• Moose

MilitantRadical

Member
  • Content Count

    1,149
  • Joined

  • Last Visited

  • Most Liked  

    11

Community Reputation

2,147 Epic

About MilitantRadical

  • Rank
    Bureaucrat
  • Birthday 06/24/1985

Contact Methods

  • Skype
    militant.radical

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Toronto
  • Interests
    Photography, Politics, Religion, Video Games, Architecture, City Planning, Cycling, Sim City.

Recent Profile Visitors

3,207 profile views
  1. Well they do cry a lot (not that there's anything wrong with that), so the tears are probably genuine.
  2. My point was not that they were refugees, but that in this day and age terrorism is not "non-existant" or "minimal". Two of the attackers in the Paris November 15th attack were Iraqi, one of the countries temporarily banned. Some of them visited Syria and are believed to have been radicalized there - then allowed to return. Ahmad al-Mohammad was said to have entered Greece posing as a Syrian refugee. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34832512 It's not the actual Syrian refugees you have to worry about, it's people pretending to be Syrian refugees. The problem is that it's hard to tell the difference due to a lack of a paper trail. ISIS already said they'd use refugees to infiltrate target nations. Just because America won't temporarily take them in isn't the end of the world. There are plenty of nations who have opened their doors. The key right now is to put pressure on Muslim countries in the region to have the same amount of compassion (some already do, but others are being stingy). I refer you back to my American Apartment analogy. There are people in the United States who work jobs that don't even pay a 'living wage' who are on welfare and you want to bring in refugees to compete against them for jobs and government subsidies? It's good to have compassion, but sometimes you have to prioritize.
  3. It's emotional manipulation wrapped around data to make you interpret it a specific way. Terrorists from those nations or associated with those nations may not have attacked on US soil but they have elsewhere. They have said they wanted to conduct terror attacks in the US, it's only a matter of time. The ban isn't a permanent or ideal solution. As the administration has stated, it is to allow them time to set in place better security measures. Were you not paying attention to the above average amounts of terrorist attacks in Europe this year? I'm sure they're looking in to that.
  4. I agree that Pence doesn't have a good record and I don't see eye to eye with him, but as VP I don't see him as a threat. I also hope that if he were to take the role of President he would honor Trump's position on the LGBTQ community. If not then maybe we can finally join forces on an issue. Most of those are Milo articles, and he's just being a sassy provocateur. I agree in the religious perspective of being against gay marriage, it is their right. I don't particularly think that people should be forced to perform gay weddings if they don't want to. However, in terms of law and as a right or privilege with benefits afforded by the State I absolutely agree that gay marriage or unions should be legal. Trump already said he would protect LGBTQ people from violence. Who knows how or in what context, but he said that at the RNC. Heh, it's not an argument. Just didn't want to get bogged down in a debate that usually just goes on and on. The racial purity aspect of Nazism is certainly a form of conservatism as it tries to conserve an ideal of what and who the German people are supposed to be (racially). That does not associate it to other forms of conservatism. Hitler's idea of racial purity and genetic superiority were also based on modern scientific beliefs (of the time). Just because Nazis or Hitler held a value doesn't mean that value leads to being like the Nazis. Hitler was a vegetarian who abhorred violence against animals. That doesn't mean vegetarians, if taken to their extreme, will necessarily be like Hitler. Conservatism all depends on what values you're trying to conserve and how you're trying to conserve them. It's their job to be objective. So when you have two sets of data, one that says Hillary is 11 points ahead with oversampled democrats, and another that says Trump is ahead by one points, you don't report: "The Race Is Over, Hillary Has A 98% Chance of Winning". Which is what they did. When one of the most accurate polls of 2012 tell you that Trump is 1 point ahead you don't bury it and focus exclusively on the oversampled poll that has Hillary ahead. There should at least be balance. There wasn't. Lol, your argument is still based on accusing the conservative side of basically being racist. You're still just shouting "racism!". Besides, I proved my point that the travel suspension