View Full Version : More EU Madness!
Don Schneider
06-23-17, 12:35 PM
The illustrious Court of Justice of the European Union has just in its infinite wisdom ruled that people can sue for having contracted various illnesses as an alleged result of having had a vaccination even if there is no scientific evidence that the vaccination caused the illness. The broad case was brought about by the narrow case of a French man who had been vaccinated against hepatitis B in 1998 and developed multiple sclerosis a year later. He wants to be able to hold the vaccination manufacturer liable for his illness. The fact that a great many people, the vast majority, who were like-vaccinated did not contract MS or that this (then) young man became inflicted with MS at a typical age for those with the disease, didn’t seem to resonate with the court. Common sense and logic seems to rarely enter into the thinking of this preposterous tribunal which rules by decree exactly as a Romanov tsar would have for hundreds of years.
In the bizarre rights happy world of the EU, everyone has rights and no one has responsibilities. A criminal cannot be deported from a host country if the penal system in the criminal’s native land isn’t judged to be as nice as in the host country, for example. This ludicrously, tyrannical court seems to enjoy pushing the metaphorical envelope further and further down the road of La La Land, sometimes, I think, just to get attention. The fact that the people of the EU put up with this in their typical sheep-like manner is just one more sign of their terminal decadence. Eurabia is indeed doomed. It is just a question of time.
From CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/21/health/vaccines-illness-european-court-bn/index.html
Yoda will say---one more apocalyptic thread. Well, if apocalypse is staring you in face then what can one do ?
Don Schneider
06-23-17, 12:47 PM
Yoda will say---one more apocalyptic thread. Well, if apocalypse is staring you in face then what can one do ?
Bury one's head into the sand, of course. Isn't this exactly what the PC crowd always does?
The illustrious Court of Justice of the European Union has just in its infinite wisdom ruled that people can sue for having contracted various illnesses as an alleged result of having had a vaccination even if there is no scientific evidence that the vaccination caused the illness. The broad case was brought about by the narrow case of a French man who had been vaccinated against hepatitis B in 1998 and developed multiple sclerosis a year later. He wants to be able to hold the vaccination manufacturer liable fro his illness. The fact that a great many people, the vast majority, who were like-vaccinated did not contract MS or that this young man became inflicted with MS at a typical age for those with the disease, didn’t seem to resonate with the court. Common sense and logic seems to rarely enter into the thinking of this preposterous tribunal which rules by decree exactly as a Romanov tsar would have for hundreds of years.
In the bizarre rights happy world of the EU, everyone has rights and no one has responsibilities. A criminal cannot be deported from a host country if the penal system in the criminal’s native land isn’t judged to be as nice as in the host country, for example. This ludicrously, tyrannical court seems to enjoy pushing the metaphorical envelope further and further down the road of La La Land, sometimes, I think, just to get attention. The fact that the people of the EU put up with this in their typical sheep-like manner is just one more sign of their terminal decadence. Eurabia is indeed doomed. It is just a question of time.
From CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/21/health/vaccines-illness-european-court-bn/index.html
Eurabia is the tidal wave of history. Nothing can stop it , especially with dwindling population growth of native Europeans coupled with exponential population growth rate of middle Easterners coming in . You better get out of Europe if you are staying there .
Don Schneider
06-23-17, 12:55 PM
Eurabia is the tidal wave of history. Nothing can stop it , especially with dwindling population growth of native Europeans coupled with exponential population growth rate of middle Easterners coming in . You better get out of Europe if you are staying there .
Hear! Hear!
Alright, time to nuke these lazy talking points:
Stop diluting the phrase "PC" by using it to describe anyone who merely questions your methods. PC means political correctness, which I have no patience for. But being anti-PC does not mean someone has to share your particularly acute sense of panic about every problem the world faces, and it sure doesn't obligate them to think the constant, obsessive expression of said panic is useful.
Let's start with the presumption that you're right, and that lots of people are "burying their head in the sand" about various threats (which I'd at least partially agree with). What exactly are you doing with your above-sand head? Do you think you're contributing to the solution by being constantly outraged on a movie site, and browbeating not only people who disagree, but even people who don't, because you think they're insufficiently vocal and showy about their concerns, or refuse to make expressing those concerns the central concern of their existence?
This is an important question, because it suggests that most of this outrage isn't about solving the problem, but more about feeling like you're doing something, even if you're not. And that's the charitable interpretation. The less charitable one is that it's really just about feeling better than the head-in-the-sand people, and there'd be very little interest in saying all this if it didn't also afford you the opportunity to feel superior to them.
Wplains
06-23-17, 01:14 PM
Hear! Hear!
Where can we go? Europe is our home, our continent, our culture. Yet our traitorous, crazy politicians decided to open it up to mass uncontrolled immigration allowing in millions of mostly single, fighting age young men. They mostly come to take advantage of our very generous welfare systems which, for some moronic reason, are available to everyone who decides to move here. It is sheer madness and stupidity which none of us voted for yet which is imposed on us.
I am quite sure though that the welfare systems are all going to collapse like a pack of cards now that the baby boomers are starting to retire en masse and the money for pensions and national health systems is going to disappear. Baby boomers are the biggest generation who ever lived and the generations coming after just don't generate enough wealth to keep up these systems. Maybe it's not such a bad thing - if there is nothing to give away, maybe we will stop being invaded.
In my country I contribute by supporting right wing political parties like shiv sena which are involved in causes like this---
https://www.google.co.in/amp/www.huffingtonpost.in/amp/2017/04/18/hindu-janajagruti-samiti-and-shiv-sena-seek-ban-on-use-of-loudsp_a_22043914/
Cool, good for you. I'll bet any one of the contributions you made helped the problem more than a thousand posts on this site.
Wplains
06-23-17, 01:20 PM
In my country I contribute by supporting right wing political parties like shiv sena which are involved in causes like this---
https://www.google.co.in/amp/www.huffingtonpost.in/amp/2017/04/18/hindu-janajagruti-samiti-and-shiv-sena-seek-ban-on-use-of-loudsp_a_22043914/
I think being right wing is anathema in certain circles.....;)
I think being right wing is anathema in certain circles.....;)
Only they are capable of taking the opponents head on . No one else has the guts . It's a question of survival.
Don Schneider
06-23-17, 01:25 PM
Alright, time to nuke these lazy talking points:
Stop diluting the phrase "PC" by using it to describe anyone who merely questions your methods. PC means political correctness, which I have no patience for. But being anti-PC does not mean someone has to share your particularly acute sense of panic about every problem the world faces, and it sure doesn't obligate them to think the constant, obsessive expression of said panic is useful.
Let's start with the presumption that you're right, and that lots of people are "burying their head in the sand" about various threats (which I'd at least partially agree with). What exactly are you doing with your above-sand head? Do you think you're contributing to the solution by being constantly outraged on a movie site, and browbeating not only people who disagree, but even people who don't, because you think they're insufficiently vocal and showy about their concerns, or refuse to make expressing those concerns the central concern of their existence?
This is an important question, because it suggests that most of this outrage isn't about solving the problem, but more about feeling like you're doing something, even if you're not. And that's the charitable interpretation. The less charitable one is that it's really just about feeling better than the head-in-the-sand people, and there'd be very little interest in saying all this if it didn't also afford you the opportunity to feel superior to them.
People who enjoy movies don’t have political opinions? I recently made what I thought was a very intelligent and thoughtful reply on the “Performances that surprised” thread regarding Steve Martin and didn’t receive a single up-vote let alone reply. This seems telling as to where people’s interest lie.
What is the purpose of any political discourse? Perhaps an effort to persuade? Isn’t this how movements are engendered? Someone reads here, is persuaded and then persuades others in turn. The President of the United States ran in large part against PC. It is therefore a most relevant topic and not the exclusive preserve of some singular crank ranting on an internet forum.
Yoda, my friend, you’re at the crosswords, I think. This is indeed your forum. You can either ban political discourse here or allow it and police it for egregious content, libel, for example, and obscenity. Otherwise, I think you should allow the chips to fall where they may. It’s your call alone. Any who don’t like your decision, can start their own forum if they have sufficient interest. But please don't vacillate.
People who enjoy movies don’t have political opinions?
This is an obvious straw man. You say "have political opinions," but we all have those. What's at issue is compulsively expressing the same political opinion over and over.
What is the purpose of any political discourse? Perhaps an effort to persuade? Isn’t this how movements are engendered? Someone reads here, is persuaded and then persuades others in turn.
If persuasion were the goal, people wouldn't be actively attacking those who agree with them about terrorism for merely thinking this is an ineffective, boorish way of going about it. It seems pretty clear, then, that it's the expression of outrage itself that's the real motivator. This is supported by how much time is spent talking about how awful or myopic other people are, relative to the amount of time talking about the problem itself.
Yoda, my friend, you’re at the crosswords, I think. This is indeed your forum. You can either ban political discourse here or allow it and police it for egregious content, liable, for example, and obscenity. Otherwise, I think you should allow the chips to fall where they may. It’s your call alone. Any who don’t like your decision, can start their own forum if they have sufficient interest. But please don't vacillate.
I choose to allow it and ban egregious content. And, under the term "egregious," I choose to include the fanatical obsession with constantly expressing the same thing over and over.
If you require more clarity than that, I am happy to provide it: if anyone's primary interest here is to talk about how doomed we are, and if they are unable to restrain themselves from talking about it on an almost daily basis, they should find another site.
Come on , the same political opinion is repeated again and again because the terror attacks occur again and again.
We need some place to bang our virtual heads in frustration at society's inability to stop the onrushing tide.
Come on , the same political opinion is repeated again and again because the terror attacks occur again and again.
This seems like a non-sequitur. Why would you need to repeat every opinion with every attack? I think lots of things are bad, but I don't feel the need to reiterate my opinion every time I even encounter them, let alone just hear about one on the news. I don't start a new thread arguing for the existence of God every time an atheist shows up in my Facebook feed.
And if I did, you know what would happen? People would tune me out and I wouldn't have accomplished anything.
We need some place to bang our heads in frustration at society's inability to stop the onrushing tide.
Well, I'm glad we agree that this is little more than frustrated head-banging.
But even if you do need such a place, one wonders why it should be here. You can say this stuff in a million places, many with the same insatiable appetite for discussing it. But obviously, that's not enough. Seems like what people really want is just to have their outrage seen and acknowledged, which means any place is as good as any other. But they can't say that, because it doesn't sound as noble as suggesting that this is really about trying to save civilization.
If these discussions were at all pragmatic, rather than just a compulsive expression of outrage, they would all look very different and probably be happening some place else.
matt72582
06-23-17, 02:19 PM
Alright, time to nuke these lazy talking points:
Stop diluting the phrase "PC" by using it to describe anyone who merely questions your methods. PC means political correctness, which I have no patience for. But being anti-PC does not mean someone has to share your particularly acute sense of panic about every problem the world faces, and it sure doesn't obligate them to think the constant, obsessive expression of said panic is useful.
Let's start with the presumption that you're right, and that lots of people are "burying their head in the sand" about various threats (which I'd at least partially agree with). What exactly are you doing with your above-sand head? Do you think you're contributing to the solution by being constantly outraged on a movie site, and browbeating not only people who disagree, but even people who don't, because you think they're insufficiently vocal and showy about their concerns, or refuse to make expressing those concerns the central concern of their existence?
This is an important question, because it suggests that most of this outrage isn't about solving the problem, but more about feeling like you're doing something, even if you're not. And that's the charitable interpretation. The less charitable one is that it's really just about feeling better than the head-in-the-sand people, and there'd be very little interest in saying all this if it didn't also afford you the opportunity to feel superior to them.
Hear Here!
Powdered Water
06-23-17, 02:19 PM
Man, I really hope you all stop arguing with Chris/Yoda long enough to REALLY read his posts.
Don Schneider
06-23-17, 02:20 PM
This is an obvious straw man. You say "have political opinions," but we all have those. What's at issue is compulsively expressing the same political opinion over and over.
If persuasion were the goal, people wouldn't be actively attacking those who agree with them about terrorism for merely thinking this is an ineffective, boorish way of going about it. It seems pretty clear, then, that it's the expression of outrage itself that's the real motivator. This is supported by how much time is spent talking about how awful or myopic other people are, relative to the amount of time talking about the problem itself.
I choose to allow it and ban egregious content. And, under the term "egregious," I choose to include the fanatical obsession with constantly expressing the same thing over and over.
If you require more clarity than that, I am happy to provide it: if anyone's primary interest here is to talk about how doomed we are, and if they are unable to restrain themselves from talking about it on an almost daily basis, they should find another site.
"Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"
I take it you’re not a big fan of Cato? Hey, it worked!
I take it you're not a big fan of Churchill?
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
Powdered Water
06-23-17, 02:24 PM
Any of you a fan of the hero of Canton the man they call Jane? Well, he said: "If wishes were horses we'd all be eatin steak!"
Don Schneider
06-23-17, 02:36 PM
I take it you're not a big fan of Churchill?
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
That’s an unusual source, a quote from a man who warned and warned against Germany and the Nazis from the political wilderness for years.
“Yet, the stubborn and tenacious eldest son of Lord Randolph Churchill was undaunted. He was truly a lone voice in the wilderness when he raised the alarm concerning German rearmament and the remarkable ascension to power of the charismatic Adolph Hitler.”
http://www.thedailyobserver.ca/2009/08/27/winston-churchill-a-lone-voice-warning-of-a-storm
It’s a pity, don't you think? Millions upon millions dead for want of heeding the warnings of such a “fanatic.”
That’s an unusual source, a quote from a man who warned and warned against Germany and the Nazis form the political wilderness for years.
It's not unusual at all. That's kinda the point: even someone who knew a thing or two about confronting threats to civilization understood the difference between resolve and fanaticism.
It’s a pity: Millions upon millions dead for want of heeding the warnings of such a “fanatic.”
Think of how many lives could've been saved if he'd just yelled about Nazis in front of the local theater every day.
matt72582
06-23-17, 02:45 PM
I don't see that analogy holding up.... I don't like comparing in general (different circumstances), and the Nazis controlled a very powerful country... I tend to see a lot of "apocalypse" talk out of hysteria, boredom, or a saturation of "news" - but never on actual issues that affect the community you live in.
Atheist showing up on Facebook feed is equal to terrorist attack ? Come on Yoda .
I tend to see a lot of "apocalypse" talk out of hysteria, boredom, or a saturation of "news" - but never on actual issues that affect the community you live in.
Hear, Hear! Just a rock banging around in a tin can.
Don Schneider
06-23-17, 02:55 PM
I don't see that analogy holding up.... I don't like comparing in general (different circumstances), and the Nazis controlled a very powerful country... I tend to see a lot of "apocalypse" talk out of hysteria, boredom, or a saturation of "news" - but never on actual issues that affect the community you live in.
What is it about the analogy you don’t understand? Churchill warned and warned about the danger of Nazi Germany and was ignored. Result? Entire cities razed to the ground; ethnic genocide, and 60 million dead. I’d say that affected local communities, wouldn’t you?
Don Schneider
06-23-17, 02:57 PM
Hear, Hear! Just a rock banging around in a tin can.
Please see my recent answer to Matt. Thank you.
Please see my recent answer to Matt. Thank you.
I saw it. Still hearing a rock banging around in a tin can. As Powdered Water said, why don't you read Yoda's posts and try to understand what he's saying. It's a pretty simple concept he has. thank you.
Citizen Rules
06-23-17, 03:07 PM
Seeing how the Nazi's came up in this discussion...and we're quoting, then I have a poignant quote...
"Race hate isn't human nature; race hate is the abandonment of human nature." Orson Welles
Don Schneider
06-23-17, 03:10 PM
I saw it. Still hearing a rock banging around in a tin can. As Powdered Water said, why don't you read Yoda's posts and try to understand what he's saying. It's a pretty simple concept he has. thank you.
Well, I must commend you on one point, at least. Whereas many others seem to take delight in saying absolutely nothing in myriad paragraphs, you are content to do so in but one. I do understand Chris’s points, but I disagree with them. (Do you think he only welcomes sycophants?) We both invoke the immortal Sir Winston Churchill for historical precedent, albeit it to opposing conclusions.
Well, I must commend you on one point, at least. Whereas many others seem to take delight in saying absolutely nothing in myriad paragraphs, you are content to do so in but one.
That's quite passive aggressive, Don. Much louder than a rock banging around in a tin can. My feels are hurtie.
Don Schneider
06-23-17, 03:16 PM
That's quite passive aggressive, Don. Much louder than a rock banging around in a tin can. My feels are hurtie.
