• Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.

The Well-Mannered Politics Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes I did look them up and please don't question me when I alluded yhat I have. The flintrock was tried and tested and showed it worked. Just wasn't interested buyers yet. What I'm trying to tell you is the technology was being worked on and being tested and the most important thing is they already existed.

What the hell do you call a terrorist attack? Here's a list of terror attacks.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255a.html

I count 35 between 2011-15. You come up with 89?????
https://www.google.com/amp/reason.c.../do-muslims-commit-most-us-terrorist-atta/amp

From here. But even if there were 35, only 11 by Muslims, which is less than 33%, which is less than most being done by Muslims.

The fact of the matter is even if these guns did work (the machine gun one did not), we're talking about them firing 7 to 10 rounds per minute. Oooooh, so comparative to weapons today.
 
Last edited:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-16522447

Shariah law is definetly going strong in the UK. Hell the mayor of London is Muslim. These people treat women like shit and they hate gays but lets not be discrimmanatory. Believe me they wont be discriminatory towards you. I could show you a lot more but I'm just linking your left hand channel news

Plus I have no idea what guy you are talking about and never heard Birmingham England was a no white zone and the guy probally meant parts of it anyway which is more than likely true.

Is this articvle true? If not what are the lies?

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...-8-pm-graffiti-appears-in-birmingham-england/
What's the problem with London having a Muslim mayor? I know two big complaints about him as a mayor are his "part and parcel" comments (he actually said that part and parcel of living in a big city is being prepared for such attacks, which isn't wrong considering every major city's had to have counter-terrorism strategies in place since at least the 1950s) and his "no reason to be alarmed" comments Trump took out of context (he was talking about the increased police presence), but they both pertain to the job he's doing as an individual. But how is London having a Muslim mayor even remotely related to the UK heading towards Sharia law?

The concern you're raising (treating women like shit, hating gays, etc) is more about integration concerns. And in the UK things could be better, but the Muslim unemployment rate is 9 per cent, higher than average but 91 per cent of British Muslims have jobs (despite the factors cited by that Oxford study). This headline stat of 40 per cent of UK Muslims supporting Sharia law is misleading because opinions diverge on its application (35 per cent of respondents supported "aspects" of Sharia law - which as a concept is as vast as interest-free loans and killing animals in the most painless way possible, so it doesn't automatically mean these guys automatically support ISIS and their hard-line approach to Islamic law. Quite the opposite). In Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim-majority country, Muslim groups are protecting churches from the local crazies. Hell, Indonesia copped one of the biggest Islamic terror attacks in history because the government spoke out against said crazies. These concerns have been raised for centuries about different ethnic groups, and they've always proved overhyped, but most of them have also had teething issues as people get used to living with each other. Which is why the most diverse parts of the UK voted to stay in the EU, they've already gone through those teething issues already and most of their dealings with immigrants of all persuasions has been fine.

That picture wasn't wrong, though Googling that incident only found lots of UK newspapers (and Breitbart) mentioning the same tagging incident. I'd give that about as much weight as this in the same city.

Anyway, this is a topic I've got no interest in getting bogged down in because it's the kind of area where things get genuinely nasty (Katie Hopkins calling for a "final solution" was repugnant), and misinformation and hype are in plentiful supply (despite talks of a migrant flood, Germany takes in fewer refugees than Iran and the US takes in fewer than China, for example. And research firm Ipsos Mori does a "Perils of Perception" study every year, most recently showing the staggering extent to which people overestimate the Muslim and immigrant populations in their country) so I'm probably going to leave it at that. But I remember talking to an Indonesian girl recently and the abuse she'd been copping even here in NZ was pretty upsetting to listen to, so anti-immigrant hype does have real consequences for real human beings.
 
Last edited:
You are a trip man.

And on that note, I am officially done with this thread.
This is the result I figured eventually would happen.
 
@K-Dog my issue has nothing to do with you having a differing opinion, just so we're clear. No issue there at all. It's that you get passive aggressive and then when someone challenges what you say or tries to have a differing view, you just back out and say you don't want an argument.
 
What's the problem with London having a Muslim mayor? I know two big complaints about him as a mayor are his "part and parcel" comments (he actually said that part and parcel of living in a big city is being prepared for such attacks, which isn't wrong considering every major city's had to have counter-terrorism strategies in place since at least the 1950s) and his "no reason to be alarmed" comments Trump took out of context (he was talking about the increased police presence), but they both pertain to the job he's doing as an individual. But how is London having a Muslim mayor even remotely related to the UK heading towards Sharia law?

