Is Trump going to make president?

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Is Trump going to make president?

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 40 of 66 < 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 >

Hrolf The Ganger 06 Feb 17 5.23pm
, Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (06 Feb 2017 5.24pm) Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (06 Feb 2017 5.26pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

06 Feb 17 5.23pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (06 Feb 2017 5.24pm)

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (06 Feb 2017 5.26pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 06 Feb 17 5.26pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 The stakes were different. The response must be firm, and proportional. The fire bombing of Dresden didn't help us win the war, it was more about 'they did it first'. There is also the difference between fighting for existence of their home and country (which our grandparents were) and fighting people who pose no existential threat to the nation. Its not that kind of war. We're not fighting nations and national interests. I'm not a believer that we can achieve any kind of victory without eliminating the people who fund, incite and command acts of terror. But we should stop crowing about it. If you're going to become evil, become the boogyman. Don't create martyrs, create ghosts. I'm not sure that is entirely true. Fire bombing reduced the capacity to repair and use factories which we had failed to achieve with direct bombing of such facilities.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

06 Feb 17 5.26pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

The stakes were different. The response must be firm, and proportional. The fire bombing of Dresden didn't help us win the war, it was more about 'they did it first'. There is also the difference between fighting for existence of their home and country (which our grandparents were) and fighting people who pose no existential threat to the nation.

Its not that kind of war. We're not fighting nations and national interests. I'm not a believer that we can achieve any kind of victory without eliminating the people who fund, incite and command acts of terror.

But we should stop crowing about it. If you're going to become evil, become the boogyman. Don't create martyrs, create ghosts.

I'm not sure that is entirely true. Fire bombing reduced the capacity to repair and use factories which we had failed to achieve with direct bombing of such facilities.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 06 Feb 17 5.30pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 So, if you took away everything in your life that is fairly risky what would you be left with? You'd have to have fresh air. No more high pollution. That means moving to the coast or countryside. But then you'd end up in a village or small town and they still drive so you'd have to extra careful to only go out when there is less chance of traffic. One of the locals is bound to be violent or dodgy in some other way so best you don't socialise. Too risky. Or...you could just live your life where you are and stop fretting about Islamic nutters' acts which are highly less likely to rain down on you or your family than the other things I have already mentioned are. This has nothing to do with why I asked the original question and you know it. This attempt at clouding just confirm my suspicions.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

06 Feb 17 5.30pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

So, if you took away everything in your life that is fairly risky what would you be left with? You'd have to have fresh air. No more high pollution. That means moving to the coast or countryside. But then you'd end up in a village or small town and they still drive so you'd have to extra careful to only go out when there is less chance of traffic.

One of the locals is bound to be violent or dodgy in some other way so best you don't socialise. Too risky.

Or...you could just live your life where you are and stop fretting about Islamic nutters' acts which are highly less likely to rain down on you or your family than the other things I have already mentioned are.

This has nothing to do with why I asked the original question and you know it.

This attempt at clouding just confirm my suspicions.

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 06 Feb 17 5.36pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger This has nothing to do with why I asked the original question and you know it. This attempt at clouding just confirm my suspicions. What? That anyone who doesn't want to ban all 1billion Muslims from travelling is a terrorist enabler? Ye gods, man, you are dragging your debating skills into the gutter. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 06 Feb 17 5.36pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

This has nothing to do with why I asked the original question and you know it.

This attempt at clouding just confirm my suspicions.

What? That anyone who doesn't want to ban all 1billion Muslims from travelling is a terrorist enabler?

Ye gods, man, you are dragging your debating skills into the gutter.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 06 Feb 17 5.47pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 What? That anyone who doesn't want to ban all 1billion Muslims from travelling is a terrorist enabler? Ye gods, man, you are dragging your debating skills into the gutter. So just to be clear. A hypothetical fool proof policy to end Islamic terrorism in the West would or would not be OK with you if it involved banning all Muslims? And just to please Jamie's sense of correctness. It would or it would not will do fine.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

06 Feb 17 5.47pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

What? That anyone who doesn't want to ban all 1billion Muslims from travelling is a terrorist enabler?

Ye gods, man, you are dragging your debating skills into the gutter.

So just to be clear.
A hypothetical fool proof policy to end Islamic terrorism in the West would or would not be OK with you if it involved banning all Muslims?

And just to please Jamie's sense of correctness.
It would or it would not will do fine.

