Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:12 am
Page 1 of 4
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:31 am
Van Damme was snoozing on the job.
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 11:01 am
I only saw this on the news for 3 seconds in the gym but I assume it is islamic terrorists and to that I say IF ONLY someone could have foreseen problems with letting a bunch of muslims swarm into Europe. It's just one of those things you can never see coming.
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 12:59 pm
Anthony Jeselnik just tweeted:
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."- ISIS on Jean-Claude Van Damme
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 1:36 pm
Leisher wrote:Anthony Jeselnik just tweeted:"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."- ISIS on Jean-Claude Van Damme
Dude needs to stop relying on my original creative endeavours for his material.
Edited By Malcolm on 1458684763
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 5:49 pm
I will admit in 2001 I wanted to bomb the fuck out of Mecca. But our policy for the last 15 years has been:
Fight terrorism by bombing and invading the MidEast, while showing we don't hate Muslims by letting them immigrate.
I think it's time to try this policy:
Fight terrorism by NOT letting Muslims immigrate, show we don't hate Muslims by NOT bombing and invading the MidEast.
If only there were a politician who was proposing that.
Fight terrorism by bombing and invading the MidEast, while showing we don't hate Muslims by letting them immigrate.
I think it's time to try this policy:
Fight terrorism by NOT letting Muslims immigrate, show we don't hate Muslims by NOT bombing and invading the MidEast.
If only there were a politician who was proposing that.
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:14 pm
If only there were a politician who was proposing that.
... who also exhibited a modicum of self-control and didn't sound like someone more suited for president of the "mescaline drinkers and crop circle enthusiasts" society. However:
1) There's a sizable segment of people who believe that us pulling out makes shit worse. "ISIS is what happened when we pulled out of Iraq." That includes me. We need to get a bit smarter about what we do over there. Unmanned drones carrying out targeted executions are a fine start. Bombs and missiles cost too much money, as do the planes, carriers, and subs that launch/fire them. I'm beginning to contemplate the fact that some countries are decades away from being a republic or democracy, and that's a cold, hard, brutal thing to admit. Once you do, your principles get less rigid and it's get easier to play one looney off another. Harsh as it sounds, I'd rather have ISIS drumming up insurgency in places besides the US, because fucking seriously, aren't there some other assholes over there they'll blow up? Pull out the troops and big hardware, set up another cloak-and-dagger war.
2) I don't mind Muslims coming into the country. I mind religious fundie psychos of any stripe trying to do so. I'm not sure how one could discriminate without persistent surveillance coupled with a long waiting period, or perhaps an extraordinarily thorough background check. Either way, such a thing is far beyond the current levels of competence shown by any federal agency.
Edited By Malcolm on 1458685855
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:31 pm
The main problem I have with #2 is I don't like the government to make decisions about how to handle people based on what they might do. This isn't Minority Report. Punish them when they do do something, not because they might do something.
That does make it harder to protect ourselves from terrorists, but we can't go abandoning our ideals just because a bunch of terrorists want us to.
Edited By TPRJones on 1458686200
That does make it harder to protect ourselves from terrorists, but we can't go abandoning our ideals just because a bunch of terrorists want us to.
Edited By TPRJones on 1458686200
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:34 pm
They do believe in one of the invisible sky fathers, the flavor that has th most actively violent adherents.
As far as I'm concerned that demonstrates a danger.
And take "God" off the fucking money already.
As far as I'm concerned that demonstrates a danger.
And take "God" off the fucking money already.
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:36 pm
TPRJones wrote:The main problem I have with #2 is I don't like the government to make decisions about people based on how to handle people based on what they might do. This isn't Minority Report. Punish them when they do do something, not because they might do something.
That does make it harder to protect ourselves from terrorists, but we can't go abandoning our ideals just because a bunch of terrorists want us to.
