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!
fuckmekevinOur 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.
Agreed with everything except the WTC7 comment. A furnace exploded and took out fire supports. Let's not deny proven science.
CampeadorCool it down there, Peter Pan. Despite your best efforts not "everyone" is muslim yet in the UK.
It must be depressing having the brain of a 15-year-old when you're nearing 40.
Appears that you don't just hate refugees though, you seem pretty angry at anyone with a different viewpoint too, must be tiring.
Oh yeah man, skiing all the time and travelling the world is the most depressing, I really just wish I could get an office and spew rage on the internet whilst I should be working.
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.
Still doesn't answer the question, shouldn't they prefer to migrate to places that are most similar to them culturally? The Arab states aren't exactly lacking in space or money.
RosbifAppears that you don't just hate refugees though, you seem pretty angry at anyone with a different viewpoint too, must be tiring.
Oh yeah man, skiing all the time and travelling the world is the most depressing, I really just wish I could get an office and spew rage on the internet whilst I should be working.
Not everyone has a trust fund Peter Pan.
What happens when your Tinkerbell pixie dust runs out?
We both know ski instructing pays next to nothing.
Perhaps you have a Muslim sponsor? That would explain all the affection.
Charlie_KellyActually a very good pick. His speech was very well thought out and from what Ive heard he is a excellent judge.
Also, I thought this video was very interesting and also agree with it for the most part.
I knew you'd come around.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is great, unfortunately she is often dismissed and slandered by people from your side of the political spectrum. Islam will never reform on its own accord, we in the West need to rip out its fangs, although many will consider this "intolerant".
And looks like it's only getting worse, the Democrats are in full meltdown, now they've ejected one of the few voices of sanity from the DNC race,
DNC boots candidate from chairmanship race for criticizing Ellison’s Islamic faith
“His being a Muslim is precisely why DNC voters should not vote for
him,” Tolliver wrote. “Muslims discriminate against gays. Islamic law is
clear on the subject, and being gay is a direct violation of it. In
some Muslim countries, being gay is a crime punishable by death.”
“Clearly,
Mr. Ellison is not the person to lead the DNC or any other organization
committed to not discriminating based on gender identity or sexual
orientation,” Tolliver continued. “I'm shocked [the Human Rights
Campaign] has been silent on the issue. A vote for Representative
Ellison by any member of the DNC would be divisive and unconscionable,
not to mention counterproductive to the immediate and necessary steps of
rebuilding the Democratic Party.”
Clearly the Democrats are unlikely to ever relinquish this fantasy narrative that Islam is a "religion of peace". The fact that the head of the DNC could soon be a man with direct links to Muslim Brotherhood organizations only further proves this.
What happens when your Tinkerbell pixie dust runs out?
We both know ski instructing pays next to nothing.
Perhaps you have a Muslim sponsor? That would explain all the affection.
Don't really see what my financial situation has to do with you being filled with hate. But anyway, no, you think that ski instructing doesn't pay, I charge between 500-750 USD a day, so the pixie dust shouldn't run out for a while.
RosbifDon't really see what my financial situation has to do with you being filled with hate. But anyway, no, you think that ski instructing doesn't pay, I charge between 500-750 USD a day, so the pixie dust shouldn't run out for a while.
And yet you still can't seem to find enough money to fix those fucked up teeth of yours.Even by Brit standards, they're pretty bad.
Do your selfie stick photos with the kids you're fleecing come included in that $750 Neverland-experience package? Or do those cost extra?
CampeadorAnd yet you still can't seem to find enough money to fix those fucked up teeth of yours.Even by Brit standards, they're pretty bad.
Do your selfie stick photos with the kids you're fleecing come included in that $750 Neverland-experience package? Or do those cost extra?
Haha, all of the stalkers I have had before have been girls, interesting to have a dude doing it. Keep hating man, maybe someone will respect you that way.
RosbifHaha, all of the stalkers I have had before have been girls, interesting to have a dude doing it. Keep hating man, maybe someone will respect you that way.
You put it in your signature, buddy. Not exactly difficult to find.
Who respects a near forty-year-old man child who earns $15 an hour?
Charlie_KellyAgreed with everything except the WTC7 comment. A furnace exploded and took out fire supports. Let's not deny proven science.
The gas lines were severed prior to any core structural damage. Debris and exterior structure damage had no impact on initiation of collapse as stated by NIST. A steel framed building can not fall into the greatest path of resistance at free-fall speed for 2.25 seconds due to oxygen ridden fires, it defies several laws of physics, plus evidence of Melted Molybdenum. NIST even states that in only TWO incidences did temperatures have evidence of reaching above 480F. This is huge and gives credence that fires and the thermal expansion phenomenon could not have caused steel temps to reach degrees in which would severely weaken steel. All core beams would have to be severed for the building to come down at free-fall with lateral deformation. Global collapse does not occur with the severing of a single beam. Plus, the dozens and dozens of explosions heard prior to and during the collapse. People were severely injured because of explosions near core columns. There's a compilation of archived footage of all explosions heard in and around WTC7 but it was terminated a few weeks ago.