I was merely pointing out that you didn't address my point at all in your "retort." Instead, you simply accused me, in effect, of blustering. In argumentation, one needs to back up such a raw assertion. ("You're a bigot because....")
Atheist showing up on Facebook feed is equal to terrorist attack ? Come on Yoda .
Nope, but it doesn't have to be, because it's an analogy. And because saying God exists isn't equal to saying civilization is threatened and people who don't want to talk about it all the time are aiding and abetting terrorism, either.
It's an analogy that illustrates the other points in the same post, which were:
Why would you need to repeat every opinion with every attack? I think lots of things are bad, but I don't feel the need to reiterate my opinion every time I even encounter them, let alone just hear about one on the news.
People would tune me out and I wouldn't have accomplished anything.
But even if you do need such a place, one wonders why it should be here. You can say this stuff in a million places, many with the same insatiable appetite for discussing it. But obviously, that's not enough. Seems like what people really want is just to have their outrage seen and acknowledged, which means any place is as good as any other. But they can't say that, because it doesn't sound as noble as suggesting that this is really about trying to save civilization.
If these discussions were at all pragmatic, rather than just a compulsive expression of outrage, they would all look very different and probably be happening some place else.
I was merely pointing out that you didn't address my point at all in your "retort." Instead, you simply accused me, in effect, of blustering. In argumentation, one needs to back up such a raw assertion. ("You're a bigot because....")
What point was that? That people who dont think like you are oh so PC and have their head in the sand? The point I made was quite clear. Read Yoda's posts and let them sink in ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
In addition to that response to ash, and in simultaneous response to Don's comments, there seems to be a common misconception here: the idea that you can respond to any questions by just talking about how serious terrorism is.
Okay, terrorism is serious. Exactly how many of the nooks and crannies in life must it inhabit? Do we have to remind our kids of it when we tuck them in at night? Do we have to tell the cashier about it when they give us our change? Do we need to scrawl "if you see something, say something" inside birthday cards? No? Then you already agree in principle that the seriousness of the issue is not a de facto justification for talking about it wherever, however, whenever you feel the impulse to. Which means it isn't a response when I ask you what you hope to accomplish by compulsively posting about it here.
d_chatterley
06-23-17, 03:51 PM
If someone really needs a subthread, of a movie forum no less, to stay informed about terrorist attacks or any global news for that matter, they should really reconsider their news sources. Although, it was never really about informing people was it?
Don Schneider
06-23-17, 03:54 PM
If someone really needs a subthread, of a movie forum no less, to stay informed about terrorist attacks or any global news for that matter, they should really reconsider their news sources. Although, it was never really about informing people was it?
Oh, we’re all well informed about the news. That’s the problem. This is an opinion forum meant to share views and hopefully persuade.
If someone really needs a subthread, of a movie forum no less, to stay informed about terrorist attacks or any global news for that matter, they should really reconsider their news sources. Although, it was never really about informing people was it?
Might help if they actually read the news, and not post one article to start a debate about something else.
Don Schneider
06-23-17, 03:56 PM
What point was that? That people who dont think like you are oh so PC and have their head in the sand? The point I made was quite clear. Read Yoda's posts and let them sink in ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No, the point was about Churchill as historical precedent. He had to battle folks like you and who argued much like you.
No, the point was about Churchill as historical precedent. He had to battle folks like you and who argued much like you.
Dear man, this thread from the get go was just like this
https://www.facebook.com/LADbible/videos/3254272574619910/
Don Schneider
06-23-17, 04:01 PM
Dear man, this thread from the get go was just like this
https://www.facebook.com/LADbible/videos/3254272574619910/
Thank you for punctuating my point! You rarely if ever say anything.
Thank you for punctuating my point! You rarely if ever say anything.
What on earth was the point of this thread? Seemed like a sly attempt to me. Vax - 'Eurabia'. That's a really infantile net term, by the way. I thought only angry teens used it. Tried to sneak that one in, didn't you.
d_chatterley
06-23-17, 04:06 PM
Oh, we’re all well informed about the news. That’s the problem. This is an opinion forum meant to share views and hopefully persuade.
You should really rethink your style and rhetoric because you are failing miserably on the persuasion part. I have a feeling if you really looked deeper within, you would find different reasons for your posting than the ones you mentioned.
In fact, your rhetoric sounds a lot closer to someone else you mentioned spreading fear of certain group of people in Europe during WW2.
This is an opinion forum meant to share views and hopefully persuade.
Two minutes later:
No, the point was about Churchill as historical precedent. He had to battle folks like you and who argued much like you.
This isn't the kind of thing people say when they're trying to persuade people. Pretty much none of this stuff is.
On the occasions when I've responded to you substantively, you've done the whole "agree to disagree" thing in relatively short order, even though you have an endless appetite for flat contradictions and insinuations like the one above. That makes it pretty clear what the real motivator is here, and it ain't persuasion.
Citizen Rules
06-23-17, 04:15 PM
Oh, we’re all well informed about the news. That’s the problem. This is an opinion forum meant to share views and hopefully persuade.MoFo is a movie forum.
You should consider forming your own Facebook group and then you can invite like minded people to it. You will reach a much bigger audience that way and will have a better chance at persuading others.
Also, you will be literally uncensored and in control of what you want to say. I'm serious, your own Facebook group is a good idea.
You have 5 or 6 people here who would most likely join such a group. If your goal is to alert and persuade people about the dangers of terrorism, you need to be on Facebook.
Terrorism is merely prelude to apocalypse. Terrorism is like the raids the ottoman Turks used to launch into the Balkans before they actually invaded with their main army and conquered the Balkans.
Don Schneider
06-23-17, 04:24 PM
You should really rethink your style and rhetoric because you are failing miserably on the persuasion part. I have a feeling if you really looked deeper within, you would find different reasons for your posting than the ones you mentioned.
In fact, your rhetoric sounds a lot closer to someone else you mentioned spreading fear of certain group of people in Europe during WW2.
You want to play on the Hitler analogy? Fine. Let’s stick with the pertinent aspect of it.
Your ilk did nothing when Hitler announced the Nuremberg Racial Laws.
Your ilk did nothing when he remilitarized the Rhineland in defiance of the Treaty of
Versailles.
Your ilk did nothing when he announced conscription, again in defiance of the treaty.
Your ilk did nothing when he Intimidated Austria into union with Germany.
Your ilk did nothing when he strong-armed Czechoslovakia and Intimidated the U.K and France at Munich. (“Our enemies are worms. I saw them at Munich.”)
Your ilk did declare war when he invaded Poland and then sat on their asses (as Hitler anticipated) while he raped that country when they could have walked into Germany virtually unopposed from the West, even then.
At which of these analogous points would you become concerned about Islamic terrorism? Perhaps when someone close to you is a victim? At any rate, I hope it is at some point when another such catastrophe can still be averted.
Your ilk? WTH are you blaming D for what happened last century? Are you drunj? And please tell me, what does any of this have to do with your OP about vaccination? Next you'll be crying for the restriction of headscarves again. I noticed you had zero answer to my question last time you had your little commentary about a piece of cloth.
Don Schneider
06-23-17, 04:38 PM
Your ilk? WTH are you blaming D for what happened last century? Are you drunj? And please tell me, what does any of this have to do with your OP about vaccination? Next you'll be crying for the restriction of headscarves again. I noticed you had zero answer to my question last time you had your little commentary about a piece of cloth.
Because as I’m beginning to discern to be your habit, you seemed unable to follow the thread or my post as you normally simply interject irrelevant and frankly inane comments, often predicated on your misreading of what was actually said. What I actually said regarding the post you are referring to is that Muslims in the West should be willing to restrict the public wearing of religious clothing to a minimum, such as women wearing a head scarf, not unlike a Jewish man wearing an yarmulke, in deference to our culture to which they freely came.
As far as the poster I was responding to, no I am not accusing him of being responsible for what happened last century. Rather, I am accusing him of refusing to learn there from.
Stirchley
06-23-17, 04:44 PM
Baby boomers are the biggest generation who ever lived and the generations coming after just don't generate enough wealth to keep up these systems.
I'm a retired baby boomer who gets a monthly Social Security check from the U.S. Government basically for being alive. I'm glad for me, but it's not going to be there for future generations unless changes are made.
Because as I’m beginning to discern to be your habit, you seemed unable to follow the thread or my post
You seem to be projecting, Don. You didnt respond to my question about headscarves and And your comment about the yarmulke was quite clearly you being totally disingenuous which I called you on at the time. You just don't like being shown up for pushing your wheelbarrow.
Now what does Islam have to do with your OP?
Stirchley
06-23-17, 04:46 PM
MoFo is a movie forum.
True, but Yoda set up an Intermission: Miscellaneous Chat forum where we can talk about anything. Which is where you are posting now. :cool:
Don Schneider
06-23-17, 05:01 PM
You seem to be projecting, Don. You didnt respond to my question about headscarves and And your comment about the yarmulke was quite clearly you being totally disingenuous which I called you on at the time. You just don't like being shown up for pushing your wheelbarrow.
Now what does Islam have to do with your OP?
One last time: I was arguing that a head scarf for a woman is acceptable as being deferential to our culture. Going beyond that is not.
It was not I who diverted my OP from the loons of the EU Court of Justice as exemplified by this latest outrage inflicted upon the sheep of Europe back to terrorism. I merely responded in turn.
One last time: I was arguing that a head scarf for a woman is acceptable as being deferential to our culture. Going beyond that is not.
It was not I who diverted my OP from the loons of the EU Court of Justice as exemplified by this latest outrage inflicted upon the sheep of Europe back to terrorism. I merely responded in turn.
Yes you did. You threw 'eurabia' into the mix.
Citizen Rules
06-23-17, 05:09 PM
You want to play on the Hitler analogy? Fine. Let’s stick with the pertinent aspect of it.
Your ilk did nothing when Hitler announced the Nuremberg Racial Laws.
Your ilk did nothing when he remilitarized the Rhineland in defiance of the Treaty of
Versailles.
Your ilk did nothing when he announced conscription, again in defiance of the treaty.
Your ilk did nothing when he Intimidated Austria into union with Germany.
Your ilk did nothing when he strong-armed Czechoslovakia and Intimidated the U.K and France at Munich. (“Our enemies are worms. I saw them at Munich.”)
Your ilk did declare war when he invaded Poland and then sat on their asses (as Hitler anticipated) while he raped that country when they could have walked into Germany virtually unopposed from the West, even then.
At which of these analogous points would you become concerned about Islamic terrorism? Perhaps when someone close to you is a victim? At any rate, I hope it is at some point when another such catastrophe can still be averted. Your ilk? wow! talk about labeling people, d_chatterley didn't deserve that. That was one angry reply Don, what happened to Mr Congeniality?
Your ilk? wow! talk about labeling people, D Chattley didn't deserve that. That was one angry reply Don, what happened to Mr Congeniality?
I know, right? I'm still waiting for his commentary about vaccinations. I thought this was going to be a thread about anti vaxxers, but obviously the OP was just a red herring because his other thread was closed.
Don Schneider
06-23-17, 05:11 PM
Your ilk? wow! talk about labeling people, d_chatterley didn't deserve that. That was one angry reply Don, what happened to Mr Congeniality?
Did you not read his not at all subtle characterization of me as another Hitler with a different target? Is your Latin sufficient to understand the term: quid pro quo?
Don Schneider
06-23-17, 05:13 PM
Did you not read his not at all subtle characterization of me as another Hitler with a different target? Is your Latin sufficient to understand the term: quid pro quo?
P.S. By "ilk," I meant appeasers.
You want to play on the Hitler analogy? Fine. Let’s stick with the pertinent aspect of it.
Your ilk did nothing when Hitler announced the Nuremberg Racial Laws.
Your ilk did nothing when he remilitarized the Rhineland in defiance of the Treaty of
Versailles.
Your ilk did nothing when he announced conscription, again in defiance of the treaty.
Your ilk did nothing when he Intimidated Austria into union with Germany.
Your ilk did nothing when he strong-armed Czechoslovakia and Intimidated the U.K and France at Munich. (“Our enemies are worms. I saw them at Munich.”)
Your ilk did declare war when he invaded Poland and then sat on their asses (as Hitler anticipated) while he raped that country when they could have walked into Germany virtually unopposed from the West, even then.
At which of these analogous points would you become concerned about Islamic terrorism? Perhaps when someone close to you is a victim? At any rate, I hope it is at some point when another such catastrophe can still be averted.
You don't appear to have any argument other than saying "you remind me of this group" and then proceeding as if this is suddenly an established fact you can refer back to.
There's basically no argumentative content in this post. It is, however, chock full of derision, which only supports my point that this has nothing to do with persuasion.
Don Schneider
06-23-17, 05:27 PM
You don't appear to have any argument other than saying "you remind me of this group" and then proceeding as if this is suddenly an established fact you can refer back to.
There's basically no argumentative content in this post. It is, however, chock full of derision, which only supports my point that this has nothing to do with persuasion.
Chris, how is this argument any different than that of Churchill vs. Baldwin and then Chamberlain and virtually everyone else in the British government of the time? “Calm down, Winnie. You worry too much. You’re an alarmist.”? You call this being without substance? The only difference now that I can discern is that we have the benefit of their historical precedent.
Chris, how is this argument any different than that of Churchill vs. Baldwin and then Chamberlain and virtually everyone else in the British government of the time? “Calm down, Winnie. You worry too much. You’re an alarmist.”? You call this being without substance? The only difference now that I can discern is that we have the benefit of their historical precedent.
It's different because you're not Winston Churchill, and you're not arguing about it with Parliament.
(There's also a number of other fallacies and misconceptions here, but the first order of business is clearing up the confusion--noted earlier, without response (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1723931#post1723931)--between "this is important" and "it's important I inundate a movie message board with arguments about it.")
Stirchley
06-23-17, 05:46 PM
It's different because you're not Winston Churchill
Winston would have dominated this website. :cool:
Wplains
06-23-17, 10:32 PM
I'm a retired baby boomer who gets a monthly Social Security check from the U.S. Government basically for being alive. I'm glad for me, but it's not going to be there for future generations unless changes are made.
I'm a baby boomer too though not yet retired. Frankly, since I depend on a liberal profession, I don't see how I can retire any time soon. Our pensions are whittled down a little more every year; the national health service is suffering severe cutbacks and I need private health insurance to make up the lack, this while being taxed at 45% on income with another 11% going towards social security. Add to that the million and one others taxes, tariffs and duties we have to pay (including 23% VAT) and I estimate the State takes a cool 80% of what I earn. Add to that that my little country has one of the highest public debts in the world (which will have to be payed back one day) and the future is not rosy. I doubt my kids will have any kind of social benefits let alone my grandkids.
It's been proven again and again that socialism does not work yet we keep trying to make the round hole fit the square peg....madness!
Wplains
06-23-17, 10:59 PM
True, but Yoda set up an Intermission: Miscellaneous Chat forum where we can talk about anything. Which is where you are posting now. :cool:
Yeah I was wondering about that. Seemed-to-be-so-then-maybe-not-you-can-talk-but-only -in-a-certain-way-and-about-certain-things-but-others-are-taboo... then BOOM threads are closed just because. :eek:
Very confusing policies here.
d_chatterley
06-23-17, 11:15 PM
It's been proven again and again that socialism does not work yet we keep trying to make the round hole fit the square peg....madness!
It seems to be working pretty well for the Nordic countries, although, they would probably not call themselves socialist, but more like Nordic capitalist. I think the problem we have is that we moved away from capitalism and are in a plutocracy now. The whole "government for the people, by the people" part seem to have been lost or at the very least is quickly vanishing.
Captain Steel
06-23-17, 11:15 PM
Yeah I was wondering about that. Seemed-to-be-so-then-maybe-not-you-can-talk-but-only -in-a-certain-way-and-about-certain-things-but-others-are-taboo... then BOOM threads are closed just because. :eek:
Very confusing policies here.
You've just broken the first rule of Fight Club!
(Note - this post is in reference to the MOVIE Fight Club. It's a movie. It's not political. It's a fictional movie about weird stuff.)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0137523/?ref_=nv_sr_1
Link is to an Internet Movie Database referencing a MOVIE called Fight Club (1999) I have no affiliation to the site referenced and neither endorse nor take responsibility for the accuracy or reliability of any opinion, advice or statement made on the site.
Aw heck... I know what happens next. :(
Wplains
06-23-17, 11:24 PM
It seems to be working pretty well for the Nordic countries, although, they would probably not call themselves socialist, but more like Nordic capitalist. I think the problem we have is that we moved away from capitalism and are in a plutocracy now. The whole "government for the people, by the people" part seem to have been lost or at the very least is quickly vanishing.
