Post: #51

(08-20-2015 01:03 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 12:41 AM)Samseau Wrote:  USA has been dominated by Christianity up until the last 30 years or so. It proves the point perfectly; there was very little religious diversity and there were never any religious wars as a result.

Pirates are a faulty example, you're implying Jefferson would tolerate Christian pirates? You also presume to know what Jefferson would have thought about law-abiding Muslims, unless you have a source you can cite.

Dude they wouldn't have even let in the wrong skin color back in those days. Islam? You crazy? You don't think Jefferson knew his history of Islam? Violent death cult. Always has been, no one way he wanted that crap.

Quote:There's LOTS of religious diversity NOW, and there aren't any religious wars in the USA either. You speculate the reason there haven't been is a lack of diversity in the past, but you don't know.

We do know. Diversity of religion has always produced war. See: Islamic wars of aggression 700 AD, Crusades 1000 AD, Protestant Reformation 1500 AD; this is common knowledge.

Quote:As for now, people are generally minding their own fucking business in the area of religion as the Founders intended, and I hope it stays that way.

They'll mind their own business as long as Islam never becomes large in number. Otherwise it will be like Europe.

Quote:I welcome lawyers to chime in on the possibility of officially making the USA a Christian nation. It seems far, far harder to attach "....but only if the religion is Christian" to the freedom of religion clause in the Constitution than it has been to DETACH the "... well regulated militia.." part of the right to bear arms.

They never added it because they never entertained the possibility of Islam back in those days. Had you asked the Puritans back then if freedom of religion meant Islam you would have been laughed out of the room.

Quote:The Founders were geniuses-- far, far ahead of their time; as lovers of guns and Atheists both are happy about.

Religion means not having to mind your own business.

Let's go directly to what Jefferson said repeatedly. Conversely, can anyone find an assertion by Jefferson where he explicitly excludes Islam or Judaism or Zoroastrianism or Hindus?

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesart...asp?id=123

[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Kentucky Resolution, 1798 [3]

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 [4]

[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 [5]

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 [6]
[/i]

In any event, retrograde appeals to return to sectarian fascism of the middle ages, according to repeated Supreme Court decisions, are thankfully doomed to failure, which I take as much joy in as gun nuts do in the impossibility of getting their guns from them.

Yeah, you simply don't know what you're talking about. The freedom of religion clause was made in the common assumption of the USA always being a Christian nation. No one even thought Islam was a possibility back then and therefore it wasn't considered. The only thing fresh in the minds of the founders were the wars of the Protestant Reformation.

Post: #52

Quote:Slovaks who already suffer from poverty

GDP per capita (purchasing power parity): $29,209
Population below poverty line: 1.9%
Gini coefficient: 26th most equal in the world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Slovakia

I know it's romantic to view Eastern Europe as some sort of undeveloped shithole, but come on.

Post: #53

What can be done about it?

Voting doesn't mean anything since all sides are bought and paid for. Words are made harmless, by cleverly dismissing all dissent as frustration-borne hate. Media platforms are controlled with lies being pushed and facts being censored.

Laws and treaties are being passed without the text being made public. Sovereignty is destroyed. Billions and billions of euros are paid from the states to private corporations, thrusting the people into debt slavery. It is all made legal. And all legal forms of resistance seem to have been made ineffective.

So what can be done about it?

Post: #54

I don't really care to wade into the exchange you and Samseau are having, iknowexactly, but I feel the need to nitpick one thing. "Sectarian fascism of the Middle Ages" is a mess bordering on a word salad. Fascism has a specific meaning and represents a specific post-WWI political ideology. The word you're looking for is sectarianism.

Post: #55

(08-20-2015 03:36 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  I don't really care to wade into the exchange you and Samseau are having, iknowexactly, but I feel the need to nitpick one thing. "Sectarian fascism of the Middle Ages" is a mess bordering on a word salad. Fascism has a specific meaning and represents a specific post-WWI political ideology. The word you're looking for is sectarianism.