Of course if you look up WTC7 google promotes every single debunking 9/11 myths such as Popular Mechanics who John McCain wrote a hit piece on, including the so called Conspiracy Theorists. Yet, on CSPAN when people ask him about WTC7 he pleads ignorance. He forwarded an entire article on WTC7 and when hit with hard questions denies ever knowing what WTC7 was.
Look up Dr. Hulsey, he's a structural engineer who has determined just recently that WTC7 could not have fallen due to fires; his collapse models are open to the public. He makes no conclusion as to what the initiator was but fires were not the cause. I can give you dozens of examples of NIST lying about steel temps, completely ignoring hinge points on their models, while withholding their data from the public. They were asked to provide all the details of their model of WTC7, they initially said they could not.....due to it being a "national security issue" that would "jeopardize public safety." They have falsified input data which is anti-science at its best. I'm not going to get into the fine details of their botched report because I'm trying to get better health wise and don't want to write a full book but clearly they lied about numerous things to come to a preconceived conclusion. A new independent investigation without collusion is needed, hundreds of victims family members also agree and the dozens of firemen who heard and were injured by explosives in the lobby and B-levels.
Remember, I'm not claiming the government had any part in this, I'm just stating that NISTs collapse model is obsolete and needs significant peer review from independent sources. Better yet, a new investigation is sorely needed.
You obviously do not know how folks are screened in the EU, vs America.
What percentage of the refugees are "skilled do you think?
Also, you honestly expect people from a different culture who don't speak the language to assimilate immediately? Gotta invest in the skilled refugees you let in with language classes and subsidized CC classes to help with the transition.
fuckmekevinThe gas lines were severed prior to any core structural damage. Debris and exterior structure damage had no impact on initiation of collapse as stated by NIST. A steel framed building can not fall into the greatest path of resistance at free-fall speed for 2.25 seconds due to oxygen ridden fires, it defies several laws of physics, plus evidence of Melted Molybdenum. NIST even states that in only TWO incidences did temperatures have evidence of reaching above 480F. This is huge and gives credence that fires and the thermal expansion phenomenon could not have caused steel temps to reach degrees in which would severely weaken steel. All core beams would have to be severed for the building to come down at free-fall with lateral deformation. Global collapse does not occur with the severing of a single beam. Plus, the dozens and dozens of explosions heard prior to and during the collapse. People were severely injured because of explosions near core columns. There's a compilation of archived footage of all explosions heard in and around WTC7 but it was terminated a few weeks ago.
Of course if you look up WTC7 google promotes every single debunking 9/11 myths such as Popular Mechanics who John McCain wrote a hit piece on, including the so called Conspiracy Theorists. Yet, on CSPAN when people ask him about WTC7 he pleads ignorance. He forwarded an entire article on WTC7 and when hit with hard questions denies ever knowing what WTC7 was.
Look up Dr. Hulsey, he's a structural engineer who has determined just recently that WTC7 could not have fallen due to fires; his collapse models are open to the public. He makes no conclusion as to what the initiator was but fires were not the cause. I can give you dozens of examples of NIST lying about steel temps, completely ignoring hinge points on their models, while withholding their data from the public. They were asked to provide all the details of their model of WTC7, they initially said they could not.....due to it being a "national security issue" that would "jeopardize public safety." They have falsified input data which is anti-science at its best. I'm not going to get into the fine details of their botched report because I'm trying to get better health wise and don't want to write a full book but clearly they lied about numerous things to come to a preconceived conclusion. A new independent investigation without collusion is needed, hundreds of victims family members also agree and the dozens of firemen who heard and were injured by explosives in the lobby and B-levels.
Remember, I'm not claiming the government had any part in this, I'm just stating that NISTs collapse model is obsolete and needs significant peer review from independent sources. Better yet, a new investigation is sorely needed.
I guess I have to reading to do. Wanna send me some links?
fuckmekevinThe gas lines were severed prior to any core structural damage. Debris and exterior structure damage had no impact on initiation of collapse as stated by NIST. A steel framed building can not fall into the greatest path of resistance at free-fall speed for 2.25 seconds due to oxygen ridden fires, it defies several laws of physics, plus evidence of Melted Molybdenum. NIST even states that in only TWO incidences did temperatures have evidence of reaching above 480F. This is huge and gives credence that fires and the thermal expansion phenomenon could not have caused steel temps to reach degrees in which would severely weaken steel. All core beams would have to be severed for the building to come down at free-fall with lateral deformation. Global collapse does not occur with the severing of a single beam. Plus, the dozens and dozens of explosions heard prior to and during the collapse. People were severely injured because of explosions near core columns. There's a compilation of archived footage of all explosions heard in and around WTC7 but it was terminated a few weeks ago.