The Nordic counties have tiny populations, are extremely law abiding and hard working and some of them have incredible oil wealth. I would not hold them up as an example that the rest of the world can follow. Anyway, they are also entering the baby boomer retirement age so let's see how that works out in the future, eh? And Sweden seems to be heading for complete self destruction with the crazy policies they have been following. I doubt there will be a native Swede left in 60 years if they continue their mad open door policy. And their crime rates are certainly transforming what used to be a peaceful, law abiding society.
Meanwhile, waiting for the vaccination commentary re: the OP...
Very confusing policies here.
They're pretty straightforward, actually, and it's probably not a coincidence that the only people who think otherwise are the ones who find them getting in the way of their compulsion.
But I realize pretending to be confused is how you sidestep things you won't or can't respond to, so this reply is more for everybody else.
Captain Steel
06-23-17, 11:56 PM
Any of you a fan of the hero of Canton the man they call Jane? Well, he said: "If wishes were horses we'd all be eatin steak!"
I a fan of a boy named Sue! ;)
Captain Steel
06-24-17, 12:18 AM
They're pretty straightforward, actually, and it's probably not a coincidence that the only people who think otherwise are the ones who find them getting in the way of their compulsion.
But I realize pretending to be confused is how you sidestep things you won't or can't respond to, so this reply is more for everybody else.
Chris, honestly, some of us would love to respond.
It's not that we can't, but only that we are now much more cautious about doing so because we don't want to get other people's threads closed since that has become a recent pattern when some of us do respond.
You can't close threads, ending discussions and then say people are sidestepping because they won't or can't respond.
We discussed this - of course people are sidestepping (or "walking on eggshells" if you will?) when they've learned that they have to be very careful what they say, who they might upset, what kind of conversation truthful or sincere responses might set off, and what the consequences of "starting an argument," disagreeing or repeating the same points might be.
You've got to be kidding me, Cap. You've been stirring this hot bed up for weeks then want to blame Yoda for it. Really?
http://p.imgci.com/db/PICTURES/CMS/202000/202089.6.jpg
Captain Steel
06-24-17, 12:27 AM
You've got to be kidding me, Cap. You've been stirring this hot bed up for weeks then want to blame Yoda for it. Really?
I don't perceive a hot bed. For me this is a discussion board.
I'm not "blaming" merely responding honestly to something Yoda wrote.
Back to the OP.
So europe has gone mad because of a couple of lawsuits against big pharma for vax. How many has USA had? What does the HRSA say?
I guess it doesn't really matter because that wasnt the point of this thread, was it Don?
Chris, honestly, some of us would love to respond.
It's not that we can't, but only that we are now much more cautious about doing so because we don't want to get other people's threads closed since that has become a recent pattern when some of us do respond.
You can't close threads, ending discussions and then say people are sidestepping because they won't or can't respond.
That may be why you refrain from commenting on some things, but for others, it's pretty obvious just a tactless evasion.
Regardless, if you think back on all these exchanges, you should notice that none of those closures have cut off any substantive discussion about the rules--even the questioning of them. To the contrary, I've responded to every such complaint in granular detail, every time. Any fear that I'm going to close a thread because someone questions a moderation decision is unfounded, being supported neither in what I've said, or what I've done.
Wplains
06-24-17, 07:05 AM
Chris, honestly, some of us would love to respond.
It's not that we can't, but only that we are now much more cautious about doing so because we don't want to get other people's threads closed since that has become a recent pattern when some of us do respond.
You can't close threads, ending discussions and then say people are sidestepping because they won't or can't respond.
We discussed this - of course people are sidestepping (or "walking on eggshells" if you will?) when they've learned that they have to be very careful what they say, who they might upset, what kind of conversation truthful or sincere responses might set off, and what the consequences of "starting an argument," disagreeing or repeating the same points might be.
Well said. I agree 100%. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
The frequency with which these responses are just mindless cheerleading is yet another piece of evidence that this isn't about persuasion. So thanks for making my point, while ostensibly trying to (clumsily) ignore it.
:up:
Wplains
06-24-17, 10:50 AM
You've just broken the first rule of Fight Club!
(Note - this post is in reference to the MOVIE Fight Club. It's a movie. It's not political. It's a fictional movie about weird stuff.)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0137523/?ref_=nv_sr_1
Link is to an Internet Movie Database referencing a MOVIE called Fight Club (1999) I have no affiliation to the site referenced and neither endorse nor take responsibility for the accuracy or reliability of any opinion, advice or statement made on the site.
Aw heck... I know what happens next. :(
I never saw Fight Club but have heard about it. No idea what it's about....:D
Iroquois
06-24-17, 10:54 AM
lol @ the idea that Fight Club isn't political
Don Schneider
06-24-17, 12:41 PM
Back to the OP.
So europe has gone mad because of a couple of lawsuits against big pharma for vax. How many has USA had? What does the HRSA say?
I guess it doesn't really matter because that wasnt the point of this thread, was it Don?
Europe has gone mad because the people of individual sovereign nations have handed power over their very lives to supranational, unelected tribunals who seem to delight in rendering one outrageous, absurd decision after the next, and this is tolerated. If you actually read my post and its accompanying link to a news article (from CNN and not Breitbart), you will see that there is every indication that this unfortunate (then) young man becoming inflicted with multiple sclerosis had absolutely no correlation with his having been vaccinated a year before against an unrelated illness. Liberals always deride global warming (er, excuse me, I mean “climate change" as “global warming” is a hard sell in the winter) skeptics for ignoring scientific consensus. But here when the scientific consensus is that vaccinations do not cause unrelated diseases and conditions like MS and autism, you suddenly lose your seeming devotion to science. Moreover, this crock of blaming vaccinations for autism and other diseases and conditions is downright dangerous to children of the sheep-like, flaky parents who buy into this quackery.
What does the HRSA have to do with this? It covers most vaccines:
https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/coveredvaccines/index.html
The same mass psychosis called political correctness that has caused Europeans (especially Western Europeans) to actually cede their national sovereignty and increasingly their very identities results in this particular example of its repercussions.
That last paragraph has basically no relation to the rest of the post. It's a confused, forced segue, because apparently all bad things must somehow be linked back to political correctness. Just like every topic must come back to terrorism. Which was, of course, the entire point Dani was making: that this isn't really about vaccinations at all, but is just another transparent attempt to talk about the exact same things under the guise of a new topic.
Don Schneider
06-24-17, 01:15 PM
The owner of this forum complains about the exhibited “compulsion” to post regarding terrorism, Muslim considerations and political correctness. But apparently that is what people want to read and discuss, perhaps to his consternation, judging by all the responses generated by such threads. Is this a case of (paraphrasing the immortal bard): “Methinks thou dost protest too much “? This post (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1722052#post1722052) regarding the death of seven U.S. sailors was greeted with a metaphorical yawn, though it did at least receive one up-vote which is appreciated.
Captain Steel
06-24-17, 01:23 PM
Meanwhile, someone is spam attacking the site again.
Don Schneider
06-24-17, 01:23 PM
That last paragraph has basically no relation to the rest of the post. It's a confused, forced segue, because apparently all bad things must somehow be linked back to political correctness. Just like every topic must come back to terrorism. Which was, of course, the entire point Dani was making: that this isn't really about vaccinations at all, but is just another transparent attempt to talk about the exact same things under the guise of a new topic.
Chris, if you have a moment please read my recent reply to my own post regarding the USS Fitzgerald collision, a topic you had no seeming interest in when I originally posted it. You’ll see the relevance to this thread and your comments thereon. Thank you.
Don Schneider
06-24-17, 01:29 PM
Meanwhile, someone is spam attacking the site again.
What do you mean, please? How is this exhibited? Thank you.
Captain Steel
06-24-17, 01:32 PM
What do you mean, please? How is this exhibited? Thank you.
Under "New Posts" - some dude is posting the same thing in dozens of new threads - they are quickly disappearing as it seems Yoda is getting rid of them. This happens every so often.
Don Schneider
06-24-17, 01:33 PM
Under "New Posts" - some dude is posting the same thing in dozens of new threads - they are quickly disappearing as it seems Yoda is getting rid of them. This happens every so often.
Thanks much. Some people have more time than they know what to do with, I suppose.
Chris, if you have a moment please read my recent reply to my own post regarding the USS Fitzgerald collision, a topic you had no seeming interest in when I originally posted it. You’ll see the relevance to this thread and your comments thereon. Thank you.
Sure, but I'm going to split it into two and move the relevant portion here, since that's obviously what that part of the post is about, and it would be odd to respond there.
Captain Steel
06-24-17, 02:35 PM
On topic...
Just found this, and as a Python fan I was totally fooled - I really thought this was John Cleese and, based on his apparent age, that this actually had to be from 1979 (or some kind of CGI). Anyway, the dialogue began to give a hint that this is modern.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j--0gzT2rk
The owner of this forum complains about the exhibited “compulsion” to post regarding terrorism, Muslim considerations and political correctness. But apparently that is what people want to read and discuss, perhaps to his consternation, judging by all the responses generated by such threads. Is this a case of (paraphrasing the immortal bard): “Methinks thou dost protest too much “? This post (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1722052#post1722052) regarding the death of seven U.S. sailors was greeted with a metaphorical yawn, though it did at least receive one up-vote which is appreciated.
I think you're actually making my point for me. That's what these kinds of repetitive, controversial threads do: they take over a forum. They crowd everything else out and dominate the psyche of the community. They bleed over into other topics, to the point where people don't want to read or rep anything else by that person, since all they know of them is contradiction and derision.
Moreover, we're aiming for a much higher bar than just provoking responses. You'll always get someone's attention if you shout at them, but it doesn't follow that they prefer it, or that it's a good way to draw attention to something.
I'm also not sure why you think a thread about the inner workings of the U.S. navy is a good test of what you're talking about, anyway. It's a fairly arcane topic and still not related to the forum's primary subject, so the relative lack of interest in it (even apart from the reasons mentioned above) isn't at all illustrative of the point you're trying to make.
The owner of this forum complains about the exhibited “compulsion” to post regarding terrorism, Muslim considerations and political correctness. But apparently that is what people want to read and discuss,
What was your OP about again? Are you now trying to say vaccination campaigns are terrorism, or is suing big pharma terrorism? Talk about ducking and weaving all so you can point your finger at the forum owner for having his set of house rules in his own house! And carrying on again about the lack of reps? Wow, Don. That's a new one.
That's where the bizarre segue takes place: [thing I don't like X] is related to [thing I don't like Y] because it's part of the same "mindset," or somesuch.
Everyone who does anything you don't like, whether they disagree with you, grind their teeth, or literally try to blow you up, are all somehow related to being "PC." Thus, a Grand Unified Theory of Things I Disagree With is created, and any topic can be used to vent or rant about any other topic, and all enemies are neatly contained in the same group.
cat_sidhe
06-24-17, 02:45 PM
to the point where people don't want to read or rep anything else by that person
Very normal on the internet.
Wplains
06-24-17, 02:48 PM
Europe has gone mad because the people of individual sovereign nations have handed power over their very lives to supranational, unelected tribunals who seem to delight in rendering one outrageous, absurd decision after the next, and this is tolerated. If you actually read my post and its accompanying link to a news article (from CNN and not Breitbart), you will see that there is every indication that this unfortunate (then) young man becoming inflicted with multiple sclerosis had absolutely no correlation with his having been vaccinated a year before against an unrelated illness. Liberals always deride global warming (er, excuse me, I mean “climate change" as “global warming” is a hard sell in the winter) skeptics for ignoring scientific consensus. But here when the scientific consensus is that vaccinations do not cause unrelated diseases and conditions like MS and autism, you suddenly lose your seeming devotion to science. Moreover, this crock of blaming vaccinations for autism and other diseases and conditions is downright dangerous to children of the sheep-like, flaky parents who buy into this quackery.
What does the HRSA have to do with this? It covers most vaccines:
https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/coveredvaccines/index.html
The same mass psychosis called political correctness that has caused Europeans (especially Western Europeans) to actually cede their national sovereignty and increasingly their very identities results in this particular example of its repercussions.
The vaccination controversy strikes a note with me. Just recently a teenage girl died of complications from measles in my country. She had not beenb een vaccinated against the disease. This sparked a huge debate on whether vaccines should be mandatory (I actually thought they were already). She died for nothing and her life could have been saved had she been vaccinated., I've also seen these arguments that vaccines cause side effects and illnesses - well so do peanuts to the small minority who are allergic to them. In the end though, I believe vaccines save far more lives then they take. Any parent who doesn't vaccinate their kids is negligent IMO. How the heck do they think Polio practically disappeared? There does seem to be a concerted effort to discredit vaccines -- I believe it has something to do with conspiracy theories and the big pharmaceutical companies,
Also agree with you about the EU court. Some of their decisions are outrageous. They can thank their decisions about refugees and migration in having had a huge impact in the U.K. electorate having voted for Brexit.
Don Schneider
06-24-17, 02:57 PM
What was your OP about again? Are you now trying to say vaccination campaigns are terrorism, or is suing big pharma terrorism? Talk about ducking and weaving all so you can point your finger at the forum owner for having his set of house rules in his own house! And carrying on again about the lack of reps? Wow, Don. That's a new one.
You missed my direct response to my OP I just made recently addressing your post? BTW, I up-voted your post by accident. As wonderful as this forum is technologically, it doesn't seem to allow one to retract such mishaps. A pity. One must be more careful, I suppose. No one to blame in this inntance but myself.
BTW, I up-voted your post by accident. As wonderful as this forum is technologically, it doesn't seem to allow one to retract such mishaps. A pity. One must be more careful, I suppose. No one to blame in this inntance but myself.
Thanks for the rep. I'll bake you a lamington.
christine
06-24-17, 04:02 PM
Also agree with you about the EU court. Some of their decisions are outrageous. They can thank their decisions about refugees and migration in having had a huge impact in the U.K. electorate having voted for Brexit.
I believe people in the UK were not fully aware of exactly what the consequences of what they were voting for. The tabloids and UKIP combined with their ramped up hostility against refugees and immigration is going to cost this country dearly. The total lack of information about the effect Brexit will have on our economy was nothing short of a con job. Saving money so they could spend it on the NHS? having a laff.
Has your country benefitted from being in the EU?
christine
06-24-17, 04:11 PM
The same mass psychosis called political correctness that has caused Europeans (especially Western Europeans) to actually cede their national sovereignty and increasingly their very identities results in this particular example of its repercussions.
Not sure why you always get so exercised about the EU given you don't even live in Europe.
and how have we ceded our very identities? I'm still British the last time I checked. I don't see mass psychosised political correctness on my streets. From your armchair I think you imagine we live in a totally different world from the one we actually live in.
Don Schneider
06-24-17, 05:03 PM
Not sure why you always get so exercised about the EU given you don't even live in Europe.
and how have we ceded our very identities? I'm still British the last time I checked. I don't see mass psychosised political correctness on my streets. From your armchair I think you imagine we live in a totally different world from the one we actually live in.
After the catastrophic carnage of WWII that left much of Britain and the continent in ruin, your politicians wisely said “enough!” Either war is finished or we are. So they formulated a trade union. So far, so good. As Nigel Farage noted, the idea was that countries that trade together don’t war with one another. Great idea as far as it went. But it was a Trojan Horse from the beginning. Little by little, step-by-insidious step, the real goal of political union (among nations with different languages and radically different cultures and histories) unfolded along with “globalism.” Your politicians like your former prime minster, John Major (who succeeded the great Margaret Thatcher!) who laughingly calls himself a “conservative,” helped push this secret agenda which he now denies claiming its true purpose was always stated. He’s a bald-faced liar like so many of your “cultural elites.” Nevertheless,, what was unfolding should have been obvious to all as step-by-step your historical sovereignty and national identity was being stolen from you while you sat back and allowed it to happen.
As a result, twenty percent of Birmingham (Birmingham, England!) is now Muslim and Islam is now the second largest religion in the U.K., and that’s just the beginning! With indigenous British women refusing to have many children while Muslim women have then with reckless abandon, it is only a matter of time before you find yourself a foreigner in your own native land! And you’ll get what you deserve. “So as you sow….”
Why do I care? Because, unfortunately, we are joined at the hip by NATO. I am disappointed that Trump has apparently changed course under pressure by some inside his administration. I would like to be out in one year per the treaty’s terms. I would like to ally with a resurgent, Orthodox Russia which, despite it myriad shortcomings, has not turned its back on God, its history and its heritage as your decadent people have.
