Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I believe in Texas if you use salsa made in New York it is considered a crime.

 Ahtman wrote:
I believe in Texas if you use salsa made in New York it is considered a crime.

1st time violation. Hanging Offense.

You've a better chance rustling cattle and using the "dowry" defense then a bill of sales slip like Jed Cooper had.



The disturbing the peace bit might be a actual Ordinance in some places

 jmurph wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Yeah, being an donkey-cave, for the sake of being an donkey-cave, is not "disturbing the peace" in any definition I can find in the US.

Depends. In Texas, for example, disorderly conduct includes abusing or threatening a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner as well as abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language or gestures that tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. So if 6 jurors (or 1 JP) determine that said jerk is abusing a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner, it would be.

Good fething luck with that.

 Frazzled wrote:

 jmurph wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Yeah, being an donkey-cave, for the sake of being an donkey-cave, is not "disturbing the peace" in any definition I can find in the US.

Depends. In Texas, for example, disorderly conduct includes abusing or threatening a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner as well as abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language or gestures that tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. So if 6 jurors (or 1 JP) determine that said jerk is abusing a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner, it would be.

Good fething luck with that.

You should try it like this guy;

 Frazzled wrote:
Not in the US it ain't. Well outside of universities and San Fran.

Canada, Frazz. Canada. Forgetting to say sorry while arresting someone is a crime.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But as a massively leftie, I'm sick of death of patriotism somehow being defined as how any different types of foreigners one can possibly hate, ideally backed up the flimsiest of flimsy 'evidence'.

I also hate how the lefties seem to perpetuate this.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yet Patriotism, much like the Union Flag (only a Union Jack when flown on a ship....) has been thoroughly hijacked by unthinking racists. After all, I can be a proud Scot (born in Scotland, hence the famalam trip), but anyone opening declaring a similar pride in being English or British will likely be seen as a screaming, Express reading, UKIP voting, EU hating, undereducated cock.

Nationalism- the radical notion that you can take pride in your homeland, want what is best for it, and expect your democratically-elected officials to focus on the needs of your people first.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And that's not right. I say it's time for everyone, whether lefty, centrist, right or whatever to take that sense of national pride back from the likes of UKIP, Britain First and the EDL.

Being a patriot doesn't mean one is racist. But sadly, it seems being racist makes one an patriot, because they've been allowed to take that ground.

Rise up I say, rise up. Push our Poundland Fascists back to the fringes. Take back the ground they've laid claim to and reclaim for everyone in Britain, regardless of colour, creed or community. It's our Island. It belongs to all of us.

I'm going to do research on those groups. I'm curious as to whether or not you guys across the pond throw the word 'fascist' around as freely as these filthy college commies in the United States. Over here; 'racist', 'Nazi', and 'fascist' are generally words these plebs don't understand and just use interchangeably with 'meanie', 'someone who disagrees with what my Socialist professor said', or 'Dad'.

As it stands, I believe you're a 'fascist' if you're an inch to the right of Rachel Maddow.

What even -would- a Canadian patriot look like pray chance?

A dude that flies around one of those gaudy Molson banners?

 Shadowbrand wrote:
What even -would- a Canadian patriot look like pray chance?

A dude that flies around one of those gaudy Molson banners?

A Branch Dildonian with healthcare.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But as a massively leftie, I'm sick of death of patriotism somehow being defined as how any different types of foreigners one can possibly hate, ideally backed up the flimsiest of flimsy 'evidence'.

I also hate how the lefties seem to perpetuate this.

While not totally disagreeing with you, it's not "the lefties" that are starting all those social media groups named from combinations of "patriot" and "freedom" that are hotbeds of xenophobia and gatekeeping.

 feeder wrote:
While not totally disagreeing with you, it's not "the lefties" that are starting all those social media groups named from combinations of "patriot" and "freedom" that are hotbeds of xenophobia and gatekeeping.

