lilsmirky said: it is clear that you are not open to dialogue.
Yes, because I’m right and you’re wrong. I’ve already proven it. Why the fuck should anyone have a dialogue with someone who refuses truth when presented it? There’s no dialogue to be had. You’re just plain wrong.
tallest shil said:
Were his parents citizens at the time of his birth?
I don't know...do you? I'm not sure what that has to do with the person I responded to and his statement. What about your ancestry? Was there someone born in this country before the parents were American citizens? Since the family immigrated under Ronald Reagan's time as President should we blame Reagan (following wizard69's logic)? Of course not.
Would I ask if I did? Because he’s not a US citizen if his parents weren’t citizens when he was born. My ancestors were born here before there was an America, but that’s already covered by our laws. The only person to blame for the current mess is Justice William Brennan.
Wrong. Not according to the 14th amendment. He was born in this country.
Stop parroting leftist bullshit. The idea of “anchor babies” was invented in 1982.
Are you a Native American?
I’m not an Indio, but my ancestors were the first in the Americas, sure.
Could be, that's your opinion...but that's not the law under the 14th Amendment.
No, see, you’re going to want to fucking try again. I gave you all the information you needed to go find the truth for yourself, but you don’t give a fuck. All you care about is parroting your talking points. Brennan invented the concept of anchor babies.
Are you saying Europeans came to america before native Americans?
There’s some proper archaeological evidence to suggest that, yeah. Never mind that Indio groups have legends of people who fit that description who were in the Americas when they arrived. What we really need to be doing is sending people like Bob Ballard to the edge of the continental shelf with penetrating radar to see what they can find under the silt.
Clearly a bolt action, maybe even single shot, target rifle (as opposed to those sinister 'assault-style' rifles). As far as I know, no one from either political party has proposed any bans on the sorts of firearms depicted by this rifle emoji.
If "politically correct" wasn't just the jerks way of whining that people expect you to act like a decent human being, I might care about your pathetic and mindless opinion.
Probably not though.
If "politically correct" wasn't just the jerk's way of whining about things they don't like, I might care about your pathetic and mindless opinion.
I'm totally with Apple on this. Firearms cannot be part of our culture, and why not start with removing them from the endless emoji's list?
Apple is free to include or not include anything it wants. They're free to vote on those things where they've been given the authority to do so. In case that's not clear, while I think the action is just about as stupid as they come, I support their right to take the action they did.
But please don't use such inclusive words as "our culture" when speaking of this. You and I ("we", "us", "our") don't share much in the way of culture, since guns are very much part of mine.
No, you do not have the right to change the second amendment. Just as you don't the first. That you don't comprehend this is terrifying.
Yes, actually we do. It won't happen though, given the process and the overwhelming lack of support for any such thing.
Given that our Constitution is actually a grant of power from the people and to the government, however, simply repealing the 2nd Amendment would accomplish nothing except to remove any power the government currently has to regulate firearms, since nowhere else in the Constitution even hints at such authority. It would actually require the passing of another amendment that actually grants such a power to the government.
In order to amend the Constitution, 75% of the State's legislatures must vote to do so. Currently, that means that 38 States must vote "Yes". Thus it only takes 13 States to vote "No" or even abstain. Take a look at a map sometime, and I think you'll be able to locate at least 13 States that could be counted on to say "sod off" to any such attempt.
what exactly, in your opinion, is the purpose of the second amendment?
It certainly didn't cover emojis, so Apple is doing nothing wrong here.
Well, no. Apple is doing nothing wrong because the 2nd doesn't apply to Apple, or anybody else, except the government.
The purpose of the Second, as stated by the Founders themselves, is to allow people to protect themselves from the tyranny of their government, and to aid in defense from invaders.
This is just plan ridiculous. Meanwhile, Apple, Google, etc have business dealings with countries who have punished gays in the past. If you want to do something, stand up to this at least.
I think it's a little silly to imagine that the depth here goes beyond revenue and profit, for any of these companies. Business dealings with certain countries is worth more money than standing up to them. It's a revenue preservation tactic to limit gun-friendly associations (as in the emoji).