The concern you're raising (treating women like shit, hating gays, etc) is more about integration concerns. And in the UK things could be better, but the Muslim unemployment rate is 9 per cent, higher than average but 91 per cent of British Muslims have jobs (despite the factors cited by that Oxford study). This headline stat of 40 per cent of UK Muslims supporting Sharia law is misleading because opinions diverge on its application (35 per cent of respondents supported "aspects" of Sharia law - which as a concept is as vast as interest-free loans and killing animals in the most painless way possible, so it doesn't automatically mean these guys automatically support ISIS and their hard-line approach to Islamic law. Quite the opposite). In Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim-majority country, Muslim groups are protecting churches from the local crazies. Hell, Indonesia copped one of the biggest Islamic terror attacks in history because the government spoke out against said crazies. These concerns have been raised for centuries about different ethnic groups, and they've always proved overhyped, but most of them have also had teething issues as people get used to living with each other. Which is why the most diverse parts of the UK voted to stay in the EU, they've already gone through those teething issues already and most of their dealings with immigrants of all persuasions has been fine.

That picture wasn't wrong, though Googling that incident only found lots of UK newspapers (and Breitbart) mentioning the same tagging incident. I'd give that about as much weight as this in the same city.

Anyway, this is a topic I've got no interest in getting bogged down in because it's the kind of area where things get genuinely nasty (Katie Hopkins calling for a "final solution" was repugnant), and misinformation and hype are in plentiful supply (despite talks of a migrant flood, Germany takes in fewer refugees than Iran and the US takes in fewer than China, for example. And research firm Ipsos Mori does a "Perils of Perception" study every year, most recently showing the staggering extent to which people overestimate the Muslim and immigrant populations in their country) so I'm probably going to leave it at that. But I remember talking to an Indonesian girl recently and the abuse she'd been copping even here in NZ was pretty upsetting to listen to, so anti-immigrant hype does have real consequences for real human beings.

The key thing you said was integration. Not happening. There are 85 shariah courts in England. These people don't even bother with the British courts. There are also videos of police being chased out of no go zones not only in England but other places in Europe. I'm showing this one since I'm sure its from a newssource you respect.



Let me ask you what your immigration system is? Are you open borders? Seems like you don't accept many unless they are "skilled" and will adapt to your system. Why are pawning a bunch of refugees to the USA according to an agreement between Obama and Turnbull? Are they not good enough for you guys? Seems like you guys only take on whites and Pacific Islanders which some of them are muslim which btw does not include radical islam even tho ISIS has been spreading there the last couple years. How many refugees have you taken from the 10 murder capitals of the world? My guess would be none. See guys like BMoreBird get all up in arms about gun control for the safety of people but yet are for open borders, sanctuary cities and against the travel ban.

Oh and heres the thing on the top 10 murder countries. This is what we deal with

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/10/worlds-highest-murder-rates_n_5125188.html
 
The key thing you said was integration. Not happening. There are 85 shariah courts in England. These people don't even bother with the British courts. There are also videos of police being chased out of no go zones not only in England but other places in Europe. I'm showing this one since I'm sure its from a newssource you respect.



Let me ask you what your immigration system is? Are you open borders? Seems like you don't accept many unless they are "skilled" and will adapt to your system. Why are pawning a bunch of refugees to the USA according to an agreement between Obama and Turnbull? Are they not good enough for you guys? Seems like you guys only take on whites and Pacific Islanders which some of them are muslim which btw does not include radical islam even tho ISIS has been spreading there the last couple years. How many refugees have you taken from the 10 murder capitals of the world? My guess would be none. See guys like BMoreBird get all up in arms about gun control for the safety of people but yet are for open borders, sanctuary cities and against the travel ban.