Funny how wanting people to enter your country through legal means, and wanting to properly vet people from countries known for producing mass-murdering radicals is now called 'Xenophobia' by the left, too.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 feeder wrote:
While not totally disagreeing with you, it's not "the lefties" that are starting all those social media groups named from combinations of "patriot" and "freedom" that are hotbeds of xenophobia and gatekeeping.

Funny how wanting people to enter your country through legal means, and wanting to properly vet people from countries known for producing mass-murdering radicals is now called 'Xenophobia' by the left, too.

Are you claiming this is the totality of the sentiments expressed by the users of the types of social media groups above?

edit: clarity

Quite ironic that a random canadian yells at someone to get out of "their land". Was he by any chance a native american? Otherwise he's not just an donkey-cave, but a stupid donkey-cave.

Also Harassment is kinda weird in that there's a fine line between yelling curse words at people and legitimately harming them

Throwing curses and insults at people is a crime, at least on this side of the pond. You can harm people with words alone, and words can be all that's needed for someone to feel threatened.

In the Nordic countries (and I'd assume the majority of Europe), telling someone to "speak our language you f***" (or just curse/insult someone in general) would probably fall under abuse/threat and would net said perpetrator not only a slap on the wrists but also a fine.

If said insults was the result of a persons race (or similar, i.e. religion etc.) it's also possible that it would be considered a hate-crime, which can actually result in jail. It probably takes more than a angry comment for that though.

 feeder wrote:

Are you claiming this is the totality of the sentiments expressed by the users of the types of social media groups above?

edit: clarity

Read your post I responded to.

Ask yourself this same question.

We'll see where it goes.

 MinscS2 wrote:


Throwing curses and insults at people is a crime, at least on this side of the pond. You can harm people with words alone, and words can be all that's needed for someone to feel threatened.

In the Nordic countries (and I'd assume the majority of Europe), telling someone to "speak our language you f***" (or just curse/insult someone in general) would probably fall under abuse/threat and would net said perpetrator not only a slap on the wrists but also a fine.

If said insults was the result of a persons race (or similar, i.e. religion etc.) it's also possible that it would be considered a hate-crime, which can actually result in jail. It probably takes more than a angry comment for that though.

And you haven't overthrown your Nanny State yet? That's just disgusting.

Words have the power that you give them. If a word causes you harm, consider yourself an evolutionary dead end.

FFS you people used to be vikings. Grow your sacks back.

2017. We no longer need to chop, hack, stab.....

Viking World Tour Starts in Seattle WA. First Stop San Fran CA....

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
FFS you people used to be vikings. Grow your sacks back.

Be happy it's no longer done by viking rules. Back then an insult was answered with an axe, and if severe enough might require killing the perp's family too.

Yup, that random teen shouting "cigarette" at you is dead. If his dad has a problem with it, he's dead. If old grandfather takes offence, he's dead. If anyone else has a problem with it they get the axe too. Sometimes there's too many of them and you just have to move out of country. That's a prime reason so many Norse went to Iceland - they managed to piss off the King of Norway by killing people he liked. Better move and let him cool off.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

I'm curious as to whether or not you guys across the pond throw the word 'fascist' around as freely as these filthy college commies in the United States. Over here; 'racist', 'Nazi', and 'fascist' are generally words these plebs don't understand and just use interchangeably with 'meanie', 'someone who disagrees with what my Socialist professor said', or 'Dad'.

Well, I'm glad you haven't undermined your arguments with staggering levels of irony.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


FFS you people used to be vikings. Grow your sacks back.

Meh, personally I'm glad we have a law against being an *sshole in public.
The world is full of idiots so restricting them in some way isn't a bad thing.

Also, if you hit your child here (for "upbringing purposes"), *even if you're a tourist*, prepare to pay a $800 fine.
But I guess childabuse would diminish as well if we just grew our sacks back?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 feeder wrote:
While not totally disagreeing with you, it's not "the lefties" that are starting all those social media groups named from combinations of "patriot" and "freedom" that are hotbeds of xenophobia and gatekeeping.