We already kind of do that. The gov't can refuse citizenship to someone based on crimes committed and paid for in another country. They can refuse it because you fail the stupid-ass test. Our ideals include having standards for certain shit, outlined in the Bill of Rights. If you want the freedom to sacrifice virgins every solstice, lots of luck but you ain't getting in.
Edited By Malcolm on 1458686195
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:37 pm
We already kind of do that.
Agreed. Doesn't make it right.
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:39 pm
I honestly don't give a damn about what happens in the Mid East, as long as it stays there.
Pull out, and tell them they can cut each others throats, but if so much as one Kaffir throat is cut, we nuke Mecca.
Pull out, and tell them they can cut each others throats, but if so much as one Kaffir throat is cut, we nuke Mecca.
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:41 pm
TPRJones wrote:We already kind of do that.
Agreed. Doesn't make it right.
It's an attempt to maintain quality control within the population. It's the same shit that laws do now. In general, we do not encourage murder, rape, and theft, and have a vested interest in keeping perpetrators of such things the fuck out before we waste money imprisoning them. If your beliefs are in conflict with that, then sayonara. It's not hard to swap out "murder, rape, and theft" with "violations of any of the amendments in the Constitution."
Edited By Malcolm on 1458686532
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:42 pm
Can't drink two beers at dinner because you might cause an accident. Can't drive faster than the speed limit because you might... cause an accident.Malcolm wrote:We already kind of do that. The gov't can refuse citizenship to someone based on crimes committed and paid for in another country. They can refuse it because you fail the stupid-ass test. Our ideals include having standards for certain shit, outlined in the Bill of Rights. If you want the freedom to sacrifice virgins every solstice, lots of luck but you ain't getting in.TPRJones wrote:The main problem I have with #2 is I don't like the government to make decisions about people based on how to handle people based on what they might do. This isn't Minority Report. Punish them when they do do something, not because they might do something.
That does make it harder to protect ourselves from terrorists, but we can't go abandoning our ideals just because a bunch of terrorists want us to.
There are tons of laws... many of them revenue generating... that are based on not doing a bad thing, but just because you might do a bad thing.
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:47 pm
There are tons of laws... many of them revenue generating
That's why I restricted my arguments to obvious cases, like this dude showing up on our doorstep. Actually, I'd let him in then explode the fuck out of him shortly thereafter (btw, he's loose because the some South American country cut him free). If we're keeping someone out because of unpaid traffic or parking tickets and the like, that's a dick move.
Edited By Malcolm on 1458686880
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:48 pm
I think a country should be allowed to close its doors and say "Fuck off, we're full. Try again in a few years," without it being some massive immoral sin.Malcolm wrote:That's why I restricted my arguments to obvious cases, like this dude showing up on our doorstep. Actually, I'd let him in then explode the fuck out of him shortly thereafter (Btw, he's loose because the some South American country cut him free). If we're keeping someone out because of unpaid traffic or parking tickets and the like, that's a dick move.There are tons of laws... many of them revenue generating
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:56 pm
Sure, as long as it's not selective based on a protected class.
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:58 pm
Are "mentally ill people who believe in gods" a protected class?TPRJones wrote:Sure, as long as it's not selective based on a protected class.
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:03 pm
Unfortunately, yes. I'd be happy to discuss classifying religion as a mental disorder and no longer a protected class, but I don't think that's going to change anytime soon. :p
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:31 pm
I think a country should be allowed to close its doors and say "Fuck off, we're full. Try again in a few years," without it being some massive immoral sin.
When I see wide open nothingness in joints like Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Kansas, etc., I think we've got the space. When I consider that space against a decent person or family coming from a truly shitty country that wants a shot at a better life and didn't win the "born in the first world" lottery, I'm not apt to say you can flat out deny them entry because of an imaginary "maximum occupancy" sign. I'd need to see population density go up in several states before I'd renege.
Are "mentally ill people who believe in gods" a protected class?
Yeah, but only because they founded the place and NOT doing that back in the day usually meant death.
Edited By Malcolm on 1458693212