was not racist as the people of these countries are not a homogeneous race, and according to _Michael race doesn't exist anyway. Also, this court does not recognize trite sayings unless in the form of a neatly packaged meme. And by bombing and supporting poorly vetted rebel factions Obama further destabilized those countries. I'm not saying it is racist. That wasn't the point of my example. It was to show the double standard of people like @_Michael who can justify Obama's bombings and compare the casualties of innocent bystanders to people being temporarily banned. It's not because they are Muslim, it's because they come from nations with terrorist organizations trying to infiltrate the United States. And I'm sorry but the people most likely to be Islamic Radicals in that bunch are Muslim, not Christians. Now please get me straight here, and I can't believe I have to repeat this, but that doesn't mean all Muslims are terrorists. Is the ban ideal? No because I think at least one of those countries does not belong on that list, Iran. However, I think Trump is trying to send a message: "America is getting tough". It will make terrorists trying to enter the US think twice. Trump says his ban will protect Christian refugees. He just sent 6 back to the Middle East. I believe you might be confusing two things. Of Syrian refugees, Trump said he'd prioritize Christians. His travel ban however applies to anyone, no matter their religion, I think. A lot of this stuff is just developing so I don't know all the details yet. The temporary ban, at least in the words of the Trump admin, is to give them time to set up a better vetting process. At worst people are just being inconvenienced. It sucks, but it's not the end of the world. No one has died. As far as I'm aware the service members and translators who worked with the American armed forces were released and allowed in to the country. Now I'm no fan of Chris Kyle, I think that despite his service he's still a lying POS, but I thought this was interesting: Chris Kyle's Iraqi Interpreter Has Blistering Message for All the Protesters Over Trump's 'Muslim Ban' "I agree 100% with President Trump's decision. The national security of the United States is a paramount issue. All President Trump is doing is ensuring that people can go about their day without living in so much fear. Women won't have to worry about walking around the mall; kids won't have to worry about going to the school. Look, these countries don't have a database that keeps track of its citizens. And we can't depend on a government database in countries that do, because if they have one it has a political agenda behind it. It wouldn't be hard for someone to get into the U.S. whose loyalty lies with ISIS or a militia aligned with Iran. While the militia isn't necessarily our enemy right now, they don't have loyalty to the U.S., they are loyal to the interests of the government that funds them. And that government says “Death to America.” ISIS's strongholds are in Iraq and Syria. We all know what they want to do to Americans." - Iraqi Interpreter, Johnny Walker It depends when you do the wiring and over what period of time. You can close off sections of the building for "construction". You can do it at night. And if you did it over a long period of time, which I suspect they did (starting a few years before, maybe in 1998 or 1999), then it is possible. Also, again pure speculation here, but unlike WTC 7, Towers 1 and 2 were not designed to be clean demolitions, so they didn't have to rig it with as much precision. Before I even watch this video (and I will), look at how they are trying to manipulate your compassion and emotions with this image. It's a cute little kid in what looks like a cage, as if he's in some prison. This is the essence of propaganda. To hit you right in the feels. I don't want refugees to suffer, I feel for them. However, lets not pretend that there aren't security risks. Look at what has happened to Europe of the past couple of years with the flood of unvetted refugees and economic migrants. There is a legitimate concern there. It's not racist. America, despite its flaws, has been a very compassionate country to many people around the world - that's why so many people want to go there. America used to be a brand new apartment building and they said: "Hey, come live here! The rooms are big, and the rent is cheap." But America isn't that brand new apartment building anymore. On the top floors you have rich people living in luxury and at the bottom you have families of five living in apartments for two. All Trump said was: "Hang on. Lets get our house sorted out a bit first before we start filling it with more people we don't have room for and who can't afford to live there in the first place". Yes, it's not nice, but sometimes you have to say no. Right now the world seems to be acting like an emotionally abusive friend toward America. Trying to guilt trip it for not paying for lunch, again. And America is like: "Dude! I'm practically broke myself. I can't always pay for lunch, and by the way you still owe me that $500 I lent you a year ago." The Deal Maker in Chief has that covered Donald Trump and Saudi King Salman agree safe zone plans in Syria and Yemen Literally just like Hitler. Pure emotional arguments, even accompanied by cliche sad piano music. Muh feels!!!
