upon. I am now a firm believer in absolute sacerdotal monarchism. As a sort of substitute for a philosopher king, the head of the religion is also head of state, allowing for just laws in the eyes of the national religion. These laws are written and carried out unfettered by parliament and the people as the just mind of the sacerdotal king pays no heed to the opinions of the many, for a man whose life it is to find out what is good and what isn't certainly has a better idea of just and unjust laws than the average man. I am still not sure whether I support elective or hereditary, but to me, it does not matter. It works really well as another check on power too. Elizabeth's used it, but extremely infrequently. I'm similar, but would insist on an actual royal simply because they've had their entire lives as experience for the role of a monarch. Removal of the EC and modification to include PR would also be helpful.

I still very much hold this attitude, even after some fiery debates on the forums a few months ago. I still believe that life begins at inception, and terminating that life is just as bad as murder. Even in the scenario that the mother may die by giving birth, I still do not believe in abortion, as it shows the mothers complete love and sacrifice to ensure the life of her child. Should mention I believe in memorialising those who die in childbirth. (Fun fact, Spartan women who died in childbirth were considered equal to a Spartan soldier who died in combat, and were given headstones.) I don't support abortion, personally, but am still Pro-Choice. 

!@#$-what? Lol, as long as homogeneity is retained in the nation it is good, but eugenics is not. In accordance with my 'every sperm is sacred' view, life is precious and should not be taken where we can help it. Does this include execution as a penalty for extreme crimes?

 

Funny, such a classic Gabranth quote. Yes, unrepentant sinners of all kinds should be punished, homosexuals included. Those homosexuals who suppress their desires are considered alright, as they do not infect the sanctity of the people. Which religion are we going to use as a basis for that, if it ever was done?

I was conflicted when writing this, and I am still conflicted about this issue. On the one hand, I believe they should all be shot, but on the other hand, I also believe in the above statement. Is one mental illness considered equal to another? Likely not. I suppose I will retain the same stance as my view on homosexuals. Why does homosexuality bother you, out of curiosity?

This belief has since been reinforced. I believe that people should hold the right to own firearms for the sole purpose of insurrection if their leader (the sacerdotal king) is no longer working in the common interest of the people, and is instead only using his position for personal gain. On that note, if there was an effective anti-corruption independent government watchdog, that would also suffice, but I do believe that the common man should hold some sway over his own destiny. Leaders are much more wary of their own actions and are likely to think twice before enacting a bill that was not in the interest of the common man if that man can back up his discontent. Do you think this is realistic?

I am currently undergoing my own research as to what the Australian welfare state entails. As of right now, 11.6% of personal income tax is redirected to dole bludgers, and that number is expected to rise dramatically as aged pensions and disability payments are getting even more funding in the near future as the Australian boomer generation is eclipsing while other government institutions are either stifling or getting a funding cut to pay for more of these pensions. Needless to say, I believe a person should be responsible for their own finances, and a retired person should hope to live on the money they saved when they worked to spend in their golden years. If they do not make enough or spend to frivolously, they should have children to fall back on. If that is not an option, well... Government payments should never be one. What do you suggest we do instead?

I'm conflicted on this one too. I believe that nukes should not be used in an MAD-type scenario, as it is the politicians who declare war, not the people. In that regard, I believe nukes should be limited and used in tactical scenarios, rather than the slaughter of innocents like we saw in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Still believe only developed and stable nations should have access to nukes (looking at you, Pakistan). Regarding Pakistan the US already has plans to invade and take possession if a dangerous government is introducted. I think making nuclear involvement would reduce hesitancy to use them and have serious consequences in the future if permitted.

Honestly could not give a rat's arse about Western values anymore, they secured the fate of the West as a decadent nation that was blasé about the replacement of its own system. Liberalism is the HIV that allowed the cancer that is Islam to flourish. How's that?

Too right. Europe was apathetic about securing its borders and now it has secured its fate as an extension of the Islamic world. Birth rates don't lie, Germany, France, Sweden, all will become Islamic majority nations within our lifetimes without a fight. AFAIK that's all temporary

The U.S' gigantic military is a relic from the Reagan era, it is simply no longer needed. Caecus made the point that U.S military hegemoney is a good thing as it means no one will step out of line, but it also assumes that the U.S is right on everything. I suppose when you win it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong. No, I still believe the U.S would do better to continue focusing inwards rather than outwards, as it has enough internal problems already with the increasing left-right divide. Constant posturing to other nations is just dick-wagging to me now. 600 billion dollars, that's more than what my country earns in a year in tax. The U.S already has like 6,000 nukes, I don't see why a conventional military is even thought about now. It is clear the U.S has no qualms about killing the civillians of enemy nations. Nine thousand, though  the difference isn't really much of an issue, but I agree. Do we really need like eleven carrier battle groups, for example?

 

On 9/6/2017 at 10:08 PM, Rozalia said:

You know Gabranth for someone who holds these sort of views you sure do give up a lot. I'm a firm believer in such a thing as a "breaking point" myself. Even if the enemies of the people, such as those who protect and nurture plagues like Islam, cannot be defeated in the now... eventually it will be pushed too far and then who knows the horrors that will be unleashed but it can be certain that they will lose. We already see it today that the more they push the more they shift the populace to the extremes. 

As for Western values I assume your change is due to people using it against you in arguments and stating that your views are not western. I can understand, been told as such myself on a variety of topics. What I'll say there is there is no firm definitions on these things but there is something that is quite clear. Political correctness, Multiculturalism, and so on are not Western values. They are Globalist values. Does the US have a commitment to use Western values (assuming they exist uniformly?

 

[ComradeMilton]

4 hours ago, Gabranth said:

No, I believe a man should earn whatever the profit of the product he produces nets him. I don't believe in any government intervention regarding income levels. I believe that if a man cannot sustain himself with his chosen profession, then he must find one that does. UBI becomes necessary as more and more jobs are phased out in favor of automation and robotics. When we reach a point where huge swaths of the population are unable to find a paid position how do we have an economy? Major groups of people will have no option to work and without demand our economy's really not going to do well.

Killing criminals is not the same as murder. The killing of a man that murders an innocent family is morally just in the scales of lady justice. Allowing felons to stay alive cheapens human life as it belittles their crimes entirely. A fetus commits no crime, and deserves no punishment, whereas a criminal does an action which warrants an equal reaction. Society teaches how bad an action is by the severity of the punishment associated. Considering there is no action that elicits the response of an abortion on the side of the unborn, abortion is always unjust. So, sanctity of life until born, then murder is no longer a problem? Is life sacred or not?

http://www.catechism.cc/articles/homosexuality-sin.htm
Catholicism. Okay, given how we can't do that (for the same reason no one can introduce Sharia law except in small, agreed to arbitration sort of arrangements like certain Jewish people do, how and why would we do this?

Sure, it's the entire point of revolution. There should always be a safeguard against tyranny that actively works against the interests of the people. How will people armed with handguns and semi-automatic or slower rifles going to perform against drones, tanks, bombers, strafing from aircraft, deployment of special forces units and so on?

I am suggesting we do nothing. It is not our responsibility to shoulder the burden of someone else's poor choices. I believe that if someone truly felt they needed money from an outside source, and someone else truly believed that they had a duty to help those in need regardless of their previous actions which led them to that state, then that is only their business and none of mine. Charity over welfare. I should not be forced to cater for someone else's crappy decision making. We tried that. No one donates. Why do you assume they're bad decisions that have been made? It is our responsibility to ensure we don't have people dying in the streets because they can no longer even receive emergency care, or that abandoned children starve or die from exposure on the streets because anti-abortion groups forced the birth and then entirely lost interest? As I said we've pretty much already tried this and it doesn't work. It also didn't work in the United Kingdom during around the same period giving Charles Dickens all manner of horrid details for his work.

If the European nations were completely conservative, Islam would never be able to take a hold in their nations as the opposition would be so severe. Poland or Hungary for example. Or, if the European countries made an effort to help the immigrants better attach and adjust to their new homes. Belgium not forcing them all into a ghetto where there are no jobs, no entertainment, and few possibilities for them a population such as that will often turn to religion. Given most of the imams Saudi Arabia is kind enough to offer, they're generally hardcore Wahab and their preaching takes these alienated people excluded from most of the rest of society in their new countries into more and more angry extremist and we begin being attacked for it. Wouldn't it be easier to just help these people adjust into a new culture, find jobs, not isolate them in ghettos and so on?ut 

To be honest I find your political beliefs not only in opposition to mine, but utterly horrifying given your apparent lack of empathy.