Here is a good book on the subject which will be available very soon. I’d suggest you read it. It is entitled: The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, by Douglas Murrray who interviewed your elitist politicians whom you continue to vote for like sheep instead of people like Farage who even now might still be able to actually pull your storied nation back from the brink in time:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1472942248?gclid=CLyIxYWc19QCFUVXDQodEi4Hqw
From the prophetic 1973 book The Camp of the Saints. Author Jean Raspail saw: "A million poor wretches, armed only with their weakness and their numbers, overwhelmed by misery, encumbered with starving brown and black children, ready to disembark on our soil, the vanguard of the multitudes pressing hard against every part of the tired and overfed West. I literally saw them, saw the major problem they presented, a problem absolutely insoluble by our present moral standards. To let them in would destroy us. To reject them would destroy them."
matt72582
06-24-17, 06:02 PM
I'll never understand all the paranoia based on skin pigment... which seems to be the underlying theme.
Captain Steel
06-24-17, 06:07 PM
I'll never understand all the paranoia based on skin pigment... which seems to be the underlying theme.
Please explain.
Don Schneider
06-24-17, 06:07 PM
I'll never understand all the paranoia based on skin pigment... which seems to be the underlying theme.
Good, neither do I. Your point? I’m talking about the right to preserve the culture of one’s nation and the right to defend its boundaries.
Good, neither do I. Your point? I’m talking about the right to preserve the culture of one’s nation and the right to defend its boundaries.
What's the culture of your nation? Last time I checked NYC had the highest cultural diversity of any city in the world. And ahem, what was the culture before white people turned up? What are you doing there, by the way? Your heritage lies elsewhere so somewhere in your lineage your family members were MIGRANTS!
Captain Steel
06-24-17, 06:14 PM
Interesting little blog...
http://anotherangryblackbitch.blogspot.com/2014/01/islamophobia-racism.html
Don Schneider
06-24-17, 06:26 PM
What's the culture of your nation? Last time I checked NYC had the highest cultural diversity of any city in the world. And ahem, what was the culture before white people turned up? What are you doing there, by the way? Your heritage lies elsewhere so somewhere in your lineage your family members were MIGRANTS!
Before, at least, his recent unfortunate legal problems, Bill Cosby was known as “America’s father,” predicated on his landmark highly successful and influential sitcom The Cosby Show (1984-1992), in which his character and his wife were two working professionals heading an African-American family. When young, Cosby was a rather militant black activist. Later, he railed against moral decadence and his show was intended to show that the Cleaver family of Leave it to Beaver fame of the ‘50s and ‘60s could just was well be black as white today. That is my culture.
As far as my country’s history, you’re Australian? (I noted a recent reference to an Australian pastry.) If so, do you really “want to go there,” discussing the long ago histories of our respective nations, now centuries passed from their respective founding?
If so, do you really “want to go there,”
I see. Nice back pedal. You do this all the time. Throw out your opinion in the hope that bashing people over the head will 'persuade' them, then stick your head in the sand (oh wait...) about discussing what you're called on. Cheers for that.
christine
06-24-17, 06:30 PM
After the catastrophic carnage of WWII that left much of Britain and the continent in ruin, your politicians wisely said “enough!” Either war is finished or we are. So they formulated a trade union. So far, so good. As Nigel Farage noted, the idea was that countries that trade together don’t war with one another. Great idea as far as it went. But it was a Trojan Horse from the beginning. Little by little, step-by-insidious step, the real goal of political union (among nations with different languages and radically different cultures and histories) unfolded along with “globalism.” Your politicians like your former prime minster, John Major (who succeeded the great Margaret Thatcher!) who laughingly calls himself a “conservative,” helped push this secret agenda which he now denies claiming its true purpose was always stated. He’s a bald-faced liar like so many of your “cultural elites.” Nevertheless,, what was unfolding should have been obvious to all as step-by-step your historical sovereignty and national identity was being stolen from you while you sat back and allowed it to happen.
You appear to be a UKIP supporter who doesn't even live here. Your words 'the great Margaret Thatcher' tells me everything. You are obviously unaware of the decimation of the North of England under Thatcher's government. You pontificate about this country as if you know what we all feel here without any experience of what it is to be British. You talk about WW2 as some kind of armchair expert when we in this country have living relatives who lived through daily bombings of our cities.
As a result, twenty percent of Birmingham (Birmingham, England!) is now Muslim and Islam is now the second largest religion in the U.K., and that’s just the beginning! With indigenous British women refusing to have many children while Muslim women have then with reckless abandon, it is only a matter of time before you find yourself a foreigner in your own native land! And you’ll get what you deserve. “So as you sow….”
'You get what you deserve' , 'so as you sow' - you've said these things before to me and I appreciate them not. British women refusing to have children? how are British women refusing to have children? Which Daily Mail article was that in?
Muslim women having children 'with reckless abandon' ? Reckless abandon? - is that like Muslim women don't care for their kids?
Birmingham is a multicultural city for goodness sake, with a proud heritage of acceptance of immigrants. There's plenty of other places with hardly any immigrants. Really, this is ridiculous.
Why do I care? Because, unfortunately, we are joined at the hip by NATO. I am disappointed that Trump has apparently changed course under pressure by some inside his administration. I would like to be out in one year per the treaty’s terms. I would like to ally with a resurgent, Orthodox Russia which, despite it myriad shortcomings, has not turned its back on God, its history and its heritage as your decadent people have.
oh ok. I for one wouldn't mind if people like you aligned yourself with Orthodox Russia, let's see how far that one gets you, although with Trump who knows? So we're decadent people now too....ok
Here is a good book on the subject which will be available very soon. I’d suggest you read it. It is entitled: The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, by Douglas Murrray who interviewed your elitist politicians whom you continue to vote for like sheep instead of people like Farage who even now might still be able to actually pull your storied nation back from the brink in time:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1472942248?gclid=CLyIxYWc19QCFUVXDQodEi4Hqw
From the prophetic 1973 book The Camp of the Saints. Author Jean Raspail saw: "A million poor wretches, armed only with their weakness and their numbers, overwhelmed by misery, encumbered with starving brown and black children, ready to disembark on our soil, the vanguard of the multitudes pressing hard against every part of the tired and overfed West. I literally saw them, saw the major problem they presented, a problem absolutely insoluble by our present moral standards. To let them in would destroy us. To reject them would destroy them."
you know what, how dare you call the people of this country sheep, recommend me Farage, and then quote about starving children. Mate, that's me done. I can't read you any more. I feel sorry for you if you think we should all be followers of Farage, you really haven't got a clue.
Sorry Yoda, I know I shouldn't personalise posts, but this guy is talking about my country as if he's some kind of expert. I live here. I won't have this kind of misinformation given out as if it's the truth.
After the catastrophic carnage of WWII that left much of Britain and the continent in ruin, your politicians wisely said “enough!” Either war is finished or we are. So they formulated a trade union. So far, so good. As Nigel Farage noted, the idea was that countries that trade together don’t war with one another. Great idea as far as it went. But it was a Trojan Horse from the beginning. Little by little, step-by-insidious step, the real goal of political union (among nations with different languages and radically different cultures and histories) unfolded along with “globalism.” Your politicians like your former prime minster, John Major (who succeeded the great Margaret Thatcher!) who laughingly calls himself a “conservative,” helped push this secret agenda which he now denies claiming its true purpose was always stated. He’s a bald-faced liar like so many of your “cultural elites.” Nevertheless,, what was unfolding should have been obvious to all as step-by-step your historical sovereignty and national identity was being stolen from you while you sat back and allowed it to happen.
As a result, twenty percent of Birmingham (Birmingham, England!) is now Muslim and Islam is now the second largest religion in the U.K., and that’s just the beginning! With indigenous British women refusing to have many children while Muslim women have then with reckless abandon, it is only a matter of time before you find yourself a foreigner in your own native land! And you’ll get what you deserve. “So as you sow….”
Why do I care? Because, unfortunately, we are joined at the hip by NATO. I am disappointed that Trump has apparently changed course under pressure by some inside his administration. I would like to be out in one year per the treaty’s terms. I would like to ally with a resurgent, Orthodox Russia which, despite it myriad shortcomings, has not turned its back on God, its history and its heritage as your decadent people have.
Here is a good book on the subject which will be available very soon. I’d suggest you read it. It is entitled: The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, by Douglas Murrray who interviewed your elitist politicians whom you continue to vote for like sheep instead of people like Farage who even now might still be able to actually pull your storied nation back from the brink in time:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1472942248?gclid=CLyIxYWc19QCFUVXDQodEi4Hqw
From the prophetic 1973 book The Camp of the Saints. Author Jean Raspail saw: "A million poor wretches, armed only with their weakness and their numbers, overwhelmed by misery, encumbered with starving brown and black children, ready to disembark on our soil, the vanguard of the multitudes pressing hard against every part of the tired and overfed West. I literally saw them, saw the major problem they presented, a problem absolutely insoluble by our present moral standards. To let them in would destroy us. To reject them would destroy them."
Don schneider ( is that a Germanic/Nazi sounding ID) you seem to be a white supremacist. Camp of the saints is an anti indian novel which spews racial hatred at indians in particular and Asians in general. I will agree with you if you attack the threat from Islam as manifested by repeated terror attacks on European soil . But the indians/ Asians will get westernized as long as they are not Muslim . They do not form a threat to Europeans . It is the Muslims who do .
Read more---
http://theweek.com/articles/611274/dystopian-antiimmigration-book-camp-saints-really-racist-why-are-bunch-smart-conservatives-praising
Thursday Next
06-24-17, 06:31 PM
From your armchair I think you imagine we live in a totally different world from the one we actually live in.
Christine, this reminds me of an article I once read in the Daily Mail about the area of London I was living in the time, which basically suggested that knife crime was so rife that you couldn't walk to the corner shop without fearing for your life. It was such a hysterical, exaggerated portrait that it didn't resemble the day to day reality of living there at all.
matt72582
06-24-17, 06:32 PM
Good, neither do I. Your point? I’m talking about the right to preserve the culture of one’s nation and the right to defend its boundaries.
Did your personality change because of an immigrant? Everyone is an immigrant, anyway.
Also, how would you define the culture?
Wplains
06-24-17, 06:36 PM
You missed my direct response to my OP I just made recently addressing your post? BTW, I up-voted your post by accident. As wonderful as this forum is technologically, it doesn't seem to allow one to retract such mishaps. A pity. One must be more careful, I suppose. No one to blame in this inntance but myself.
Lol,knowhow you feel. It's really difficult to manage this site from a phone. Often hit the wrong button. I also don't understand why it takes me three (3) clicks to log out? Surely logging out is logging out? I don't need to have it confirmed three times.
Don Schneider
06-24-17, 06:44 PM
You appear to be a UKIP supporter who doesn't even live here. Your words 'the great Margaret Thatcher' tells me everything. You are obviously unaware of the decimation of the North of England under Thatcher's government. You pontificate about this country as if you know what we all feel here without any experience of what it is to be British. You talk about WW2 as some kind of armchair expert when we in this country have living relatives who lived through daily bombings of our cities.
'You get what you deserve' , 'so as you sow' - you've said these things before to me and I appreciate them not. British women refusing to have children? how are British women refusing to have children? Which Daily Mail article was that in?
Muslim women having children 'with reckless abandon' ? Reckless abandon? - is that like Muslim women don't care for their kids?
Birmingham is a multicultural city for goodness sake, with a proud heritage of acceptance of immigrants. There's plenty of other places with hardly any immigrants. Really, this is ridiculous.
oh ok. I for one wouldn't mind if people like you aligned yourself with Orthodox Russia, let's see how far that one gets you, although with Trump who knows? So we're decadent people now too....ok
you know what, how dare you call the people of this country sheep, recommend me Farage, and then quote about starving children. Mate, that's me done. I can't read you any more. I feel sorry for you if you think we should all be followers of Farage, you really haven't got a clue.
Sorry Yoda, I know I shouldn't personalise posts, but this guy is talking about my country as if he's some kind of expert. I live here. I won't have this kind of misinformation given out as if it's the truth.
I have absolutely no objection to her "personalized response." One should be able to take as good as one gives. The poster asked me to explain a previous post and that is what I did. She is free to disdain its contents. That per se, however, has no relationship to their validity. Time will be the ultimate judge of that.
Captain Steel
06-24-17, 06:46 PM
Lol,knowhow you feel. It's really difficult to manage this site from a phone. Often hit the wrong button. I also don't understand why it takes me three (3) clicks to log out? Surely logging out is logging out? I don't need to have it confirmed three times.
You guys are using the site by phone? I didn't know that.
I thought you were like me and using a traditional desktop computer (the kind that most older, experienced, conservative Judeo-Christians use). I didn't know you guys were those kind of people!
I see you everywhere - inflicting your "smart" phones on western culture.
I'm afraid of your types. I'm an Internet-by-phone-o-phobe!
Wplains
06-24-17, 06:46 PM
I'll never understand all the paranoia based on skin pigment... which seems to be the underlying theme.
I'll never understand why the whole world seems to think they are entitled to come to Europe and be supported by the European taxpayer. Nobody asked us if we wanted this and none of us voted for this. Yet millions keep arriviving and our corrupt governments (plus institutions like the European Court and the UN) keep telling us we have to take them all in. Then they are surprised so called "populist" parties are gaining favour on the continent. Well du-uh, it's not rocket science! :rolleyes:
Don Schneider
06-24-17, 06:50 PM
Don schneider ( is that a Germanic/Nazi sounding ID) you seem to be a white supremacist. Camp of the saints is an anti indian novel which spews racial hatred at indians in particular and Asians in general. I will agree with you if you attack the threat from Islam as manifested by repeated terror attacks on European soil . But the indians/ Asians will get westernized as long as they are not Muslim . They do not form a threat to Europeans . It is the Muslims who do .
Read more---
http://theweek.com/articles/611274/dystopian-antiimmigration-book-camp-saints-really-racist-why-are-bunch-smart-conservatives-praising
I’m sorry, I wasn’t familiar with the book. It was a quote from a review of Murray's book. The racial nature per se of immigrants is not a concern of mine. I repudiate racism. The quote simply seemed prophetic as the reviewer noted. I’m half German (and half Irish-Catholic) and I strongly support Israel and Jewish people, for example. Please forgive me if I offended you. it was inadvertent. .
The racial nature per se of immigrants is not a concern of mine. I repudiate racism. .
So your fear and anger is purely based on religion then? So tell me, how can you tell what religion someone is, or not, based on how they look?
Wplains
06-24-17, 06:53 PM
Interesting little blog...
http://anotherangryblackbitch.blogspot.com/2014/01/islamophobia-racism.html
She's absolutely right. I'm a woman, why shouldn't I be suspicious of a so-called religion that treats my gender like crap? I don't care about the colour of their skin, only about their mysoginist ideas.
Wplains
06-24-17, 06:56 PM
You guys are using the site by phone? I didn't know that.
I thought you were like me and using a traditional desktop computer (the kind that most older, experienced, conservative Judeo-Christians use). I didn't know you guys were those kind of people!
I see you everywhere - inflicting your "smart" phones on western culture.
I'm afraid of your types. I'm an Internet-by-phone-o-phobe!
Hahaha! I taught my Mom how to use a computer and how to navigate the net when she was 80. :D. (And then I realized I had created a monster, lol)
Thanks for the rep, again Don. Really kind of you but it's not necessary.
Please tell me, what is this person;s religion?
https://img0.etsystatic.com/134/1/12385190/il_fullxfull.1062575986_avxg.jpg
cat_sidhe
06-24-17, 07:00 PM
I'm afraid of your types. I'm an Internet-by-phone-o-phobe!
They're coming to get you, Barbara!
Don Schneider
06-24-17, 07:02 PM
I see. Nice back pedal. You do this all the time. Throw out your opinion in the hope that bashing people over the head will 'persuade' them, then stick your head in the sand (oh wait...) about discussing what you're called on. Cheers for that.
I thought I answered your question directly and clearly. It is your responses that seem puzzling to me. I often literally can’t follow your train of thought, such as it is. You really ought to read Ann Coulter’s How to Talk to a Liberal (if you Must). She notes that one often thinks one is talking about one thing, and then the liberal brings up something entirely different.
I thought I answered your question directly and clearly. It is your responses that seem puzzling to me. I often literally can’t follow your train of thought, such as it is. You really ought to read Ann Coulter’s How to talk to a liberal( if you Must). She notes that one often thinks one is talking about one thing, and then the liberal brings up something entirely different.
I know. You already told me you're incredulous.
And back to the op - this has what to do with vax?
And thanks for the recommendation but you've already shown more than once your recommendations are not appreciated.
Captain Steel
06-24-17, 07:05 PM
I thought I answered your question directly and clearly. It is your responses that seem puzzling to me. I often literally can’t follow your train of thought, such as it is. You really ought to read Ann Coulter’s How to Talk to a Liberal (if you Must). She notes that one often thinks one is talking about one thing, and then the liberal brings up something entirely different.
Oooh! Bad move, Don. Mentioning Ann Coulter on this thread?
That's like cutting yourself with a blade 100 times then jumping into a pool full of hungry piranha! ;)
Don Schneider
06-24-17, 07:15 PM
I'll never understand why the whole world seems to think they are entitled to come to Europe and be supported by the European taxpayer. Nobody asked us if we wanted this and none of us voted for this. Yet millions keep arriviving and our corrupt governments (plus institutions like the European Court and the UN) keep telling us we have to take them all in. Then they are surprised so called "populist" parties are gaining favour on the continent. Well du-uh, it's not rocket science! :rolleyes:
Wplains, do you know who agrees with you? Of all people, the Dali Lama, the darling of left wing New Agers! Imagine that. How disillusioning it must be for them!
Don Schneider
06-24-17, 07:16 PM
I know. You already told me you're incredulous.
And back to the op - this has what to do with vax?
And thanks for the recommendation but you've already shown more than once your recommendations are not appreciated.
Oops, again! All thumbs!
Citizen Rules
06-24-17, 07:22 PM
After the catastrophic carnage of WWII that left much of Britain and the continent in ruin, your politicians wisely said “enough!” Either war is finished or we are. So they formulated a trade union. So far, so good. As Nigel Farage noted, the idea was that countries that trade together don’t war with one another. Great idea as far as it went. But it was a Trojan Horse from the beginning. Little by little, step-by-insidious step, the real goal of political union (among nations with different languages and radically different cultures and histories) unfolded along with “globalism.”
That's pure conjecture put forth to support a personal viewpoint. What real evidence do you have that there was a 'real goal' to form 'globalism' as you call it.
The world is always changing, and mass communications and mass transport are two big factors in a more unified global economy. I see no evidence that there was a past European collusion to bring that about. It's cultural evolution that brings about those changes. And with the internet those changes will be accelerated.
As a result, twenty percent of Birmingham (Birmingham, England!) is now Muslim and Islam is now the second largest religion in the U.K., and that’s just the beginning! Which means 80% of Birmingham isn't Muslim. See how different that sounds based on how one words it?
With indigenous British women refusing to have many children while Muslim women have then with reckless abandon, it is only a matter of time before you find yourself a foreigner in your own native land! And you’ll get what you deserve. “So as you sow….”Wow.
Why do I care? Because, unfortunately, we are joined at the hip by NATO. I am disappointed that Trump has apparently changed course under pressure by some inside his administration.Trump is his own man, even his detractors say so. And that's what his supporters claim to like about him. So...when he makes a decision you don't approve of, he's not responsible? but his administration is?
I would like to be out in one year per the treaty’s terms. I would like to ally with a resurgent, Orthodox Russia which, despite it myriad shortcomings, has not turned its back on God, its history and its heritage as your decadent people have. Europe is a much better ally to the USA than organized crime controlled Russia. In Russia, political opposition and critics in the press end up dead under mysterious circumstances.
christine
06-24-17, 07:24 PM
I'll never understand why the whole world seems to think they are entitled to come to Europe and be supported by the European taxpayer. Nobody asked us if we wanted this and none of us voted for this. Yet millions keep arriviving and our corrupt governments (plus institutions like the European Court and the UN) keep telling us we have to take them all in. Then they are surprised so called "populist" parties are gaining favour on the continent. Well du-uh, it's not rocket science! :rolleyes:
How many refugees has your country taken in?
Don Schneider
06-24-17, 07:33 PM
That's pure conjecture put forth to support a personal viewpoint. What real evidence do you have that there was a 'real goal' to form 'globalism' as you call it.
Then why did John Major deny it was ever a secret plan?
Don Schneider
06-24-17, 07:41 PM
Europe is a much better ally to the USA than organized crime controlled Russia. In Russia, political opposition and critics in the press end up dead under mysterious circumstances.
When an appeals court in The Netherlands actually ruled that a political party had the right to form as a pro-pedophilia one, Putin responded: “And we’re supposed to accept this?”
(Yes, the decision was later reversed by their supreme court, but the mere fact that these judges were not instantly removed from office is telling; how far down the road to Sodom and Gomorrah have traversed these decadent people. Later, this group put up a photo of the king’s then adolescent son on their website. Then they went too far!)
I find a politician (Putin) with such an attitude a damn sight more preferable than these jurists and their people who tolerate them. Putin has now renounced atheism and is a devout Russian Orthodox congregant.
Well what a spooky coincidence. Just came up on my feed.
https://dailyhealthpost.com/hpv-vaccine-controversy/
Wplains
06-24-17, 08:41 PM
When an appeals court in The Netherlands actually ruled that a political party had the right to form as a pro-pedophilia one, Putin responded: “And we’re supposed to accept this?”
(Yes, the decision was later reversed by their supreme court, but the mere fact that these judges were not instantly removed from office is telling; how far down the road to Sodom and Gomorrah have traversed these decadent people. Later, this group put up a photo of the king’s then adolescent son on their website. Then they went too far!)
I find a politician (Putin) with such an attitude a damn sight more preferable than these jurists and their people who tolerate them. Putin has now renounced atheism and is a devout Russian Orthodox congregant.
Hmm, but I'll bet pro Nazi parties are not allowed? It makes no sense to me how come Nazis are banned while extreme leftist parties like Maoist and Communists are allowed. Yet, their heroes probably killed several more million people than the Nazis. Not that I want Nazi parties around but then neither do I want extremists like Maoists and the like. Yet, while some are banned the others are not only tolested but perfectly legal. Where is the logic in that? :shrug:
Mesmerized
06-24-17, 09:09 PM
I think being right wing is anathema in certain circles.....;)
As is being a liberal pinhead.
Wplains
06-24-17, 09:53 PM
As is being a liberal pinhead.
Lol.
Captain Steel
06-24-17, 11:22 PM
It seems the next Civil War won't be North vs South, but rather Left vs Right.
matt72582
06-25-17, 10:16 AM
It seems the next Civil War won't be North vs South, but rather Left vs Right.
More like Centre-Right vs. Right
Don Schneider
06-25-17, 12:35 PM
Christine, this reminds me of an article I once read in the Daily Mail about the area of London I was living in the time, which basically suggested that knife crime was so rife that you couldn't walk to the corner shop without fearing for your life. It was such a hysterical, exaggerated portrait that it didn't resemble the day to day reality of living there at all.
The area of London that you used to live in? Did you move out along with all your other oh so tolerant, politically correct, indigenous British rendering your own capital city minority indigenous British in the process?
We have the same phenomenon here. Denizens of “blue" (liberal) states flee their socialist, liberal paradises for “reactionary,” ”red" (conservative) states and, unfortunately—learning nothing—, all too often take their blue state, left wing politics with them so they can begin the process anew of ruining their new state. What a bunch of fools and hypocrites “progressives” are.
Fortunately, this has begun to backfire on them. They gained Virginia, Nevada and Colorado by a narrow margin due to the liberal influx but in the process lost Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin to the now small conservative majority they left behind. This is what put Trump into office.
The area of London that you used to live in? Did you move out along with all your other oh so tolerant, politically correct, indigenous British rendering your own capital city minority indigenous British in the process?
This is a great example of the difference between talking to people, and talking at them. Someone mentions they used to live in an area, and after a fig leaf of a rhetorical question, and before waiting for a reply, it's used as a launching pad for the exact same thing you've posted half a dozen times already. It's like you're scanning the discussion for excuses and entry points to repeat your position, rather than trying to have an actual discussion with anyone.
Don Schneider
06-25-17, 12:56 PM
This is a great example of the difference between talking to people, and talking at them. Someone mentions they used to live in an area, and after a fig leaf of a rhetorical question, and before waiting for a reply, it's used as a launching pad for the exact same thing you've posted half a dozen times already. It's like you're scanning the discussion for excuses and entry points to repeat your position, rather than trying to have an actual discussion with anyone.
None of which, however, has any bearing one way or the other on the validity of what I wrote.
None of which, however, has any bearing one way or the other on the validity of what I wrote.
But many other responses have had bearing on it, and you've effectively shrugged them off. I pointed out that your statements about America's founders are in direct contradiction to what they actually wrote in our founding documents, and you wanted to "agree to disagree." christine responded to much of what you wrote to her, and you said "time will tell."
It is perfectly relevant to point out, then, that you're not actually soliciting comments on the "validity of what [you] wrote." You're just interested in broadcasting it as often as possible. And if you're just going to broadcast it yet again (particularly via some obviously forced segue or interjection), then I'm just going to point out, yet again, that it's not a real invitation to discussion.
Don Schneider
06-25-17, 01:30 PM
But many other responses have had bearing on it, and you've effectively shrugged them off. I pointed out that your statements about America's founders are in direct contradiction to what they actually wrote in our founding documents, and you wanted to "agree to disagree." christine responded to much of what you wrote to her, and you said "time will tell."
It is perfectly relevant to point out, then, that you're not actually soliciting comments on the "validity of what [you] wrote." You're just interested in broadcasting it as often as possible. And if you're just going to broadcast it yet again (particularly via some obviously forced segue or interjection), then I'm just going to point out, yet again, that it's not a real invitation to discussion.
Chris, I assume by her Parthian shot that Christine has put me on ignore as I know for a fact that some of the conservative posters have done likewise to liberal posters. I have had no input regarding that as this happened before I arrived and furthermore, I personally would never put anyone on ignore regardless of the provocation, perceived or real.
The play/movie 1776 was perhaps the most inane rendering of such a momentous subject that I can recall. Nevertheless, it has its moments. After one of the delegates returns from using “the necessary,” he inquires where the debate stands. He’s informed that he is to be the deciding vote as to whether the subject of independence should even be debated. He reflects for a moment and replies: “Hell, yes. I’ve never heard of an idea so dangerous that it can’t even be talked about.” Bravo!
I have no idea how old Christine is or other posters or lurkers here that are from the EU. But if she or others live long enough (and Douglas Murray (who is openly gay, by the way) believes it will be within the lifetimes of most people living today), the day might well come when what I and others have stated here will resonate with her and them and think: You know, maybe that guy I encountered on the Movie Forum years ago who I thought was such a jerk might have been right after all.
As for my fellow Americans, we’re starting far down the road from our cultural cousins in the old sod. We have more time. Let us learn from their folly before it is too late for us as well. BTW, to the indigenous Europeans, when the time comes please flee to Australia or New Zealand, not here!
Don Schneider
06-25-17, 01:34 PM
But many other responses have had bearing on it, and you've effectively shrugged them off. I pointed out that your statements about America's founders are in direct contradiction to what they actually wrote in our founding documents, and you wanted to "agree to disagree."
I hold to the view that the U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Chris, I assume by her Parthian shot that Christine has put me on ignore as I know for a fact that some of the conservative posters have done likewise to liberal posters. I have had no input regarding that as this happened before I arrived and furthermore, I personally would never put anyone on ignore regardless of the provocation, perceived or real.
I wouldn't either, but this is neither here nor there. She'd already replied to you, and you'd already responded to her directly, so this doesn't explain or address anything.
“Hell, yes. I’ve never heard of an idea so dangerous that it can’t even be talked about.” Bravo!
I've also never heard of an idea so dangerous that it had to be suppressed through sheer repetition, rather than reasoned debate.
I have no idea how old Christine is or other posters or lurkers here that are from the EU. But if she or others live long enough (and Douglas Murray (who is openly gay by the way) believes it will be within the lifetimes of most people living today), the day might well come when what I and others have stated here will resonate with her and them and think: You know, maybe that guy I encountered on the Movie Forum years ago who I thought was such a jerk might have been right after all.
I sure hope your efforts aren't sustained wholly on such wishcasting. But whether you're right or not about the importance of the issue is completely separate from whether or not you're right about the reasoning that leads to your position, or all the other issues you've awkwardly tried to attach to it, let alone the issue of whether or not you're actually contributing to a solution by doing any of this.
I made this point earlier (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1723931#post1723931), and more than once. You've yet to respond, and continue to fail to distinguish between these things.
As for my fellow Americans, we’re starting far down the road from our cultural cousins in the old sod. We have more time. Let us learn from their folly before it is too late for us as well. BTW, to the indigenous Europeans, when the time comes please flee to Australia or New Zealand, not here!
See? Even when I point out how manifestly uninterested you are in discussion, you ignore most of what I say and do the exact thing I was just describing. The need to restate your position, rather than argue it, is apparently so compulsive that you can't help but do it even in the process of responding to the charge that you do it!
I hold to the view that the U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact.
In other words, you put your own judgment over the Constitution. Good to know. That's your prerogative, but you don't get to pretend to reflect the founders' worldview at the same time you undermine their crowning achievement. Your views are at odds with America's founding principles, plain and simple.
Also, the argument in question was not about open borders (even though you rather blatantly tried to pretend it was when questioned, in direct contradiction to your earlier statements), but whether or not people should have to suppress their culture and individuality when they come here.
So, apparently, you think there is no idea so dangerous that it cannot be discussed, but there are hats so fearsome that they present an existential threat.
Don Schneider
06-25-17, 02:58 PM
In other words, you put your own judgment over the Constitution. Good to know. That's your prerogative, but you don't get to pretend to reflect the founders' worldview at the same time you undermine their crowning achievement. Your views are at odds with America's founding principles, plain and simple.
Really? That’s exactly what left wing jurists have done for years. To my knowledge, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has come closest to out-and-out acknowledging this in response to the late, great Justice Scalia who would scold her for departing from what was actually written within the text of the constitution. She stated that when the constitution was written, black people were enslaved and white women were oppressed. Therefore, presumably it is all right to change what is actually written and what was actually intended by judicial fiat rather than waiting for the oh so arduous and inconvenient tool the framers gave us called a constitutional amendment.
You know, the word “interpretation" can carry only so much baggage. If one so pleases, one may interpret Waterloo as a Napoleonic victory. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Nappy ended his mercurial career growing potatoes on St. Helena Island.
(and Douglas Murray (who is openly gay, by the way)
What the??? This has what to do with the price of eggs in China? Did vax cause that, or was it a hijab perhaps? You still havent answered my question about what religion that person is above.
to the indigenous Europeans, when the time comes please flee to Australia or New Zealand, not here!
Jesus wept. What were you saying about head in the sand?
As for your comment about the DalAi Lama, how convenient to omit that he said they should go back to rebuild their country...when the civil war is over. And he doesnt agree with her at all. He teaches love compassion tolerance and forgiveness, not fear and hatred.
Don Schneider
06-25-17, 03:01 PM
So, apparently, you think there is no idea so dangerous that it cannot be discussed, but there are hats so fearsome that they present an existential threat.
Oh, how very clever. “If the shoe fits…” then why not hats as well?
Really? That’s exactly what left wing jurists have done for years.
Er, yes. Which is bad. Bad when they do it, bad when you do it.
Also bad: trying to deflect substantive critiques by just randomly talking about liberals.
Oh, how very clever. “If the shoe fits…” then why not hats as well?
Thanks. Glad you think it's clever. But I'd be gladder still if you addressed the argument underlying it, particularly if you plan on repeating it again later.
Don Schneider
06-25-17, 03:24 PM
What the??? This has what to do with the price of eggs in China? Did vax cause that, or was it a hijab perhaps? You still havent answered my question about what religion that person is above.
Jesus wept. What were you saying about head in the sand?
As for your comment about the DalAi Lama, how convenient to omit that he said they should go back to rebuild their country...when the civil war is over. And he doesnt agree with her at all. He teaches love compassion tolerance and forgiveness, not fear and hatred.
Well, I thought I’d mention that the author is a member of a traditionally favored group by the PC crowd, though he has stated that he fears that the PC police are beginning to put “religious freedom” ahead of "sexual freedom" regarding Islam’s enlightened attitude towards homosexuals.
Regarding vaccinations, you badgered me to return the thread to the OP, as if I were the one who diverted it to other topics. When I did so in a substantive post, you simply chose to ignore it.
Regarding my (earnest) request that when the time comes that the indigenous PC Europeans look to other parts for refuge (such as your homeland?), since you and they dismiss my admonitions as the ravings of an alarmist, then the point is rather moot from your perspective, is it not?
Regarding the Dali Lama, you did note that he suggested that genuine refugees return to their homeland when such becomes a possibility, did you?. Well, that’s progress, but do your really think many will?
Don Schneider
06-25-17, 03:31 PM
Thanks. Glad you think it's clever. But I'd be gladder still if you addressed the argument underlying it, particularly if you plan on repeating it again later.