None of this has anything to do with doing the right thing (according to anyone's agenda).
So what is your excuse for Tim McVay, the Sandy Hook shooter, the church shooter, the Columbine shooters, etc.? In the end I think objective people will conclude that the Orlando shooter was more motivated about being a conflicted gay than about a religious ideology. Reports are that he frequented gay bars, used gay dating apps, etc. Hardly activities that fit into being a devout Muslim.
Why are liberals so eager to defend Islam? Or deflect from Islam when they can't? McVeigh was agnostic and not motiviated by religion at all, yet he's always mentioned when trying to deflect from islam. In about a dozen Muslim countries (about 100 million people) the modern legal penalty for homosexuality is death. These are not their "radical" views, but part of their mainstream culture. And that culture is now being aggressively imported into the USA.
If Omar was really gay, don't you think one of his partners woudl have surfaced by now? None have, because none exist. He was just casing the people and establishment he was planning to kill. He was just studying the lifestyle that he (as tought by his religion) would like to exterminate. Lots of relevant info here:
So what is your excuse for Tim McVay, the Sandy Hook shooter, the church shooter, the Columbine shooters, etc.? In the end I think objective people will conclude that the Orlando shooter was more motivated about being a conflicted gay than about a religious ideology. Reports are that he frequented gay bars, used gay dating apps, etc. Hardly activities that fit into being a devout Muslim.
Why are liberals so eager to defend Islam? Or deflect from Islam when they can't? McVeigh was agnostic and not motiviated by religion at all, yet he's always mentioned when trying to deflect from islam. In about a dozen Muslim countries (about 100 million people) the modern legal penalty for homosexuality is death. These are not their "radical" views, but part of their mainstream culture. And that culture is now being aggressively imported into the USA.
If Omar was really gay, don't you think one of his partners woudl have surfaced by now? None have, because none exist. He was just casing the people and establishment he was planning to kill. He was just studying the lifestyle that he (as tought by his religion) would like to exterminate. Lots of relevant info here:
By all means, let's blame 100% of Muslims for the laws representing 6% of their population.
lol
1. Pew Research (2007): 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).
42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).
22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified (13% overall).
29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified (25% overall).
2. ICM Poll: 20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers.
3. NOP Research: 25% of British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified.
4. FSIS: 18% of Muslim students in Britain would not report a fellow Muslim planning a terror attack.
5. ICM Poll: 25% of British Muslims disagree that a Muslim has an obligation to report terrorists to police.
6. Pew Research (2007): Muslim-Americans who identify more strongly with their religion are three times more likely to feel that suicide bombings are justified.
7. CSC: 33% of British Muslim students support killing for Islam.
8. Policy Exchange: 33% of British Muslims believe anyone who leaves Islam should be killed.
9. GfK NOP: 28% of British Muslims want Britain to be an Islamic state.
10. NOP Research: 68% of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam.
11. Policy Exchange: 51% of British Muslims believe a woman cannot marry a non-Muslim. Only 51% believe a Muslim woman may marry without a guardian's consent.
12. NOP Research: 62% of British Muslims do not believe in the protection of free speech. Only 3% adopt a "consistently pro freedom of speech line.”
13. Parisian Muslims: 75% of women wear their masks out of fear–including fear of violence.
Comments
Because he’s not a US citizen if his parents weren’t citizens when he was born.
My ancestors were born here before there was an America, but that’s already covered by our laws.
The only person to blame for the current mess is Justice William Brennan.
Would I ask if I did?
You might, which is why I asked. I answered you and asked you the same question.
tallest skil said:
Because he’s not a US citizen if his parents weren’t citizens when he was born.
Wrong. Not according to the 14th amendment. He was born in this country.
tallest skil said:
My ancestors were born here before there was an America, but that’s already covered by our laws.
Are you a Native American?
tallest skil said:
The only person to blame for the current mess is Justice William Brennan.
Could be, that's your opinion...but that's not the law under the 14th Amendment.
Stop parroting leftist bullshit. The idea of “anchor babies” was invented in 1982.
I’m not an Indio, but my ancestors were the first in the Americas, sure.