 

[ComradeMilton]

1 hour ago, Gabranth said:

Just to be completely clear: While I don't agree with your political beliefs they remain your beliefs and I have no intention of implying or stating your beliefs should be adopted or disregarded.

UBI does not become necessary, low skilled jobs will be phased out by automation and that is simply a fact of life unless there are measures to prevent it. When there are large swathes of people that can't find a job then we have reached post-scarcity and pure automation and we have no need for an economy as everything required for life is provided for us. If you believe this future is a good thing then I recommend having a look at this experiment. It's not just unskilled labor. Skilled labor positions in many areas have already been phased out in favor of automation. Examples include the automotive industry and pretty soon investment banking. With a complete lack of demand due to absence of funds or methods of acquiring funds demand evaporates and the automated systems stop being useful since nearly no one would be able to purchase the goods. I did watch the video you linked, but I don't think it really applies very well. Alternating the methods of consumer income artificially to preserve some degree of demand is very, very different from attempting to form a utopia.

Killing murderers is not murder, it is justice. Life is sacred until there comes such a time where a person corrupts their soul irreversibly, at which point their life is no longer able to be allowed to live and they cannot be saved.  Life is sacred for people who do not commit grave sins that result in excommunication - doesn't quite roll off the tongue the same way. We disagree, definitely, on whether or not it is murder. I would classify murder as the intentional termination of another person's life. That would include the state doing so as well. Capital punishment is very expensive, prone to killing innocent people and with the manner in which it is currently being conducted in the United States often an infliction of cruel and unusual punishment due to the lack of skill, generally, of the people willing to work on this sort of thing. A life sentence is cheaper, demonstrates that murder is wrong no matter who does it, and can be altered if it's shown that the person initially convicted of a crime is found in the future not to have committed the act.

There is no reason why we cannot, there is simply too much will against it. If there is enough support for this policy then it will go through - the simplest aspect of democracy. It doesn't matter how, and we should do it because it is the will of God, easy enough. These are simply my beliefs, I don't have a 10 point plan on how to enact this stuff. Well, we would basically first need to remove the obstructions to favoring one religion over another, force everyone who isn't Catholic to act in accordance with the catechism and Church policies no matter the actual religion of the individual and even forced to do things specifically forbidden by that individual's actual religious beliefs.

If there is a large enough resentment for the king then the armed forces will mutiny, as they did in Russia. Regardless, even if there was a civil war, it would not be in the leaders' interest to keep the fight going as he will not have subjects to rule over. What is the point of killing all your subjects? Besides, who is to say that there can't be private militias and PMCs that have access to all the tools of the armed forces and more? If the government have something to fear, then it will act according to the interest of the people, else it will find that it is acting against its own interest as well. If the government has nothing to fear from the people, then it will act with impunity. The government currently already has nothing to fear from citizens. Russian changes lasted like two days and didn't involve many military personnel or their equipment. Virtually all of the methods you mentioned has no useful inclusion of untrained citizens using consumer-grade weapons, I notice. Perhaps after we trim the First Amendment we can do the same to the Second?

That isn't true at all. World Vision Australia, which is only one charity here, earned 435 million dollars through charity last year, that's around 3 times larger than the budget for social welfare programs. (If you don't believe me, heres a few links: https://www.worldvision.com.au/docs/default-source/annual-reports/wv-annual-reports/annual-report-2016.pdf, http://www.budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/bp1/html/bp1_bs5-01.htm. Trust me I've done my research.) People don't become bankrupt and homeless through good decision-making, and if there are scenarios that don't include bad decision-making, like natural disasters or something to that effect, then there are other government institutions to protect and help people from that. I don't know if you're talking about Ghana or America when you talk about people dying in the streets - that is such a ridiculous statement it holds absolutely no credibility at all whatsoever. Emergency service workers are obligated to help anyone in need - have you ever heard of the Hippocratic oath? Regarding dying children, lol, are you so out of touch that you've never heard of child protective services? Even an orphanage? There is always going to be a shelter for children. Removal of the welfare state, even in its extremely weak form in the United States kills people. I'm a bit confused here, though so perhaps you could explain this point with a bit more detail. My understanding of what you stated here was, in general, something similar to libertarianism in some form with the elimination of most government agencies at every level in favor of voluntary charitable contributions that would theoretically take their place, If that's the case, the people dying in the streets from starvation or exposure is likely to become as common as it was during the American robber baron period or the late Victorian era of the United Kingdom.

