The events in Manchester

[WTF]

Originally Posted by crashkopf

Fuck the muslims.

Trump was just praising their religion a couple of days ago...

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

...the overreaction to terrorist acts is exactly wtf the terrorists want.

Compare the loss of lives to auto accidents and then ask yourself if you are willing to outlaw cars?

Many of you folks (sic) ignorance and fear on this subject is disturbing

You are the ignorant fuck. Your nonchalance at the wanton and evil mass murder of children is beyond the pale. Only a moron - or someone who delights in provoking others with outrageously phony "equivalents" - would stupidly compare this to auto accidents. Go fuck yourself!

As for giving the terrorists "what they want", let's do it! Send them all to meet Allah as quickly as possible. We didn't mind giving Gary Gilmore what he wanted. No reason to treat the muslim miscreants any differently.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Does anyone want to argue the merits of immigration vetting tonight?

The issue should not be whether to vet immigrants, but how. We have vetted immigrants for well over a century. Sadly, as with so many other topics the "discussions" generally oversimplify things and divert the discussion that should be had.

Any simplistic vetting rubric will be a bad one. And neither camp of Wackos wants to actually have the hard discussion to come up with a good one. The LWW want to pretend none is needed, and we haven't done it in our history. The RWWs want to make it a one-item checklist--which would not have kept out the dredges of Castro's jails or the M-13s, since neither group were muslims.

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Thank God Donald Trump is President and not some nutless monkey.

Ah yes, more platitudes. So if we are so fortunate to have Trump as president, how has he actually fixed this problem? Put aside whether he is well meaning or not; suppose I accept the postulate that he is. WHAT great things has he done ABOUT PREVENTING THIS if he is so wonderful and we are so fortunate to have him at this point in time?

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

settlers u fatass idiot. you think 300 years ago they had immigration visas? who stamped those? the Chickasaw? the Cherokee?

Yes, the "settlers" were in reality invading scofflaws taking lands they wanted from the people already there. Not different from any other invading army/mob. No different at all really from Attila the Hun. Oh, excuse me, there are two differences: YOU were on the winning side, so it's OK. And the color of their skin. And their religion So I guess that's three.

so smart-ass .. where did the "Native Americans" really come from? they weren't any more "Native" that them whiteys from Europe.

they were ASIANS .. not "Native Americans"

Actually, check up on your archeology. It isn't quite that simple--but then this is the political forum, where simple minded is the order of the day. See your comrade Barley's comment. I would have thought you RWW "law and order" guys would abhor the use of violence to take land that belonged to someone else. Isn't that one of your major premises for owning guns: to shoot people who try and break into your homes?

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

That old line about immigrants. My family has been in this country since 1775 and I am a native. You want to pull that shit about American Indians and you've got to be reminded that the Indians came from Russia thousands of years ago. So they're not native...unless you insist that they are native. So what is your cut off then? I go back ten generations.

Why do so many of the inmates here feel the need to overlook even basic facts? Yes, because those facts don't fit their story line. When the first native American groups came over there was one kind of significant difference: THEY DIDN'T DISPLACE OTHER PEOPLE WHO ALREADY CLAIMED THE LAND. Your people did. Guns, germs, and steel. Caused upwards of 95% deaths among the NAs who were here pre-1492.

And by the way, as Dilbert correctly points out, there were several waves. And some of the decedents of the earlier waves DID (and DO) see the later waves as "invaders"

The cutoff is generally accepted to be 1492--but one can certainly argue it should be earlier.

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

the indians are technically natives.

the last migration took place 10,000 - 15,000 years ago. there were other waves that took place even earlier than that.

Thank you for a bit of sanity in this thread.