Well, it’s difficult to believe that you are not familiar with the ending of the adage that I omitted by invoking ellipses (for rhetorical effect). Therefore, you should have been able to grasp my point, even if not agreeing with it.
It's DalAi Lama, not Dali. That's a village in China. And the first victim of the fire in Chelsea had openly stated he planned to return to Syria. How on earth do you know what these refugees are thinking; I doubt you've ever met one. You do know the Dalai Lama is a refugee, I guess. He would go back tomorrow to rebuild his country if the Chinese government and army left.
as if I were the one who diverted it to other topics.
The old 'blame it on the other guy' routine, hey? In your OP you lobbed in the bait with your Eurabia comment. And you obviously were quite happy for the hijack otherwise you would have shot it down. You've done nothing but rant and try to shout people down who dont agree with you ever since.
look to other parts for refuge (such as your homeland?),
You dont get out much, do you.
Well, it’s difficult to believe that you are not familiar with the ending of the adage that I omitted by invoking ellipses (for rhetorical effect). Therefore, you should have been able to grasp my point, even if not agreeing with it.
I am indeed familiar with the adage, but I don't see how the rest of it makes any point at all. It explains none of the cognitive dissonance inherent in talking about the necessity of being able to discuss any idea, while simultaneously suggesting that someone's manner of dress is a threat to our very way of life, even though they're rooted in the same principles of freedom and self-expression.
In other words, it's yet another reaffirming of a position, rather than an argument for it.
Don Schneider
06-25-17, 03:52 PM
It's DalAi Lama, not Dali. That's a village in China. And the first victim of the fire in Chelsea had openly stated he planned to return to Syria. How on earth do you know what these refugees are thinking; I doubt you've ever met one. You do know the Dalai Lama is a refugee, I guess. He would go back tomorrow to rebuild his country if the Chinese government and army left.
The old 'blame it on the other guy' routine, hey? In your OP you lobbed in the bait with your Eurabia comment. And you obviously were quite happy for the hijack otherwise you would have shot it down. You've done nothing but rant and try to shout people down who dont agree with you ever since.
You dont get out much, do you.
So, I misspelled a foreign name (or title)? How remiss of me. That’s the first point you’ve scored within your inane ramblings. Just as Ann Coulter admonishes regarding liberals, you go from one scattered topic/thought to the next barely pausing to catch your breath. But thanks for the spelling lesson. I'm educable. I shall endeavor to be more attentive to such matters in the future.
Now, go have a nice cup of tea and enjoy this musical selection I chose just for you, a truly splendid rendition from one of your illustrious homies. I hope your future PC European refugee hoards will come to cherish it as much as you undoubtedly do:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwvazMc5EfE
P.S. C'mon, 'fess up. I'm beginning to grow on you! :)
So, I misspelled a foreign name (or title)? How remiss of me. That’s the first point you’ve scored within your inane ramblings. Just as Ann Coulter admonishes regarding liberals, you go from one scattered topic/thought to the next barely pausing to catch your breath. But thanks for the spelling lesson. I'm educable. I shall endeavor to be more attentive to such matters in the future.
Now, have a nice cup of tea and enjoy this musical selection I chose just for you, a truly splendid rendition from one of your illustrious homies. I hope your future PC European refugee hoards will come to cherish it as much as you undoubtedly do:
P.S. C'mon, 'fess up. I'm beginning to grow on you! :)
I'm yet to see you score one, Don. You're all over the shop this weekend. Will it make you happy if I rep your post just once?
I dont know who Ann Coulter is and I have no interest. I told you, thanks but no thanks for any recommendations from you, although I am curious if you actually watch movies. I doubt it, though. As someone else suggested, you should drop Fox news and go watch a fun, light hearted movie.
Trying to order me around the way you'd like to order other women around because of a piece of material they wear on their head? Tell me, even though I know you'll skirt this issue again, how to you propose for authorities to know which head garment is religious, cultural or a fashion statement. Badge those who wear them for religious purposes? Would that include this person?
http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170524092743-trump-melania-ivanka-pope-exlarge-169.jpg
Badging seems a bit too last century, does it not???!
And on your final comment, you really aren't as worldly or educated as you like to think you are. It's getting embarrassing.
Don Schneider
06-25-17, 04:19 PM
I'm yet to see you score one, Don. You're all over the shop this weekend. Will it make you happy if I rep your post just once?
I dont know who Ann Coulter is and I have no interest. I told you, thanks but no thanks for any recommendations from you, although I am curious if you actually watch movies. I doubt it, though. As someone else suggested, you should drop Fox news and go watch a fun, light hearted movie.
Trying to order me around the way you'd like to order other women around because of a piece of material they wear on their head? Tell me, even though I know you'll skirt this issue again, how to you propose for authorities to know which head garment is religious, cultural or a fashion statement. Badge those who wear them for religious purposes? Would that include this person?
http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170524092743-trump-melania-ivanka-pope-exlarge-169.jpg
Badging seems a bit too last century, does it not???!
And on your final comment, you really aren't as worldly or educated as you like to think you are. It's getting embarrassing.
Well, so much for my proffered olive branch. Regarding Ann Coulter, for starters, she’s a …woman!
Take care.
Regarding Ann Coulter, for starters, she’s a …woman!
.
And? Does she wear material on her head? I have a hat fetish so if she does I might even like her.
Don Schneider
06-25-17, 04:56 PM
And? Does she wear material on her head? I have a hat fetish so if she does I might even like her.
Just as a final note on this thread, Ms. Coulter is not renown as a fashion plate, though hardly a slob either. And there are few things I would wager my life upon but I would this: You would not like her (no matter how she dressed).
Also, when I referred to the musical selection as a “truly splendid rendition,” I was being jocular, yes, but not sarcastic. I very much appreciated Slim and often listen to his recordings. I was saddened when he passed away some years back. ("And his ghost may be heard....") And I truly love this classic despite never having been near your native land. (Would that qualify me as “worldly”? One can only hope.)
Captain Steel
06-25-17, 05:00 PM
As someone else suggested, you should drop Fox news and go watch a fun, light hearted movie.
Muriel's Wedding
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JH3ap9COvOk
You wouldnt have the faintest idea what or who I would not like.
I took your final comment of 'take care' as an adios, so please stop tagging me. If you're not going to answer my question on what religion that person magically tells you she is just by looking at her, or how authorities are going to differentiate head garments so they can restrict those pesky religious clothes that create fear and suspicion in the world according to Don, I'm not interested in your other hijacks that just seem all over the place. And Don, seriously? You don't have to visit a country to not be totally ignorant about whether or not it's multicultural.
christine
06-25-17, 05:43 PM
Chris, I assume by her Parthian shot that Christine has put me on ignore as I know for a fact that some of the conservative posters have done likewise to liberal posters. I have had no input regarding that as this happened before I arrived and furthermore, I personally would never put anyone on ignore regardless of the provocation, perceived or real.
I don't have you on ignore. I've never had anyone on ignore.
The play/movie 1776 was perhaps the most inane rendering of such a momentous subject that I can recall. Nevertheless, it has its moments. After one of the delegates returns from using “the necessary,” he inquires where the debate stands. He’s informed that he is to be the deciding vote as to whether the subject of independence should even be debated. He reflects for a moment and replies: “Hell, yes. I’ve never heard of an idea so dangerous that it can’t even be talked about.” Bravo!
I am willing to talk about any idea, but I have problems when people state as facts things which either they are repeating from unreliable news sources, or deliberately ignoring the views of people who actually know more than they do.
I have no idea how old Christine is or other posters or lurkers here that are from the EU. But if she or others live long enough (and Douglas Murray (who is openly gay, by the way) believes it will be within the lifetimes of most people living today), the day might well come when what I and others have stated here will resonate with her and them and think: You know, maybe that guy I encountered on the Movie Forum years ago who I thought was such a jerk might have been right after all.
I am 60 years old and have always lived an inner city life. The views you have about my country do not resonate in the slightest with me, and yet you still insist on posting such apparently factual dogmatic views. That's why I decided to call it a day because you insist on not even listening to people who live in the country you apparently know everything about.
You disparaged Thursday Next's post and state "The area of London that you used to live in? Did you move out along with all your other oh so tolerant, politically correct, indigenous British rendering your own capital city minority indigenous British in the process?"
Do you even realise how dismissive and even rude this sounds? and you wonder why people are not interested in engaging with you?
As for my fellow Americans, we’re starting far down the road from our cultural cousins in the old sod. We have more time. Let us learn from their folly before it is too late for us as well. BTW, to the indigenous Europeans, when the time comes please flee to Australia or New Zealand, not here!
Really? This just made me smile. For goodness sake, let's have less of the drama. Amongst my wide and varied (in age, sex and ethnicity) group of acquaintances, I can't imagine any of them fleeing the country somehow.
Daniel M
06-25-17, 05:45 PM
You seem to criticise John Major for not actually being a "conservative" because he supported a "globalist" project in the European Union, but I would say that free movement is a right-wing economic idea, and very inline with what I would expect from Conservatives. I always find it weird when people seem to naturally associate free movement with being liberal, when a lot of left-wing socialists are actually against it for left-wing economic reasons.
I voted to remain in the referendum, but have my issues with the EU and wish we would now get on with a sensible post-Brexit solution. Whilst I don't like a lot of things they do as an institution, I have never been opposed to the free movement of people from a social perspective, and absolutely believe we have a duty to support refugees.
Captain Steel
06-25-17, 05:48 PM
I don't have you on ignore. I've never had anyone on ignore.
I am willing to talk about any idea,
Reps for that!
I have never been opposed to the free movement of people from a social perspective, and absolutely believe we have a duty to support refugees.
Well said. All signatories to the Refugee Convention are obligated.
Wplains
06-25-17, 06:13 PM
BTW, to the indigenous Europeans, when the time comes please flee to Australia or New Zealand, not here!
Where do you think we can go Don? No one will let us in. I have a family member who tried to legally emigrate to the US and was finally told to give up as Europeans are at the very bottom of the list of people being accepted in the US. Unless you're a Brit and a member of the Commonwealth, it's also extremely difficult to move to either Australia or NZ as I believe they only accept people whose professions are in short supply their countries. Yet, everyone in the world says Europeans must do more, must accept more people from Africa, from Asia, from wherever the hell they decide to come from. Not only that, we are also expected to provide them free housing, education and healthcare,
.
And please, let's not talk about the poor "refugees". My country took in several thousand as our very Socialist government was all too eager to behave like the good little kid in class and appease Merkel and co when they demanded every European country must "share the burden". And so off they went to the camps in Italy and Greece to round up some Syrians and Eritreians and God knows what else. These people were received with all pomp and circumstance at the airport by government representatives who took them to their new homes: fully furnished apartments (complete with free food) and told they would be receiving free healthcare, free education, free lessons in their new language. This while there are thousand of my countrymen, living homeless in the streets. So what happens after a year? We've discovered that more than 40% of them have departed without so much as a by-your-leave presumably for the much wealthier countries of Northern Europe (the government actually has no idea where they went). Some of them stayed only long enough to receive their monthly stipend and left as soon as they could. I guess you could say that the mood amongst most people here is now not too friendly in terms receiving more "refugees". Far from seemimg the poor, desperate people that the press portrays they appear much more like a bunch of ingrates with a sense of entitlement.
Daniel M
06-25-17, 06:39 PM
What country are you from?
Don Schneider
06-25-17, 07:04 PM
You seem to criticise John Major for not actually being a "conservative" because he supported a "globalist" project in the European Union, but I would say that free movement is a right-wing economic idea, and very inline with what I would expect from Conservatives. I always find it weird when people seem to naturally associate free movement with being liberal, when a lot of left-wing socialists are actually against it for left-wing economic reasons.
I voted to remain in the referendum, but have my issues with the EU and wish we would now get on with a sensible post-Brexit solution. Whilst I don't like a lot of things they do as an institution, I have never been opposed to the free movement of people from a social perspective, and absolutely believe we have a duty to support refugees.
Perhaps you can explain something that mystifies conservatives in the United States. We don’t view Europe in general and the U.K. in particular as having viable conservative parties. Your Conservative Party is basically aligned with our Democratic Party, the liberal party. Why do you characterize Nigel Farage and UKIP as some sort of right wing extremists?
Farage acknowledges that it is critical that there be no more devastating wars in Europe and acknowledges that forming a trade block is a good way to facilitate that purpose. He favors good relations with Europe. That was supposed to be the goal of the original common market before it became much more. He simply wants to defend your borders and preserve your millennia old national identity and culture. How does that make him a right wing extremist as if he and they were mouthing Nazi rhetoric?
Don Schneider
06-25-17, 07:13 PM
Where do you think we can go Don? No one will let us in. I have a family member who tried to legally emigrate to the US and was finally told to give up as Europeans are at the very bottom of the list of people being accepted in the US. Unless you're a Brit and a member of the Commonwealth, it's also extremely difficult to move to either Australia or NZ as I believe they only accept people whose professions are in short supply their countries. Yet, everyone in the world says Europeans must do more, must accept more people from Africa, from Asia, from wherever the hell they decide to come from. Not only that, we are also expected to provide them free housing, education and healthcare,
.
And please, let's not talk about the poor "refugees". My country took in several thousand as our very Socialist government was all too eager to behave like the good little kid in class and appease Merkel and co when they demanded every European country must "share the burden". And so off they went to the camps in Italy and Greece to round up some Syrians and Eritreians and God knows what else. These people were received with all pomp and circumstance at the airport by government representatives who took them to their new homes: fully furnished apartments (complete with free food) and told they would be receiving free healthcare, free education, free lessons in their new language. This while there are thousand of my countrymen, living homeless in the streets. So what happens after a year? We've discovered that more than 40% of them have departed without so much as a by-your-leave presumably for the much wealthier countries of Northern of Europe (the government actually has no idea where they went). Some of them stayed only long enough to receive their monthly stipend and left as soon as they could. I guess you could say that the mood amongst most people here is now not too friendly in terms receiving more "refugees". Far from seemimg the poor, desperate people that the press portrays they appear much more like a bunch of ingrates with a sense of entitlement.
I was only talking about the PC Europeans who have allowed and continue to allow this disaster to unfold, and not the good ones like you! ;)
Don Schneider
06-25-17, 07:20 PM
To all:
Here is an incisive interview and debate with Douglas Murray, the author of The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGkoUEKRkpk (About 39 minutes)
christine
06-25-17, 07:24 PM
I was only talking about the PC Europeans who have allowed and continue to allow this disaster to unfold, and not the good ones like you! ;)
Really this is beyond funny now. So if we agree with you we're 'good Europeans' and if we disagree we're not even worth passing the time of day with? Good job that most of us Europeans don't judge Americans by your media and trust your people as we know them as citizens.
Don Schneider
06-25-17, 07:26 PM
Really this is beyond funny now. So if we agree with you we're 'good Europeans' and if we disagree we're not even worth passing the time of day with? Good job that most of us Europeans don't judge Americans by your media and trust your people as we know them as citizens.
Oh, I'm disappointed. I was hoping you could answer my question to Daniel who is probably gone for the evening.
Really this is beyond funny now. So if we agree with you we're 'good Europeans' and if we disagree we're not even worth passing the time of day with? Good job that most of us Europeans don't judge Americans by your media and trust your people as we know them as citizens.
I'll take 'PC Europeans' in my country any day of the week (whatever PC European means) over the narrow minded people scared of their own shadow that a brown person might have a rocket launcher in his back pocket or her scarf. In fact, I'm having coffee with my girlfriend Svetlana the Russian Goddess this morning. I'll ask her if she's 'PC'.
christine
06-25-17, 08:01 PM
Oh, I'm disappointed. I was hoping you could answer my question to Daniel who is probably gone for the evening.
You don't comment on any of my posts now you realise I'm not a kid with no history, but you ask me to answer Daniels posts for him? He's perfectly capable of answering your questions himself, being a decent, educated young man with a broad minded outlook on life.
in Britain we have a far more complex political situation than you seem to understand (or want to listen to) You cannot judge our left and right political alignments in the same way as in the US. In Europe many countries have had Socialist ruling parties, you in the US haven't. We have had the threat of extreme right wing parties, we in the UK have had people like Oswald Moseley and his Fascists in the 1930s. We are a few hours travel away from Germany where Mosley and his minions were trying to get our government to cosy up to the Nazis. We've had the National Front in the 1970s, we have the EDL today, we don't like extremists in this country. Farage is a one trick pony, it just took the Brexit vote to collapse UKIP and expose them for what they are - a party ramping up people's fears of immigrants while totally ignoring what leaving the EU would do to the UK economy.
