It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
californiagrownUnlawful detainment champ. Might want to brush up on your Constitution.
And saving money is bullshit, eh? Odd coming from you lol
No, see I don't think you get it all. There is nothing Constitutionally unlawful about holding an illegal alien for deportation, especially after they've broken other laws.
You still have provided no benefits. Removing criminal aliens will reduce costs, not increase them.
LonelyI actually would like you too name off Archimedes inventions.
Barbara McClintlock-Gene transposition, super important stuff that is extremely relevant to modern genetics.
Maria Mayer-Suggested nuclear shell model, again important to many aspects of modern physics and chemistry.
Marie Curie-Discovered and studied radioactivity and isotopes, again quite important.
These are three I can think of off the top of my head (probably because they pertain to my field of study) but ever consider the fact that women weren't event allowed to become doctors in the us until the early to mid 1800s? And even then it was unheard of. I would hope men have a lot of inventions considering how they have been given more than an unfair share of time to discover them.
Just gona go ahead and assume all used math/geometry for their discoveries...
Charlie_KellyBro those are all serious inventions that have and are affecting people all over the world. Shit, I wonder what our space program would look like today without women. You bring up Archimedes but in his time women were greatly suppressed. For all we know there could have been a woman with equal knowledge to Archimedes but she never had the opportunity to showcase her work. Im not saying your wrong, but you could use a more relevant example.
Well fair enough but his discoveries are still being used today by scientists...Nikola tesla?
Gods_FatherWell fair enough but his discoveries are still being used today by scientists...Nikola tesla?
I get the point you are trying to make, I think the counter argument is what a womans role would be if they were treated equal to a man when these discoveries and inventions were made.
Democrats screwed the pooch with all their protesting during the primaries. Now Trump has actually done something legitimately questionable and nobody gives a fuck about their protests anymore.
I'm completely onboard with refusing new visa requests and ending new immigration from terrorist breeding grounds, but invalidating existing visas and green cards is too much. Unless you plan to hunt down everybody in the country on a visa and deport them, all you're doing is preventing the people that have them from going home for vacation. Not to mention, some of them probably own land or other property here that is basically lost because they can't get back into the country. That's not fair at all.
I really, really wish the Democrats would have had a sense of moderation during the election. Acting like Trump was literally Hitler because he wanted to ban a religion that is responsible for 97% of terrorist attacks worldwide from entering the country did nothing but hurt their credibility. Now everybody has tuned out their whining.
onenerdykidWell, let's look at Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics that pre-dates the Bible by about 400 years. In addition to being still studied and taught as one of the major treatises on ethics, Aristotle also invented/discovered modern logic (both formal and informal). His works in philosophy (especially ethics and logic) are still valid today as they were in 4th century BC. His works are not perfect (they are, after all, man-made) but they are more reliable and more coherent than the Bible ever could claim to be. And even back then he thought ethics applied to all humans (anthropos), not just men. At the very least, there are no calls for genocide, eternal torture, or the subjugation of women. It is in almost every regard a more ethically precise doctrine of how one ought to behave.
His other works, namely in the sciences, are less relevant today (but who can blame him since he was the person to actually invent physics, metaphysics, biology, etc. and do so without any real scientific tools).
But do you really think a perfectly omnipotent & perfectly omniscient God couldn't come up with a better way to communicate his message to all of his creation? Such a being could easily speak to all humans all over the world, not just an incredibly small population of goat herders in the Middle East. Such a being could easily create the perfect message, without any confusion of what to do. He would know it and he would do it. But he didn't. Which either means he is not perfectly omnipotent & omniscient or he is but isn't perfectly benevolent. Or it's just entirely man-made to begin with, which would also account for the incredible number of inaccurate claims made throughout the Bible.
Alright whatever you wanna believe. It's just that to make these claims you do He revealed himself to goat herders to show he is not a God for just the elite, to show the lower class that he cares about them, and can relate to them. He is a relatable God. For the same reason he was born in Bethlehem, a regular kinda just like meh town, and a carpenter by trade, and not born into a wealthy family. He could have easily come in to the world in royalty and everything, but that would not have been as great, because he wants us to understand that he knows exactly what it is like to be in our position, and what not.
