Not that you are able to back yourself on your site for the things you say...

[Al Swearegen]

"Belief".

It's what you counter with, when asked to back up your shit. You believe things.

Not good enough. We are talking about real people here, people whose beliefs are different from yours, people who apparently scare you and who drive you into an emotional argument rather than a logical one. Thinking is hard, emotional arguments are easy. You suck at the former but excel at the latter. Which is why you have yet to back up anything. Which is why you seem unable to critically examine the "evidence" you find on the internet, be it public swimming pools in Kalmar or Muslims at the US borders.

What's really sad is that you don't seem capable of recognising your beliefs for what they are.

This is not the silliest thing you have written lately, it's sad that this is the case, because it is very silly.

"These people" - which people?. You are not trying to push the All Muslims barrow are you? I think you are. I exposed you lying blatantly about it twice and now you are trying to vaguely imply it.

If "these people" is radicalised Muslim Fundamentals then you would be right that their beliefs are different. Different to mine. Different to yours and different to Moderate Muslims.

Just because someone believes in something different to you it doesn't mean that they are good or bad. If you asked Jack the Ripper what his views on prostitutes was, or Saddam Hussein's views on the Kurdish people, I am betting this will be a lot different to yours AND it would not be out of place to denounce those views.

As to me being scared....think about what I am supposed to be scared about. Struggling? Okay I will explain it.

You are assuming I would be scared about Radicalised Muslims (no actually you probably think I am scared of decent and moderate Muslims despite the clarity around this) entering America and the risk of violence that may result from a poorly vetting process for immigrants.

Right?  So I would naturally be scared because...? Here is where you hit a roadblock. Am I in America?  Will I ever be in America?  Do I have ties to America? Will this affect me or could it affect me in any meaningful way? No? Well what the Hell would I be scared about?

So now if you can wrap your head around this you we can stop looking at this with perhaps the emotional weighting you are giving it. (I think that is why you've been lying too. Too emotional).

Donald Trump has said that radicalised Muslims are a threat to America. This is without question a fact. We could back this with referencing 9/11. Obviously there is a threat. That is logical.  The threat is radical Islamic Fundamentals.  But since then there may have been no other radical Islamic Fundamentalist attacks from Radicalised Muslims. IF this was the case maybe the threat had disappeared or was managed?

Boston Bombings
Chattanooga shootings
San Bernardino
Orlando

Okay so logically we need to explore the possibility the maybe the FBI is battling to contain such problems in US. Certainly the fact that they questioned Mateen twice and also that they have 900 active US based investigations supports this.....logically.

So if the are having problems with radicalised Muslims within, what about from without? Any similar problems outside of US or is it US based only?

London bombings
Brussels airport
Paris

Okay IF this so far is logical and rational then we have to be certain that FBI can do a better job in preventing radicalised Muslims to a their numerous problems nationally. Otherwise,  logically,  both the active investigations will rise from 900 and there will be more and more terror attacks from radical Muslim extremists.

Seems pretty reasonable. Now it is just about whether you believe this. What degree of threat you think this poses and what you think a reasonable response would be.

Donald Trump had an idea. I think the idea has merit. As an idea or concept and in view of everything I just explained, it seems to acknowledge and try to address this in a way that no other option has.

But it is just an idea. Tomorrow Bernie may come up with a way to better reduce the threat posed or vet immigrants or whatever. I would listen to what he had to say too. Hillary may....no she wouldn't... She sure as Hell would help create plenty of displaced immigrants that would hate American foreign policies though. I have not bound myself to this body and soul and nor will I die in the trenches over what a blowhard in America says about immigration. But in principle I agree with it and regardless of how he has fleshed it out or explained it, I can appreciate it and understand it.

I can also see why you are getting all emotional about this. Because in this option, there would be a freeze on Muslim immigration until FBI can improve their vetting processes (So as to reduce the risk of all citizens of US (Men, women, gas,  straight, white, black, Christian and Muslim) from terrorism from radical Islamic terrorism.

Because of this you lost your mind and cast lies around in an attempt to make me a bigot and "prove" your charge. You said all Muslims coming to America." and "You compared all Muslims to Ebola". Both were lies but because they both came from a place of non-rational apparent hysteria, perhaps they can be forgiven.

Me? I don't have that moral outrage. Yes it certainly would be good riddance if Radical Muslims were prevented from immigrating to America and it would be unfortunate if decent moderate Muslims were held off from immigrating. But it makes sense to do so until risk is better managed. That is logical.