Oh and heres the thing on the top 10 murder countries. This is what we deal with

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/10/worlds-highest-murder-rates_n_5125188.html

I don't want to get too bogged down by the no-go zone stuff, since the definition's pretty murky (the Swedish police refer to them as "exposed areas", which essentially means low socioeconomic areas that are difficult to police) and bias tends to fill the gap. Like I say, 91% of these guys have jobs and pay taxes, and the areas where they're concentrated tend to support more open immigration policies. But even if that 40% who support Sharia law (again, that's a broad concept) support making the hard-line version of it the law of the land, 5% of the UK population are Muslims, so that's about 2% of the population who want to see it implemented. Even with a declining Western birth rate, Islam is still a lot of generations away from being even comparable to the current levels of Christianity - by which point I think it's fair to argue that due to 100 years or more of economic and societal integration (simply by osmosis and from people getting richer) would see the strands of Islam over there looking more like the far more tolerant "merchant Islam" seen in Asia today. In the meantime, the best way to deal with Islamist terror is to let your intelligence services do their thing (in Germany in 2016 15 people died in terror attacks - but 16 people were arrested in foiled terror plots, which suggests the system is working by and large). I agree that the EU border protection agency is underfunded, but those stats don't suggest to me that immigration or Islam represent an existential crisis.

I'm in NZ and our system essentially prioritises people who spend lots of money - which sounds like a cynical joke but it's actually not. Personally I think it needs an overhaul for a few reasons but I digress. The refugee quota here (a separate issue to net migration) is pathetic (750 people - that's not missing any zeroes). Our Muslim population is 1.2%, which fwiw is actually higher than yours and not wildly below the EU average of 2% (the figure's on page 233, sorry for making you dig but I wanted to find an official document).

The country of origin doesn't really phase me, those murder rates are usually due to stuff like drug cartels and gang battles, so unless a host country's shipping in an entire gang those rates aren't likely to transfer over. The current vetting process for refugees into the US is pretty rigorous as it is (as it should be), so the chances of importing crime rates are pretty low. I don't think anyone's advocated an "open border" and I certainly can't name any country that actually has one.

The Obama/Turnbull deal is an Australian thing that goes back as far as John Howard and Tony Abbott (two very conservative and xenophobic PMs) who both promised that no "boat people" (refugees from PNG iirc) would arrive in Australia. To get around that they stashed all the refugees they could find on a couple of detention centres on islands out in the boonies, which was always intended to be a temporary exercise. So come time to make them more permanent, I believe it was Abbott who agreed to send all the Manus/Nauru refugees to the US, in exchange for a bunch of refugees from the US quota (so both countries were taking on the same number of refugees as before, but Australia's refugees weren't "boat people" anymore). It was essentially keeping a political promise and Turnbull (who's facing a tenuous leadership situation himself) wanted to stick with that deal, so he was basically asking Obama and then Trump to scratch his back (think of it as an "I owe you one") to be able to keep an old political promise on a technicality. If that whole process sounds extremely pointless, that's because it is, but that's politics I guess.
 
Chicago is a poor example because the two neighboring states have some of the laxest gun laws in the nation.

That’s just proving the point. By going out of state to get the guns, they’re bypassing the gun laws in Chicago, proving that they’re not working, as strict as they are. And it isn’t only in Chicago. Look at Detroit for example, another state with really strict gun laws, and they have the second highest gun-crime rates in the nation. All gun control does is take guns out of the hands of people who will use guns properly, because criminals will find ways to acquire guns illegally if they really want to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
So has Trump done anything substantial for infrastructure or tax reform yet? You know, the two easy issues that the two sides will actually work together on? Any progress?
 
I am curious why you think tax reform is an easy issue that both sides would work together on.
Because both sides campaigned on it and I feel like getting a tax break for the middle and working class would be pretty easy to accomplish.

But then again I guess I'm putting too much faith in conservatives, since the plan they put forward only gives meaningful cuts to the rich.
 
Because both sides campaigned on it and I feel like getting a tax break for the middle and working class would be pretty easy to accomplish.

But then again I guess I'm putting too much faith in conservatives, since the plan they put forward only gives meaningful cuts to the rich.
Campaign promises are one thing but following through on them is quite a different thing. Neither side has a plan to pay for tax cuts other than to increase our twenty trillion dollar national debt.

I see the biggest need for tax reform on the corporate side. Over the years Congress has shown themselves to be financial morons so I am not sure they could up with sensible tax reform.
 
That’s just proving the point. By going out of state to get the guns, they’re bypassing the gun laws in Chicago, proving that they’re not working, as strict as they are. And it isn’t only in Chicago. Look at Detroit for example, another state with really strict gun laws, and they have the second highest gun-crime rates in the nation. All gun control does is take guns out of the hands of people who will use guns properly, because criminals will find ways to acquire guns illegally if they really want to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, the issue is that countries like Japan, Switzerland, Australia, Great Britain as a whole have shown very strict laws do work.

The issue in America is there's no uniformity between laws
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top