Creating a perfect message that would just make everyone a Christian is not effective or what a truly loving God would do. He does it to connect to people on different levels. You have to have a fundamental understanding of Christianity and why he would do such a thing. Think about it, who would want forced love? I don't know if you have a girlfriend or wife or significant other... but imagine that person being forced to love you, not out of their own will, but because you told them I am more powerful than you and you are nothing with out me. Essentially telling your significant other to "worship" you because you "created" them and the life that they have and are living. God doesn't want that, no one wants that, he wants a pure love of people that actually want to love him and worship him because they want to and really do believe him and want to love him, not because they are forced to if it did so happen that he came down from heaven and just said "Hey humans I am God, ya I am real so worship me and stuff."
He did convey his message in a clear and understandable way, it's just that it will not necessarily be clear to you unless you research and learn what it is all about really. I am not going to become a Chemist for example if I never picked up one chemistry textbook or went to one chemistry lecture. I would be a garbage Chemist because it is NOT CLEAR to me what Chemistry even is, I would not UNDERSTAND anything of the "message" of Chemistry and what it teaches even if the professors I could have had were perfectly and abundantly clear. I wouldn't even be able to call myself a Chemist because I did not put in the effort to find out about Chemistry. Shoot I wouldn't even be able to tell you whether or not I enjoy Chemistry and support everything that they are doing in the field! The same thing goes for Christianity. I cannot say I am a Christian, or anti-Christian/not a Christian for that matter if I did not put in the effort to do as much as read the "textbook" of Christianity, the Bible, and be taught it by a "professor" (pastor) to see what it says and see if I do like it and enjoy what the are saying is going on in "the field of Christianity."
The things you are saying are completely false in the way you say them, it is completely taken out of context. I could quote you as saying "Such a being could easily speak to all humans all over the world, not just an incredibly small population of goat herders in the Middle East." and say you are a Christian look at this! Like I have said previously, for this statement you have to understand the context, what is going on in this conversation, what is the conversation about, who is this man talking to and why is he talking to them? What is the time period they are talking in, because who knows, what if this man is actually talking about the Pope? Understand the circumstances of why everything was said and if it was all trying to be told to some random people in Kosovo, it has to be translated, which will be difficult since there are some words in Slavic that would not be a direct translation from English, especially if we maybe spelt something wronggg. You see? You cannot just say Christians and their God hate gays, they hate women, they are anti everything, they are just a bunch of right winged cooks that support genocide and everyone to burn for eternity. Nooooo, if you do your research and answer questions like I just proposed here in our little conversation example you would see, nope not true. Like you said earlier, "If you have to go through such a process for just one sentence than its all BS" (rough quote) well than I guess every conversation ever is BS, every great speech is BS, every sentence of every speech Abraham Lincoln gave is a load of garbage because I DON'T WANT to do the research and really understand what is going on here and what he is talking about. What do you think historians do all day? There is literally an entire field dedicated to doing exactly what you said is a load of crap and if you have to go through this whole process than its just not true. Basically you said all of history and everything we know about anything from literally a few seconds ago to the beginning of time is false and a load of crap because of all the work one would have to do to understand what is really being said and what is really happening to someone that wasn't there and didn't get to experience it, and speaks a different language. It is also not just historians, journalists, bloggers, vloggers, authors, filmmakers, news anchors, etc. all have to go through this process for everything their entire career is about, it is just about a different topic than the Bible. Do you see how that works and why it is needed for literally anything in the world that happened if you personally weren't there and what has to be done for you to know what did happen and really understand what did happen/why something was said and what it means, the effort made to really understand why everything is happening and why you have to do certain things?
Now obviously everything is not going to be blatantly clear and crystal in Christianity, or else it would not be a true faith in God. But that is in everything. Going back to the pervious example I have faith that my future wife will not cheat on me, just like I have faith in myself and in God that I won't "cheat" on God, I have faith in the chair I am sitting in will hold me up, you may have faith in the Big Bang, even though no one was there to tell you it happened. People can tell you that Jesus was real, there are historical records stating that not only he was a real person, but that he did preform miracles that no man could ever do. There are hundreds of eye witness accounts of people seeing Jesus after he died and was resurrected from the dead, not just his followers, actually most of them were the people that had him crucified, that then became Christian.