No, it would not be better to attempt to get people from the Islamic world to integrate because they simply will not. It would be better for these people to attempt to help their own countries rather than run to a better one and expect to live freely and happily. Great nations are built on struggle, and these people would rather seek instant gratification in a better nation whilst, in turn, destroying it. What has been destroyed? If we're talking about the United States as a destination the "instant" gratification you mention is more like a four year period of investigation and vetting while the individual remains elsewhere. If you meant France or Belgium, each has specifically forced immigrants to live in isolated areas in such concentrations that it essentially creates miniature Islamic states. The lack of jobs, opportunities, education, trades and so on is extremely limited in these areas and outside those areas discrimination is so rampant it's hared to decide if it's even worth leaving the ghetto to try. Spreading them out, offering jobs or training or both, classes in their newly adopted culture can be done for other Islamic immigrants along with free classes in language to adopt and embrace their new home and have on offer the majority (to such an extreme point it hardly merits mention) moderate Muslims who are integrated into the new culture, values and so forth while also not removing their religious beliefs and excluding Saudi Arabian (and others, of course) intention of sending Wahhab Imams for the mosques in favor French Imams who have already adapted to their new country and how to act in order to retain their religious beliefs while including adoption of the new values, governmental structure, culture, language of their new country. The countries I have named so far are a small sample, but both do essentially the opposite of all of these things, which leads to depression, desperation, dislike for those who exclude them from their new society, preventing employment from discrimination, geographical disconnection from the rest of the country's society, poverty (generally as a result of failing to find a job which doesn't discriminate against them), and so on create such a desperate feeling that they reach out and with such a concentration keeping the immigrants isolated from the society they are attempting to enter as participants leads many to religion and due to Saudi attempts at turning these desperate people into extremists virtually all due to excluding them from their country's society and allowing extremist views to come to the surface in one wayor another,

Big achievement, seems we have a very different idea of what empathy is. Never exposing anyone to a challenge or bailing someone out of a difficult situation is a not an aspect of empathy. Relying on big government institutions to help every person out of a difficult situation is not empathy. Government exists to write just laws and enforce them, whilst defending the country from outside forces. Everything else is of no business to the government. Empathy is the ability to feel what others are feeling. So if you see someone who is homeless and shivering trying to sleep on concrete wherever they can find a place that permits it would not be a favorable alternative to helping to help change their lives and socioeconomic situations with free or low cost job training and/or continuing education. In the meantime issuing aid in order for these people to buy food, pay modified rent and so on would likely be something you might find to be better than just hoping desperation doesn't kill them in an attempt to force them to struggle to live long enough to somehow remove themselves from an extreme situation entirely on their own. I'm not a psychiatrist and can't produce a diagnosis, but what I read the first time seemed to indicate a lack of empathy. If I am mistaken, I apologize. I hope none of this offends you as that is not my goal. I am trying to be as respectful as possible in comparing some of my opinions and some opinions that are held very widely.

 

[Rozalia]

Milton not being a complete loony. What a sight. I don't know if I should pleased to see my argument for UBI word for word or embarrassed as his stating it turns people off. 

What I will say is you are as ever incorrect on Islam. Wahhabi gets a lot of coverage but ultimately their numbers are low and largely just produce those fanatics that even the most pathetic weaklings agree need to be defeated. Groups like the Deobandi are far more insidious, as are all those other less talked about Conservative Islamic groups. Unlike the Wahhabi who provoke their guys to violent action against the Kafir (and are promptly defeated as a result) sorts like the Deobandi attempt to use systems of government (Democracy) against the country itself, to carve out special privileges and protections for itself, to allow itself to carry out it's disgusting acts with impunity. How many care to tackle the treatment of women in these Islamic communities? The racism where "their women" cannot be touched by a Kafir (the reverse is fine though of course)? The forced conversion of women by (abusive) Muslim men? The matter of people who either leave the faith or try to be more liberal getting expelled from the community and in many cases even their family (and this can go beyond simply shunning the person and into violence)? The discrimination where Muslim business owners don't hire non-Muslims due to not being Muslims? The Muslim hatecrimes against Ahmadis? It goes on and on. 