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 06 Feb 17 6.04pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger So just to be clear. A hypothetical fool proof policy to end Islamic terrorism in the West would or would not be OK with you if it involved banning all Muslims? And just to please Jamie's sense of correctness. It would or it would not will do fine. No, that's fine just as long as all other demographic groups were banned too that are likely to have within them people that commit bloody crime abroad or at home. So, that's the army banned, Brits on the Costa Del Sol banned, teenagers banned, people going out at the weekend banned etc, etc, etc, oh, and not forgetting anyone with far right views, hrolf. They would definitely be banned. Edited by Kermit8 (06 Feb 2017 6.10pm) Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 06 Feb 17 6.04pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

So just to be clear.
A hypothetical fool proof policy to end Islamic terrorism in the West would or would not be OK with you if it involved banning all Muslims?

And just to please Jamie's sense of correctness.
It would or it would not will do fine.

No, that's fine just as long as all other demographic groups were banned too that are likely to have within them people that commit bloody crime abroad or at home. So, that's the army banned, Brits on the Costa Del Sol banned, teenagers banned, people going out at the weekend banned etc, etc, etc,

oh, and not forgetting anyone with far right views, hrolf. They would definitely be banned.

Edited by Kermit8 (06 Feb 2017 6.10pm)

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 06 Feb 17 6.21pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 No, that's fine just as long as all other demographic groups were banned too that are likely to have within them people that commit bloody crime abroad or at home. So, that's the army banned, Brits on the Costa Del Sol banned, teenagers banned, people going out at the weekend banned etc, etc, etc, oh, and not forgetting anyone with far right views, hrolf. They would definitely be banned. Edited by Kermit8 (06 Feb 2017 6.10pm) But we aren't talking in general about crime are we. This conversation is not about risk comparisons, it's about Muslim terrorists. I for one would take any measure if it could be reasonably demonstrated to be highly effective at protecting our citizens. As I see it, we currently have two sides of the same equation. Those who want to take ineffectual action for political reasons and those who would hide behind ideology as an excuse to do nothing.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

06 Feb 17 6.21pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

oh, and not forgetting anyone with far right views, hrolf. They would definitely be banned.

Edited by Kermit8 (06 Feb 2017 6.10pm)

But we aren't talking in general about crime are we.
This conversation is not about risk comparisons, it's about Muslim terrorists.

I for one would take any measure if it could be reasonably demonstrated to be highly effective at protecting our citizens.
As I see it, we currently have two sides of the same equation. Those who want to take ineffectual action for political reasons and those who would hide behind ideology as an excuse to do nothing.

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 06 Feb 17 6.27pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger But we aren't talking in general about crime are we. This conversation is not about risk comparisons, it's about Muslim terrorists. I for one would take any measure if it could be reasonably demonstrated to be highly effective at protecting our citizens. As I see it, we currently have two sides of the same equation. Those who want to take ineffectual action for political reasons and those who would hide behind ideology as an excuse to do nothing. How about this which would be cutting off the snake's head? Any wahhabi/salafists are banned or put under severe travel restriction and the other 1,000,000,000 Muslims that do not adhere to that extremist warped version of Islam - i.e don't bomb or shoot people - are left alone to go about their business? For it is members of those sects that are the killers. That would be fine. Only one problem - Saudi follows, funds and promotes Wahhabism. Any solution? Edited by Kermit8 (06 Feb 2017 6.28pm) Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 06 Feb 17 6.27pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

But we aren't talking in general about crime are we.
This conversation is not about risk comparisons, it's about Muslim terrorists.

How about this which would be cutting off the snake's head?

Any wahhabi/salafists are banned or put under severe travel restriction and the other 1,000,000,000 Muslims that do not adhere to that extremist warped version of Islam - i.e don't bomb or shoot people - are left alone to go about their business?

For it is members of those sects that are the killers.

That would be fine.

Only one problem - Saudi follows, funds and promotes Wahhabism.

Any solution?