The "claims" made in the Bible are actually proven true with eyewitness accounts of Jesus doing things such as healing the sick, the blind, feeding over 5000 men, which does not account for women or children, meaning its more like over 10,000 with just a few fish and loaves of bread. That means over 10,000 eye witness accounts. There has not been one item in the Bible that has ever successfully been proven false ever.
ZennanCreating a perfect message that would just make everyone a Christian is not effective or what a truly loving God would do. He does it to connect to people on different levels. You have to have a fundamental understanding of Christianity and why he would do such a thing. Think about it, who would want forced love? I don't know if you have a girlfriend or wife or significant other... but imagine that person being forced to love you, not out of their own will, but because you told them I am more powerful than you and you are nothing with out me. Essentially telling your significant other to "worship" you because you "created" them and the life that they have and are living. God doesn't want that, no one wants that, he wants a pure love of people that actually want to love him and worship him because they want to and really do believe him and want to love him, not because they are forced to if it did so happen that he came down from heaven and just said "Hey humans I am God, ya I am real so worship me and stuff."
Now obviously everything is not going to be blatantly clear and crystal in Christianity, or else it would not be a true faith in God. But that is in everything. Going back to the pervious example I have faith that my future wife will not cheat on me, just like I have faith in myself and in God that I won't "cheat" on God, I have faith in the chair I am sitting in will hold me up, you may have faith in the Big Bang, even though no one was there to tell you it happened. People can tell you that Jesus was real, there are historical records stating that not only he was a real person, but that he did preform miracles that no man could ever do. There are hundreds of eye witness accounts of people seeing Jesus after he died and was resurrected from the dead, not just his followers, actually most of them were the people that had him crucified, that then became Christian.
The "claims" made in the Bible are actually proven true with eyewitness accounts of Jesus doing things such as healing the sick, the blind, feeding over 5000 men, which does not account for women or children, meaning its more like over 10,000 with just a few fish and loaves of bread. That means over 10,000 eye witness accounts. There has not been one item in the Bible that has ever successfully been proven false ever.
Wow, so much good stuff in here... where to begin... Let's start here: you are a perfect example of "faith seeking understanding". You take all claims in the Bible as true and then seek to understand them, rather than the other way around. The best the Bible can make for "evidence" amounts to hearsay. That's all you've got- the word of people from thousands of years ago. Same goes for every other religious "truth" and as such, there is no reason to believe your holy book instead of the Qur'an, for example. At least the Qur'an was written down immediately after the prophet died, not 30 years later with lots of different stories that conflict with one another. I have read much of the Bible, the Qur'an and other holy books. I have also read a lot concerning philosophy and science. It would do you some good to do the same and approach them all with skepticism and evaluate their claims based on sufficient evidence, which for the Bible there is none. There is only hearsay, which is incredibly weak evidence. If there was sufficient evidence for it's truth, then we could easily show every Muslim how incredibly wrong they are and they should easily be convinced of their folly. Good luck in that endeavor.
If God really wanted all of his creation to get to Heaven or love him, etc, don't you think he would have made it known to all of his creation? Not just some of them? Your inductive reasoning fails you here- just because it was claimed to happen in the Bible, it must therefore be the perfect way since that is the way God did it and God is perfect. I get it- this is the only way to make sense of a perfect God with what is contained in the Bible. But it doesn't make it true and it certainly doesn't mean it actually happened.
But where you absolutely 100% get it wrong is at the end. Faith is believing something to be true on insufficient evidence. I do not have faith that the Big Bang happened. I do not have faith that my lover won't cheat on me. I do not have faith that the chair beneath me will crumble. I have belief based on sufficient evidence that these things are the way they are. As such, I have knowledge- not faith. I know that my lover cares for me because of her words and actions- I have sufficient evidence for her love. I know that the chair beneath me is made of sturdy materials and construction- I have sufficient evidence for its stability. Faith is the antithesis of knowledge and if it has ever gotten anything correct it is by accident.