We can have nice integrated modern Muslims certainly. However, only if Conservative Islam, and that does not just mean the Wahhabi are wiped out as a force in the west. We as a people didn't suffer the loony Fundy Christians for so long just to import an even more disgusting sort who unlike the Fundy Christians today are heavily protected by so called Liberal and Progressive people. 

[Dubayoo]

On 8/14/2016 at 10:25 PM, Jean Betrand said:

I am a Conservative who believes in Pro Life, I believe that Homosexuality is an Abomination (I don't hate homosexuals themselves though), I believe that people should have the right to bear arms, and I am a firm believer in individualism. I support NATO, as I support the United States continuing to support Israel (please do not start a flame war!). I completely think that we should not get rid of Nuclear Weapons as otherwise, we could be nuked and not be able to retaliate.

Most Jews are liberal.  Neoconservatism never really made much sense.
 

On 8/14/2016 at 10:43 PM, Peter Quill said:

I am a social democrat who believes that government should work for the people, that people have a right to choose their sexuality and the gender they want to marry, that war should only be used if necessary, that guns should be kept in the hands of law abiding citizens and should not end up in the hands of some loony/terrorist, that women have a right to choose, that free trade is absolutely necessary in this day and age (and there's nothing you and I can do about it), that there should be a large welfare state to make sure everyone gets their fair share, and that Israel should stop playing the Holocaust card.

Oh, and i'm also catholic btw

Most Catholics are liberal, so no surprise.

On 8/14/2016 at 10:52 PM, Stefan Thorne said:

I would most likely be a Democratic Socialist or Social Democrat. I believe that the market is controlling us rather than we controlling it as such the market should be heavily regulated while still allowing for economic competition and fairness. Another thing I follow is the concept of democracy without it the state tends to lose its way thus as shown with the implementation of communism throughout multiple nations never worked out quite as well due to corruption and bureaucracy within the ruling parties. Finally, I believe that people have a right to choose what they do with themselves so as long as it is not harmful to themselves and others. 

The market exploits socialists in order to substitute meritocracy with aristocracy.  The market understands how socialists use democracy to run the economy via a popularity contest which enables charming people to continue rising through the ranks of office politics.  Basically, aristocrats exploit how tradition is artistically appealing in trying to seem useful.  The more socialists carry on their crusade, the more they enable aristocrats to win.

 

Anyway, my belief in a nutshell is, "Anarchists, fascists, pragmatists... they're all the same thing."

[Dubayoo]

On 8/17/2016 at 10:41 PM, Sketchy said:

 

Obviously it's circumstantial, but I don't think those few scenarios justify the exclusion of fathers from the decision in every other scenario.

 

I'm no expert on the abortion process, I can imagine it would be a difficult issue to solve considering the number of variables involved. But considering the gravity of the issue I think it needs to be addressed regardless.

Abortion is just something horny people want to do because they're too juvenile to take responsibility for their actions...

...and something spoiled brats want to do because they want to screw around with fellow attractive people while manipulating the masses into letting them do it just because the masses are too awkward to punish them.

Oh... and the masses are super horny themselves, so they're pro-choice to hold out for the odd chance that one day, they might get laid.

On 8/16/2016 at 1:51 AM, Shadowstar1922 said:

you know that they do not know much about the situation when they think the Palestine v Israel thing is all about religion rather than land and ethnic cleansing and settler-colonialism. 

Actually, the whole thing goes back to the Book of Genesis in determining who was Abraham's proper heir: Ishmael or Issac?

[ComradeMilton]

1 hour ago, Rozalia said:

Milton not being a complete loony. What a sight. I don't know if I should pleased to see my argument for UBI word for word or embarrassed as his stating it turns people off. 

