maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Wed Jul 26, 2017 8:47 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


It's the Gulag of Fun



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Taking Action Against the Trump Hate
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:43 am 
Online
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 25134
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 13507
Kameolontti wrote:
Anthropoid wrote:


True; but they are also a business, and given half the country voted for Trump, might not be the best business plan to turn a blind eye to anti-Trump defamation and threats.


It is possible for Leftists to decide that propaganda and re-education of the unwashed masses is worth the loss of money and customers.

However if they went that route it would only lead to one of their rival services be able to adopt opposing policy and become a significant rival to them.

Quora had initially that same kind of phenomena as it was started by leftoids in LA who initially recruited their leftoid friends. As a consequence Brexit was essentially worshipping the satan on massive scale by hillbilly britons and Trump's choice would lead to military attacking White House to depose of him in order to avoid the end of everything.

They also had several conservatives banned from the site and their answers collapsed because they were trying to rationalize with the left and offer the conservative take on all of it which is of course strictly forbidden and to be fought.

Regardless the conservatives have now learnt on Quora not to answer trollish anonymous questions like "What does [name] think of Trump's [action]?".

One of the funniest are the type of questions which ask something like "How awful is Trump?" and if anyone answers that he isn't then their answers get collapsed by a swarm of downvotes while only tolerating answers that go with their own narrative.

The conservatives still manage to persist and grow in numbers as they're learning to avoid some of the worst traps. There's already a decent sized number of well written and followed conservatives there, one of my personal favorites is Jon Davis who coincidentally is a marine. Must be pure coincidence!


Quote:
However if they went that route it would only lead to one of their rival services be able to adopt opposing policy and become a significant rival to them.

Yes, Fox News is a great example of that.

But it doesn't always work.

The "Left" in the US has complained for decades that "talk radio" in the US is dominated by those with a "right-leaning" view.
They created Air America, an American radio network specializing in progressive/liberal talk radio. It was on the air from March 2004 to January 2010.

Air American brought in what they thought was an "all star" cast of progressive/liberal people as radio hosts and the network failed because they couldn't get enough people to listen to them.

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Taking Action Against the Trump Hate
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 11:25 am 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 8370
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 9423
Well I think YT is a bit of an exception. I agree, they are probably overall a "leftist" org (YT is owned by Google now so that is who we are really talking about). However, Google, like Microsoft is huge and has an extremely broad target market: cross sex, cross gender, cross age, cross income, cross nationality, cross everything pretty much.

I see PLENTY of pro-Trump channels on YT. Mark Dice is just one example. Virtually EVERY video he has made for the past 1 to 2 years is a dis on the "anti-Trump" leftists and most of his videos fit one archetype: leftists are insane, here is another example . . . He sprinkles his commentary with little bits of Christian judgmentalism (which annoys me mildly but not enough to unsub) and is clearly anti-left. I can probably think of a dozen such channels on YT that I know of and/or am currently subbed on. That doesn't even include the scores, hundreds even of other channels that are simply politically incorrect, edgy or otherwise objectionable to SJWs, feminists and PCs.

The impression I get is that YT staff either just do not pay much attention to anything except copyright infringement complaints, or they strive to avoid taking action anything of a "political nature."

However, death threats is a different beast and I don't see how they can just shrug that off.

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Taking Action Against the Trump Hate
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 2:01 pm 
Offline
Staff Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:16 am
Posts: 4640
Location: The Cockney Paradise
Reputation points: 10633
pamak wrote:
Conclusion, prepare yourself to hear a lot of hate speech, slander and defamation. Anything that stops short of directly inciting violence against Trump is a good thing!

As the dinosaurs were going extinct, they became confused, fearful, angry and lashed out, not knowing their era was over. #angrylibtards

Attachment:
1485616128108.jpg
1485616128108.jpg [ 57.61 KiB | Viewed 209 times ]

_________________
I could be the catalyst that sparks the revolution
I could be an inmate in a long-term institution
I could dream to wide extremes, I could do or die
I could yawn and be withdrawn and watch the world go by
What a waste...


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Taking Action Against the Trump Hate
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 2:24 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 8370
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 9423
Mac wrote:
pamak wrote:
Conclusion, prepare yourself to hear a lot of hate speech, slander and defamation. Anything that stops short of directly inciting violence against Trump is a good thing!

As the dinosaurs were going extinct, they became confused, fearful, angry and lashed out, not knowing their era was over. #angrylibtards

Attachment:
1485616128108.jpg


:mrgreen:
Quote:
You cannot give reputation so soon after your last.

Return to the previous page


Where it is sane, I am fully in favor of critical commentary on Trump; it is just so RARE and especially from anyone who fundamentally disagrees with his perspectives in general.

In another thread on here, I noted that I don't really approve of the Yemen attack he recently gave the thumbs up on. But not because I suffer the false notion that anyone in Yemen deserves to be left alive; as far as I'm concerned, at this point ALL Muslims are suspects in the global Islamic Supremacist movement, and any specific Muslim convincing me otherwise is contingent on them going out of their way to show me that they hold the values that I hold dear (those of Western Civilization) as a higher priority than they do the 700 year old medieval, sexist, misogynist, pedophile, tribal-warmongering superstition to which they adhere.