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Why 1492? Because it is politically correct and safe? We know the Vikings were here earlier. What would you say to someone who might be the descendant of some norseman who got his rocks off with some native girl up in Canada 600 years ago? The Japanese and Russians visited the west coast of the US and Canada before Columbus "discovered" America. Do any offspring count as natives? As for land ownership, which kind are you speaking of? European or Native American. In other words a specifically measured piece of ground that can be mapped out and is recognized in a courtroom or a vague wave of the arm while saying "this is the land of my fathers". Numbers, there were not enough native Americans to occupy the land that was here. There were many "Europeans" who came west, set up shop, and weren't any more invasive than a pimple on WTF's ass.

No, that is another thing I don't buy into; the 1492 clause. I can show you photos of gravesites (and some graves) of my family going back centuries. One thing does pop out suddenly, Obama must not been a native born American according to the left now. His father never even became an American and I guess, according to the left, his mother was not a native born American either.

To get back on topic; I see our murdering Muslim was the son of refugees. According to the left he is not a native born brit because he wasn't here before 1492.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

can show you photos of gravesites (and some graves) of my family going back centuries. .

You can't even remember how to log onto a computer and use your own discredited original user name!

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Why 1492? Because it is politically correct and safe? We know the Vikings were here earlier. What would you say to someone who might be the descendant of some norseman who got his rocks off with some native girl up in Canada 600 years ago? The Japanese and Russians visited the west coast of the US and Canada before Columbus "discovered" America. Do any offspring count as natives? As for land ownership, which kind are you speaking of? European or Native American. In other words a specifically measured piece of ground that can be mapped out and is recognized in a courtroom or a vague wave of the arm while saying "this is the land of my fathers". Numbers, there were not enough native Americans to occupy the land that was here. There were many "Europeans" who came west, set up shop, and weren't any more invasive than a pimple on WTF's ass.

No, that is another thing I don't buy into; the 1492 clause. I can show you photos of gravesites (and some graves) of my family going back centuries. One thing does pop out suddenly, Obama must not been a native born American according to the left now. His father never even became an American and I guess, according to the left, his mother was not a native born American either.

To get back on topic; I see our murdering Muslim was the son of refugees. According to the left he is not a native born brit because he wasn't here before 1492.

I wonder how Lieawatha Fauxcahontis Warren and the other lying liberals feel about HER mixed blood ancestor " comingling " ?

[BigLouie]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Does anyone want to argue the merits of immigration vetting tonight?

He was born and raised in England. Vetting some sperm?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You are the ignorant fuck. Your nonchalance at the wanton and evil mass murder of children is beyond the pale. Only a moron - or someone who delights in provoking others with outrageously phony "equivalents" - would stupidly compare this to auto accidents. Go fuck yourself!

As for giving the terrorists "what they want", let's do it!

It is not nonchalance at teenagers being murdered, it is a call to calmness and not overreaction like we did after 9/11.

While tragic, you are still more likely to die in a car accident and a teenage driver, more so.

We have been killing terrorist going on 15 years...

My hope is we do not give up more freedom in the name of safety for chicken shits like you.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

He was born and raised in England. Vetting some sperm?

BL is "connected" to the inner sanctum ....

... personally, I'd rather wait until ALL FACTS ARE IN!

The folks we don't "vet" today will be tomorrow's parents!

This little POS was once in a "community" that apparently ignored the "warning signs" or sympathized with the "warning signs" and failed to bring his "attitude" to the attention of the "authorities"!

San Bernardino was not that long ago. One was born here, one wasn't, and both were parenting a new member of their "family"!

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Old-T

The issue should not be whether to vet immigrants, but how. We have vetted immigrants for well over a century. Sadly, as with so many other topics the "discussions" generally oversimplify things and divert the discussion that should be had.

Any simplistic vetting rubric will be a bad one. And neither camp of Wackos wants to actually have the hard discussion to come up with a good one. The LWW want to pretend none is needed, and we haven't done it in our history. The RWWs want to make it a one-item checklist--which would not have kept out the dredges of Castro's jails or the M-13s, since neither group were muslims.