He's just sneaking up on Godwin's Law.

Post: #56

Controlling it is really the only smart way to take in any migrants.


Look at any country that let a massive flood of migrants in...

France: Shittest place in Europe now
Sweden: Used to be amazing. Now its a massive shithole. Rape capital of the world and your jailed for even recognizing the fact the immigration has done bad things to the country.
Norway: News reports saying that 100% of rape cases are caused by immigrants and at least one girl is raped per night in the summer months in Oslo alone.
Germany: German people now despise any immigrant they see.
England: don't even get me started on that fuck fest.

These are just the countries that I have lived in.


One interesting thing that I want to know about is what the welfare system is like in Slovakia? Because the standard rule of thumb is: No welfare = no immigrants. Maybe the migrants are just trying to get into Slovakia so they can then make their way to the cash cow that is the UK or Germany.


And don't start with "ohh they are fleeing a war zone and trying to rescue their family" bullshit. Unless they are fleeing Syria, chances are that they are just economic migrants. And 90% of these migrants are males between 17 -30 years old.

If you had bombs dropping all over your neighborhood right now. Would you flee to the closes neighboring country where there is safety, OR would you say "Yeeah I might save up for a few months and go book a flight to Sweden"?
If shit was so bad that they had to run away, there are countries richer than Slovakia in the middle east... Qata, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Lebanon, Iran, UAE. Where they could get work and live a better life.
...But we all know that's not what they are after.

Post: #57

Quote:nd don't start with "ohh they are fleeing a war zone and trying to rescue their family" bullshit. Unless they are fleeing Syria, chances are that they are just economic migrants. And 90% of these migrants are males between 17 -30 years old.

That's the most astonishing part, in how insulting it is. Can you even try to wrap your mind around that level of arrogance and hyper-elitism that they can say this with a straight face? The pople at Brussels decided "Yeah we've about accomplished our goals in flooding Britain/France/Sweden/Germany with Muslims.. it's your turn to get immigration-raped, Slovakians." Meanwhile Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel are all sitting right there. They should be taking every single one of them.

Post: #58

This is why, for the most part, Australia doesn't believe the vast majority of boat people who come sailing across our northern coastlines claiming to be refugees from Iraq/Iran/Syria. They've generally had to pass through half a dozen safe Muslim countries, including the safest majority Muslim country in the world at the moment -- Indonesia -- in order to get here.

Post: #59

A lot of them come for the benefits and when people want them gone or the benefits cut off, the usual guilt trip begins.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...e-refugees

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...dren-nazis

Post: #60

I can't even click on those links. I hate the Guardian. Just look at the title of the first one "why fortress britain doesn't welcome refugees"

FORTRESS BRITAIN



At the moment we have people jumping over fences, running through tunnels, hiding in lorries to get in our country. When they are found they are not sent back.
This could easily be stopped with some riot police or the army but theres barely anything going on.

How the fuck can that retarded newspaper call this country 'Fortress Britain' with this going on?

Post: #61

(08-20-2015 06:08 AM)RedPillUK Wrote:  How the fuck can that retarded newspaper call this country 'Fortress Britain' with this going on?

It's just a psychological response. Have you ever seen a tiny guy talk up how tough he is and how he can beat anyone up? It's just using delusion to hide the unpleasant truth.

All the British people I've met fall into two camps: the ones who know their nation is doomed and freely talk about how shit it is; and the ones packed full of delusional language and ideas, who cut you off if you start to encroach on any of their protective delusions. Brits with children tend to fall into the latter camp in greater numbers. For obvious reasons; pretty sad situation really.

Post: #62

(08-20-2015 01:03 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  There's LOTS of religious diversity NOW, and there aren't any religious wars in the USA either. You speculate the reason there haven't been is a lack of diversity in the past, but you don't know.

We don't have a lot of religious diversity now. The overwhelming majority of the poplulation of the US is Christian, whether actively or passively. Atheism and agnosticism is on the rise as well but that's not really the same animal.