Of course if you look up WTC7 google promotes every single debunking 9/11 myths such as Popular Mechanics who John McCain wrote a hit piece on, including the so called Conspiracy Theorists. Yet, on CSPAN when people ask him about WTC7 he pleads ignorance. He forwarded an entire article on WTC7 and when hit with hard questions denies ever knowing what WTC7 was.
Look up Dr. Hulsey, he's a structural engineer who has determined just recently that WTC7 could not have fallen due to fires; his collapse models are open to the public. He makes no conclusion as to what the initiator was but fires were not the cause. I can give you dozens of examples of NIST lying about steel temps, completely ignoring hinge points on their models, while withholding their data from the public. They were asked to provide all the details of their model of WTC7, they initially said they could not.....due to it being a "national security issue" that would "jeopardize public safety." They have falsified input data which is anti-science at its best. I'm not going to get into the fine details of their botched report because I'm trying to get better health wise and don't want to write a full book but clearly they lied about numerous things to come to a preconceived conclusion. A new independent investigation without collusion is needed, hundreds of victims family members also agree and the dozens of firemen who heard and were injured by explosives in the lobby and B-levels.
Remember, I'm not claiming the government had any part in this, I'm just stating that NISTs collapse model is obsolete and needs significant peer review from independent sources. Better yet, a new investigation is sorely needed.
You are aware the official cause of its collapse had nothing to do with fire, right? Falling debris from the twin towers damaged key structural elements. Curiously, what is your background as an engineer?
i don't get how you republicans are fine with him trampling all over the constitution and leveraging executive orders to enable action that is legally in the real of congress.
I hated it under Obama, and I'm already hating it under Trump too. Even if you like and voted for the guy, I really am missing why you WANT a president to be above the law. No politician should ever be.
californiagrownYou are aware the official cause of its collapse had nothing to do with fire, right? Falling debris from the twin towers damaged key structural elements. Curiously, what is your background as an engineer?
From NIST's own report, "Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. ... Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires." The last part is a lie.
The problems with NIST’s explanation is where high temperatures were said to have softened the columns and floors. NIST did tests for this as well, but then abandoned the results. The first test, which examined paint deformation on steel samples chosen specifically from the fire zones, showed that less than 2% of the samples had seen temperatures above 250 °C. Another test gave the one-sided result that no samples saw temperatures above 600 °C. The obvious problem was that steel does not soften or lose significant strength at the low temperatures indicated, yet NIST’s story depends on the softening or weakening of vast quantities of structural steel.
The beloved official story of NIST was forced to admit that they had left out the stiffeners at the end of girder A2001, an omission needed for the possibility of initiation of collapse to occur. A walk off of 10 inches would have been necessary for failure to occur. This omission is in fact mentally retarded. NIST also omitted several lateral beams. Ultimately, NIST manipulated seat width inputs, and "accidentally" refused to include direct thermal expansion in inches for the beams in question. Take out a couple of stiffeners, take out some lateral support beams, manipulate temp. input data, and increase thermal expansion phenomenon to theoretical maximum and success. And as for the collapse of North and South towers, they don't explain it. They go as far as to explain initiation with falsified input data and blatant misinformation.
californiagrownYou are aware the official cause of its collapse had nothing to do with fire, right? Falling debris from the twin towers damaged key structural elements. Curiously, what is your background as an engineer?
NIST and your own government concludes that thermal expansion and fire alone initiated global collapse.
californiagrownYou obviously do not know how folks are screened in the EU, vs America.
What percentage of the refugees are "skilled do you think?
Also, you honestly expect people from a different culture who don't speak the language to assimilate immediately? Gotta invest in the skilled refugees you let in with language classes and subsidized CC classes to help with the transition.
USA, over 90% on welfare or unemployed. Doesn't lend much to the "skilled" argument.
Also, after "language classes and subsidized CC classes".
Germany: 80% of Turkish Muslims claim welfare payments.
fuckmekevinFrom NIST's own report, "Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. ... Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires." The last part is a lie.
The problems with NIST’s explanation is where high temperatures were said to have softened the columns and floors. NIST did tests for this as well, but then abandoned the results. The first test, which examined paint deformation on steel samples chosen specifically from the fire zones, showed that less than 2% of the samples had seen temperatures above 250 °C. Another test gave the one-sided result that no samples saw temperatures above 600 °C. The obvious problem was that steel does not soften or lose significant strength at the low temperatures indicated, yet NIST’s story depends on the softening or weakening of vast quantities of structural steel.
The beloved official story of NIST was forced to admit that they had left out the stiffeners at the end of girder A2001, an omission needed for the possibility of initiation of collapse to occur. A walk off of 10 inches would have been necessary for failure to occur. This omission is in fact mentally retarded. NIST also omitted several lateral beams. Ultimately, NIST manipulated seat width inputs, and "accidentally" refused to include direct thermal expansion in inches for the beams in question. Take out a couple of stiffeners, take out some lateral support beams, manipulate temp. input data, and increase thermal expansion phenomenon to theoretical maximum and success. And as for the collapse of North and South towers, they don't explain it. They go as far as to explain initiation with falsified input data and blatant misinformation.