Funny how wanting people to enter your country through legal means, and wanting to properly vet people from countries known for producing mass-murdering radicals is now called 'Xenophobia' by the left, too.

This is like people from the left defending Maduro's Venezuela just because he is a socialist.
You know, you don't need to defend everybody that claim to be in your side of the (Very simple, manicheist and inaccurate) political spectre. If they are stupid or bad people they are just stupid or bad people.
You perfectly know that the people that do those kind of groups don't are motivated by a rational desire for a delimitation in the human movement based in data and objetivity. They are moved by sentiments, just like other groups in the left.

Plus, is mean that you want to vet people from countries known for producing mass-murdering radicals. You owe them your hamburgers


Plus, I found hilarous that you are saying that vikings didn't taked offense from words. In the past the words where much more important than today Family and personal honour could expect you to fight or kill someone because he talked sh*t about you or your family.

Very clearly words in languages have meanings decided collectively by speakers, and not individually by the people who hear them. Language could not work otherwise.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Everything said by this fellow I think pretty much qualifies as the definition of mistaking Nationalism for Patriotism. Everything he's said is also why I am ashamed to have a little American flag next to my name.

Seriously, seeing stuff like this is just shameful and I am surprised that the mods haven't intervened and nuked this thread. This has been some weapons grade troll bait and while yes I'd love to simply hit the little ignore box, I still have to read this garbage when someone tries to engage in responding to this buffoonery.

I cannot find any love left in my self for my country. You are either tribe red or tribe blue. There is no more middle ground, nothing but beating each other over the head with bones while shrieking like a primate that my side is right. Through the cracks we see it being exploited, on both sides mind you, for the gain of a handful of individuals benefiting from us being at each others throats. Whats worse, those exploiting it, amplify it. Google and facebook for example use algorithms to make sure you only read what you're biased towards. The echo chamber grows larger and the echo grows stronger.

And the worst part is all the hate that shines through.

I cannot be a patriot because the word has been appropriated by those who are nationalists. I cannot hold my head with pride and declare I am an American and I imagine my shame is shared by many people in many countries over the nonsense rearing it's ugly head in this world. Until patriotism is stripped from those who would use it as a shield to do harm, the word is dead to me.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 feeder wrote:
While not totally disagreeing with you, it's not "the lefties" that are starting all those social media groups named from combinations of "patriot" and "freedom" that are hotbeds of xenophobia and gatekeeping.

Funny how wanting people to enter your country through legal means, and wanting to properly vet people from countries known for producing mass-murdering radicals is now called 'Xenophobia' by the left, too.

I've never seen anyone advocating that as being regarded xenophobic.
What I have seen, and regard as xenophobic are calls to stop all immigration (legal or otherwise), "defend" the country against Islamification and Sharia Law, or sending all those foreigners home.

Are you seeing different?

nfe wrote:

Well, I'm glad you haven't undermined your arguments with staggering levels of irony.

No, they are literal Communists. Not someone I labeled communists, they're actual Communists. They openly admit to it. There's a difference. If you're missing that, you're either blind or stupid.

 MinscS2 wrote:


Meh, personally I'm glad we have a law against being an *sshole in public.
The world is full of idiots so restricting them in some way isn't a bad thing.

Also, if you hit your child here (for "upbringing purposes"), *even if you're a tourist*, prepare to pay a $800 fine.
But I guess childabuse would diminish as well if we just grew our sacks back?

Really? You appreciate this? And you're completely oblivious to the fact that what is 'offensive' is subjective, and even the slightest thing can be considered abusive or cruel to a delicate snowflake?

I'm offended by the word 'stupid'. Now I want armed men to put you in a cage and take your money. See how that works?

And yes, it probably would. There's a difference between discipline and child abuse. But hey, you're the rape capital of Europe. Probably have bigger issues to worry about than some fat American tourist tanning his kid's ass in a rental car.