(08-20-2015 01:14 AM)Porfirio Rubirosa Wrote:  That's all fine and dandy until you realise many of those crossing the Mediterranean to get to Malta/Italy, jumping fences to get into Spain's plazas de soberanía (that is, Ceuta and Melilla, the two remaining Spanish cities on the African continent, along with other minor possessions) or running around much of the Middle East, Turkey, Greece and other Eastern European countries are not actually refugees; in reality, they are economic migrants. As we all know, 'I'm poor, you're sort of rich and I'm here so...' isn't a valid argument to be admitted into a foreign country; we are free to deport the Nigerians and Senegalese who aren't being persecuted in their homelands. Nevertheless, our authorities are unable/unwilling to properly identify and differentiate the economic migrants from the refugees. Hell, the supposed refugees who want to move to other countries simply refuse to have their pictures and fingerprints taken and the police don't insist. The government's response? Well, the Italian interior minister said: 'They don’t want to be identified here - otherwise, under the Dublin Accords, they would have to stay in our country. So when a police officer is in front of an Eritrean who is two metres tall who doesn’t want his fingerprints taken, he can’t break his fingers, but must respect his human rights'.

What's also not talked about is the fact that just because you can claim to be a refugee, it doesn't mean you can go to wherever the hell in the world you want to. You have the right to flee to the first safe location, but these people are "fleeing" across many different lands to get into Europe, the U.S., etc.

Post: #63

(08-20-2015 07:40 AM)Libertas Wrote:  What's also not talked about is the fact that just because you can claim to be a refugee, it doesn't mean you can go to wherever the hell in the world you want to. You have the right to flee to the first safe location, but these people are "fleeing" across many different lands to get into Europe, the U.S., etc.

I'm no expert on the matter but I think the New York Protocol eliminated all geographic restrictions for refugees. Hell, the Convention says refugees cannot be penalised for crossing international borders illegally!

(08-20-2015 04:28 AM)CactusCat589 Wrote:  That's the most astonishing part, in how insulting it is. Can you even try to wrap your mind around that level of arrogance and hyper-elitism that they can say this with a straight face? The pople at Brussels decided "Yeah we've about accomplished our goals in flooding Britain/France/Sweden/Germany with Muslims.. it's your turn to get immigration-raped, Slovakians." Meanwhile Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel are all sitting right there. They should be taking every single one of them.

Israel has had to deal with loads of Eritreans and Sudanese for quite some time. They call them 'illegal infiltrators'.

Oh yes, I'm so privileged you literally can't even.
Interested in joining the FFL? I tried (and failed).

Post: #64

(08-20-2015 04:07 AM)spalex Wrote:  And don't start with "ohh they are fleeing a war zone and trying to rescue their family" bullshit. Unless they are fleeing Syria, chances are that they are just economic migrants. And 90% of these migrants are males between 17 -30 years old.

If you had bombs dropping all over your neighborhood right now. Would you flee to the closes neighboring country where there is safety, OR would you say "Yeeah I might save up for a few months and go book a flight to Sweden"?
If shit was so bad that they had to run away, there are countries richer than Slovakia in the middle east... Qata, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Lebanon, Iran, UAE. Where they could get work and live a better life.
...But we all know that's not what they are after.

Well aint that the truth!

Right now I'm reading that Finland is preparing to take in 15000 extra boat refugees. It used to be 500!

This situation is pure madness and the beginning to something ugly.

Post: #65

This article just popped up on my facebook news feed:


For the EU, July was historic. For the first time, over 100,000 migrants and asylum seekers entered into the EU, in just one month, 30,000 more than in June.

In the first half of 2015, the EU's border agency has registered 340,000 migrants. Almost 270,000 of those sailed unobstructed from North Africa, Libya and Turkey, and many were picked up by European vessels and transported across the Mediterranean.

