War Hawk
-
Posts
143 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by War Hawk
-
-
rly makes u think..........
-
1
-
-
hurf durf, im posting on a forum 2 tell every1 2 go back 2 phighting how edgy m i
-
-
-snibedysnab-
#RollAlpha2016
-
-
Let's not forget that inspect element exists.
-
4
-
-
-
Boy, this thread took a strange turn.
-
Greetings.
As a self diagnosed person with Antisocial Personality Disorder, I'd like to give you guys to ask me any questions you want about Psychopaths and what it's like to be a Psychopath.
You're more likely a narcissist than a psychopath.
-
3
-
-
Except of course if a contested convention happens and the Republicans put up another Neocolonialist, [...]
I can't wait until the establishment decides to run a brokered convention. I can't wait until the globalist hyenas witness a wrath unseen for nearly a century.
-
1
-
-
-
Neutral Swinging Alliance
Pantheon
-
3
-
-
Since when is a piece of paper not the same thing as a document? Are you really going to act like you don't know what I'm talking about there?
Troll elsewhere.
You initially said, "At the end of the day, the constitution is a document, and it is up to us uphold it," but later said, "You realize it's just a piece of paper, right?" Those that use the phrase "just a piece of paper," when addressing the US Constitution, typically imply contempt for the document and what it stands for. I was merely pointing out a contradiction in your argument.
If you want to argue semantics further, I'll provide you the definitions and synonyms of the words "paper" and "document."
Troll elsewhere.
I'm not the one responding to a civil debate with one-liner rebukes.
---
Also, what...?
It also doesn't ban slavery. You realize it's just a piece of paper, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
-
It also doesn't ban slavery. You realize it's just a piece of paper, right?
Oh, now it's just a piece of paper? I'm going to provide you with one of your earlier statements below:
He has support, despite what the constitution says. At the end of the day, the constitution is a document, and it is up to us uphold it.
---
Except, in practice, enforcing our current laws amounts to forcefully evicting 12 million people from the country.
Yes, but the current laws don't state the time frame in which the deportation process must occur. It will likely happen gradually and humanely.
there goes all your credibility
If anything, the above statement removes your credibility. You made several of Trump's platforms constitutional issues when they weren't, and I addressed that.
Let me guess, you're now going to resort to personal attacks?
-
I try to err on the side of truth.
You try to err on the side of controversy.
America has, in the past, put people into internment camps based on their being of a major ethnicity of a country we are at war with. Trump is campaigning on tracking Muslims and refusing them entry to the country; on deporting 12 million illegals as well. He has support, despite what the constitution says. At the end of the day, the constitution is a document, and it is up to us uphold it.
What does the Constitution say about either or those issues? It certainly doesn't protect foreign citizens abroad, and while the 14th Amendment protects the children of illegal immigrants, I'm not aware of an amendment that protects illegal immigrants from deportation.
So, the country is America. The ethnic/religious groups are illegal immigrants and Muslims. What platform could someone actually get elected on here, and what could a president actually get away with?
I'd like to point out that legal Mexican immigrants and illegal Mexican immigrants largely fall into the same ethnic category. So, on the subject of deportation, it isn't a case of ethnic persecution, it's a case of enforcing our current laws. Furthermore, the proposed (temporary) ban of Muslim immigrants, and/or visitors, may be religious persecution in one's eyes, but at the end of the day, it's not a constitutional issue.
33% of our population is registered in the Republican party.
The parties are somewhat evenly split.
-
Americans are pretty !@#$ stupid. How else do you get Donald Trump leading in presidential polls anywhere?
Populism.
-
americans have been content with regime changes, nuclear weapons, and wars
content with exploiting other countries for our own benefit, and allying regimes with horrendous human rights records
Supplementing your questions with the above comments wasn't necessary.
would americans actually allow american citizens to be persecuted based on their religious beliefs?
To quote the First Amendment of the US Constitution:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.I don't know whether your first question referred to persecution at the hands of the US Government or persecution at the hands of a collective population of like-minded individuals, but if you were referring to the former: No, our elected officials would not act against the word of the current US Constitution under oath. If you were referring to the latter, "a collective population of like-minded individuals," one can not say how the more open-minded population would react. If they were a majority of the US population, they would likely be more vocal about their opposition to religious persecution; if they were a minority of the US population, they would be less vocal. It's not rocket science.if a person identical to hitler were to come into office today, how far could they go with the consent of the american people? what about that of the international community?
The US Government has checks and balances. Again, it's not rocket science.The United States would be met with hostility by the international community if "Literally-Hitler" took office. If our new leader's rhetoric is extreme enough, it would provoke economic sanctions and isolation coordinated by many - allies and enemies alike.It's a good thing we have Mr. Trump to vote for rather than Mrs. Hillary "Literally-Hitler" Clinton.how far could they go before we actually did something about it?
