Is Trump going to make president?
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721  Reading 28 Jan 17 9.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Thanks to Thatcher? You mean the woman who rescued us from the stranglehold of union power? Worked out well for average workers wages and workers across the UK
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
pefwin  Where you have to have an English ... 28 Jan 17 9.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Worked out well for average workers wages and workers across the UK Moved your stake in the UK from a shared collective to a personal stake you or your parents could sell to France etc. at the first short-term opportunity.
"Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support." |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 28 Jan 17 10.21pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Worked out well for average workers wages and workers across the UK It would be interesting to see just how that did work out in terms of wages and employment.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
Y Ddraig Goch  In The Crowd 28 Jan 17 10.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Countries of 9/11 hijackers Countries in Muslim ban Interestingly he hadn't banned any Muslim from countries where he has hotels. Coincidence I am sure.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 29 Jan 17 2.52am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Well populist is defined as seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people. There is a simple argument that says the less Muslims the less Muslim terrorists.There is a undeniable logic in that.
I do support 'power to the people' and a government that listens to the electorate. However, using populism for the benefit of society is what is called for, not arbitrarily punishing a swathe of people for doing something they cannot avoid (in this case being born Muslim). Fairness is what sets apart the civilised world from the uncivilised World. We must not lose our core values.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 29 Jan 17 12.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
I do support 'power to the people' and a government that listens to the electorate. However, using populism for the benefit of society is what is called for, not arbitrarily punishing a swathe of people for doing something they cannot avoid (in this case being born Muslim). Fairness is what sets apart the civilised world from the uncivilised World. We must not lose our core values. I totally agree in principle but sometimes principles take second place in times of war. Our core values have been sacrificed many times to win wars in the past and a number of Presidents have put restrictions on visas in the past with little fuss.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| IMpalace London 29 Jan 17 1.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Well populist is defined as seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people. There is a simple argument that says the less Muslims the less Muslim terrorists.There is a undeniable logic in that.
Very good point. Also, 90% of UK criminals are men. There is a simple argument that says less men, less criminals. There is undeniable logic in that. Let's kick all the men out of the country.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 29 Jan 17 1.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by IMpalace
Very good point. Also, 90% of UK criminals are men. There is a simple argument that says less men, less criminals. There is undeniable logic in that. Let's kick all the men out of the country. They probably would if the country was 95% women.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| davenotamonkey 29 Jan 17 2.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by IMpalace
Very good point. Also, 90% of UK criminals are men. There is a simple argument that says less men, less criminals. There is undeniable logic in that. Let's kick all the men out of the country. It is a simple argument. It is also a complete logical fallacy. If you increase the number of people in a population, and those you have added commit crime at the same rate as the population they join, the number of crimes will increase. If they commit crimes at a lower rate, the number of crimes still increases. If they commit crimes at a higher rate, the number of crimes still increases. It's not a question of mitigating existing crime ('throw out all the men, hur-de-hur-hurr'), it is a question of exposing the existing population to further crime, and the added risk of improperly vetting those who would enter the country under false pretenses and then go shoot up a gay nightclub in California. Now, why those countries? Ask Obama. He chose them. They are not so much as mentioned in the Executive Order. They are, however, the countries listed as exempt (as of 18th February 2016) in the "Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015". Yes, 2015. Under the Obama administration. You'll recall the outrage and foaming back then about that, right? Oh. I'd imagine Trump has, in his discussions with Dept Homeland Security, decided to review those exact countries that Obama singled out (Obama designated them 'countries of concern'), and has put a temporary 3-month restriction on entry. Note, that's not a blanket "ban", but a restriction. Of course, he's just doing what the previous POTUS did for 6 months in 2011. You'll recall the outrage and foaming back then about that, right? Oh. Tell you what though. This has demonstrated, even more so, the terrifying grip both the media and vested-interest groups like the "Open society foundation" have on people. We're being played. Enjoy your fake news. Edited by davenotamonkey (29 Jan 2017 2.18pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Kermit8  Hevon 29 Jan 17 2.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
^^^^ You could spin for England dave at the Spinning Olympics. What you have forgotten to mention, conveniently, is that Obama/Home Security placed restrictions on certain individuals only that had travelled to those mostly war-torn countries after 2011. They didn't ban hundreds of millions of others with one quick swoop of the pen. There's a teenager in the UK who now can't visit his relatives as planned next month because he spent the first twelve months of his pooey-nappied life in a place called Iran. Still, you deflect away. You are very good at it and I am sure plenty will lap it up.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| hedgehog50 Croydon 29 Jan 17 2.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by davenotamonkey
It is a simple argument. It is also a complete logical fallacy. If you increase the number of people in a population, and those you have added commit crime at the same rate as the population they join, the number of crimes will increase. If they commit crimes at a lower rate, the number of crimes still increases. If they commit crimes at a higher rate, the number of crimes still increases. It's not a question of mitigating existing crime ('throw out all the men, hur-de-hur-hurr'), it is a question of exposing the existing population to further crime, and the added risk of improperly vetting those who would enter the country under false pretenses and then go shoot up a gay nightclub in California. Now, why those countries? Ask Obama. He chose them. They are not so much as mentioned in the Executive Order. They are, however, the countries listed as exempt (as of 18th February 2016) in the "Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015". Yes, 2015. Under the Obama administration. You'll recall the outrage and foaming back then about that, right? Oh. I'd imagine Trump has, in his discussions with Dept Homeland Security, decided to review those exact countries that Obama singled out (Obama designated them 'countries of concern'), and has put a temporary 3-month restriction on entry. Note, that's not a blanket "ban", but a restriction. Of course, he's just doing what the previous POTUS did for 6 months in 2011. You'll recall the outrage and foaming back then about that, right? Oh. Tell you what though. This has demonstrated, even more so, the terrifying grip both the media and vested-interest groups like the "Open society foundation" have on people. We're being played. Enjoy your fake news. Edited by davenotamonkey (29 Jan 2017 2.18pm) Excellent post - thanks for putting the shock horror 'news' into its rightful context.
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Kermit8 Hevon 29 Jan 17 2.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
^^^^ There you go, Dave. Didn't take long. Hedgehog lapped it up like a good 'un.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.