Granted, I'm not in favor of -beating- a child, but there is some degree of a 'swat on the rear end' that gets their attention to a point. Of course, I had a father that liked to discipline us by making us do something like dig a hole, refill it, then dig it again (but only for bad stuff). Otherwise, we just got our privileges taken.

lonestarr777 wrote:
Everything said by this fellow I think pretty much qualifies as the definition of mistaking Nationalism for Patriotism. Everything he's said is also why I am ashamed to have a little American flag next to my name.

No one is forcing it to be there, and no one is forcing you to stay here. Amazing how someone saying what I said makes you feel ashamed, but you probably pretend that guys running around naked in front of kids, or mentally unhinged loons inventing gender #67 based on their favorite cartoon and color doesn't make you 'ashamed'.

I like how you don't engage a single thing or provide a single argument. "This hurts my feelings" is not an argument. Umbrage has zero value, hurt feelings are not a special currency.

lonestarr777 wrote:
Seriously, seeing stuff like this is just shameful and I am surprised that the mods haven't intervened and nuked this thread. This has been some weapons grade troll bait and while yes I'd love to simply hit the little ignore box, I still have to read this garbage when someone tries to engage in responding to this buffoonery.

That ignore feature is easy to use, feel free to allow it to protect your feelings.

lonestarr777 wrote:
I cannot find any love left in my self for my country. You are either tribe red or tribe blue. There is no more middle ground, nothing but beating each other over the head with bones while shrieking like a primate that my side is right. Through the cracks we see it being exploited, on both sides mind you, for the gain of a handful of individuals benefiting from us being at each others throats. Whats worse, those exploiting it, amplify it. Google and facebook for example use algorithms to make sure you only read what you're biased towards. The echo chamber grows larger and the echo grows stronger.

I'm a pro-LGBT, pro-equal rights, pro-gun, pro-legalization man that thinks we need to reel our cops again. Reds call me blue, blues call me red.

And the worst part is all the hate that shines through.

lonestarr777 wrote:
I cannot be a patriot because the word has been appropriated by those who are nationalists. I cannot hold my head with pride and declare I am an American and I imagine my shame is shared by many people in many countries over the nonsense rearing it's ugly head in this world. Until patriotism is stripped from those who would use it as a shield to do harm, the word is dead to me.

They call themselves 'men', too. You gonna disown that term, too?

Herzlos wrote:
I've never seen anyone advocating that as being regarded xenophobic.
What I have seen, and regard as xenophobic are calls to stop all immigration (legal or otherwise), "defend" the country against Islamification and Sharia Law, or sending all those foreigners home.

Are you seeing different?

I do no think Sharia Law is likely any time this century, and if it is being practiced- it's done so covertly. However, I do not want it practiced- the people living in this nation are subject to its laws and should be protected by our laws, not some cult's. Christian, Muslim, Scientology, or otherwise.

Immigration from some nations should be scrutinized. Also, we should not bring unskilled persons into our country to be a drain on the welfare system. It does them and us a disservice. I am in favor of bringing skilled laborers, engineers, and doctors over- AFTER we take care of our own people.

This isn't hateful or radical. It's sensible.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
No, they are literal Communists. Not someone I labeled communists, they're actual Communists. They openly admit to it. There's a difference. If you're missing that, you're either blind or stupid.

The number of "actual Communists" in the US is incredibly small and not very relevant. Your original statement was very clearly referring to a broad group of people, not just that fringe minority.

Really? You appreciate this? And you're completely oblivious to the fact that what is 'offensive' is subjective, and even the slightest thing can be considered abusive or cruel to a delicate snowflake?

Lots of things about law and crime are subjective to some degree, and yet the system works fine. And nobody is advocating making it a crime to say something slightly offensive, the actual subject here is harrassment and abusive behavior.

Amazing how someone saying what I said makes you feel ashamed, but you probably pretend that guys running around naked in front of kids, or mentally unhinged loons inventing gender #67 based on their favorite cartoon and color doesn't make you 'ashamed'.

WTF? Where did any of that come from? Stop making weird straw man arguments to make your opponents look bad.

However, I do not want it practiced- the people living in this nation are subject to its laws and should be protected by our laws, not some cult's.