How far could who go with what? If you're talking about presidential policy, one president was nearly impeached for getting his dick sucked.trump is often accused of being a nazi, or a fascist, and such. this thread is not to discuss that.
Yes it is. Trump 2016.
-
Just because muslims are suddenly attacking people doesnt mean anything!
I hope you realize how silly that statement is - especially when you're arguing that Islam is a religion of peace.
-
o/ Pantheon
o/ Rose
-
I feel like a lot of those kinds of videos are borderline propaganda, only interested in promoting their own interests and viewpoints. I honestly doubt I could watch it and actually take it seriously.
You'd be correct in that Shaprio has his biases, but most of the points that he brings up aren't any less valid.
For example, a Muslim may hold extremist views while still remaining "peaceful." This would be similar to the Westboro Baptist Chruch - one of the most hateful organizations in the United States, yet they refrain from violence. Furthermore, Shapiro brings up an interesting theory that highlights a potential connection between the peaceful and the violent Muslim communities. This connection being that the peaceful community, sharing the same extremist views as their violent counterparts, enables violence perpetrated by certain Islamic groups because of their (peaceful) lack of rejection and, in some cases, because of their encouragement.
-
1
-
-
I don't know how we'd quell it, I haven't really thought about it and I probably won't either. But I do know that what you see as the "only ways to combat Islamic extremism", are not the only ways. That's rather close minded and I'd encourage you to use your imagination instead of narrowing down your options.
Peaceful Muslims have and do reject extremism, millions of them in fact. Trust me, if they were all extremists wiling to blow themselves up for their faith, things would be a lot worse. And sure, they should acknowledge that their religion can encourage violence as a means of communication and otherwise. But this isn't unique to Islam and I don't really believe they need to change their religion. The Qu'ran says a lot of messed up things and so does the Bible, and yet that doesn't mean people need to change their faith in order to not do these messed up things as peaceful Muslims and Christians are living proof of. I also agree that primarily the responsibility for fighting Islamic extremism lies with its peaceful followers, but everyone who can do something should do something.
I feel that the following video addresses your points better than I can.
-
Just because Muslims happen to commit more terrorist attacks than Buddhists does not mean that Islam is somehow a worse or more evil religion. Had history taken a different turn of events most terrorists attacks in the world could just as well have been committed by Christians, Hindus, Jews, and so on. Any religion and ideology has the potential for fanaticism and violence because some human beings are willing to go to extreme lengths to fight for what they believe in. This was true hundreds of years ago and it will probably be true until the Sun devours our planet. Islam isn't the problem, fanaticism and extremism is.
I may be anti-religious but I believe it's very important to make the distinction between the average Muslim who lives peacefully and Muslim extremists and fanatics who live their lives seeking to harm others because they interpret their religion in a particular way. To lump all people of any religion into the same category and to judge a religion consisting of millions of believers based on the actions of a small minority of them is ludicrous, it doesn't make any sense.
How do you suppose we quell extremism peddled at an increasing rate? The only ways to combat Islamic extremism (that I see) are open rejection of the Islamic faith or revision coordinated by peaceful Muslims, because modern Islamic extremism is a perversion of an archaic faith that has, time and time again, dismissed revision. It is the peaceful Muslim's responsibility to reject extremism, to educate their offspring, and to revise Islam. But the first step must be the acknowledgement that their religion can encourage violence as a means of communication. I understand that, under different circumstances, Christians or Jews would be in the same place that Muslims are today - however, that place is already here. Whether with rejection or revision, Islamic extremism must be stopped by its own peaceful followers.
-
1
-
-
Does Buddhism teach to murder?
Buddhists are murdering women and children
Its not about the religion, its about what you bring to it, and how you see it.
You see Islam as peaceful, adn bring peace, you get peace
Are Buddhists murdering on the same, systematic scale as Muslims? Should I provide you with another two months - yes, another two whole months of terror attacks? We (the West) condemn the ideology of National Socialism, and we pin it as a root cause of World War II. What's wrong with identifying the ideology of Islam as a root cause of modern terrorism?
To address your second point: If we bring peace, we get peace? Fair point - I forgot about the time those hijackers brought peace to the World Trade Center.
-
1
-
-
Terror attacks committed in the name of Islam in December 2015:
Terror attacks committed in the name of Islam in January 2016:
The Quran might contain some peaceful statements, but one needs to question how Islamic extremists are able to perpetuate violence and hostility with the "religion of peace." The frequency of terror attacks is increasing, and the solution certainly isn't to bury our heads in the sand and claim, "Islam has nothing to do with this body count."
Why Are Nazi Names Banned?
in Moderation Support
Posted
Nazi chainsaws intensify