Ah yes, more platitudes. So if we are so fortunate to have Trump as president, how has he actually fixed this problem? Put aside whether he is well meaning or not; suppose I accept the postulate that he is. WHAT great things has he done ABOUT PREVENTING THIS if he is so wonderful and we are so fortunate to have him at this point in time?






Why do so many of the inmates here feel the need to overlook even basic facts? Yes, because those facts don't fit their story line. When the first native American groups came over there was one kind of significant difference: THEY DIDN'T DISPLACE OTHER PEOPLE WHO ALREADY CLAIMED THE LAND. Your people did. Guns, germs, and steel. Caused upwards of 95% deaths among the NAs who were here pre-1492.

And by the way, as Dilbert correctly points out, there were several waves. And some of the decedents of the earlier waves DID (and DO) see the later waves as "invaders"

The cutoff is generally accepted to be 1492--but one can certainly argue it should be earlier.



Thank you for a bit of sanity in this thread.

if you bothered to read the link i posted, it does state there were several migrations.

The ancestors of Native American populations from the tip of Chile in the south to Canada in the north, migrated from Asia in at least three waves,

very first paragraph.

as usual you are oversimplifying things. you are portraying tribes of the Americas, both hemispheres in general as these peaceful tribes that all got along .. until these evil euros showed up. completely false. just watched the movie Apocalypto .. you tell me how peaceful these tribes were?

clearly some were .. and those tended to be the ones that got wiped out. not by evil euros or germs .. but by other competing tribes. same in North America. many people want to whitewash the fact that many tribes were extremely violent against other tribes well before any euro ever found the Americas.

a good example is the Comanche nation. they didn't like anyone else. not other so-called native tribes or the Spanish. they kicked the Spanish out of present day Texas several times before any white guy ever showed up. so were the Comanche right to fend off euros i.e. the Spanish but wrong to war against other established tribes in North America?

not so easy to moralize is it? and the concept of "To the victor goes the spoils of War" applies to every nation and race since the beginning of history .. at least history as we know it.

why blame mainly white euros for that but not the Comanche or say .. the Mongrel Horde which nearly conquered all the land from China to the far west of Europe?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

He was born and raised in England. Vetting some sperm?

They forget that Tim McVeigh was blowback from unjust government action in Ruby Ridge and Waco.

Not sure how lustylady thinks about the government murder of those kids in Waco. Probably cheered it.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Ah yes, more platitudes. So if we are so fortunate to have Trump as president, how has he actually fixed this problem? Put aside whether he is well meaning or not; suppose I accept the postulate that he is. WHAT great things has he done ABOUT PREVENTING THIS if he is so wonderful and we are so fortunate to have him at this point in

It has been over 90 days since the proposal of the initial ban. You'd think, if it was not just some political move, that they'd come up with new rules by now.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

if you bothered to read the link i posted, it does state there were several migrations.

Is the historical "migration" of settling "tribes" across various continents a justification or rationalization for a lax attitude about maintaining our borders to protect the people and infrastructure of this country?

If the little POS had shown up at a "concert" in Dodge City in the 1800's instead of 22 dead he'd have at least 22 holes in his ass. Probably 50 or 60.

That's another way of saying: Apples and oranges.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

a good example is the Comanche nation. they didn't like anyone else. not other so-called native tribes or the Spanish.

not so easy to moralize is it? and the concept of "To the victor goes the spoils of War" applies to every nation and race since the beginning of history ..?

I tend to agree with this stupid sob on this point.

The Comanche Nation history is a great read ... as are all native tribal cultures.

To the victor indeed does go the spoils but you have to be morally bankrupt to do so. We could have wiped out the Iraq population and in fact taken their oil but at what costs morally?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

If the little POS had shown up at a "concert" in Dodge City in the 1800's instead of 22 dead he'd have at least 22 holes in his ass. Probably 50 or 60.

That's another way of saying: Apples and oranges.

Had he shown up with a suicide jacket in 1800's he'd have killed just as many you apple in your mouth , orange on your ass lying pig.

How fucking more stupid can your analogies become?