And I assume you have a sufficient background in engineering to fully understand the report, and the critique by that professor you cited?
Or are you blindly believing the professor's word and report?
Can you actually find any of these "skilled" migrants, or are you going to keep grasping at platitudes?
But couldn't refugees use welfare as a way to pay the bills until they can find a stable job? Relocating from a war torn country and starting a new life, sometimes after losing everything, takes time. I understand there are some that abuse the system with no desire to work but I can't imagine it would be the vast majority.
Can you actually find any of these "skilled" migrants, or are you going to keep grasping at platitudes?
am i missing something, seeing as that chart says NOTHING about them being unemployed? and the fact that that 90% is food stamps (yes i read the note about them being enrolled in multiple programs)... how many americans receive food stamps?
hmmmm well isn't this interesting... wanna piss and moan about all the americans receiving food stamps too? i get your argument about "skilled" immigrants. but how about unskilled US born whites? the ones working at mcdonalds that don't know how to read a screen inches from their face, yet want $15/hour? or the ones that just don't want to work? because i have plenty of lazy pieces of shit in my family that live off my tax dollars too.
Charlie_KellyBut couldn't refugees use welfare as a way to pay the bills until they can find a stable job? Relocating from a war torn country and starting a new life, sometimes after losing everything, takes time. I understand there are some that abuse the system with no desire to work but I can't imagine it would be the vast majority.
californiagrownYour links say nothing of the programs used to help assimilate the refugees. Hmmmm, I wonder if that's a coincidence? Lol
The Turks in Germany are a perfect case study in Muslim assimilation (or lack thereof).
German Turks have been there since the 1960s and 1970s, they've had plenty of time to learn the language, and to assimilate. They've even had enough time to even have children that are now grown-up, who grew up fully immersed in German society.
Yet, despite that, 80% of them are still on welfare (only 10% less than "refugees"). This would indicate that not only are muslim migrants almost exclusively unskilled, but that they also assimilate very, very poorly. Muslims arguably assimilate worse to Western society than any other group.
This continues to beg the question, why do they keep wanting to come to the West? It lends itself to two explanations. Either they're looking for generous welfare, they're moving as part of their Islamic duty of Hijra, or some combination of both.
Otherwise they should be more inclined to be around other Muslims, and migrate to other Muslim nations instead of Western ones that are full of infidels.
Try arguing those points like a man, and leave the "lol"s to the preteens on SnapChat.
Charlie_KellyBut couldn't refugees use welfare as a way to pay the bills until they can find a stable job? Relocating from a war torn country and starting a new life, sometimes after losing everything, takes time. I understand there are some that abuse the system with no desire to work but I can't imagine it would be the vast majority.
See the response I sent californiagrown.
The Turks in Germany are a perfect example that show that even long-term, muslim migrants (unskilled ones in particular, which are the vast majority), are very disinclined to removing themselves from the welfare or unemployment roles. And this is from Turkey, which is often hailed as the most "advanced" muslim nation.
We've already seen that most muslim migrants today can scarcely even read or write.
One has to question why they fail at assimilation so frequently, and so consistently, around the globe, especially in the West. Could it be that the culture that surrounds Islam creates this impediment, essentially parallel societies that collect some for of reverse "Jizya" from the Dhimmis who pay taxes?
HenriksDreadsam i missing something, seeing as that chart says NOTHING about them being unemployed? and the fact that that 90% is food stamps (yes i read the note about them being enrolled in multiple programs)... how many americans receive food stamps?
hmmmm well isn't this interesting... wanna piss and moan about all the americans receiving food stamps too? i get your argument about "skilled" immigrants. but how about unskilled US born whites? the ones working at mcdonalds that don't know how to read a screen inches from their face, yet want $15/hour? or the ones that just don't want to work? because i have plenty of lazy pieces of shit in my family that live off my tax dollars too.
Food stamps are meant for Americans, not unskilled migrant foreigners who have no business being here in the first place. The domestic abuse of food stamps is a separate issue entirely.
We have plenty of unskilled people of all races in this country, we really don't need to be importing any more than we already have. Wouldn't you agree?
Unemployment is harder to decipher from that chart, but some of those welfare programs are geared primarily towards those who are unemployed.
I'm claiming, by and large, that muslim migration is a net drain on every single society to which they migrate. I have yet to find one country that has been better off as a result of allowing in more muslims (especially unskilled ones). I believe my arguments and the sources I've provided back that up.
If you have a difference of opinion (with evidence to back it up), I'd be happy to consider your viewpoint if it's well defended by hard evidence and not emotion or a misguided sense of morality.
The left-wing meltdown continues. It looks like the Left have fully given up on any pretense of supporting freedom of speech. Despite the rioters being largely far-left ("anti") fascists, the direct and tacit support they've received from across the left-wing spectrum speaks volumes.