Don Schneider
06-25-17, 08:13 PM
You don't comment on any of my posts now you realise I'm not a kid with no history, but you ask me to answer Daniels posts for him? He's perfectly capable of answering your questions himself, being a decent, educated young man with a broad minded outlook on life.
in Britain we have a far more complex political situation than you seem to understand (or want to listen to) You cannot judge our left and right political alignments in the same way as in the US. In Europe many countries have had Socialist ruling parties, you in the US haven't. We have had the threat of extreme right wing parties, we in the UK have had people like Oswald Moseley and his Fascists in the 1930s. We are a few hours travel away from Germany where Mosley and his minions were trying to get our government to cosy up to the Nazis. We've had the National Front in the 1970s, we have the EDL today, we don't like extremists in this country. Farage is a one trick pony, it just took the Brexit vote to collapse UKIP and expose them for what they are - a party ramping up people's fears of immigrants while totally ignoring what leaving the EU would do to the UK economy.
Thank you for your time. Ironic indeed. UKIP put themselves virtually out of business by actually getting what they wanted and campaigning so feverishly for for so very long.
I do understand your history, more than you think. I’m aware of who Moseley was. I just cannot understand why so many of your people seem so willing, even eager, to put yourselves out of business after so very long, from Billy the Conqueror and before! Whatever, one wonders, ever happened to: “Be British!”
Do you even comprehend 'signatory to the refugee convention', Don?
Oh never mind. This is getting more than ridiculous.
I'll order a halal snack pack for you.
Don Schneider
06-25-17, 08:30 PM
Do you even comprehend 'signatory to the refugee convention', Don?
Oh never mind. This is getting more than ridiculous.
I'll order a halal snack pack for you.
Yes, but I recently read a story about how many of these "refugees" supposedly “in fear for their lives,” go back to visit their homelands and families on a regular basis. I personally know a Syrian family (not refugees; been here many years as immigrants) who travel to Damascus often to visit family.
You just contradicted yourself. Deary me.
Don Schneider
06-25-17, 08:51 PM
You just contradicted yourself. Deary me.
How so? The point was that this particular Syrian family (refugees or not) is obviously not afraid to travel to Syria. The others that I referred to are supposedly "refugees" who are "afraid for their lives."
Good night.
Stop tagging me please!
You said they were not refugees. Far out. And what you've read about refugees going back is up for anyone's guess. I read the same garbage when a 12 year old from my own country went to visit her dying grandfather for Ramadan and she was killed along with others in a Isis bomb in an ice-cream parlor. Lots of screaming just like yours of why she "went back". She was BORN here.
And you yourself claimed earlier they would NOT go back. Good grief.
d_chatterley
06-25-17, 09:35 PM
.....Europeans are at the very bottom of the list of people being accepted in the US.
I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but it is incorrect. It is the countries with high level of immigration to the US that have a more difficult time. EU countries are actually the ones with quite low levels of immigration to the US so the wait of their people applying to get here is quite a bit shorter than some other ones such as Mexico, China, the Philippines, and India. Married children of U.S. citizens from Mexico must wait more than 20 years for a visa to become available, and Filipino siblings of U.S. citizens currently wait about 25 years.
Is the process hard? Yes, it is hard for everyone, but if you are basing your opinion of how hard to get to the US on the wait times, it is a lot harder for the countries mentioned above than any EU country.
Wplains
06-25-17, 09:50 PM
I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but it is incorrect. It is the countries with high level of immigration to the US that have a more difficult time. EU countries are actually the ones with quite low levels of immigration to the US so the wait of their people applying to get here is quite a bit shorter than some other ones such as Mexico, China, the Philippines, and India. Married children of U.S. citizens from Mexico must wait more than 20 years for a visa to become available, and Filipino siblings of U.S. citizens currently wait about 25 years.
Is the process hard? Yes, it is hard for everyone, but if you are basing your opinion of how hard to get to the US on the wait times, it is a lot harder for the countries mentioned above than any EU country.
Actually, I'm basing my information on what my family member was told when said family member gave up on trying to get a green card after about an year and a half of trying through legal means and with legal help. Whether that information is wrong or right, I have no ideia.
Is the process hard? Yes, it is hard for everyone, but if you are basing your opinion of how hard to get to the US on the wait times, it is a lot harder for the countries mentioned above than any EU country.
Members of my family have green cards. They didnt find it hard at all.
d_chatterley
06-25-17, 10:00 PM
Actually, I'm basing my information on what my family member was told when said family member gave up on trying to get a green card after about an year and a half of trying through legal means and with legal help. Whether that information is wrong or right, I have no ideia.
Who told her/him that?
In any case, saying it is hard is one thing. I would absolutely agree with that. Saying it is harder for the EU petitioners than others is another thing and something that is just not correct.
d_chatterley
06-25-17, 10:03 PM
Members of my family have green cards. They didnt find it hard at all.
Did they get it through employment or marriage or something else?
There are quite a few ways to get it:
https://www.uscis.gov/greencard
The marriage path seems the easiest and the shortest. The job category is a different story.
Did they get it through employment or marriage or something else?
There are quite a few ways to get it:
https://www.uscis.gov/greencard
The marriage path seems the easiest and the shortest. The job category is a different story.
One got it as a student then got married to a lovely woman. One got it on working grounds along with her boyfriend who is also from here. Another got it to work in hollywood - his partner and kids also got them.
Unless you're a Brit and a member of the Commonwealth, it's also extremely difficult to move to either Australia or NZ
Hang on for a minute, you keep banging on that Australia got immigration right, now you're complaining because your kids can't get a visa? Please make up your mind. They're in Angola now anyway so what exactly are you complaining about?
Wplains
06-25-17, 10:07 PM
How so? The point was that this particular Syrian family (refugees or not) is obviously not afraid to travel to Syria. The others that I referred to are supposedly "refugees" who are "afraid for their lives."
Good night.
I've to the conclusion this "refugee" business has become a huge racket possibly involving governments and there is evidence emerging of the Mafia in Italy also being involved. While there are undoubtedly genuine refugees fleeing war, the vast majority now seem to be simply fleeing poverty and see Europe as a soft touch where they've been told they will be provided for and will get everything for free. They are not far wrong in their assessment either. It's worth pondering the presentation this guy gives -- the numbers are truly staggering and will certainly overwhelm our small continent if nothing is done to stop this.
https://youtu.be/LPjzfGChGlE
Time for
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51CdEaFC4UL._SX342_.jpg
Thanks, Don. This has been fun.
And really, Wp?
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/number-of-refugees-abandoning-portugal-doubles-in-two-months/41767
Wplains
06-25-17, 10:17 PM
Who told her/him that?
In any case, saying it is hard is one thing. I would absolutely agree with that. Saying it is harder for the EU petitioners than others is another thing and something that is just not correct.
Perhaps the info he got was wrong then but it was enough then for him to stop trying after 36 months. His lawyers did not give him much hope and I believe his petition was rejected twice. I heard of others who also have huge difficulties in obtaining a green card -- legally that is. Even marriage seems not to be making things any easier as I knew a couple who were married and even after two years (the man was British) he still didn't have resident status. Of course, there are people who are hired by corporations whom seem to have the least problems in obtaining residency. Oh and I also believe there is a scheme whereby if you invest x hundreds of thousands of dollars they will also ease your way in.
matt72582
06-25-17, 10:17 PM
Would Europe take an American? Asking for a friend :)
Perhaps the info he got was wrong then but it was enough then for him to stop trying after 36 months. His lawyers did not give him much hope and I believe his petition was rejected twice. I heard of others who also have huge difficulties in obtaining a green card .
So you dont want immigrants in your own country but it's OK for people from your country to migrate, take jobs etc that you complain immigrants do, like your kids in Angola? Wow NIMBY much.
Wplains
06-25-17, 10:24 PM
Would Europe take an American? Asking for a friend :)
I think it depends on the country. I don't think there is one uniform policy for all of the EU. Remember that is made up of 27 countries (now the U.K. Is leaving) and then there are countries outside the EU but which are still European. But I believe it is probably easier for Americans to legally emigrate here. Certainly I know Americans who live here and Americans who live in the UK or France.
Captain Steel
06-25-17, 11:20 PM
Since the discussion has largely encompassed the refugee issue, I have a serious question dating back to the Obama Presidency.
A lot of conservative TV and radio stations kept repeating that Obama was attempting to make way for more Muslim refugees from Iraq and Syria to enter the U.S. (we know that is true as it's been a goal and even a campaign promise from the Democrat Party), but these stations would often add on that, at the same time, Obama was blocking Christian refugees from Iraq & Syria from entering the U.S. who were on the run for their lives from ISIS and seeking asylum.
I've searched on line, but have never been able to find any information corroborating this claim or providing a basis for it.
Does anyone have any info on where this claim originated or what it was based on?
Again, the claim was that while Obama was championing bringing more Muslim refugees to the U.S. from Iraq & Syria, he was blocking Christian refugees from those same countries from entering even as they were literally running for their lives.
Since the discussion has largely encompassed the refugee issue, I have a serious question dating back to the Obama Presidency.
I thought it was about suing big pharma for vaccinations...
Captain Steel
06-25-17, 11:28 PM
I thought it was about suing big pharma for vaccinations...
Yeah. Conversations evolve, transmute, change direction, progress, enlarge, expand and go off topic. I'm just glad to see a conversation allowed to continue and to do these things.
P.S. Do you have any info on the question I asked?
Captain Steel
06-25-17, 11:31 PM
Muriel's Wedding
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JH3ap9COvOk
Cap, thanks for sharing that memory!
P.S. please watch it with your off-topic posts!
Iroquois
06-25-17, 11:32 PM
That sounds like an extension of the whole "Obama is a secret Muslim" conspiracy theory. It definitely reads like something you'd make up in order to make Obama look bad to the God-fearing white Christians who would make up a key demographic for conservative media.
Yeah. Conversations evolve, transmute, change direction, progress, enlarge, expand and go off topic. I'm just glad to see a conversation allowed to continue and to do these things.
P.S. Do you have any info on the question I asked?
The convo evolved from the OP. You know it as well as I do. And as you full well know, I'm not american so find your own answers, superman.
Captain Steel
06-25-17, 11:36 PM
The convo evolved from the OP. You know it as well as I do. And as you full well know, I'm not american so find your own answers, superman.
That's okay.
As said, I've looked for an answer, but can't find one. I have a hard time believing multiple different news agencies would just make things up and tell complete lies just to discredit a sitting President. ;)
Captain Steel
06-25-17, 11:40 PM
That sounds like an extension of the whole "Obama is a secret Muslim" conspiracy theory. It definitely reads like something you'd make up in order to make Obama look bad to the God-fearing white Christians who would make up a key demographic for conservative media.
Right, that is what it sounds like. That's why I want to find out why it was repeated by different sources and / or why it wasn't denied by various counter sources. It's the kind of accusation that supporters wouldn't just let stand if there was absolutely no truth to it.
You read this (http://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/christian-refugees-unfairly-kept-out-of-u-s/)?
Iroquois
06-26-17, 05:55 AM
Right, that is what it sounds like. That's why I want to find out why it was repeated by different sources and / or why it wasn't denied by various counter sources. It's the kind of accusation that supporters wouldn't just let stand if there was absolutely no truth to it.
You already acknowledged that the media sources in question were all of a conservative nature, so it's possible to assume that this involved a lack of verification at best and an indifference to its truthfulness at worst. One media entity reporting the truth of the matter does not automatically count as denying what another media entity reported unless it is explicitly acknowledged as such, and even that sounds like it could count as slander since it's calling the other entity a liar and/or just plain wrong.
cat_sidhe
06-26-17, 06:01 AM
P.S. please watch it with your off-topic posts!
We all get side-eyed for that. (I have trouble containing my inner Puck.)
Don Schneider
06-26-17, 10:44 AM
Stop tagging me please!
You said they were not refugees. Far out. And what you've read about refugees going back is up for anyone's guess. I read the same garbage when a 12 year old from my own country went to visit her dying grandfather for Ramadan and she was killed along with others in a Isis bomb in an ice-cream parlor. Lots of screaming just like yours of why she "went back". She was BORN here.
Gladly, “dearie,” as you would put it. I’m not talking to you anyway! You misled me into thinking you’re Australian! (No wonder you spurned my proffered olive branch!) A little fingertip research has revealed your true country of origin and later domicile (not that there is anything wrong with that, mind you). Such a pity. I do so love “Waltzing Maltilda.” See in a few years all the depraved PC Europeans waltzing there. (Take us in!) The Aussies won't deserve that.
Iroquois
06-26-17, 10:51 AM
Yeah, this country has to work its way up to deserving "PC Europeans".
Don Schneider
06-26-17, 11:01 AM
Yeah, this country has to work its way up to deserving "PC Europeans".
Oh, God! From whence are you starting? There’s hope, though. There’s always that off chance that my country will pass a constitutional amendment allowing for the return of Obama who’ll then doubtlessly rush in anxiously with a deal to take them off your hands before you get slapped on your collective wrist again about the deplorable conditions of refugees on those islands by the international body politic.
A little fingertip research has revealed your true country of origin and later domicile .
Que? What is my country of origin and domicile? You seem to think you're an expert on everything, Don, so send me the memo of where I'm living because I'm on a need to know basis. This is pretty urgent as I need to do something about citizenship.
Don Schneider
06-26-17, 12:27 PM
Since a certain party has instructed me “not to tag her,” would someone please kindly inform her that if she wishes to make such known it is incumbent upon her to do so. I simply was pointing out that despite her avatar (er, that is a koala bear, isn’t it?) and a past reference to baking me an Australian pastry, she’s not Australian; unless, of course, she has since so graced that nation with her presence.
Since a certain party has instructed me “not to tag her,” would someone please inform her that is she wishes to make such known it is incumbent upon her to do so.
If you're trying to show people you're smart, I think addressing substantive objections is a better way to go about it than writing sentences like this.
Have you completely lost the plot?
1. I dont need to prove anything to you but it's quite amusing watching you make a goose of yourself.
2. No that is not a koala so that's another fail
3. A lamington is not a pastry.
Hat trick. Well done!
Now do you even watch movies because you seem glued to every little snippet of info on the net about those pesky brown people who wear terrifying pieces of cloth on their head and so politely trying to 'persuade' people on this forum to accept your hysteria.
ash_is_the_gal
06-26-17, 12:39 PM
Bury one's head into the sand, of course. Isn't this exactly what the PC crowd always does?
crap, i knew i was missing out on a photo op this saturday when i was at the beach!
:(
christine
06-26-17, 12:44 PM
depraved PC Europeans
wow. I'm reading all the possible versions of depraved and I don't recognise myself..
corrupt, corrupted, perverted, deviant, degenerate, debased, degraded, immoral, unprincipled, reprobate; debauched, dissolute, profligate, lewd, licentious, lascivious, lecherous, lustful, prurient, obscene, indecent, libertine, sordid;
wicked, sinful, vile, base, iniquitous, nefarious, criminal, vicious, brutal;
informalwarped, twisted, pervy, sick, sicko
I suppose I could've been a tad lustful back before I became a world weary old lady, but the rest of the words do seem a little over the top.
LOL Christine. Well I think I shall come join you because The World According to Don has informed me I dont live where I claim I live but he wont tell me where I do live so I guess not only am I stateless but I'm probably omnipotent. I can be where you are yesterday.
christine
06-26-17, 12:53 PM
LOL Christine. Well I think I shall come join you because The World According to Don has informed me I dont live where I claim I live but he wont tell me where I do live so I guess not only am I stateless but I'm probably omnipotent. I can be where you are yesterday.
oh I was just waltzing my depraved self over to see you too. This could be turning into Lost, or maybe The Leftovers
I'll crank up the hadron collider. Be back in a jiffy. Need a cuppa first.
Don Schneider
06-26-17, 01:05 PM
If you're trying to show people you're smart, I think addressing substantive objections is a better way to go about it than writing sentences like this.
This coming from a man who bandies about such verbiage as “orthogonal.” Hey, even I had to look that one up. Impressive, Chris!
Except that's obviously the opposite of what I just described: using a single, appropriate word, rather than an unnecessarily long, twisty sentence.
And even if they were not opposites, the point was about doing that instead of making substantive arguments, rather than in addition to them.
Still waiting for you to tell me where I live, not that it's even relevant other than to give off a very creepy vibe.
There is no spoon.
Maybe the lack of interest in cricket could be a pointer . Cricket is very popular in Australia.
Maybe the lack of interest in cricket could be a pointer . Cricket is very popular in Australia.
Nani desu ka? Another expert, and never far away. You two make a great pair.
Nani desu ka?
What does that mean ? Some indian language out of the countless that India has ? I know only marathi ( my mother tongue) and Hindi---the national language .
Captain Steel
06-26-17, 01:26 PM
Sounds Japanese to me.