No, see, you’re going to want to fucking try again. I gave you all the information you needed to go find the truth for yourself, but you don’t give a fuck. All you care about is parroting your talking points. Brennan invented the concept of anchor babies.
Probably not though.
Apple is free to include or not include anything it wants. They're free to vote on those things where they've been given the authority to do so. In case that's not clear, while I think the action is just about as stupid as they come, I support their right to take the action they did.
But please don't use such inclusive words as "our culture" when speaking of this. You and I ("we", "us", "our") don't share much in the way of culture, since guns are very much part of mine.
Yes, actually we do. It won't happen though, given the process and the overwhelming lack of support for any such thing.
Given that our Constitution is actually a grant of power from the people and to the government, however, simply repealing the 2nd Amendment would accomplish nothing except to remove any power the government currently has to regulate firearms, since nowhere else in the Constitution even hints at such authority. It would actually require the passing of another amendment that actually grants such a power to the government.
In order to amend the Constitution, 75% of the State's legislatures must vote to do so. Currently, that means that 38 States must vote "Yes". Thus it only takes 13 States to vote "No" or even abstain. Take a look at a map sometime, and I think you'll be able to locate at least 13 States that could be counted on to say "sod off" to any such attempt.
Well, no. Apple is doing nothing wrong because the 2nd doesn't apply to Apple, or anybody else, except the government.
The purpose of the Second, as stated by the Founders themselves, is to allow people to protect themselves from the tyranny of their government, and to aid in defense from invaders.
None of this has anything to do with doing the right thing (according to anyone's agenda).
Why are liberals so eager to defend Islam? Or deflect from Islam when they can't? McVeigh was agnostic and not motiviated by religion at all, yet he's always mentioned when trying to deflect from islam. In about a dozen Muslim countries (about 100 million people) the modern legal penalty for homosexuality is death. These are not their "radical" views, but part of their mainstream culture. And that culture is now being aggressively imported into the USA.
If Omar was really gay, don't you think one of his partners woudl have surfaced by now? None have, because none exist. He was just casing the people and establishment he was planning to kill. He was just studying the lifestyle that he (as tought by his religion) would like to exterminate. Lots of relevant info here:
http://www.TheReligionOfPeace.com
.
Are you always this bad with numbers?
1. Pew Research (2007): 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).
42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).
22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified (13% overall).
29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified (25% overall).
2. ICM Poll: 20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers.
3. NOP Research: 25% of British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified.
4. FSIS: 18% of Muslim students in Britain would not report a fellow Muslim planning a terror attack.
5. ICM Poll: 25% of British Muslims disagree that a Muslim has an obligation to report terrorists to police.
6. Pew Research (2007): Muslim-Americans who identify more strongly with their religion are three times more likely to feel that suicide bombings are justified.
7. CSC: 33% of British Muslim students support killing for Islam.
8. Policy Exchange: 33% of British Muslims believe anyone who leaves Islam should be killed.
9. GfK NOP: 28% of British Muslims want Britain to be an Islamic state.
10. NOP Research: 68% of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam.
11. Policy Exchange: 51% of British Muslims believe a woman cannot marry a non-Muslim. Only 51% believe a Muslim woman may marry without a guardian's consent.
12. NOP Research: 62% of British Muslims do not believe in the protection of free speech. Only 3% adopt a "consistently pro freedom of speech line.”
13. Parisian Muslims: 75% of women wear their masks out of fear–including fear of violence.
1 & 6. http://www.pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60
2 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html
3. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
4. http://www.fosis.org/uk/sac/FullReport.pdf and danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist
5. http://www.icmresearch.com/pdfs/2004_november_guardian_muslims_poll.pdf
7. http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/files/1231525079_1.pdf (if site is down - mirror: conservativehome.blogs.com/files/1292336866_1-1.pdf)
8, 9, & 11. http://www.civifas.org/uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf
10 & 12. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
13. http://www.nugget.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3402230
FSIS: Federation of Student Islamic Societies
CSC: Center for Social Cohesion
AND THESE ARE JUST THE ONES WHO AREN’T AFRAID TO STATE IT.