160,000 migrants have this year been transported to Greece, 20,000 of them to the small Greek holiday island of Kos, where Pakistanis and Arabs recently clashed in front of cameras. In practice, Kos is disappearing as a European island, like Lampedusa has been absorbed by the human tide from African and Muslim countries.


More here: http://speisa.com/modules/articles/index...eberg.html

Post: #66

(08-20-2015 08:52 AM)Porfirio Rubirosa Wrote:  I'm no expert on the matter but I think the New York Protocol eliminated all geographic restrictions for refugees. Hell, the Convention says refugees cannot be penalised for crossing international borders illegally!

I'm pretty sure that the fine print says that the refugees have the right to cross borders illegally - but only to flee the zone of persecution, if you will. It doesn't say they can keep going.

So, Syrian refugees can cross into Jordan or Turkey, etc. But going to Greece or Italy or somewhere else means crossing a ton of borders illegally, when they in fact had been safe from the war zone, etc. when they entered say, Turkey.

At the point they cross over to Italy it isn't about being refugees anymore, but illegal economic invaders.

Post: #67

If they can do this, I see no reason they can't restrict it further to the hot ones. "Your tits must be this big to take refuge here".

Post: #68

(08-20-2015 10:20 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  If they can do this, I see no reason they can't restrict it further to the hot ones. "Your tits must be this big to take refuge here".

Would be funny/awesome to start a country that does this. Rooshland forever!

Post: #69

(08-20-2015 04:07 AM)spalex Wrote:  And don't start with "ohh they are fleeing a war zone and trying to rescue their family" bullshit. Unless they are fleeing Syria, chances are that they are just economic migrants. And 90% of these migrants are males between 17 -30 years old.

That's strange. If the media was to be believed the immigrants are heavily pregnant women with doe-eyes and a legion of kids not seen in Europe since the ill-fitted Children's Crusade.

Post: #70

(08-20-2015 03:21 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Quote:Slovaks who already suffer from poverty

GDP per capita (purchasing power parity): $29,209
Population below poverty line: 1.9%
Gini coefficient: 26th most equal in the world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Slovakia

I know it's romantic to view Eastern Europe as some sort of undeveloped shithole, but come on.

Say there's only 2% of the Slovaks below the poverty line.

I believe Slovakia is obligated to help them first, before helping any immigrants and letting them in.

That even Christian immigrants are let in, is a grand gesture to me.

G

Post: #71

(08-20-2015 06:08 AM)RedPillUK Wrote:  I can't even click on those links. I hate the Guardian. Just look at the title of the first one "why fortress britain doesn't welcome refugees"

FORTRESS BRITAIN



At the moment we have people jumping over fences, running through tunnels, hiding in lorries to get in our country. When they are found they are not sent back.
This could easily be stopped with some riot police or the army but theres barely anything going on.

How the fuck can that retarded newspaper call this country 'Fortress Britain' with this going on?

The role of the media on a docile population.

Post: #72

(08-20-2015 01:00 PM)N°6 Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 04:07 AM)spalex Wrote:  And don't start with "ohh they are fleeing a war zone and trying to rescue their family" bullshit. Unless they are fleeing Syria, chances are that they are just economic migrants. And 90% of these migrants are males between 17 -30 years old.

That's strange. If the media was to be believed the immigrants are heavily pregnant women with doe-eyes and toddlers being lifted over fences.

Yeah and the media also wants you to believe that you are worse than Hitler if you are not down at the docks welcoming every refugee with a blowjob.

Post: #73

Was America founded as a Christian nation?

Quote:If, by the question, one is asking whether the Founding Fathers relied on Protestant Christian principles in drafting the essential documents and in organizing the new governments, then the answer is a resounding "no."

The writings of the period (1765-1790), including speeches, debates, letters, pamphlets, and even sermons, reflect the overwhelming influence of Enlightenment, Whig, and classical republican theories.

The political events of the period also support the conclusion that the founders intended to institute a secular-based form of governance.

