Obama's restrictions didn't produce a reaction from the liberal protestors because 1. They weren't announced and 2. Because it was an Obama policy. When Obama instituted his policy barring most Iraqis, the number of refugees dropped by almost 95% the first month. And others besides liberals and Democrats do care about homelessness, starving people and vets, it's just that we realize there are enough of them already in the country straining the available resources. Send the 2 million refugees to the city that is empty, a hell of a lot closer and is in a muslim majority country. The countries currently taking refugees could use a fraction of the money currently earmarked for refugees and put it towards funding the city, it would be a hell of a lot less expensive.
Are you talking about the femimist protesters or the travel ban protesters? I haven't protested either but I'm much more sympathetic to the travel ban cause than the feminist one. If you're only talking about feminists I agree but I thought this thread went off topic a while back.
The argument started, and is based on the assumption, that the feminist and the travel ban protesters tend to be the same. Sure, it's obviously not 100%, but I see it in my own social media feeds that they tend to be one in the same because the protesters aren't rational, and are simply being contrary towards any conservative position. Pro-Life conservatives? The the protesters are for women's rights. Travel suspension conservative? Then the protesters are pro-Muslim. They never stop to think if those two positions are compatible, they are simply hysterics looking to oppose the conservative position.
Good for them. I have no problem being pro life and gay marriage. I hope you realize the hypocrisy argument goes both ways.
I'm more than happy to concede to any hypocritical positions largely promoted by conservatives that you want to present.
You claim the practice is a "male directive;" is it also a male directive for a Jew to wear a yarmulke? These are customs within the religion which people adhere to for a myriad of reasons not simply because they live in fear of noncompliance as you seem to suggest. Do you suggest a list of priorities for all demonstrations? Shouldn't people be given the freedom to choose their own causes?
I'm not sure while you're directing your "MUSLIM BAN!" comments towards me, I've never used the term here. The outcry of unconstitutionality arose because Trump specifically sought to exclude people based on their faith. The fact that he didn't set up a plan to exclude all Muslims is immaterial as is the distinction between whether his intent was for a temporary or permanent exclusion. I have no problem with tightening the vetting process if necessary but the ill timed, ill advised (or unadvised) execution of a plan that inconvenienced tens of thousands and endangered the lives of many simply to make an ego boosting statement is preposterous.
Obama slowed the process for conducting background checks on Special Immigrant Visas from Iraq. That's vastly different from what Trump did, and I don't know where you got the 95% stat from. Instead of putting a stop to refugees to pay for homeless people, why don't we put a stop to Trump's planned tax cuts for the rich? I'm sorry, I find it very hard to take that argument seriously when Republicans have gone out of their way not to help poor people and veterans. Which city are you thinking of? It's going to be very challenging and expensive to suddenly dump 2 million refugees into one city.
"Inconvenienced". That quote in itself is awesome, and so very Big Blockage. The end of the world started with people being inconvenienced. It's a good thing that we have a legion of nose-ringed blue-haired dykes and skinny dorks with man-buns and Drew Carey glasses protesting for our right of convenience.
Again, you are arguing a completely irrelevant issue. Nobody has argued that they can't choose to protest what they want. We are arguing they are hypocrites when they protest in support for issues that are in opposition to one another. Why is that confusing to you? In regards to the yarmulke, I don't hear anyone advocating for the end of oppressive religious headwear practices while also protesting in support of Jewish religious practices, thus creating hypocritical arguments in support of conflicting positions, so your question simply reflects your continued lack of understanding of the discussion -- support for conflicting issues.
Not confusing at all, just not the case. Your attempts to link issues fails. Where is the widespread condemnation of hijab practices? Where is the widespread support of any particular religious practice other than the right to worship as people see fit themselves?
I don't think he's even competent to know what he is arguing. Either that, or he purposefully makes bad arguments to confuse the argument, like Yisman was talking about. I don't think he's good or smart enough to do the latter. HotJ is a smart guy, even if he has a contrary opinion. Don't waste your time with Raletard.
You want women to be on completely equal footing in terms of rights (uh wait they have the same equal rights...), salary, the choice to abort and all that good stuff. They should not have to adhere to the wishes of any man. They should have the freedom to express themselves however they want with words, clothing, piercings, purple hair, green toenails and do anything they want within the constraints of the on. You also support the widespread immigration of people from countries where the women are forced to wear certain pieces of clothing that restrict their freedom of expression through dressage and often times are barred from having decision making opportunities within a household, hold any sort of important jobs if any jobs at all and basically birth children, take care of the house and be a homemaker at all costs in order to appease their husband and other men in the household. Do you see where these conflict? I don't know how else to break it down chief.
I think it'd be ignorant to think that there are not oppressors and dangers to national security coming into the country for say every even 35 of the oppressed. March that number up to every 250 people and you're still bringing a large amount of criminals into the country that hate America and want to harm Americans. That's why I don't see why the executive order had so many people up in arms. It was a temporary halt so we can figure out how to make sure that stated dangers to national security are not getting into the country. The order did not read 'No Muslims allowed in the United States ever again.' Christian's from the restricted countries will also not be allowed in.
While I agree substantially with your first paragraph, (any thinking person would have a hard time disagreeing with almost all of it) it is not your place to state my views. This becomes quite apparent in your second where your statement regarding my support of immigration is far from accurate. I also see no conflict between the two scenarios you have constructed. It is perfectly consistent to open our doors to people who live a different lifestyle than what we consider the norm here without endorsing the inequalities they face at home. We've spent over two hundred years opening our doors to the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. We've even accepted the wretched refuse of other teeming shores, the homeless and the tempest-tossed. It's no time to extinguish the lamp beside the golden door. And by the way, "dressage" is definitely not the word you're looking for.
I wasn't talking about you specifically, I was stating the viewpoint of the conflicting viewpoints that protesters have. I didn't think that would be so hard to distinguish? Not sure how you don't see the viewpoints as hypocritical. But I'm going to bow out of arguing with you, because I simplified as best I could and you still don't get it.
Where are you getting the idea that 1/35 or 1/250 of the refugees are dangerous? I found two confirmed terrorists from the seven countries on Trump's list. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...here-been-terrorist-attacks-post-911-countri/ Neither of them killed anyone, and one was a US citizen, so the ban wouldn't have stopped him. The one guy the ban might have stopped was a Somali immigrant attending Ohio State who rammed a car into a crowd and injured 13 people. Of course, there's no guarantee the ban would have stopped him either. If Trump wanted to focus on national security, the travel ban is about the most useless thing he could have done. All he really accomplished is bullying a bunch of refugees, making the US look incompetent, and motivating radical Islamic terrorists.
It was a hypothetical scenario, honestly. I was just tossing out numbers. Obviously the rate isn't what I stated. But I would imagine there are a lot more terrorists here than we know about. It's scary.