Your very last point "There has not been one item in the Bible that has ever been successfully proven false" is the biggest lie in your entire argument. There are hundreds of scientific claims made in the Bible and many of which have been proven wrong. Almost all of Genesis has been overturned by science. Water cannot be made before light, and the Earth is not flat, nor is it at the center of the Universe. If you don't believe these truths, then our conversation is truly over and it's absolutely pointless talking with you.
Is this muslim ban about making America safe? Or is it about satisfying the far right who hate muslims? Because I think it's about the later. Number of american civilians (1975-2015) Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen... 0. What about Saudi Arabia? 2369, United Arab of Emirates? 314. Is this really about making America safe? If it was wouldn't you want to also wish to ban white males from majority christian anglo nations? You know Dylan Roof and the countless other men that commit mass shootings? Maybe we should just ban men from entering America?
Is this muslim ban about making America safe? Or is it about satisfying the far right who hate muslims? Because I think it's about the later. Number of american civilians (1975-2015) Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen... 0. What about Saudi Arabia? 2369, United Arab of Emirates? 314. Is this really about making America safe? If it was wouldn't you want to also wish to ban white males from majority christian anglo nations? You know Dylan Roof and the countless other men that commit mass shootings? Maybe we should just ban men from entering America?
Well given current reports, the gunmen yelled "allahu ahkbar" as they opened fire. Still, they're being very sparse with information, but looks like the suspects (for now) are named Alexandre Bissonnette and Mohamed Khadir. Speculating, based on these sparse reports it could be muslim sectarian terrorism. Sunnis and Shiites seem to have no problem blowing up and shooting up each others mosques in the Middle East. It's an assessment better left for when there is more information.
All of those countries are currently havens for islamic terrorism (information compiled by the Obama Administration, in fact). It's a great start. No one cares about the protests of a few violent, far-left anarchists, or the Muslim Brotherhood.
Immigration was never meant to be a welfare program, especially one that potentially puts American lives at risk. Plenty of people in Europe have already died at the hands of terrorists from those countries, and the Somalis in the U.S. already don't seem to have much aversion to terrorism and Sharia. Better to end that failed experiment now.
CampeadorWell given current reports, the gunmen yelled "allahu ahkbar" as they opened fire. Still, they're being very sparse with information, but looks like the suspects (for now) are named Alexandre Bissonnette and Mohamed Khadir. Speculating, based on these sparse reports it could be muslim sectarian terrorism. Sunnis and Shiites seem to have no problem blowing up and shooting up each others mosques in the Middle East. It's an assessment better left for when there is more information.
All of those countries are currently havens for islamic terrorism (information compiled by the Obama Administration, in fact). It's a great start. No one cares about the protests of a few violent, far-left anarchists, or the Muslim Brotherhood.
Immigration was never meant to be a welfare program, especially one that potentially puts American lives at risk. Plenty of people in Europe have already died at the hands of terrorists from those countries, and the Somalis in the U.S. already don't seem to have much aversion to terrorism and Sharia. Better to end that failed experiment now.
Do you agree with leaving Saudi and UAE offthe list? Seems like basically only countries with business ties to US/Trump were left off even though after viewing the data they harbor more potential threats to the US than any other Islamic majority countries. Not to mention Saudi funded 9/11.
Bodhisattva_Do you agree with leaving Saudi and UAE offthe list? Seems like basically only countries with business ties to US/Trump were left off even though after viewing the data they harbor more potential threats to the US than any other Islamic majority countries. Not to mention Saudi funded 9/11.
As I said, I think those countries are a good start. Through further investigation, perhaps other countries should be added.
Those seven countries are based on a list compiled by the Obama Administration as havens for terrorism, why not start with those?
CampeadorWell given current reports, the gunmen yelled "allahu ahkbar" as they opened fire. Still, they're being very sparse with information, but looks like the suspects (for now) are named Alexandre Bissonnette and Mohamed Khadir. Speculating, based on these sparse reports it could be muslim sectarian terrorism. Sunnis and Shiites seem to have no problem blowing up and shooting up each others mosques in the Middle East. It's an assessment better left for when there is more information.
All of those countries are currently havens for islamic terrorism (information compiled by the Obama Administration, in fact). It's a great start. No one cares about the protests of a few violent, far-left anarchists, or the Muslim Brotherhood.
Immigration was never meant to be a welfare program, especially one that potentially puts American lives at risk. Plenty of people in Europe have already died at the hands of terrorists from those countries, and the Somalis in the U.S. already don't seem to have much aversion to terrorism and Sharia. Better to end that failed experiment now.
Don't know what news you're reading, but laughed at the fact that you can still blame muslims. Khadir was a witness, not a suspect. So are we going to ban all men from entering America?
CampeadorAs I said, I think those countries are a good start. Through further investigation, perhaps other countries should be added.
Those seven countries are based on a list compiled by the Obama Administration as havens for terrorism, why not start with those?
Curious what you thought of last night's 60 minutes report on refugees? Seems as though Europe's refugee situation is vastly different than ours ever was.
californiagrownCurious what you thought of last night's 60 minutes report on refugees? Seems as though Europe's refugee situation is vastly different than ours ever was.
You don't get to ask questions without answering them first (the one in the post you quoted will suffice).
S.J.WDon't know what news you're reading, but laughed at the fact that you can still blame muslims. Khadir was a witness, not a suspect. So are we going to ban all men from entering America?
I'd rather just stick them on an island under the jurisdiction of Papua New Guinea.
Donald Trump, setting the snowflake and media outrage level to 10, the same way he started his campaign. It won't be long before people tire of these perpetual "protesters" and their fake outrage.
Someone needed to pick a fight with these fuckers. Bring the the 5th Column out of the shadows.
CampeadorAlso, I don't remember any outrage when Obama recently cancelled the refugee status of those Cubans attempting to flee a communist dictatorship.
.
Not a trump supporter but can't wait to see some responses from the pc. :)
An American's chances of dying in a terrorist attack are 1 in 20,000,000
Completely pointless and pathetic executive order by a fundamentally weak person. The only place the "protect American lives" bullshit rhetoric belongs is in debates.
Looking at this thread, I knew skiing was rich, white, and generally sheltered, but seriously did not expect to see so many fellow skiers be so mean spirited and without empathy. Equating what Trump is doing to Obama and underplaying what is happening is completely insane. Nothing like this has happened since one of our most shameful acts in history in WWII. Please, do you understand that these are real people's lives being affected? Protesters aren't pretending to be angry, they just don't want to see needless suffering, they don't want to see people's rights stripped away, they don't want to see our country go against its core values for nothing. It is not an over reaction. This is so fucking wrong. Dignity, humanity, and fucking american values should not be partisan. This is not republican. This is not American.
Can we start a fund for these "protesters" to fly over to Turkey and Lebanon to volunteer their time helping out? I mean, if they care that much and all.
Oh right, it's all fake outrage by far-left agitators (paid by Soros and/or the MB) and morons getting selfies for their social media profiles.
Oh, and by the way, Jerry Brown and Joe Biden attempted to block South Vietnamese refugees in the 1970s. Interesting how times change.
joeybootsi dont care if you are left wing or right wing. democrat or republican
no matter what you have to support your President
No, no you fucking do not. That is an absurd statement. You're allowed to support your president and country, but you are not required to. Holding leaders on a pedestal is dangerous, just like blind nationalism.
.MASSHOLE.No, no you fucking do not. That is an absurd statement. You're allowed to support your president and country, but you are not required to. Holding leaders on a pedestal is dangerous, just like blind nationalism.
internal conflict is going to divide the country and lead to a civil war
the President is trying to protect the country and put our interests first
regardless of what is going on, you need to support the President
joeybootsinternal conflict is going to divide the country and lead to a civil war
the President is trying to protect the country and put our interests first
regardless of what is going on, you need to support the President
The president is trying to divide the country. That was ACTUALLY his campaign strategy.
What did you think was gonna happen when he promised to order all these ridulous policies into implementation? Without consulting Congress, or lawyers, or federal strategists? Especially when the large majority of people who voted, did not vote for him?
joeybootsinternal conflict is going to divide the country and lead to a civil war
the President is trying to protect the country and put our interests first
regardless of what is going on, you need to support the President
The President's policies are dividing the country.
And no, one does not. Should the Germany have supported Hitler despite what he did because he was the Chancellor? How about Italy and Mussolini? Or Russia and Stalin? Yugoslavia and Tito? Cuba and Castro? Cambodia and Pol Pot?
Supporting a President blindly is one of the most foolish things this country can do.
joeybootsinternal conflict is going to divide the country and lead to a civil war
the President is trying to protect the country and put our interests first
I've heard that a certain mental disorder leads people to put the interests of muslim foreigners above their own, even when the symptoms of the disease are on full display around the globe.
joeybootsinternal conflict is going to divide the country and lead to a civil war
the President is trying to protect the country and put our interests first
regardless of what is going on, you need to support the President
“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.” -Roosevelt
So it's more or less proven that the shooter was a white supremacist. Here we go, conservative policy is now radicalizing people of all colors. The violence will only increase with Trump.
I still have yet to understand why these "refugees" aren't content to remain in countries governed by their Muslim brothers and sisters.
Why do they keep wanting to come to infidel countries?
This Camp of the Saints nightmare created and perpetuated by the globalist Left will continue to add fuel to the flame. Useful idiots contributing to the Islamic Hijra, and eventually, the caliphate.
Charlie_KellyWhat percentage of all crime does Muslim crime make up in Germany?
You've got a keyboard, figure it out for yourself.
It may be hard for you to find actual numbers though,
"For years the policy has been to leave the population in the dark about the actual crime situation... The citizens are being played for fools." — André Schulz, head of the Association of Criminal Police.
CampeadorI still have yet to understand why these "refugees" aren't content to remain in countries governed by their Muslim brothers and sisters.
Why do they keep wanting to come to infidel countries?
This Camp of the Saints nightmare created and perpetuated by the globalist Left will continue to add fuel to the flame. Useful idiots contributing to the Islamic Hijra, and eventually, the caliphate.
Well, Syria is pretty much a wasteland. Thanks to both the U.S. and Russia. If we got blown to shit I would hope Canada and Mexico would let us in.
LonelyWell, Syria is pretty much a wasteland. Thanks to both the U.S. and Russia. If we got blown to shit I would hope Canada and Mexico would let us in.
Someone gets it. The outlash seemed to bloom after the deliberate destabilization campaign. The US covertly/overtly funds extremist insurgencies including Al Qaeda, Al Nusra (Al Qaeda faction), and possibly indirectly funneling arms to Daesh (ISIS) in order to topple sovereign governments in middle eastern countries to prop up puppet dictatorships, and now we're surprised by Anti-American backlash? And in the name of fighting this backlash we effectively destroy these countries and create a giant refugee crisis while refusing to resettle any of them? Oh and on top of all that the country actually funding and providing arms to radical Wahhabi-Islam across the region is our closest ally, both Clinton and Trump have ties. Geo-political imperialism exists, it's just masqueraded in media propaganda campaigns.
Divide and Conquer; and they'll continue to do what they do until people protest the real criminals.
Our country is literally falling apart. Infrastructure is shit, the economy is shit, homelessness is on the rise, poverty on the rise, debt is ever increasing, societal unrest/tension. Endless wars, an encroaching police state noose ever tightens, but yeah... what's a good idea? A good idea is to stop meddling in other countries but that won't ever happen; war is a racket.
We can't even take care of the people we already have. Let's get education back up to the top 10 in the world instead of this Frankfurt bullcrap. Our physics score is on the level of retardation, probably why most people think WTC7 fell due to fires. Let's build a safer and better mass transit, put stock in alternative energy as this is clearly the future. I don't need to tell you. We pay an obscene amount of income tax, something the founding fathers and Jefferson would laugh at in utter disbelief. And much of our debt is making its way back to the Fed reserve and this massive corporate government whose sole purpose is to simply create more poverty, destruction, mass hysteria, suffering and love. Trump is my savior.
Circle jerking our way to destruction, division is key. At least in the 60s people knew what to protest about.