To put it quite simply: if you are a Muslim, I do NOT trust you, unless you can prove to me that you deserve my trust DESPITE being a Muslim.

I would've said the same thing in 1937 about a German. Would I have been wrong a good deal of the time? Yes. Probably still 20 or 25% of the German population were not yet truly complicit and culpable at that point. Even if that number were only 49% it is arguably the ONLY pragmatic position. When a population has been "taken over" by violent hate ideology, and even when a large fraction of that population are not directly supportive of the specific violent hate activities, it is a basic act of common sense to be skeptical, cautious even suspicious of ALL members of that population.

Being suspicious does not mean: engaging in vigilantism or any other form of extrajudicial or illegal activity. But it does mean taking anything such folks say with a very large grain of salt and "keeping your eye on them." Applying a blanket ban on the entrance of all Muslims, conditional with a set of conditions to permit any Muslim entrance based on their performance in a battery of screening measures (one might even consider the use of cutting edge implicit attitudes experimental methods . . . but simply well-trained customs and immigration staff might be sufficient) seems perfectly reasonable to me. It has nothing to do with "racism" nor even with "relgionism" or any other "ism." It has to do with being pragmatic. When you are at war, you do not afford people who are from the same population as your enemy the same privileges as if they were from an friendly or merely neutral population.

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Taking Action Against the Trump Hate
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:54 pm 
Offline
Gunnery Sergeant

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:23 pm
Posts: 5965
Reputation points: 2030
Quote:
Being suspicious does not mean: engaging in vigilantism or any other form of extrajudicial or illegal activity. But it does mean taking anything such folks say with a very large grain of salt and "keeping your eye on them." Applying a blanket ban on the entrance of all Muslims, conditional with a set of conditions to permit any Muslim entrance based on their performance in a battery of screening measures (one might even consider the use of cutting edge implicit attitudes experimental methods . . . but simply well-trained customs and immigration staff might be sufficient) seems perfectly reasonable to me. It has nothing to do with "racism" nor even with "relgionism" or any other "ism." It has to do with being pragmatic.


A lot of baloney to justify the unjustifiable:

In a little bit, during the conformation hearings for the SCOTUS, the conservatives will remind us that they are "traditional constitutionalists,"

Traditional constitutionalists my ass!

Anybody who argues that a government should treat Muslims as lower people just because of their religion has a very modern and unconventional interpretation of the values expressed in the constitution. And this type of logic can apply to refugees AND Muslim citizens as well because the issue of "distrust" does not go away simply because someone gets citizenship. As it is known, there have been Muslim citizens of western countries who were recruited by ISIS and committed terrorist acts.
But metrics based on crime (or terrorism) statistics designed to put whole groups of people under scrutiny and justify discrimination is the standard ideology for many conservatives.
The say the same thing against blacks, and they express their racial hostility and suspicion all the time. Again, their attitude and beliefs is based on some kind of statistics showing the "depravity" of the WHOLE group which immediately justifies suspicion and hostility against ANY member of that group unless the latter proves beyond reasonable doubt that he is innocent.
I hope it will not come the day when extremist feminists will manage to convince half of our society that there must be hostility against all men and legal discrimination based on suspicions and crime statistics (men are by far more violent than women).
But the normalization of the extreme right in American politics will bring a strong reaction from the left!

Trump could easily argue about more vetting for refugees coming from Syria. but the moment he decided to see it in religious terms (by treating Christian Syrian refugees differently from Muslim Syrian refugees) he betrayed his vile agenda!

_________________
I have blocked mdhiel and will do the same to any person who may decide to alter my quotes in the future
(see thread viewtopic.php?f=5&p=273210#p273210)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Taking Action Against the Trump Hate
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 6:57 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:44 am
Posts: 10400
Reputation points: 10757
Anthropoid wrote:
I would've said the same thing in 1937 about a German. Would I have been wrong a good deal of the time? Yes. Probably still 20 or 25% of the German population were not yet truly complicit and culpable at that point. Even if that number were only 49% it is arguably the ONLY pragmatic position. When a population has been "taken over" by violent hate ideology, and even when a large fraction of that population are not directly supportive of the specific violent hate activities, it is a basic act of common sense to be skeptical, cautious even suspicious of ALL members of that population.


Almost looks like the US itself is in that boat today, when you got Antifa thugs beating people to unconsciousness and lefties who should know better squirming out of condemning them. Really, condemning some balaclava'd thugs with bats should be pretty easy for anybody, one would assume.

At least people like Bill Maher don't have any truck with that sort of despicable behaviour. So maybe it's still a tiny minority, hard to see through the sensationalism.