CampeadorFood stamps are meant for Americans, not unskilled migrant foreigners who have no business being here in the first place. The domestic abuse of food stamps is a separate issue entirely.
We have plenty of unskilled people of all races in this country, we really don't need to be importing any more than we already have. Wouldn't you agree?
Unemployment is harder to decipher from that chart, but some of those welfare programs are geared primarily towards those who are unemployed.
I'm claiming, by and large, that muslim migration is a net drain on every single society to which they migrate. I have yet to find one country that has been better off as a result of allowing in more muslims (especially unskilled ones). I believe my arguments and the sources I've provided back that up.
If you have a difference of opinion (with evidence to back it up), I'd be happy to consider your viewpoint if it's well defended by hard evidence and not emotion or a misguided sense of morality.
Fuck, I'm starting to agree with you (at least on this issue). Though I don't believe Muslims are as sub-human as you paint them, I do believe they aren't bringing much to America to better society. And I honestly support this temporary "ban" (which it is not, atleast on Muslims) especially considering Obama and his cabinet are the ones that selected these countries. I really wish Muslims as a whole would take more responsibility and try to more drastically oppose those extremists in there religion.
Charlie_KellyFuck, I'm starting to agree with you (at least on this issue). Though I don't believe Muslims are as sub-human as you paint them, I do believe they aren't bringing much to America to better society. And I honestly support this temporary "ban" (which it is not, atleast on Muslims) especially considering Obama and his cabinet are the ones that selected these countries. I really wish Muslims as a whole would take more responsibility and try to more drastically oppose those extremists in there religion.
onenerdykidWow, 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.
Everyone has their opinions and can all be debatable. I'd like to hear how you think that a perfect world can exist for human life to thrive considering the immense complexities of this earth without a God. Also how do you believe that the universe was formed? Because, really there are only a couple real theories. These theories being: God, it formed out of nothing, or it always existed, with the last ones requiring the Big Bang. Considering the fact scientists believe that the Big Bang was so big it should technically have either collapsed in on itself and created a black hole, or it should never have formed and created planets and solar systems since the particles would not have a great enough mass to attract each other, especially since something as big as a sky scraper can't even attract a grain of sand. How could tiny particles of matter form such large objects? And believing in a multiverse requires even more faith than believing in God since there has been absolutely no evidence of one existing, and technically no matter what you may believe you have to admit that there is more evidence that there is a God than a multiverse. So how would one explain the formation of the "atheist's" universe?
Charlie_KellyFuck, I'm starting to agree with you (at least on this issue). Though I don't believe Muslims are as sub-human as you paint them, I do believe they aren't bringing much to America to better society. And I honestly support this temporary "ban" (which it is not, atleast on Muslims) especially considering Obama and his cabinet are the ones that selected these countries. I really wish Muslims as a whole would take more responsibility and try to more drastically oppose those extremists in there religion.
And I'm starting to feel very poorly about the mean-spirited things I've said to you. You can probably tell I take being insulted very badly.
To be perfectly honest, I agree with many principles of the left-wing platform. For example, I do believe in a certain level of universal health-care to all citizens and legal residents.
However, I just cannot, in absolute terms, accept certain positions that have largely become mainstream on the left-wing spectrum. The main one for me is defense of Islam, and false equivalences to Christianity (or any other religion). I don't believe all Muslims are inherently evil (far from it), but I do believe the Islam is an ideology that can lead them to evil much more readily than any other religion by far. The situation around the globe bears testament to this.
At 17, I was in a position where I could have easily been killed or severely wounded in an Islamic terrorist attack. These attacks were conducted by "British" muslims, people who should have assimilated, and been hugely grateful for the fantastic opportunities offered to them by the British public. Instead, much of the British muslim society lives in a parallel society that is increasingly insulated and fundamentalist. Even Pew Research shows that subsequent generations of Muslims are more Islamic, and more hostile, than their parents.
This situation is diametrically opposed to just every other immigration experience in the West. Indians and East Asians assimilate particularly well, and often achieve high levels of success in Western Society. Immigrants have a duty to assimilate, if they do not do so, they are not immigrants, they are colonists. Muslims, more than any other group, do not assimilate effectively, and seek to impose their will on the native population. This is indicative of a colonial power (in the loose definition of the word) asserting control over the native population. In a sense, a new form of reverse-colonialism. The tragic part is that many on the left-wing spectrum believe that they "deserve" this reverse-colonialism for the perceived wrongdoings of their ancestors.
Muslim imams and other religious leaders have been on record encouraging muslims to take Western welfare, as it is a form of "Jizya" that the infidel dhimmi must pay to them.
Having studied the belief system (and especially the Sharia law) system on which Islam is based, I've increasingly come to the conclusion that Islam creates significant cultural and societal deficiencies . Winston Churchill himself, the man one the front line against fascism and nazism, described it as the "most retrograde force in the world". In terms of scope and impact, it's hard to disagree with that.
Furthermore, as Churchill argued, it is a force that imposes a direct form of slavery upon women (to varying degrees depending on location) as well as underage girls. We still see this around the globe, and it is very alarming. What is most alarming is the new usage of garments like the hijab and the niqab, as symbols of Islamic supremacy in the West.
Unless Islam can reform itself (and be largely cast off), by a new generation of muslims in the mold of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, then there is no hope for it to ever be compatible with Western society. Nothing I've seen makes me optimistic about this. Unfortunately, Islamic fundamentalists have found ready allies in misguided cultural relativists.
CampeadorWhat is most alarming is the new usage of garments like the hijab and the niqab, as symbols of Islamic supremacy in the West.
I should clarify here, I am strictly talking about women who choose to embrace their own inferiority when they live in free Western societies that promote the equality of women.
While I'm sure women in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia yearn to cast off their bed sheets, in the West we increasingly see women use them as a symbol of Islamic supremacy. I don't buy for even a minute that it has anything at all to do with "modesty".
If you look at older pictures of Muslim women, in Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Afghanistan, you see much more liberation for women than you do now. Hell, I even picked up a book about Morocco from the early 1980s that showed Bazaars and all types of everyday places. The women in hijabs were the minority (and not even the site of a burqa or niqab), and even those that wore them only wore it over part of their hair. Whether this is representative, who knows? But it was certainly eye-opening.
These are the truths that have to be spoken about without fear of "offending". No religion or ideology is above criticism or ridicule.
ZennanEveryone has their opinions and can all be debatable. I'd like to hear how you think that a perfect world can exist for human life to thrive considering the immense complexities of this earth without a God. Also how do you believe that the universe was formed? Because, really there are only a couple real theories. These theories being: God, it formed out of nothing, or it always existed, with the last ones requiring the Big Bang. Considering the fact scientists believe that the Big Bang was so big it should technically have either collapsed in on itself and created a black hole, or it should never have formed and created planets and solar systems since the particles would not have a great enough mass to attract each other, especially since something as big as a sky scraper can't even attract a grain of sand. How could tiny particles of matter form such large objects? And believing in a multiverse requires even more faith than believing in God since there has been absolutely no evidence of one existing, and technically no matter what you may believe you have to admit that there is more evidence that there is a God than a multiverse. So how would one explain the formation of the "atheist's" universe?
Well, debating facts, logic, and math is futile- not everything is subject to debate or uncertainty. People can debate about the truth of 2+2=4, but it doesn't mean that it is actually a debatable topic... Same goes for claiming that water is created before light- in order to have water, you need hydrogen and oxygen to form, which can only happen after a star explodes (gives light). Light comes before water. It is a fact of chemistry and physics. Every atom that makes up our bodies, our planet, and our solar system came from the Sun. It's a truly awesome and wonderful idea on its own, even if God is absent from the equation.
Now, I am actually not opposed to the idea of a creator or a God. I just don't see the sufficient evidence to think that one exists, or especially that your specific version of God is the right one. There could very well be an ultimate creator behind everything, but to think that your specific holy book has it right and all others have it wrong, is what I find incredibly arrogant, especially given the lack of evidence for it. To me, nothing is more arrogant than a religion claiming to have the ultimate answers to everything without a single shred of evidence to support it, other than a book what was written by men who didn't know where the sun went at night or what caused people to get sick. At least in even the most experimental of physics, there is math and data suggesting a certain hypothesis. We think the Big Bang happened the way it is claimed to have happened because there is math and data suggesting it, and predictions based on that data which confirm it (finding the background radiation, etc). The same does not happen with religion or any of the Gods that have come and gone over the millennia.
And just because we have unanswered questions (what is the ultimate cause of the universe, what caused self-replicating life to form, etc.) we should not assume that God exists because of it. Since the dawn of science, there has been a temporary limit to our knowledge. We have thousands of instances of science coming to an end of its understanding of the universe and every time falling back on saying, "well, that is where God must be". But then someone comes along, figures it out, and we arrive at the actual answer. These current unanswered questions are either just more of the same, or they are truly unknowable. Either way, God's existence is not proven at all. All that God continues to be is merely a non-contradictory idea that can be thought.
ZennanEveryone has their opinions and can all be debatable. I'd like to hear how you think that a perfect world can exist for human life to thrive considering the immense complexities of this earth without a God. Also how do you believe that the universe was formed? Because, really there are only a couple real theories. These theories being: God, it formed out of nothing, or it always existed, with the last ones requiring the Big Bang. Considering the fact scientists believe that the Big Bang was so big it should technically have either collapsed in on itself and created a black hole, or it should never have formed and created planets and solar systems since the particles would not have a great enough mass to attract each other, especially since something as big as a sky scraper can't even attract a grain of sand. How could tiny particles of matter form such large objects? And believing in a multiverse requires even more faith than believing in God since there has been absolutely no evidence of one existing, and technically no matter what you may believe you have to admit that there is more evidence that there is a God than a multiverse. So how would one explain the formation of the "atheist's" universe?
Okay, so from this post I'm guessing you do not have a background in science. This is most evident from your example of a skyscraper not having a large gravitational pull. I'll spare you the science why because I am on mobile currently but here's the thing. We do think that the Big Bang collapses on itself. The most well supported theory right now is that we are actually in a "Big Bang cycle". This is because something as big as the Big Bang would collapse on itself, but it could not go down to a point particle, causing it to explode outward. We know this happens.
Secondly, using a perfect earth as a justification is a falesy. If I walk down a beach and pick up a perfect skipping stone, one with the right length, width, and smoothness, I might assume that it is man made. It is the only explanation right? But then I look around and see thousands of other stones, some too long but the right smoothness. Some too rough but the right length and width. I just had the chance of getting the perfect one, and I am surrounded by so many imperfect ones it is actually quite probable that I do pick up the perfect one. Hence why that is no justification or explanation for gods existence.
CampeadorAnd I'm starting to feel very poorly about the mean-spirited things I've said to you. You can probably tell I take being insulted very badly.
To be perfectly honest, I agree with many principles of the left-wing platform. For example, I do believe in a certain level of universal health-care to all citizens and legal residents.
However, I just cannot, in absolute terms, accept certain positions that have largely become mainstream on the left-wing spectrum. The main one for me is defense of Islam, and false equivalences to Christianity (or any other religion). I don't believe all Muslims are inherently evil (far from it), but I do believe the Islam is an ideology that can lead them to evil much more readily than any other religion by far. The situation around the globe bears testament to this.
At 17, I was in a position where I could have easily been killed or severely wounded in an Islamic terrorist attack. These attacks were conducted by "British" muslims, people who should have assimilated, and been hugely grateful for the fantastic opportunities offered to them by the British public. Instead, much of the British muslim society lives in a parallel society that is increasingly insulated and fundamentalist. Even Pew Research shows that subsequent generations of Muslims are more Islamic, and more hostile, than their parents.
This situation is diametrically opposed to just every other immigration experience in the West. Indians and East Asians assimilate particularly well, and often achieve high levels of success in Western Society. Immigrants have a duty to assimilate, if they do not do so, they are not immigrants, they are colonists. Muslims, more than any other group, do not assimilate effectively, and seek to impose their will on the native population. This is indicative of a colonial power (in the loose definition of the word) asserting control over the native population. In a sense, a new form of reverse-colonialism. The tragic part is that many on the left-wing spectrum believe that they "deserve" this reverse-colonialism for the perceived wrongdoings of their ancestors.
Muslim imams and other religious leaders have been on record encouraging muslims to take Western welfare, as it is a form of "Jizya" that the infidel dhimmi must pay to them.
Having studied the belief system (and especially the Sharia law) system on which Islam is based, I've increasingly come to the conclusion that Islam creates significant cultural and societal deficiencies . Winston Churchill himself, the man one the front line against fascism and nazism, described it as the "most retrograde force in the world". In terms of scope and impact, it's hard to disagree with that.
Furthermore, as Churchill argued, it is a force that imposes a direct form of slavery upon women (to varying degrees depending on location) as well as underage girls. We still see this around the globe, and it is very alarming. What is most alarming is the new usage of garments like the hijab and the niqab, as symbols of Islamic supremacy in the West.
Unless Islam can reform itself (and be largely cast off), by a new generation of muslims in the mold of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, then there is no hope for it to ever be compatible with Western society. Nothing I've seen makes me optimistic about this. Unfortunately, Islamic fundamentalists have found ready allies in misguided cultural relativists.
100% agree. If you refuse to assimilate and/or abuse our welfare system then please get the fuck out of my country. That goes for anyone who abuses our system, not just Muslims.
Funny you mentioned Churchill, I'm a direct blood relative. Looks like we share some of the same views.
As for the back and forth, I really did enjoy it. I wasn't lying when I said you were off base on most of your assumptions, but I will admit that regardless your insults were well written and thought out. Sometimes it went a little too far but it's the Internet.
And I know you aren't a troll, you just over extend your beliefs and write aggressively. It really is entertaining. Keeps things interesting and definitely rubs some people in here the wrong way.
CampeadorFood stamps are meant for Americans, not unskilled migrant foreigners who have no business being here in the first place. The domestic abuse of food stamps is a separate issue entirely.
We have plenty of unskilled people of all races in this country, we really don't need to be importing any more than we already have. Wouldn't you agree?
Unemployment is harder to decipher from that chart, but some of those welfare programs are geared primarily towards those who are unemployed.
I'm claiming, by and large, that muslim migration is a net drain on every single society to which they migrate. I have yet to find one country that has been better off as a result of allowing in more muslims (especially unskilled ones). I believe my arguments and the sources I've provided back that up.
If you have a difference of opinion (with evidence to back it up), I'd be happy to consider your viewpoint if it's well defended by hard evidence and not emotion or a misguided sense of morality.