Those people are protected by our laws. In no case is any religious law or court system allowed to replace the laws of the state. The only "practice" of religious law is in the form of civil arbitration, just like you agree to every time you click "yes" on a software license agreement, or when you negotiate for a pay raise with your boss. And I don't think you can complain about the "nanny state" while simultaneously arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to voluntarily allow a third party to settle their disagreements.

Immigration from some nations should be scrutinized.

Immigration is already scrutinized. The current immigration debate goes far beyond that.

Also, we should not bring unskilled persons into our country to be a drain on the welfare system.

Wait, I thought immigrants were stealing all of our jobs? Now they're just going to take our welfare money instead of working?

I am in favor of bringing skilled laborers, engineers, and doctors over- AFTER we take care of our own people.

This is a terrible immigration plan, if your goal is to benefit current citizens. Bringing in skilled labor means that high-paying jobs are going to immigrants instead of current citizens, meaning there are fewer opportunities for current citizens to improve their lives. Unskilled labor, on the other hand, often goes to terrible jobs that most people don't want to do. I mean, if you have to save a job for a US citizen, would you rather save an engineering job that pays $50-100,000/year and has excellent advancement potential, or a farm labor job that pays minimum wage for hard work in terrible conditions?

 Peregrine wrote:
The number of "actual Communists" in the US is incredibly small and not very relevant. Your original statement was very clearly referring to a broad group of people, not just that fringe minority.

Not as small as the number of "Actual Nazis" or "Actual Fascists". And last I saw, Nazis weren't burning cities and rioting on campus. They're there, and considerably dangerous. I was referring to literal, actual Communists.

Everyone else who misuses the word 'fascist' is just an idiot. It has a real meaning, most people don't know it.

 Peregrine wrote:
Lots of things about law and crime are subjective to some degree, and yet the system works fine. And nobody is advocating making it a crime to say something slightly offensive, the actual subject here is harrassment and abusive behavior.

If I call you a name in a pub, then that should not be a crime. If I follow you around the pub, hurling obscenities at you- that's a different story. But just insulting someone shouldn't be a crime.

 Peregrine wrote:
WTF? Where did any of that come from? Stop making weird straw man arguments to make your opponents look bad.

Hardly a straw man, more a direct insult on the basis of what makes that person 'ashamed'. But you're right- he doesn't need help looking bad.

 Peregrine wrote:
Those people are protected by our laws. In no case is any religious law or court system allowed to replace the laws of the state. The only "practice" of religious law is in the form of civil arbitration, just like you agree to every time you click "yes" on a software license agreement, or when you negotiate for a pay raise with your boss. And I don't think you can complain about the "nanny state" while simultaneously arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to voluntarily allow a third party to settle their disagreements.

Two people volunteering to agree on terms of a divorce or settlement is fine, it happens every day. However, Sharia law is far more in-depth than that. It should be tolerated up until the moment it infringes on the civil rights of our citizens.

 Peregrine wrote:
Immigration is already scrutinized. The current immigration debate goes far beyond that.

Obviously not, since we allowed a radical whose 'name' was a fake one and they had no real address in Pakistan. Then she helped murder 14 people.

 Peregrine wrote:
Wait, I thought immigrants were stealing all of our jobs? Now they're just going to take our welfare money instead of working?

No one is 'stealing' jobs. However, illegal immigrants are exploited and should be returned home. If we bring unskilled persons over legally, it is difficult for them to find work. They will end up on welfare if they do not find employment. This is not complicated.

 Peregrine wrote:
This is a terrible immigration plan, if your goal is to benefit current citizens. Bringing in skilled labor means that high-paying jobs are going to immigrants instead of current citizens, meaning there are fewer opportunities for current citizens to improve their lives. Unskilled labor, on the other hand, often goes to terrible jobs that most people don't want to do. I mean, if you have to save a job for a US citizen, would you rather save an engineering job that pays $50-100,000/year and has excellent advancement potential, or a farm labor job that pays minimum wage for hard work in terrible conditions?

Hence the portion you missed- AFTER we take care of our own people. AFTER. Americans first. If we can afford or need more people with those skills- vet them and bring them over legally.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Not as small as the number of "Actual Nazis" or "Actual Fascists". And last I saw, Nazis weren't burning cities and rioting on campus. They're there, and considerably dangerous. I was referring to literal, actual Communists.

Last I checked "actual Communists" aren't burning cities either, and most of the people involved in campus "riots" aren't communists.

Everyone else who misuses the word 'fascist' is just an idiot. It has a real meaning, most people don't know it.

And prominent among that group of people who don't know the meaning of "fascist" are people who insist that the current administration and political situation are showing some disturbing similarities to fascism, and arguably fitting the definition.

If I call you a name in a pub, then that should not be a crime. If I follow you around the pub, hurling obscenities at you- that's a different story. But just insulting someone shouldn't be a crime.

And who exactly is advocating treating it as a crime when you call someone a name in a pub?

Hardly a straw man, more a direct insult on the basis of what makes that person 'ashamed'. But you're right- he doesn't need help looking bad.

It's a straw man because none of those things have anything to do with anyone involved in this thread. Nobody here is endorsing "running around naked in front of kids", or whatever weird obscure tumblr post you found talking about "MY GENDER IS CARTOON".

However, Sharia law is far more in-depth than that.

{citation needed}

At no point does "Sharia law" function as anything but voluntary arbitration, and there is absolutely no plausible belief that this situation is going to change in the foreseeable future.

Obviously not, since we allowed a radical whose 'name' was a fake one and they had no real address in Pakistan. Then she helped murder 14 people.

Failure to prevent literally 100% of bad people from entering the US does not mean that we need more security and more immigration bans. At some point you have to accept that 100% is an impossible standard, and adding more rules and restrictions is not improving security.

No one is 'stealing' jobs. However, illegal immigrants are exploited and should be returned home. If we bring unskilled persons over legally, it is difficult for them to find work. They will end up on welfare if they do not find employment. This is not complicated.

Of course people are "stealing jobs", at least in the common anti-immigration argument. It's the Schrodinger's Immigrant problem, illegal immigrants are simultaneously taking jobs that should go to citizens and taking our welfare money instead of working. And you're contradicting yourself here by stating the Schrodinger's Immigrant problem. If illegal immigrants are not finding work and just taking welfare payments then how are they being exploited? You can't simultaneously talk about how employers exploit illegal immigrants by paying them less than minimum wage for awful jobs and complain that they aren't working.

Hence the portion you missed- AFTER we take care of our own people. AFTER. Americans first. If we can afford or need more people with those skills- vet them and bring them over legally.

What this proposal essentially means is "immigration is never permitted" because there will always be Americans to take care of. Either you accept that immigration will happen despite not having fixed all of our existing problems, or you ban immigration forever.

 Peregrine wrote:
Last I checked "actual Communists" aren't burning cities either, and most of the people involved in campus "riots" aren't communists.

Right, they're just wearing a Sickle & Hammer, belong to organizations that have genuine Communist ideology, and quote or reference Communists in interviews and publications. They tend to not want to call themselves 'Communists', because they know the majority of the world dislikes Communism. "Mutualist" is my favorite weasel-word.

You might need to check harder.

 Peregrine wrote:
And prominent among that group of people who don't know the meaning of "fascist" are people who insist that the current administration and political situation are showing some disturbing similarities to fascism, and arguably fitting the definition.

Factually incorrect.

 Peregrine wrote:
And who exactly is advocating treating it as a crime when you call someone a name in a pub?

Sweden, apparently.

 Peregrine wrote:
It's a straw man because none of those things have anything to do with anyone involved in this thread. Nobody here is endorsing "running around naked in front of kids", or whatever weird obscure tumblr post you found talking about "MY GENDER IS CARTOON".