What I will say is you are as ever incorrect on Islam. Wahhabi gets a lot of coverage but ultimately their numbers are low and largely just produce those fanatics that even the most pathetic weaklings agree need to be defeated. Saudi Arabia specifically and with immense effort deploys Wahhab Imams, paid by Saudi Arabia as well as funding the creation of mosques to ensure their Imams are the ones leading and attempting to convert other Muslims into a similar extreme reading of the Quran. Groups like the Deobandi are far more insidious, as are all those other less talked about Conservative Islamic groups. Unlike the Wahhabi who provoke their guys to violent action against the Kafir (and are promptly defeated as a result) sorts like the Deobandi attempt to use systems of government (Democracy) against the country itself, to carve out special privileges and protections for itself, to allow itself to carry out it's disgusting acts with impunity. How many care to tackle the treatment of women in these Islamic communities? The racism where "their women" cannot be touched by a Kafir (the reverse is fine though of course)? The forced conversion of women by (abusive) Muslim men? The matter of people who either leave the faith or try to be more liberal getting expelled from the community and in many cases even their family (and this can go beyond simply shunning the person and into violence)? The discrimination where Muslim business owners don't hire non-Muslims due to not being Muslims? The Muslim hatecrimes against Ahmadis? It goes on and on.  No one's said they're perfect. I didn't even do that, I simply explained why terrible policy decisions given by, among others, France and Belgium are partly responsible for the increase of radicalized Muslims turning to terror when they likely began as closer to secular than devout followers of islam in many cases, for example. The estimated number of Muslims with beliefs like those you state are very limited. If we increase from the 0.0333% of Islamic followers actively trying to attack the West in ever increasing levels and methods like conservative countries in the Middle East (and we'd be including non-Muslims already in SA for work purposes or whatever, the percentage of worldwide Islam as you describe remains an incredibly small number that's at least greater than less than one percent still leaves an extremely small minority and a poor thing to use in making decisions affecting them.

We can have nice integrated modern Muslims certainly. However, only if Conservative Islam, and that does not just mean the Wahhabi are wiped out as a force in the west. We as a people didn't suffer the loony Fundy Christians for so long just to import an even more disgusting sort who unlike the Fundy Christians today are heavily protected by so called Liberal and Progressive people.  We continue to support and permit loony fundamentalist Christians to this day. Moderate to even conservative Muslims are in no way harmful. The extremist groups like ISIS, al Nusra, Al Quaeda, Abu Sayiff and so one contain no conservative Muslims because they wouldn't participate in those activities. Ironically mostly because it would be violating the Quran to do so.

 

1 hour ago, Dubayoo said:

Abortion is just something horny people want to do because they're too juvenile to take responsibility for their actions... Or a foreign tissue easily removed.

...and something spoiled brats want to do because they want to screw around with fellow attractive people while manipulating the masses into letting them do it just because the masses are too awkward to punish them. Or a result of little or no sex education in schools having results opponents of abortion should probably be forcing to change that
 at the school level or fail to do and end up with a higher rate of abortion and a higher rate of teenage pregnancy, both of which occur in much smaller numbers of more liberal states because people are taught how to properly conduct safe sex and the better medical care allowing easy avoidance of pregnancy with the OTC pill (which can't be abortion before you make that argument as Plan B doesn't abort, it prevents eggs from being fertilized in the first place.)

Oh... and the masses are super horny themselves, so they're pro-choice to hold out for the odd chance that one day, they might get laid. I'm Pro-Choice, but not really supportive of abortion.

Actually, the whole thing goes back to the Book of Genesis in determining who was Abraham's proper heir: Ishmael or Issac? The US has no official or unofficial inclusion of religion into law so it's pretty irrelevant, tbh.

 

[Ikhan]

Nice gravedig

[ComradeMilton]

Inadvertent, but seems to be something a few people want to discuss so I guess it worked out alright.

[Rozalia]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/06/who-runs-our-mosques/

Quote

According to a database of British Islam, however, only two out of 1,700 mosques in Britain follow modernist interpretations of the Koran.

So 1668 follow fundy garbage. 99.99%

Quote

In a 2011 survey of Islam in the United States, 56 per cent of mosques described themselves as following an interpretation of Islam adapted to modern circumstances.

Understand the context I speak from please, that of a European standing. Muslims in America are apparently much better behaved... likely owing to not having the necessary bodies or perhaps hardline American practises having put the fear in them.