Good, well presented points. I guess the thing I just take issue with is the demonization of muslims and Islam culture. It isn't inherently bad, and there are good muslims. I have an issue with preaching hate towards them, especially when at least some portion of the refugees are refugees because of what we did in their countries.
I also have a large issue with saying certain passports/visas will no longer allow you into the country.
I have an issue with people acting like every Muslim is a terrorist and every terrorist is a Muslim. Because though neither of those statements are true, quite a few people act like they are.
My viewpoint I suppose is that these Muslim immigrants should be treated the same as Latino immigrants, or Canadian immigrants, or wherever you come from. Which isn't what is happening
HenriksDreadsGood, well presented points. I guess the thing I just take issue with is the demonization of muslims and Islam culture. It isn't inherently bad, and there are good muslims. I have an issue with preaching hate towards them, especially when at least some portion of the refugees are refugees because of what we did in their countries.
I also have a large issue with saying certain passports/visas will no longer allow you into the country.
I have an issue with people acting like every Muslim is a terrorist and every terrorist is a Muslim. Because though neither of those statements are true, quite a few people act like they are.
My viewpoint I suppose is that these Muslim immigrants should be treated the same as Latino immigrants, or Canadian immigrants, or wherever you come from. Which isn't what is happening
These immigrants shouldn't be abusing our welfare system with no intention of getting jobs or assimilating to American culture. And from what I've seen, Latinos seem far more likely to get a job and work rather than abuse welfare.
Also Islam preaches violence far more than Christianity. It is a violent religion.
Charlie_KellyThese immigrants shouldn't be abusing our welfare system with no intention of getting jobs or assimilating to American culture. And from what I've seen, Latinos seem far more likely to get a job and work rather than abuse welfare.
Also Islam preaches violence far more than Christianity. It is a violent religion.
both good points. i generally speaking am at least somewhat in favor of latino immigration, because some of the guys i've met are harder workers than any white american (i used to work with a guy who was here legally from puerto rico, dude worked about 60-80 hours a week). and the whole "therrrr takin errr jobs" is so fucking stupid, because they're going and working these shitty construction jobs and cleaning hotel rooms and generally stuff americans don't want to do. so i agree there.
and i agree with the violence part. but i have two key issues with it. a) freedom of religion. it's something this country was founded on, and should still be important. it's the reason a "religion" like scientology is able to exist. also don't forget about westboro baptist church. and b) islam is in need of reform. BUT a country full of christians/catholics saying muslims aren't allowed here anymore... IMO, not the greatest way to get there. more of a way to piss them off more
HenriksDreadsboth good points. i generally speaking am at least somewhat in favor of latino immigration, because some of the guys i've met are harder workers than any white american (i used to work with a guy who was here legally from puerto rico, dude worked about 60-80 hours a week). and the whole "therrrr takin errr jobs" is so fucking stupid, because they're going and working these shitty construction jobs and cleaning hotel rooms and generally stuff americans don't want to do. so i agree there.
and i agree with the violence part. but i have two key issues with it. a) freedom of religion. it's something this country was founded on, and should still be important. it's the reason a "religion" like scientology is able to exist. also don't forget about westboro baptist church. and b) islam is in need of reform. BUT a country full of christians/catholics saying muslims aren't allowed here anymore... IMO, not the greatest way to get there. more of a way to piss them off more
I see what you are saying, but at least from my opinion Im not making the argument that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to practice their religion here, Im saying that regardless of your religion you should not purposefully abuse our welfare systems. That goes for being Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Atheist, etc. And Compeador is right, why import more freeloaders? That is not what this country needs, and certainly not a concept it was founded on. I also think religions should NEVER infringe on basic human rights. Women in the Muslim religion are treated as sub-human. It teaches them (followers) that because we do not accept their faith as the one true faith we owe them something. That just doesn't fly in an American culture. By all means, get properly vetted, come over, and work. Contribute to society. I've busted my ass since I was 15 and Im getting tired of paying for lazy pieces of shit.
And that doesnt even touch on the fact that more atrocities have been committed in the name of Allah then any other deity in recent times. When the majority of "good" Muslims can unite and say they are tired of the extremists giving their religion a bad name, maybe then we can see some start of reform.
californiagrownYou are aware the official cause of its collapse had nothing to do with fire, right? Falling debris from the twin towers damaged key structural elements. Curiously, what is your background as an engineer?
That caused the building to collapse into its own footprint just like a demo? Architects and engineers for 911 truth
Charlie_KellyFuck, I'm starting to agree with you (at least on this issue). Though I don't believe Muslims are as sub-human as you paint them, I do believe they aren't bringing much to America to better society. And I honestly support this temporary "ban" (which it is not, atleast on Muslims) especially considering Obama and his cabinet are the ones that selected these countries. I really wish Muslims as a whole would take more responsibility and try to more drastically oppose those extremists in there religion.