  5. Sorry I'm so politically incorrect. It's discriminating, but not racist. Those countries aren't even all the same "race" anyway, but in your mind all Muslims seem to be the same race. Who's the racist here? So how is Trump's order racist if we're all the same race? Also, I never said they were races. Go to ISIS controlled territory and tell the Islamic radicals that we should all act with compassion. Why is the US the only country that has to have compassion? Do you know that many Arab Gulf state aren't taking in refugees? Why aren't you complaining about that.
  6. Because nationalities and religions aren't races... Arabs and Muslims that aren't from those countries are still allowed in. Peace bombs, I get it. You're going to compare the civilian victims of a bomb to being temporarily banned? Aren't your leaders just special. See above as to why it isn't racism. Also, he didn't ban people from those nations because of their religion, he banned them because their countries are hotbeds of terrorism from which islamic radicals have already infiltrated western nations, and killed people. Although I don't agree that Iran should be on the list.
  7. Fact. Obama - Bombing and destabilizing Islamic Nations = Not Racist Trump - Suspending travel for 90 days from Islamic Nations = Shamefully Racist Uh oh! All that speculative stuff is a bit pointless, although I do like to theorize. I look more to the nature of the collapse or explosion of the Twin Towers as well as Building 7, but if I get in to it too much here it will go way off topic. * * * "Not letting people in to your country is bad, I hope the Queen doesn't let Trump in my country."
  8. Of all the things you've said I'll grant you that his views on LGBTQ rights aren't stellar. However, in terms of laws Pence voted for, I can really only find one. As governor he signed a bill, not the same as voting, but I'll give it to you. From the Guardian article: “Pence accepts Trump’s view, which is that Trump is open to all lifestyles and that Donald Trump is not going to try to legislate against anybody’s lifestyle,” said Black. “Even if some of us don’t agree with all of the public policies surrounding lifestyle issues, we accept it and we move on,” Black said. “It is our job to have goodwill toward everyone.” “The courts, and the government, and the public has spoken on this and he [Pence] was a little behind the curve, that is all,” Black said. If for any reason, god forbid, Pence were to have to take the role of President and he started going back to his old tricks, I would side with the opposition. Besides, even as President he is in no position to overturn the Supreme Court's decision. Less than half voted for both. Hillary - 48.1%, Trump 46%. Like I said, the mandate comes from controlling at least 2 branches, with the possibility of controlling the 3rd. The Governorships also matter, Repubs have a majority. One of these days we'll have a very fun 9/11 debate. However the fact that your argument assumes "the US government" as an entity wired the twin towers tells me you didn't listen to enough Alex Jones, lol. I agree that many people didn't see it coming because most people were fed a pack of lies by the media. It was the media's job to see it coming, but they were blinded by their pro-Hillary bias or agenda and that prevented them from looking at data or showing data that contradicted their predictions.
  9. The failure of the media explained in 10 minutes. Um Ahmad Kiwan, the refugee they interviewed, claims other Arab Nations won't recognize his degree so he can't get work there, but the United States is the one to blame for not letting him in. Hundred of places in the world you could go, to live in peace, be productive, and keep your wife in a bee keeper uniform, but for some reason Trump is bad. What a blatant guilt trip. Worst example of refugees you could possibly show. Something is very fishy here. They say his wife is a "qualified engineer". An engineer of what? That's so vague. Then she talks about Trump's privilege. It's too perfect. It hits just the right buttons. Obama drone strikes and foments revolutions in Islamic Nations - a morally just leader. Trump suspends travel for 90 days from 7 Islamic Nations - Literally Hitler. There is no accurate number on this. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/ "Measuring migration flows between Mexico and the U.S. is challenging because there are no official counts of how many Mexican immigrants enter and leave the U.S. each year." While the alleged Mexican Immigrant population has declined over the past 3 or 4 years it skyrocketed like Michael Mann's Climate Change Hockey Stick graph from 1970 to 2007. However I was wrong to put it all on Mexico, there are other people from South American nations illegally crossing the US-Mexico border.