If you're a leftist, and you're ashamed of your country because there are people you disagree with living in it, but you're totally okay with mentally unhinged people claiming to be a leftist while inventing new genders and screeching about 'microaggressions', you're misplacing priorities.

Every side of the spectrum has its loons, and both sides would do well to clean up their end of it.

 Peregrine wrote:
{citation needed}

At no point does "Sharia law" function as anything but voluntary arbitration, and there is absolutely no plausible belief that this situation is going to change in the foreseeable future.

I said as much. However, 'Sharia Law' is broader than what many people claim. In the US, it seems to be contained to small private aggreements. Overseas, it is the law of the land and reaches much, much broader. Considering the fact that I've tread the soil in these countries and seen how these people have been treated, and the information on Sharia Law overseas is readily accessible, feel free to choose your own citation.

But yes, I do not see it in the forseeable future. I do, however, see someone in the future complaining about it victimizing them and there being some sort of controversy.

 Peregrine wrote:
Failure to prevent literally 100% of bad people from entering the US does not mean that we need more security and more immigration bans. At some point you have to accept that 100% is an impossible standard, and adding more rules and restrictions is not improving security.

And yet it seems to be a valid argument for seizing firearms from law-abiding citizens, but 'consistency' isn't the strongest point in most people. We do need more security. We need to improve the process, so stupid gak like this doesn't slip through the cracks. Because I guarantee you, the families of those dead folks will disagree with you and ask how this barbaric psychopath got through our borders.

Odd that people scream about anti-Semitism, until some Islamic radical kills a handful of Jewish people.

 Peregrine wrote:
Of course people are "stealing jobs", at least in the common anti-immigration argument. It's the Schrodinger's Immigrant problem, illegal immigrants are simultaneously taking jobs that should go to citizens and taking our welfare money instead of working. And you're contradicting yourself here by stating the Schrodinger's Immigrant problem. If illegal immigrants are not finding work and just taking welfare payments then how are they being exploited? You can't simultaneously talk about how employers exploit illegal immigrants by paying them less than minimum wage for awful jobs and complain that they aren't working.

Illegal immigrants cannot get welfare. Their children, however, can get aid from the government.

I think you're missing the point.

Personally, I think ALL immigration should stop until we sort our own problems out. There are plenty of other countries in the world.

 Peregrine wrote:
What this proposal essentially means is "immigration is never permitted" because there will always be Americans to take care of. Either you accept that immigration will happen despite not having fixed all of our existing problems, or you ban immigration forever.

Factually incorrect.

Patriot can be any number of people in the US (US of A as an example). Its how one views and/or perceives what a Patriot is. Left and Right parties consider themselves Patriots. Even on their political stand points and how they put the message out to the "Mob" on what they stand for.

This be a much more wham ban point; counter point thread if we're discussing "Exceptionalism"

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Right, they're just wearing a Sickle & Hammer, belong to organizations that have genuine Communist ideology, and quote or reference Communists in interviews and publications. They tend to not want to call themselves 'Communists', because they know the majority of the world dislikes Communism. "Mutualist" is my favorite weasel-word.

Ah yes, move those goal posts. Allow me to quote your own words here:

No, they are literal Communists. Not someone I labeled communists, they're actual Communists. They openly admit to it. There's a difference. If you're missing that, you're either blind or stupid.

So which is it? Do they openly admit to being communists, or do they hide their communist nature from everyone and force you to hunt for signs that can justify calling them communists?

Factually incorrect.

What a compelling rebuttal. Clearly I have been declared to be factually incorrect, and thus it must be so. Why address the parallels with fascism when you can simply deny that they exist?

 Peregrine wrote:
And who exactly is advocating treating it as a crime when you call someone a name in a pub?

Sweden, apparently.

No, not in Sweden. The crime there is the threatening behavior, not the use of a bad word. And I don't see how it's controversial that if you're using your words to intimidate someone and make them fear that you're going to escalate to violence it should be treated as a crime.

If you're a leftist, and you're ashamed of your country because there are people you disagree with living in it, but you're totally okay with mentally unhinged people claiming to be a leftist while inventing new genders and screeching about 'microaggressions', you're misplacing priorities.

Every side of the spectrum has its loons, and both sides would do well to clean up their end of it.

Lolwut? You seem to be unable to tell the difference between "I'm ashamed of this bad thing about my country that has a large amount of support, demonstrated by its representative being elected as president" and "I'm ashamed of this bad thing about my country that a few random tumblr posters do". Being ashamed about one thing does not create an obligation to be ashamed of every possible thing that ever happened.

I said as much. However, 'Sharia Law' is broader than what many people claim. In the US, it seems to be contained to small private aggreements. Overseas, it is the law of the land and reaches much, much broader. Considering the fact that I've tread the soil in these countries and seen how these people have been treated, and the information on Sharia Law overseas is readily accessible, feel free to choose your own citation.

Yes, overseas it is. However, the US is not overseas and has an entirely different legal system. If you're going to talk about "Sharia law" in the context of the US then you need to actually deal with the system that exists in the US. And in the US all religious law is limited to voluntary arbitration, and there is no plausible scenario where this ever changes. So when people talk about the threat of "Sharia law" they're either putting on tinfoil hats and getting paranoid about a dystopian future that will never happen, or outraged that people "not like us" can chose to live by rules that they don't approve of.

I do, however, see someone in the future complaining about it victimizing them and there being some sort of controversy.

What controversy would there be? It's voluntary arbitration, a person who feels victimized by it can simply decline to participate.

And yet it seems to be a valid argument for seizing firearms from law-abiding citizens, but 'consistency' isn't the strongest point in most people. We do need more security. We need to improve the process, so stupid gak like this doesn't slip through the cracks. Because I guarantee you, the families of those dead folks will disagree with you and ask how this barbaric psychopath got through our borders.

You're missing the point here. Arguing for increased security in a place where it could actually improve safety (gun control) does not create an obligation to support increased security in places where there's no credible belief that it will improve anything. No amount of security is ever going to be 100% effective at stopping terrorists. You can fix one crack, but they will just find a different crack to slip through. So you can't point to a single incident and treat it as proof that we need more security while completely ignoring the question of how effective that increase in restrictions is going to be at accomplishing its supposed goal. That's how you end up with stupid stuff like having a million rules on precisely how large a water bottle you're allowed to take on a plane, and zero rules preventing someone with a bomb from walking up to the crowded security checkpoint and killing everyone.

Personally, I think ALL immigration should stop until we sort our own problems out.

Well, at least you admit it. It's an absurd position to take, but at least you're honest about it.

 Peregrine wrote:
So which is it? Do they openly admit to being communists, or do they hide their communist nature from everyone and force you to hunt for signs that can justify calling them communists?

If Be polite you could see for yourself. Unless you think of yourself as a sympathizer. And if so, I won't change your mind. And I have no desire to. I like people who follow failed ideologies. It's like having your own Be polite.

But many of them are openly communist by admission.

Some just avoid the word 'communist', but not much else.

 Peregrine wrote:
What a compelling rebuttal. Clearly I have been declared to be factually incorrect, and thus it must be so. Why address the parallels with fascism when you can simply deny that they exist?

The burden of proof is on you, young lad. You are factually incorrect, and any consistencies you see between our republic and a fascist nation are sketchy at best and can be applied to nearly any developed nation. Just as one can do with Communism, if you try.

quote=Peregrine 735294 9542892 6e2a7a65b40f1b794057fa352dcb053f.jpg]No, not in Sweden. The crime there is the threatening behavior, not the use of a bad word. And I don't see how it's controversial that if you're using your words to intimidate someone and make them fear that you're going to escalate to violence it should be treated as a crime.

Oh Adeptus Doritos, you're just a candle that burns too bright for this sweet subforum.

 Ouze wrote:
Oh Adeptus Doritos, you're just a candle that burns too bright for this sweet subforum.

I kind of thought of myself as a sparkler stuffed in someone's hairy ass, but I'll take it.