Edited by Kermit8 (06 Feb 2017 6.28pm)

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 06 Feb 17 6.41pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger So just to be clear. A hypothetical fool proof policy to end Islamic terrorism in the West would or would not be OK with you if it involved banning all Muslims? And just to please Jamie's sense of correctness. It would or it would not will do fine. Can I take the Hrolf amendment on hypothetical questions on the basis that it's hypothetical and I don't know what I'd do in real life? Or say I know what you're doing. Funny that Hrolf is emulating what he moaned about me doing. And the liberal left are accused of double standards! For the record, I would not ban all Muslims from entering the country. (note this is different to I would not ban any) before you reel of hamza the hooky hate preacher of Finsbury Park.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 06 Feb 17 6.41pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

So just to be clear.
A hypothetical fool proof policy to end Islamic terrorism in the West would or would not be OK with you if it involved banning all Muslims?

And just to please Jamie's sense of correctness.
It would or it would not will do fine.

Can I take the Hrolf amendment on hypothetical questions on the basis that it's hypothetical and I don't know what I'd do in real life?
Or say I know what you're doing.

Funny that Hrolf is emulating what he moaned about me doing. And the liberal left are accused of double standards!

For the record, I would not ban all Muslims from entering the country. (note this is different to I would not ban any) before you reel of hamza the hooky hate preacher of Finsbury Park.

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 06 Feb 17 8.10pm
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle Therefore, it's overwhelmingly more likely for a US citizen to be murdered by another US citizen - not by an immigrant terrorist. That's the point. In the U.S., you're about 20 times more likely to be killed by a toddler than you are by a terrorist. We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston

Houston 06 Feb 17 8.10pm

Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston

Originally posted by Mr_Gristle

Therefore, it's overwhelmingly more likely for a US citizen to be murdered by another US citizen - not by an immigrant terrorist. That's the point.

In the U.S., you're about 20 times more likely to be killed by a toddler than you are by a terrorist.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 06 Feb 17 8.17pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger It's clear to me that Trumps ban is more about politics than practicality but I wonder how many Anti Trumpers and general critics of flimsy anti terrorist measures would keep crowing if it were possible to create a situation which virtually guaranteed an end to Islamic terrorism in the West but meant a total ban on Muslim migration. What is more important to you? You know being a Muslim is (mostly) a choice, right? Mike Tyson converted to Islam in prison. Cassius Clay and Cat Stevens similarly converted. I'm sure there's plenty of others. Banning the migration of Muslims does not impede the movement of the religion, nor that of the ideas of those who pervert he religion for their own evil purposes. We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston

Houston 06 Feb 17 8.17pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

It's clear to me that Trumps ban is more about politics than practicality but I wonder how many Anti Trumpers and general critics of flimsy anti terrorist measures would keep crowing if it were possible to create a situation which virtually guaranteed an end to Islamic terrorism in the West but meant a total ban on Muslim migration.

What is more important to you?

You know being a Muslim is (mostly) a choice, right? Mike Tyson converted to Islam in prison. Cassius Clay and Cat Stevens similarly converted. I'm sure there's plenty of others.

Banning the migration of Muslims does not impede the movement of the religion, nor that of the ideas of those who pervert he religion for their own evil purposes.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 06 Feb 17 8.20pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Can I take the Hrolf amendment on hypothetical questions on the basis that it's hypothetical and I don't know what I'd do in real life? Or say I know what you're doing. Funny that Hrolf is emulating what he moaned about me doing. And the liberal left are accused of double standards! For the record, I would not ban all Muslims from entering the country. (note this is different to I would not ban any) before you reel of hamza the hooky hate preacher of Finsbury Park. Perhaps, for once, we can agree that only a genuinely effective policy is worth pursuing in terms of protecting lives. We might disagree on what that could be but neither of us are qualified to make that call. Incidentally, my main concern about Muslim immigrants is far more about religion and it's influence in this country. I have deep reservations about religion, particularly ones that have a detrimental effect on our society.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

06 Feb 17 8.20pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Can I take the Hrolf amendment on hypothetical questions on the basis that it's hypothetical and I don't know what I'd do in real life?
Or say I know what you're doing.

Funny that Hrolf is emulating what he moaned about me doing. And the liberal left are accused of double standards!

For the record, I would not ban all Muslims from entering the country. (note this is different to I would not ban any) before you reel of hamza the hooky hate preacher of Finsbury Park.

Perhaps, for once, we can agree that only a genuinely effective policy is worth pursuing in terms of protecting lives. We might disagree on what that could be but neither of us are qualified to make that call.

Incidentally, my main concern about Muslim immigrants is far more about religion and it's influence in this country. I have deep reservations about religion, particularly ones that have a detrimental effect on our society.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 40 of 66 < 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Is Trump going to make president?

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors