OT: CNN is ISIS... hilarious

[HawgGoneIt]

7 minutes ago, Nolebull813 said:

So you cite a biased source. That's not surprising. Why not tell me what CNN, WaPo or the NYT thinks. 

How did they determine the person was a "right wing extremist"? Trump has only been running for President for a year or so. Your essay said that in the past 9 years. So how do they know they are right wingers? Did they have Reagan/Bush 84 shirts on? Did they have confederate hats on and punch someone in a bar? Maybe a guy with a Longhorns shirt on got in a DUI. Lol. 

You do realize the biggest and most popular domestic terrorist groups in the US are liberal kooks? (Antifa, LGBT and BLM) 

And this article still proves a point that even though there are far less Muslims in this country than "right wingers" they are still deadlier. So why the fuck would America bring these people here by the thousands KNOWING they are the deadliest type of people in the country and world? 

What do you mean, "How do you determine if a person is a right wing extremist?" 

Are you actually Donald Trump and just trolling with this? 

 

The same way you think you know what a left wing extremist is. Or what an Islamic terrorist is. 

The ideology they support. DUH. 

 

[Nolebull813]

1 hour ago, HawgGoneIt said:

What do you mean, "How do you determine if a person is a right wing extremist?" 

Are you actually Donald Trump and just trolling with this? 

 

The same way you think you know what a left wing extremist is. Or what an Islamic terrorist is. 

The ideology they support. DUH. 

 

Can you show me what a typical right winger looked like from 2008-2015? 

[Nolebull813]

Hawg, you do know the most famous and recognizable Muslim in the entire Western Hemisphere (Louis Farrakhan) is on record of proudly stating that the entire white race is a pack of devils. He honestly believes in his heart that being born white means you are a spawn of Satan. 

This religion is violent, hostile and preaches unspeakable acts of violence against predominate the white race. Not just Americans, but Europeans. 

And you can say "yeah but CNN said there are white Muslims as well in the world" 

Yeah but those "whites" are brainwashed by the cult into thinking white people are evil. 

Here in Tampa last month  a white guy kills 2 roommates because he said they made fun of him for converting to Islam. 

Stop trying to fit a square peg Into a round hole. Islam is not a religion that is beneficial to America in any way. 

[concha]

21 hours ago, aZjimbo said:

Hopefully a right leaning SC for next 30/40 years.

The list of "right-wing" terrorists from that far from unbiased organization's report is a bit laughable.

Typically one would look at a terrorist as someone actively supporting, planning and/or carrying out violence to achieve a political end. And "right-wing" is typically associated with anti- (big) government militias, anti-abortion and then "nazi" and white nationalist kkk/racist groups.

 

There are incidents here incude domestic abuse, resisting arrest for crimes like counterfeiting, a black nationalist, anarchists...

[golfaddict1]

25 years ago on the Golden Girls.  Lol. 

 

[Cat_Scratch]

The report also left out attacks like the Orlando massacre and a few others because the Islamist was gay or for other reasons. 

I'm sure Hawg, DBP and those that oppose the travel ban would be perfectly fine with letting all the Islamic Immigrants live in their home cities.  

 

[concha]

6 minutes ago, Cat_Scratch said:

The report also left out attacks like the Orlando massacre and a few others because the Islamist was gay or for other reasons. 

I'm sure Hawg, DBP and those that oppose the travel ban would be perfectly fine with letting all the Islamic Immigrants live in their home cities.  

 

 

They are prepping their spare bedrooms as we speak.

.

[Nolebull813]

19 minutes ago, Cat_Scratch said:

The report also left out attacks like the Orlando massacre and a few others because the Islamist was gay or for other reasons. 

I'm sure Hawg, DBP and those that oppose the travel ban would be perfectly fine with letting all the Islamic Immigrants live in their home cities.  

 

 Still waiting for social media pics, and media coverage of all the liberal celebrities and civilians and how the refugees are getting accustomed to living with them.

or at the very minimum how the refugees are doing in the places provided by the celebrities and other liberal kooks. 

Someone send me a link and please 

[Nolebull813]

It would be pretty interesting to see how much support refugees would have by Hollywood and liberals if they had a vote. And the vote states that if you vote for them to come to America you agree to the government to take your info and by law agree to pay for resources, or foster refugees. 

They can base it on income, and the ratio of how many legal residents you have in your household as opposed to bedrooms. 

[World Citizen]

11 hours ago, thc6795 said:

If it is not Trump it will be Spence. I'm betting the libs would rather it be President Trump selecting the next Surpreme court Judge?

I can't predict what Trump would do but Pence's pick would be bad for Dems probably.  The length of time a Pres has to pick is what I was curious about.  

[aZjimbo]

1 hour ago, Cat_Scratch said:

The report also left out attacks like the Orlando massacre and a few others because the Islamist was gay or for other reasons. 

I'm sure Hawg, DBP and those that oppose the travel ban would be perfectly fine with letting all the Islamic Immigrants live in their home cities.  

 

Kind of like fat al gore and all the hollywood libs preaching about global warming and then taking their private jets all around the world. Complete hypocrites and liars. 

[HawgGoneIt]

5 hours ago, Nolebull813 said:

Can you show me what a typical right winger looked like from 2008-2015? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is that good enough for you? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[HawgGoneIt]

5 hours ago, Nolebull813 said:

 

Yeah but those "whites" are brainwashed by the cult into thinking white people are evil. 

 

 

And you aren't brainwashed into thinking Muslims are evil? 

 

P.S. Take the quotation marks off of the word whites... your white supremacy streak is showing again. 

[Nolebull813]

21 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

 

And you aren't brainwashed into thinking Muslims are evil? 

 

P.S. Take the quotation marks off of the word whites... your white supremacy streak is showing again. 

By brainwashed, you mean watching videos, news and reports of bombings and terrorism in Europe due to the relocation of thousands of Muslims? Paris, London Belgium and Sweden used to be beautiful, popular locations for tourist from around the world. Now they are unlivable war zones that are starting to look like the Middle East. And almost every single Muslim country in the Middle East is an unlivable war zone. This isn't just a few bad apples. This is a systematic mentality taught by the Koran to kill all the non believers. 

If you think Europe doesn't have a real problem due to Muslims then you are as blind folded as all the other liberal kooks. We can't have that type of mentality on our soil. We have enough assholes to deal with here. We can't handle the rest of the world's crazies 

[concha]

2 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said:

 

 

 

Is that good enough for you? 

 

Adam Lanza was a right winger? Elliot Rodger?

 

[Blueliner]

3 hours ago, Nolebull813 said:

By brainwashed, you mean watching videos, news and reports of bombings and terrorism in Europe due to the relocation of thousands of Muslims? Paris, London Belgium and Sweden used to be beautiful, popular locations for tourist from around the world. Now they are unlivable war zones that are starting to look like the Middle East. And almost every single Muslim country in the Middle East is an unlivable war zone. This isn't just a few bad apples. This is a systematic mentality taught by the Koran to kill all the non believers. 

If you think Europe doesn't have a real problem due to Muslims then you are as blind folded as all the other liberal kooks. We can't have that type of mentality on our soil. We have enough assholes to deal with here. We can't handle the rest of the world's crazies 

C'mon, 'bull! These people are just misunderstood. They love western civilization and what it stands for...ready to assimilate right on in. 

[Nolebull813]

1 hour ago, Blueliner said:

C'mon, 'bull! These people are just misunderstood. They love western civilization and what it stands for...ready to assimilate right on in. 

Look at all these women and children wanting to come to America to start living the typical American life. Warms my heart 

 

[NorCalRuss]

5 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is that good enough for you? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How about left wing nuts? 

http://investmentwatchblog.com/americas-ten-most-dangerous-cities-as-measured-by-federal-crime-statistics-have-one-highly-notable-feature-in-common-all-are-led-politically-by-democratic-mayors/

 

 

[Nolebull813]

[Nolebull813]

[Cat_Scratch]

6 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said:

 

And you aren't brainwashed into thinking Muslims are evil? 

 

P.S. Take the quotation marks off of the word whites... your white supremacy streak is showing again. 

I'm not totally against the travel ban. I would agree to let Islamist into the country on a few conditions.

1st. They have to be checked by a responsible council to do through background checks for the persons applying for admittance into the USA.

2. They would be quarantined until they can speak English well enough to pass a 7th grade English test.

3. They be placed as a family into a place selected by government council and not into a heavily Muslim populated area until they have lived in the US for 2 or more years. That would give the Feds a chance to observe their movements and friends.

4. They would only be allowed government issued phones and computers that the government would be allowed to access if needed. If they are caught using throwaway phones or electronic internet equipment it would be cause for detention in a government camp.

5. Contact with any known or unknown extremist would be cause for immediate detention of all family members until the government was satisfied they are not extremist themselves.

You get my drift...

[HawgGoneIt]

5 hours ago, concha said:

Adam Lanza was a right winger? Elliot Rodger?

 

Both mentally troubled so yeah. 

 

While I don't technically know Elliot Rodger's politics, he certainly fits much of the mold of the alt-right. Misogynistic for sure and racist quotes etc. in his manifesto. You know, the normal right wing stuff. Stuff like how angry he got that the ugly black boys could get with hot white chicks but he couldn't. That white genocide stuff that our buddy on here brings up sometimes.

 

Lanza... yeah, idk. Mentally troubled gun advocate. Could be misconstrued as right wing if he wasn't. 

 

[HawgGoneIt]

1 hour ago, Cat_Scratch said:

I'm not totally against the travel ban. I would agree to let Islamist into the country on a few conditions.

1st. They have to be checked by a responsible council to do through background checks for the persons applying for admittance into the USA.

2. They would be quarantined until they can speak English well enough to pass a 7th grade English test.

3. They be placed as a family into a place selected by government council and not into a heavily Muslim populated area until they have lived in the US for 2 or more years. That would give the Feds a chance to observe their movements and friends.

4. They would only be allowed government issued phones and computers that the government would be allowed to access if needed. If they are caught using throwaway phones or electronic internet equipment it would be cause for detention in a government camp.

5. Contact with any known or unknown extremist would be cause for immediate detention of all family members until the government was satisfied they are not extremist themselves.

You get my drift...

I'm not totally against it either. What I am against is how the president talked it up. 

I'm also against idiocy of fighting for 7 months for a 90-120 day ban "in order to review the vetting process". 90-120 days are long gone. Did they not have ample opportunity to review the processes in 7 months? If not, what good was/is a 90-120 day ban? 

Can some reasonable person please explain this?

 

People on here act like this is some golden trophy. A 90 day ban to review vetting processes. 90 days. All the while ignoring that this is almost just like the healthcare debacle. The republicans had 8 years of bitching to come up with a better plan. Swore they had the answers and yet here we are. No answers. Just idiocy.

We've had 7 months of bitching for a 90 day travel ban to work out a plan for vetting, or reviewing the vetting we already have. Seems like we still haven't reviewed or worked out a plan 200+ days later if we are still bitching for a 90 day ban. 

 

[Cat_Scratch]

1 minute ago, HawgGoneIt said:

I'm not totally against it either. What I am against is how the president talked it up. 

I'm also against idiocy of fighting for 7 months for a 90-120 day ban "in order to review the vetting process". 90-120 days are long gone. Did they not have ample opportunity to review the processes in 7 months? If not, what good was/is a 90-120 day ban? 

Can some reasonable person please explain this?

 

People on here act like this is some golden trophy. A 90 day ban to review vetting processes. 90 days. All the while ignoring that this is almost just like the healthcare debacle. The republicans had 8 years of bitching to come up with a better plan. Swore they had the answers and yet here we are. No answers. Just idiocy.

We've had 7 months of bitching for a 90 day travel ban to work out a plan for vetting, or reviewing the vetting we already have. Seems like we still haven't reviewed or worked out a plan 200+ days later if we are still bitching for a 90 day ban. 

 

You have to see the humor in our society or you will go mad...

[HawgGoneIt]

Just now, Cat_Scratch said:

You have to see the humor in our society or you will go mad...

Well, some things are laughable for sure. 

 

I wish the "strict constitutionalists" would just go ahead and admit they want a religious test and stop pretending to be so strict at following the constitution. 

The fact is, they want to be strict where they want to be strict, and blur out the parts they don't like. Then try to take some high ground calling themselves constitutional conservatives or strict constitutionalists. They are no different from the progressives as it pertains to applying the parts they like or glossing over the parts they don't.

It's the same with the freedom of speech/expression. As long as it's something we agree with, we like it and will defend it as freedom of speech and basically call for the destruction or censoring of that which we don't agree with. Happens all the time.