Chypmunk
06-26-17, 01:41 PM
https://68.media.tumblr.com/307e0f2f91a2782bc24a614e2944fe92/tumblr_mong1yUhxi1sw2zgso1_400.gif
As it seems to be open house for drivel on here lately
Don Schneider
06-26-17, 01:51 PM
wow. I'm reading all the possible versions of depraved and I don't recognise myself..
corrupt, corrupted, perverted, deviant, degenerate, debased, degraded, immoral, unprincipled, reprobate; debauched, dissolute, profligate, lewd, licentious, lascivious, lecherous, lustful, prurient, obscene, indecent, libertine, sordid;
wicked, sinful, vile, base, iniquitous, nefarious, criminal, vicious, brutal;
informalwarped, twisted, pervy, sick, sicko
I suppose I could've been a tad lustful back before I became a world weary old lady, but the rest of the words do seem a little over the top.
Okay, Christine. You’ve convinced me. I retract. You, at least, are not depraved, just a bit befuddled when it comes to reading demographic statistics and discerning the shape of things to come.
just a bit befuddled
Projecting again?
You seem very angry and frustrated that you cannot 'persuade' anyone to accept your xenophobia, and continually bashing them over the head about where they live, or that the 'head in the sand PC' insult is having no impact whatsoever. That's sad. Ramadan is over now so maybe you can get over it and ...I dunno...watch a movie perhaps.
ash_is_the_gal
06-26-17, 01:56 PM
i haven't finished reading this thread yet but i've lol'ed at several parts of it, so.... that's something, at least
i'm not sure what the answer is to all these political threads popping up and cluttering the forum, or what should be done, but i know that if i started creating a bunch of threads about my very left-leaning political ideas in a 'rant' style, i'd be called a feminazi, a tumblrina, and/or a sjw, and probably by many of the same people who have been complaining about censorship. i think the people who are so against this so called 'censorship' should start asking themselves if they'd still want to be apart of this forum if the shouting and repetivness started coming from the other side, cause it's the other extreme and it's the easiest way to see why people have a problem with it
Citizen Rules
06-26-17, 01:58 PM
I for one think this thread has become worse than the terrorist thread ever was. We have one person venting on literally everything and everyone, which causes the inevitable push back. The results: hostility. This isn't about discussing a topic, it's about fighting and insulting. This isn't why I joined MoFo.
https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=49561
i'm not sure what the answer is to all these political threads popping up and cluttering the forum, or what should be done, but i know that if i started creating a bunch of threads about my very left-leaning political ideas in a 'rant' style, i'd be called a feminazi, a tumblrina, and/or a sjw, and probably by many of the same people who have been complaining about censorship. i think the people who are so against this so called 'censorship' should start asking themselves if they'd still want to be apart of this forum if the shouting and repetivness started coming from the other side, cause it's the other extreme and it's the easiest way to see why people have a problem with it
Yeah, the "other side" example I keep thinking of is gun control. Imagine someone who not only talked about gun control a lot, but who posted a completely new thread every time their was a shooting, and didn't even wait for confirmed reports or any specifics. Then imagine every one of these threads contained the exact same assertions about gun control, even though there were lots of completely unanswered counterarguments in other threads. And then imagine this was 99% of what they posted.
I doubt these same people would think too highly of that. But that's basically what this is.
We have one person venting on literally everything and everyone, which causes the inevitable push back. The results: hostility. This isn't about discussing a topic, it's about fighting and insulting.
It's blatant trolling.
And I still don't know who/where I am
http://www.tasteofcinema.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/extrait_angel-heart.jpg
Back to movie discussion.
Don Schneider
06-26-17, 02:10 PM
I for one think this thread has become worse than the terrorist thread ever was. We have one person venting on literally everything and everyone, which causes the inevitable push back. The results: hostility. This isn't about discussing a topic, it's about fighting and insulting. This isn't why I joined MoFo.
https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=49561
One person? I've counted at least five other conservatives here who seem to agree with me. Also, I'm not signed on for at least twelve hours a day and when I return I discover that the thread somehow seems to survive my absence with added discussion.
Did you ever consider doing something radical such as not reading threads that displease you? isn’t that what liberals always retort when someone mentions movie or television fare that offends them? At least there is no profanity or obscenity here That’s generally a lefto thing, after all.
As far as ‘venting on literally everything and everyone,” I think there are a great many other people and topics which would fall under the umbrella of “everything and everyone” than perhaps a half dozen leftos here and the few topics we have been discussing: terroism; immigration; and Islam.
P.S. I rarely respond to anyone who hasn't addressed their comments to or about me.
What's a 'lefto'? Is that the new hip net speak for angry teens to attempt an insult?
Yeah, the "other side" example I keep thinking of is gun control. Imagine someone who not only talked about gun control a lot, but who posted a completely new thread every time their was a shooting, and didn't even wait for confirmed reports or any specifics. Then imagine every one of these threads contained the exact same assertions about gun control, even though there were lots of completely unanswered counterarguments in other threads. And then imagine this was 99% of what they posted.
I doubt these same people would think too highly of that. But that's basically what this is.
The issue of gun control is less important than the impending catastrophe in which Europe is going to be destroyed by islamofascists. I am interested in this issue because my country faces the same danger. We need to repeat that a catastrophe may occur if the so called 'refugees' are not stopped from coming.
ash_is_the_gal
06-26-17, 02:19 PM
Yeah, the "other side" example I keep thinking of is gun control. Imagine someone who not only talked about gun control a lot, but who posted a completely new thread every time their was a shooting, and didn't even wait for confirmed reports or any specifics. Then imagine every one of these threads contained the exact same assertions about gun control, even though there were lots of completely unanswered counterarguments in other threads. And then imagine this was 99% of what they posted.
I doubt these same people would think too highly of that. But that's basically what this is.
that's a good analogy!
also... considering that these threads always resort to nothing but flinging one-liners back and forth and snarky little comments that often get personal... it's laughable at best that this is PC driven.
The issue of gun control is less important than the impending catastrophe in which Europe is going to be destroyed by islamofascists. I am interested in this issue because my country faces the same danger. We need to repeat that a catastrophe may occur if the so called 'refugees' are not stopped from coming.
Shootings are life-and-death, which is why I chose them for this example. Whether you regard one as more important or the other, both are serious enough that someone could glibly use the importance of the issue, and the lives at risk, as a catch-all defense for posting about it incessantly.
I have, of course, already pointed out a few times that the importance of the issue in no way implies that it's necessary to allow it to infiltrate all communication or all aspects of our lives all the time (zero responses), but even if it did, it certainly wouldn't explain engaging in repetitive assertions, instead of reasoned debate that actually responded to counterarguments.
Captain Steel
06-26-17, 02:35 PM
I for one think this thread has become worse than the terrorist thread ever was. We have one person venting on literally everything and everyone, which causes the inevitable push back. The results: hostility. This isn't about discussing a topic, it's about fighting and insulting. This isn't why I joined MoFo.
https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=49561
Not addressing this to you, Rules, but as with the terrorist thread - the same people who complain about the views expressed and the very existence of the thread itself (and who call for or would just love to see it closed) are the ones who keep coming back and replying or arguing or bumping. It's like they can't help themselves.
If they weren't interested in the topics (or their desire to see them closed down wasn't at the level of an obsession) then they'd be on other threads - like the people who actually ARE NOT interested and ARE on other threads - never feeling upset by reading about things they truly are not interested in.
Some people derive a sense of power by being able to say "Hey, I'm one of the ones who got your discussion closed down! I shut you up! I have power on the Internet!" They (meaning not all but some - and it's pretty easy to tell who's who) continue the conversation and keep driving it toward antagonism and then cry foul that the topic and any discussion thereof should be shut down.
This is another classic manipulative tactic that I'm glad most who lean toward the right don't engage in. Most right of center would rather debate (& maintain free speech) than have it shut down by claiming they're offended and can't stand these threads that they themselves keep coming back to day after day, hour after hour.
"Hey, I'm one of the ones who got your discussion closed down! I shut you up! I have power on the Internet!"
That's interesting. Who crowed about getting the thread closed. The only person I saw crowing was accusing the person you replied to of getting it closed, which was blatantly incorrect.
Captain Steel
06-26-17, 02:42 PM
That's interesting. Who crowed about getting the thread closed. The only person I saw crowing was accusing the person you replied to of getting it closed, which was blatantly incorrect.
Not sure if I'm reading you correctly, Dani. You're saying that CR only asked that the terrorism thread be removed from the "Now Playing" section (but never called for it to be closed) - and that's what happened first before the thread was closed. Am I getting that right?
Don Schneider
06-26-17, 02:42 PM
Not addressing this to you, Rules, but as with the terrorist thread - the same people who complain about the views expressed and the very existence of the thread itself (and who call for or would just love to see it closed) are the ones who keep coming back and replying or arguing or bumping. It's like they can't help themselves.
If they weren't interested in the topics (or their desire to see them closed down wasn't at the level of an obsession) then they'd be on other threads - like the people who actually ARE NOT interested and ARE on other threads - never feeling upset by reading about things they truly are not interested in.
Some people derive a sense of power by being able to say "Hey, I'm one of the ones who got your discussion closed down! I shut you up! I have power on the Internet!" They (meaning not all but some - and it's pretty easy to tell who's who) continue the conversation and keep driving it toward antagonism and then cry foul that the topic and any discussion thereof should be shut down.
This is another classic manipulative tactic that I'm glad most who lean toward the right don't engage in. Most right of center would rather debate (& maintain free speech) than have it shut down by claiming they're offended and can't stand these threads that they themselves keep coming back to day after day, hour after hour.
Thanks, Cap! This is a classic retort! Your dissection of the psychological bent of the poster is profound and right on the proverbial money. Hear! Hear!
Not sure if I'm reading you correctly, Dani. You're saying that CR only asked that the terrorism thread be removed from the "Now Playing" section (but never called for it to be closed) - and that's what happened first before the thread was closed. Am I getting that right?
Rules asked for it to be removed from Now Playing because 1. he was frustrated at seeing it there constantly which 2. concerned him it was all guests were viewing on a movie forum and it might be turning them away. You know that.
No one can force the forum owner to close a thread. He/She is the arbiter and makes the decision, and rightly so.
Captain Steel
06-26-17, 02:49 PM
Thanks, Cap! This is a classic retort! Your dissection of the psychological bent of the poster is profound and right on the proverbial money. Hear! Hear!
Here's the thing - I think Yoda tried to outline what kind of behaviors would result in threads being closed (in his Controversial Topics guidelines thread). But it seems some people may be purposefully engaging in those behaviors BECAUSE they want to see this and other threads closed as well. Now I'm not including people who seem to actually debate the issues, but those more interested in antagonism & personal insults than debate.
- unofficial deputy MovFov Monitorator, Alternate-Universe Cap ;)
Citizen Rules
06-26-17, 02:52 PM
...Some people derive a sense of power by being able to say "Hey, I'm one of the ones who got your discussion closed down! I shut you up! I have power on the Internet!" ... I had NOTHING to do with the terrorist thread being closed. Yoda is his own man, and gave the reasons why it was closed.
Unknown to you, my only PM on the subject to Yoda was about a week ago when I asked him to reopen the terrorist thread, as I believed it would help stop the spread of hostile-baiting threads and at least keep it confined to one thread.
But like I said Yoda is his own man, and he didn't take me up on my suggestion. See how wrong you are about my intentions.
Not addressing this to you, Rules, but as with the terrorist thread - the same people who complain about the views expressed and the very existence of the thread itself (and who call for or would just love to see it closed) are the ones who keep coming back and replying or arguing or bumping. It's like they can't help themselves.
If they weren't interested in the topics (or their desire to see them closed down wasn't at the level of an obsession) then they'd be on other threads - like the people who actually ARE NOT interested and ARE on other threads - never feeling upset by reading about things they truly are not interested in.
I addressed all of this already in this post (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1724689#post1724689) (zero replies; sensing a pattern?). Shorter version: merely provoking responses is easy if you don't have any standards for how thoughtful or substantive the resulting discussion is. A troll provokes responses, too, but it does not follow that people therefore enjoy being trolled. It's argumentative clickbait.
Some people derive a sense of power by being able to say "Hey, I'm one of the ones who got your discussion closed down! I shut you up! I have power on the Internet!" They (meaning not all but some - and it's pretty easy to tell who's who) continue the conversation and keep driving it toward antagonism and then cry foul that the topic and any discussion thereof should be shut down.
What drives these conversations towards antagonism are:
1) Phrasing things in the most confrontational or incendiary way possible (like, say, suggesting you sympathize with murderers, or that your ideas will doom civilization).
2) Brushing off or ignoring thoughtful counterarguments.
When these things have not been present, discussion has continued without much incident. When they were introduced more, it broke down.
Captain Steel
06-26-17, 02:53 PM
Rules asked for it to be removed from Now Playing because 1. he was frustrated at seeing it there constantly which 2. concerned him it was all guests were viewing on a movie forum and it might be turning them away. You know that.
No one can force the forum owner to close a thread. He/She is the arbiter and makes the decision, and rightly so.
What I'm asking is what did you mean in this post:
That's interesting. Who crowed about getting the thread closed. The only person I saw crowing was accusing the person you replied to of getting it closed, which was blatantly incorrect.
When you say "crowed about getting the thread closed" do you mean who called for it to be closed or who complained about it being closed.
(I certainly protested its closure.)
But it seems some people may be purposefully engaging in those behaviors BECAUSE they want to see this and other threads closed as well.
Do you mean like your rudeness to the forum owner with your incorrect insults about censorship?
To "crow" is to brag or celebrate, so unless she's misusing the word, it would, by definition, be a response to it closing.
Captain Steel
06-26-17, 03:05 PM
I had NOTHING to do with the terrorist thread being closed. Yoda is his own man, and gave the reasons why it was closed.
Unknown to you, my only PM on the subject to Yoda was about a week ago when I asked him to reopen the terrorist thread, as I believed it would help stop the spread of hostile-baiting threads and at least keep it confined to one thread.
But like I said Yoda is his own man, and he didn't take me up on my suggestion. See how wrong you are about my intentions.
I agree with everything you said here (except the last sentence). Did you notice that I started off the post you quoted saying I wasn't addressing this to you, Rules? Because I remember you only suggested the thread be moved out of the Now Playing menu. I was agreeing with your observation that this thread has taken on a more personal tone than that other one - but provided reasons why that will happen unless all non-movie topics are banned - or if topics begin to be selectively banned and that's a slippery slope.
I also agree that the terror thread should be reopened - give the "phobes" their own little place to corral - let anyone not interested look at a million other threads (if they're able). Hopefully without more terror attacks, that thread would die down on it's own as was the pattern for the couple years it was open in the past.
Look what happened here, by the way: Don said something, I replied. No response. Not from him or anyone who agrees with him. A day passes, Captain repeats the exact same arguments, and Don reflexively cheers it on. Meanwhile, the response I posted has yet to be addressed by either of them, and actually has to be repeated.
What more evidence do you need that this isn't about persuasion, discussion, or debate? Substantive replies don't just get ignored, but the things they were replying to get repeated and echoed, with not the slightest attempt made to address them. QED.
I agree with everything you said here (except the last sentence). Did you notice that I started off the post you quoted saying I wasn't addressing this to you, Rules? Because I remember you only suggested the thread be moved out of the Now Playing menu. .
So if you knew what happened why did you ask me what Rules did?
Your question exactly
You're saying that CR only asked that the terrorism thread be removed from the "Now Playing" section (but never called for it to be closed)
Looks like your regular flaming to me.
Rules was gleefully accused of getting the thread shut down and you just fueled that rumour.
Citizen Rules
06-26-17, 03:14 PM
I agree with everything you said here (except the last sentence). Did you notice that I started off the post you quoted saying I wasn't addressing this to you, Rules? Because I remember you only suggested the thread be moved out of the Now Playing menu. I was agreeing with your observation that this thread has taken on a more personal tone than that other one - but provided reasons why that will happen unless all non-movie topics are banned - or if topics begin to be selectively banned and that's a slippery slope.
I also agree that the terror thread should be reopened - give the "phobes" their own little place to corral - let anyone not interested look at a million other threads (if they're able). Hopefully without more terror attacks, that thread would die down on it's own as was the pattern for the couple years it was open in the past.Yoda closed the terrorist thread because of the comments that were said there. The blame lays on those who got personally insulting on that thread.
BTW the European Politics UK thread also got closed (at least in part) by a rude personal comment from Don Schneider to Christine about how many children she had. Let's blame the person(s) who are responsible and not cry faux censorship or claim that liberal agendas are controlling the board.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.