Quote:
Being suspicious does not mean: engaging in vigilantism or any other form of extrajudicial or illegal activity. But it does mean taking anything such folks say with a very large grain of salt and "keeping your eye on them." Applying a blanket ban on the entrance of all Muslims, conditional with a set of conditions to permit any Muslim entrance based on their performance in a battery of screening measures (one might even consider the use of cutting edge implicit attitudes experimental methods . . . but simply well-trained customs and immigration staff might be sufficient) seems perfectly reasonable to me. It has nothing to do with "racism" nor even with "relgionism" or any other "ism." It has to do with being pragmatic. When you are at war, you do not afford people who are from the same population as your enemy the same privileges as if they were from an friendly or merely neutral population.


Being allowed in to a foreign country is a granted privilege, not a right, and as such can be rescinded any time, for any reason, in my book. As I understand it Trump is only exercising laws already on the statute book. So it's not illegal. It's not unconstitutional. And it's not immoral.

You might disagree with it, for any of a wide range of other reasons which are quite valid. But then, he was pretty open about his plans and he was voted in, and that's how differences are currently resolved in western democracies. He was pretty honest about his intent, more than most politicians are about their plans post election.

_________________
“The gap in EU finances arising from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and from the financing needs of new priorities need to be clearly acknowledged.” - Mario Monti


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Taking Action Against the Trump Hate
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:03 pm 
Offline
Gunnery Sergeant

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:23 pm
Posts: 5965
Reputation points: 2030
Quote:
Being allowed in to a foreign country is a granted privilege, not a right, and as such can be rescinded any time, for any reason, in my book. As I understand it Trump is only exercising laws already on the statute book. So it's not illegal. It's not unconstitutional. And it's not immoral.





The Constitution is clear

Quote:
Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...



There is no "refugee religion" and "American citizen religion". Refugee Muslim and American Muslim belong to the same religion.Thus, any law that favors or disfavors refugees' religion is de facto a law that promotes or discourages the establishment of the same religion among the American citizens. Imagine for example a Muslim American CITIZEN from Iraq (perhaps an interpretator during the Iraqie invasion) who wants to bring his family in the US. Trump signals that if the family of this American CITIZEN becomes Christian, there will be a much better chance to get a visa.
This is why I said that Trump lost any argument he had the moment he decided to treat Syrian Muslim refugees different from Syrian Christian refugees.

_________________
I have blocked mdhiel and will do the same to any person who may decide to alter my quotes in the future
(see thread viewtopic.php?f=5&p=273210#p273210)


Last edited by pamak on Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Taking Action Against the Trump Hate
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:25 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 8370
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 9423
I have just been reading about United States laws pertaining to freedom of speech and stumbled on the wiki page for this Supreme Court Decision: Brandenburg_v._Ohio

It seems that the threshold for what is considered "illegal" speech is considerably higher than I had imagined

Quote:
the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action


So based on that, I'm guessing that much of the advocacy of violence by anti-Trump agitators (including Madonna's comment about thinking about blowing up the White House) is "legal."

Meritorious? In my opinion no; but legal? Yes it appears as such.

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Taking Action Against the Trump Hate
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 12:52 pm 
Online
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 25134
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 13507
pamak wrote:


There is no "refugee religion" and "American citizen religion". Refugee Muslim and American Muslim belong to the same religion.Thus, any law that favors or disfavors refugees' religion is de facto a law that promotes or discourages the establishment of the same religion among the American citizens. Imagine for example a Muslim American CITIZEN from Iraq (perhaps an interpretator during the Iraqie invasion) who wants to bring his family in the US. Trump signals that if the family of this American CITIZEN becomes Christian, there will be a much better chance to get a visa.
This is why I said that Trump lost any argument he had the moment he decided to treat Syrian Muslim refugees different from Syrian Christian refugees.


Deciding on criteria for immigration admittance in no way represents an establishment of religion.

Also, when it comes to the US Constitution, not all rights afforded under the US Constitution extend to foreign nationals (such as refugees). For example, someone who is not a US citizen (refugees) is not entitled to vote in federal elections.

The Supreme Court has previously ruled that "it is well established that certain constitutional protections available to persons inside the United States are unavailable to aliens outside of our geographic borders."
"aliens outside of our geographic borders" would include "refugees".

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Taking Action Against the Trump Hate
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 1:14 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 8370
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 9423
Look spamek, it is quite simple:

1. Islam harbors a sizeable population of homicidal maniacs, intent on destroying Western Civilization (you know, the civilization which allows you to be a "leftist"?).

2. As such, Islam IS suspect. Only after examination of a particular Muslim individual can they be excused from suspicion.

3. Constraining the admission of foreign nationals from Islamic nations is the logical first element of implementing a common-sense immigration reform to protect the citizens of the West.

It has absolutely nothing to do with what religion the U.S. permits and everything to do with identifying war time risks posed by a parent population (Islam) as a result of the behavior of child populations (homicidal Islamic supremacist maniacs).

The only real complication here is that "Islam" is not a nation-state. In every other respect, it reflects the legality and philosophy of sovereign self-determination and self-preservation which has prevailed as the de jure rule of Earth for the last 369 years.

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group