In a short span of 16 years (1775-1791), the nation was transformed from maintaining religious establishments in nine of 13 colonies to achieving disestablishment at the national level and in 10 new states (or 11, depending on how one views Vermont).

At the same time, the United States became the first nation in history to abolish religious disqualifications from officeholding and civic engagement. The founders purposely created a nation that based its legitimacy on popular will, not on some higher power.

If one refines the question to ask whether the Founding Fathers were motivated to act as they did based on their Christian faith, the answer becomes a little murkier, but the response is still "no."

Many of the leading founders were theological liberals who approached religion from a rational perspective.

Even though we have come to appreciate that other founders held more conventional Christian beliefs, all of them, including many clergy of the day, perceived little conflict between their religious faith and Enlightenment natural rights.

By the time of the Revolution, ideas of providence and of America's millennial role had been modified, if not secularized, by Enlightenment rationalism.

If Benjamin Franklin, the only self-professed deist among the leading founders, could believe in God's general providential plan for the United States, then the ubiquitous references to God's interposing providence tell us little about the influence of distinctive religious thought on the founding generation.

If, finally, the meaning of the question is whether Christian impulses and rhetoric existed during the founding period and impacted the "great debate" about revolution and republican governance, then the answer is "yes" (although the question would then lose its distinctiveness at this level of abstraction).

Without question, non-Anglican clergy rallied to the patriot cause and justified the Revolution and new government on religious terms. Similarly, political leaders employed religious rhetoric to explain and legitimize their efforts.

However, the use of religious discourse at such a momentous time -- for distinguishing one's cause from the enemy during war and for rallying popular support for one's side -- is hardly surprising.

The majority of the founders also believed that religion was necessary for maintaining moral virtue and assumed that the nation would remain culturally Christian.

But people should be cautious about reading too much into the religious rhetoric during the founding period.

From where did the idea of America's founding as a Christian nation arise? In a nutshell, it arose in the early 19th century as later generations of Americans sought to establish a national identity, one that distinguished and exemplified the founding by sanctifying the nation's origins.

This is the origin of the "Christian nation" myth.

Also see the Treaty of Tripoli

Quote:The Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary) was the first treaty concluded between the United States and Tripolitania, signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796, and at Algiers (for a third-party witness) on January 3, 1797. It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797, and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.

Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796

Quote:ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Post: #74

(08-20-2015 01:07 PM)spalex Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 01:00 PM)N°6 Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 04:07 AM)spalex Wrote:  And don't start with "ohh they are fleeing a war zone and trying to rescue their family" bullshit. Unless they are fleeing Syria, chances are that they are just economic migrants. And 90% of these migrants are males between 17 -30 years old.

That's strange. If the media was to be believed the immigrants are heavily pregnant women with doe-eyes and toddlers being lifted over fences.

Yeah and the media also wants you to believe that you are worse than Hitler if you are not down at the docks welcoming every refugee with a blowjob.

Yep hence the 'Fortress Britain' slur of the Guardian above. Observers will recognise that this term comes from Hitler's pre-D-Day term "Fortress Europe" which attempted to keep out of Europe what Hitler saw as International Capitalism in the West and International Bolshevism to the East.

The Fortress Europe slur translates as "Isolationism" in the USA.

Post: #75

(08-20-2015 06:08 AM)RedPillUK Wrote:  I can't even click on those links. I hate the Guardian. Just look at the title of the first one "why fortress britain doesn't welcome refugees"

FORTRESS BRITAIN



At the moment we have people jumping over fences, running through tunnels, hiding in lorries to get in our country. When they are found they are not sent back.
This could easily be stopped with some riot police or the army but theres barely anything going on.

How the fuck can that retarded newspaper call this country 'Fortress Britain' with this going on?

Every time I go back to UK I feel like trolling the Border Security people and saying “you guys are still here? Have you stopped anyone coming in lately?!”

(08-20-2015 10:20 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  If they can do this, I see no reason they can't restrict it further to the hot ones. "Your tits must be this big to take refuge here".

That discounts a lot of east Asian women!