  10. On the subject of The Wall. Will it be able to stop illegal immigration? Short answer, no. The wall is a symbol. It will deter some people, but not all people. The point is to show that America is intent on guarding its border and to make anyone who wants to cross it illegally think twice. The wall combined with better surveillance, more border agents, and a tough stance on deportation will have an effect on the mentality of the people thinking of entering that way. It's time to stop letting Mexico use the border as a pressure valve for their poor and disenfranchised. Mexico needs to take responsibility for the corruption that causes the vast inequity which results in people fleeing the country.
  11. Hahah, CNN and critical engagement. Now that's funny. I won't deny that Trump said silly things or things that were worth criticism, but that was generally overshadowed by obsessive nitpicking or taking things he said out of context. And you aren't apparently. I'm being serious here. You make claims, don't verify, then get debunked by me on a regular basis. Just look at our conversation over the past month or so. It's been you making hyperbolic claims with no proof, then having to walk it back every time I show that you're wrong. Of course some things like the Megyn Kelly incident are a matter of opinion, I'll give you that, but the bulk of your accusations about Trump's campaign are just flat out inaccurate. "Conservatism" isn't the same thing around the world and at different times. American conservatism, either based on Constitutionalism or religious conservatism, are not the same as whatever "conservatism" you claim the Nazi ideology is based on, unless you can prove otherwise. You're smart enough to read Madison and The Federalist Papers aren't you? No need to ask me these questions. You know what I mean, of the people who voted. Also, it's important to remember that a part of the US population is under the voting age (I'm guessing around 20-30%). Right but he had a specific rationale for why he made that prognostication, he didn't just pull it out of his ass. That would surprise me, a lot. Just for fun, no need to do much digging and I won't make the burden of proof high, but what do you think was "astoundingly wrong" about his Bush conspiracy theories? How is it unexpected if there were people like Alex Jones, Bill Mitchell, myself (although I wasn't 100% certain, I just knew it wouldn't be a slam-dunk for Hillary), and others who did expect Trump to win?
  12. I agree that in some ways Trump benefited from being covered so incessantly. However I still don't think he owes CNN or any other media outlet for being an attack wing of HRC's campaign and giving him air-time solely dedicated to defaming him. Got a metric on that or are we just making stuff up again? So yeah, I win! Trump didn't attack a wheelchair bound reporter, his campaign manager didn't punch a female reporter, Trump is pro-LGBTQ, Pence never suggested conversion therapy, and Trump or his supporter never advocated for internment camps. Next. Still haven't provided me with an example. So far I can only see one law he voted against - H.R.3685 - Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 So now we're just playing moral superiority games. Conservatives, your political opponents, are basically Nazis if you take their ideology to its extreme whereas the extreme of your ideology is a Utopia. Cool. He's going after illegal immigrants (specifically those with criminal records or histories), not Mexicans (they're not the same as "illegals"), and he's going after radical Islamists, not Muslims. Deporting people who are in the country illegally is already the law of the land, and radical Islamists are a national security threat. Don't see how Neo-Nazis benefit from this. There will still be plenty of 'non-whites' allowed in the country. America isn't such a system. It isn't the United States of California, it's the United States of America. Why should one more populous state dictate the fate of the other 49? Trump "won" the popular vote in the 49 other states by a million votes. Again, not if your party controls all three branches of government (Republicans don't "control" Supreme Court, yet). The people decided, they picked the Republicans. Also, if the Democrats keep talking like this: You can guarantee a Republican super-majority in 2018 and 4 more years of Trump in 2020. Argumentum ad populum. Medical diagnosis is not the same as a theory based on predictive models. I don't deny humans pollute and can damage the environment. "Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.” - Michael Crichton I know that's a saying, but it isn't actually true. Says a person who's never actually listened to Alex Jones, unless in the form of a smear. Trump isn't against immigration, he's against illegal immigration. Trump isn't against trade, he's against bad trade deals. Yeah I really liked this video. Make Mexico Great!
  13. So what's your point? No one took Trump seriously, not CNN, not even me at first. This is 100% wrong. Placement in all debates is based on polls. Trump was placed center-stage because he was at the top. Neither Kasich, Bush, or Cruz had the charisma or policies that interested enough people to "cement their presence". Ignoring a candidate, especially one as popular as Trump, even when he first entered the race, would have been tantamount to censorship. No, rival news agencies would have picked up the slack. Trump supporters or interested parties would have gravitated to those platforms. Like I said, Trump was a high wire act you couldn't ignore because people wanted to see him fall. What? They just didn't release because even they didn't think it was credible. To their credit, the mainstream media actually showed they have some standards. Never-Trump typed made veiled references to this document throughout the campaign. Well we're comparing two different things. I brought up the totality of Trumps campaign when we were talking about what the core messages were. I just gave this Hillary speech as an example of where I think her campaign went wrong. I admitted that it was just one of her speeches. I agree that her campaign was about more than just that speech. Point to Militant. So he didn't. Another point to me. Can you show me where he opposed LGBTQ rights? And which rights he opposed? As long as you can say the logical extreme of progressive politics is Communism then I'm 100% okay with this statement. I don't know. They're Neo-Nazis, not particularly bright people. Trump has plenty of Jews as close advisers, his son in law for one and his daughter. And Jews are the #1 enemy of Nazis, and Neo-Nazis. So they're clearly just stupid. Yeah, but he isn't. My point is that the electoral map is wrong because where it mattered Trump was more popular. You can't "get" the popular vote. There is no contest for it. Republicans hold the House, Senate, The White House, the majority of Governorships, and if Trump can nominate a couple of Supreme Court judges they will have the SC. This all in a year where the "experts" were telling you Republicans were going to lose. That Trump would drag down House and Senate candidates or anyone who attached their name to him. It's a mandate alright. Well uh, I don't think Global WarmingTM is either man made or a threat to the planet. This is coming from a guy who used to believe exactly what you believed about "big oil injecting a whole lot of fake news". That's just a defense mechanism to turn off your brain when you hear information that counters the narrative. Beating a dead horse here but I think this is pretty funny. You say "everybody was wrong". Looks like Alex Jones wasn't. Infowars has said a lot of stuff I can't defend or prove but Alex Jones knew more on Sept 19th about the actual landscape of the election and how it would turn out than CNN's John King (guy at the electoral map) did exactly a month later. He gets some things wrong in this clip, but he's on the ball when it comes to the polls and how the big headline polls are skewed to Hillary despite others showing a Trump surge. Reality is harsh when it kicks in.
  14. Trump came in to the race with the highest name-brand recognition of all the candidates. There is no way of correlating how much CNN covered Trump when he entered the race to how his popularity grew. Unless you have stats on how much time CNN spent per candidate on those early days of the election there's no way to substantiate this. I recall them giving significant amounts of time to Jeb Bush and they often pitted him against Trump. CNN and the media in general rarely, if ever, treated Trump like a serious candidate in the early days of the campaign. (I realize many clips aren't CNN, or from the mouth of CNN anchors) So are you suggesting they should have censored Trump? No one seems to be willing to answer this question. I agree that CNN absolutely wanted Trump in the race, but they didn't want people to take him seriously or for him to win. If CNN just ignored Trump they would have looked worse. According to this Rasmussen poll CNN has the lowest trust rating of its viewers at just 33%: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2017/cable_news_viewers_still_turn_to_fox_first "Among cable news network viewers who watch Fox News most often, 50% say they trust the political news they are getting. That compares to 43% of MSNBC viewers and just 33% who tune in mostly to CNN." At least CNN viewers are more skeptical than Fox's. http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx But they didn't take him seriously... Look at what Fareed Zakaria said. "He will lose, and he will destroy the Republican Party". I think the kind of coverage matters. Conventionally this wisdom is true, but this wasn't conventional. If anything it's more like CNN gave HRC attack ads against Trump free air time. Trump Wasn’t Told About Russia Memo During Briefing, Official Says Thirteen Things That Don’t Add Up in the Russia-Trump Intelligence Dossier I don't understand the question. Could you elaborate? You've just proven my point about her lack of a core message. "Getting stuff done together"? Yeah, that's specific. "Hope"? Haven't heard that before. Knew I'd get in to trouble for putting it that way. You're right, that was only one speech. However that speech showed me her campaign was completely clueless, and I say that totally dispassionately. If someone runs a good campaign or is charismatic I can give them credit for that even if they aren't the candidate I prefer. In 2007 I absolutely recognized Obama as a force to be reckoned with . I didn't see that with Hillary (rarely). Context. No Trump supporter connected to the campaign ever said camps were being "considered". When did he propose gay conversion therapy? Quotes please. Nazis did it first. That's a very myopic view of history. You can play this game with almost any politician, especially Obama. Never go full Glenn Beck. Yes we can. He isn't. End of story. Wow, a group of nobodies who have little to no influence or credibility in American politics. They're just parasites. Ouch, even worse. Blizter is a news anchor. He used to be a journalist. He isn't now, hasn't been for years. Blitzer: Which polls? I agree, some polls showed Hillary winning, but not all, and some of the most accurate were telling a different story. Not everybody was wrong. People like Bill Mitchell were practically screaming at the top of their lungs trying to expose how the polls were flawed and that people like Nate Silver were ignoring information that ran against the narrative that HRC was going to win. No one in the media listened because they didn't want to. Bill Mitchell predicted 100% Trump victory a couple of months before the election. LA Times / USC Tracking and IBD/ TIPP tracking often had Trump tied, slightly below, or slightly ahead of HRC in the months leading to the election, but the media ignored those polls. In fact I remember when CNN had a guy from LA Times/USC Tracking and the anchor (Jake Tapper i believe) said their polls didn't meet CNN's standard. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/ Looks closely at the LA Time/USC Tracking and IBD/TIPP Tracking. Unfortunately it only goes back to October, but I remember those polls were always closer than the polls reported in the media. On the same day as this clip (oct.19), LA Time/USC Tracking had Trump ahead 44.4 to 43.8 while IBD/TIPP Tracking had Trump ahead 41 to 40. However, CNN goes with the poll that has a 9% gap, and doesn't mention that other polls contradict this. It is a sign of bias because they ignored polls that had Trump ahead or tied and chose the ones with Hillary ahead despite them being generally over-sampled. Trump won the election. In the places where it mattered, Trump was more popular so it is not a reflection of reality. HRC only has a higher national popular vote count because of California. The electoral map John King is pointing at was not a reflection of reality. The election proved that. Sorry I didn't phrase it correctly. Of course I don't mean coverage should be split 50% critical, 50% non-critical. Just that the time allotted to being critical to each candidate should be similar. And sure, some scandals outweigh others so maybe they need to spend more time on them when they arise. But the proportion of time they spent on minor Trump controversies or even just tweets paled in comparison to time dedicated to critical coverage of the Clinton campaign. Well I kind of agree. I say drop the pretense of neutrality. If CNN wants to be the Clinton News Network I'm cool with that, just don't pretend you (CNN) aren't. But do we even have a metric on that? How many people actually believe wholeheartedly, without any shred of doubt, the Pizzagate theory? I doubt it would even amount to more than 1% of the population of the United States. We're all susceptible to our own fantasies. Infowars and Ron Paul are crazy, end of story Ln X.
  15. @matias93 It's quite hard to reply to your format. I can't follow it very well.