Quote

At virtually every Islamic gathering I have attended, men and women have been seated separately. Even at social events in relatively middle-of-the-road mosques, a sheet will be hung across the hall, with women and children eating on one side and men on the other.

The management committees which run the mosques are usually men-only (or at least male-dominated). And these are the relatively liberal mosques, insofar as they allow women on the premises. Around a quarter of mosques in the UK do not. (What, I wonder, would our reaction be if a network of men-only churches were to spring up in Britain?) Most Muslim men will shake my hand — but, to avoid embarrassment, I have learnt not to be the first one to extend my arm.

No one cares about the standing of women in Islam. This patriarchy in Islam is unquestionable apparently. I have personally ran into that bit at the end myself, usually attribute it to racism more than religion though.

Quote

So which Islamic schools of thought run Britain’s mosques today? The influence of Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi movement is often cited. But the Wahhabis — or Salafis as they prefer to be called — control just 6 per cent of mosques.

The largest single group — the one which arguably gives Islam in Britain much of its character — is the Deobandi. It controls around 45 per cent of Britain’s mosques and nearly all the UK-based training of Islamic scholars. What most Deobandi scholars have in common is a conservative interpretation of Islamic law: television and music for the purposes of entertainment, for example, are frowned upon if not banned. Women are advised not to emerge from their homes any more than is necessary.

The Wahhabis for all their press are not even 1 in 10. The Deobandi are near half and put forward disgusting fundy nonsense. Their followers are the ones when asked if Homosexuality should be illegal say yes. The ones who say they want Sharia law. So on. Note they do this openly which is simply brazen, imagine how many don't dare but believe it (only 23% or something actually oppose Sharia). 

Quote

There is a good reason why this interpretation of Islam sounds so similar to that of Afghanistan: the Taleban movement grew out of the Deobandi madrassas of Pakistan.

The Pakistani connection there by the way is why Ahmadis get as attacked as they do by the way. 

Quote

Many of the Islamic groups I have encountered see no contradiction between their religious identity and loyalty to Britain. At a Sufi circle I attended, followers included the Queen in their prayers. When asked whether it was permissible for a Muslim to join MI6, they answered without hesitation that their sheikh had told them it was.  A leading member of a gated community of Bohras — a conservative Ismaili sect — told me proudly that one of their number had joined the RAF. The Bohras’ worldwide leader had advised them that to love one’s country is part of one’s faith.

Note these Muslims. They certainly aren't perfect but lets just say they pass and are fine. Those people are the ones you say are good people and no threat. 

Quote

But such willingness to integrate is less evident among the Deobandis. The movement was, after all, founded in colonial India to protect Muslim identity from British influence. Its early leaders were involved in a plot to support Britain’s first world war enemies to overthrow imperial rule. The history is reinforced by religious ideology: Mufti al-Kawthari echoes the views of other Deobandi scholars when he advises followers on his website that, while one should be polite to non-Muslims, one should not take them as close friends.

For all its ferocity, the debate about British Islam does not seem to have developed much over the years. Successive governments have sought to boot out foreign imams and deny visas to radical clerics as if they were dealing with a contagion. It is, perhaps, time to stop blaming foreigners. Illiberal Islam is thoroughly British these days.

Now remember for a second that the Deobandis combined with the Wahhabis are a little over 50% of Muslims in Britain. At best, yes, at best, only just little over 50% Muslims in Britain are bad ones. This is not a "tiny minority" as you put it. 

Where are the fights to get women in power in Islam? To break segregation? To tackle the mountain of pure shit that exists in Islam? Nowhere. This is why I despise the progressive types. They will puff out their chest and can be brave when attacking long since dead men like Cecil Rhodes but when Islam comes up they kneel. I utterly despise Islam and I've talked to people about Ahmadis, apostates, women, and gays on what they face far more than any progressive I've ever met. I have talked to !@#$ing Nazis who have shown more care about Ahmadis than progressives. It is a !@#$ed up joke. 

Oh and as for fundy Christians they have been finished for quite a while. I know you have an American lens where they still have some claws in places but in Europe they are very much a finished force. Here where I am the Conservatives appeal more to Hindus than they do Christians. 

Now will you actually take in the info and shift your position or just try to state again that the problem Muslims are some mythical tiny minority?