Maybe you were just emotional from me pointing out how international media has centred on horrific swimming pool assaults and rape statistics. I guess there is open and inclusive and open and inclusive?

I think one of us was definitely emotional but I am not that person. You seem to have a far greater emotional connection than I.

[odeon]

You should do something about furniture now, while you still have the chance. Well, that or your beliefs. And your argumentation while you're at it, because you suck at it.

Here's a list of school shootings in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States. Now, I could list them all here, to contrast them with your acts of terrorism, but it would be a very long post and so I'll give you another link instead:

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/last-72-hours

This one lists only the last 72 hours of gun-related violence--there is a link that says just that on the page, so I clicked that and the list, 12 pages, came with a disclaimer (highlighting the interesting part):

Thanks for your interest in our statistics! Unfortunately, we must limit result sets for the general public. If you would like more information or the full result set, please send an email with your name, organization, project and needs to inquiry@gva.us.com.

Now, admittedly your radicalised Muslims make for great headlines and the associated fear-mongering, but the fact is that you (meaning a US citizen, not the literal you, silly) are actually more likely to be killed by your own furniture than by a terrorist attack. And a lot more likely to be the victim of gun violence having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorists. Should you be the victim of a mass shooting, the likelihood is that the weapon that killed you was obtained legally.

Oh, and here's some more bedtime reading for you: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262#.VLhsjS42d6I

[Al Swearegen]

You should do something about furniture now, while you still have the chance. Well, that or your beliefs. And your argumentation while you're at it, because you suck at it.

Here's a list of school shootings in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States. Now, I could list them all here, to contrast them with your acts of terrorism, but it would be a very long post and so I'll give you another link instead:

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/last-72-hours

This one lists only the last 72 hours of gun-related violence--there is a link that says just that on the page, so I clicked that and the list, 12 pages, came with a disclaimer (highlighting the interesting part):

Thanks for your interest in our statistics! Unfortunately, we must limit result sets for the general public. If you would like more information or the full result set, please send an email with your name, organization, project and needs to inquiry@gva.us.com.

Now, admittedly your radicalised Muslims make for great headlines and the associated fear-mongering, but the fact is that you (meaning a US citizen, not the literal you, silly) are actually more likely to be killed by your own furniture than by a terrorist attack. And a lot more likely to be the victim of gun violence having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorists. Should you be the victim of a mass shooting, the likelihood is that the weapon that killed you was obtained legally.

Oh, and here's some more bedtime reading for you: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262#.VLhsjS42d6I

So essentially, just so I am being fair, you are saying because gun violence is more common than terrorism that the threat of terrorism from radical Muslim extremists is of little consequence and much ado about nothing? If it was not bought about by the comparison of gun violence against radical Muslim extremism then it surely was made with your mention of furniture killing people, right.

I do not want to take away anything less than the message you are trying to put out there. I do not want to be unfair. Perhaps you think that the ideology that was behind the gun violence can be targeted and that it was the same in each instance. Again, I do not want to pretend to understand your position.

So there is a collective ideology behind school shootings? No? Gun violence in general? No.
Let me put it another way. Mateen WAS a radicalised Muslim extremist. That WAS his ideology. He WAS going to kill gays. He HAD chosen the gay people in the club as his targets and selected them ahead of time. With me so far? IF he had no access to a gun and wanted to kill dozens of people at his club, would he have said, "Oh well too hard now, may as well give up on that idea?"
No. Because the ideology was behind his motive and so he would have targeted the gay people other ways. Bombs seem to be popular with Radical Muslim extremists. Arson and chemicals may have done equally as well. So that being the case how would gun restrictions stopped this guy killing dozens of people?

If what you are saying is that there may be issues in America such as bullying and ostracisation at schools, I think this is reasonable and though not a collective ideology certainly one that may be best addressed. If you are saying that gang violence is problematic and ought to be cracked down on by the authorities...sure. If you are saying that improvements mental health services may help, I'd agree. But all of these individual motives or reasons do not address any collective ideology. If the Westboro Baptists suddenly "upped" their hate and decided to shoot and bomb people you would see me both denouncing them and supporting any in principle move to stop them from being able to do so. By supporting harsh measures against them I would not expect you would say "You are a bigot and are against Christians" No, you have your limitations.

Now I can not speak for how little regard you have for the severity of radical Muslim extremism in the US that they are dealing with now, or around the world, that you wish America to import (and make no mistake IF the FBI have poor vetting systems to distinguish a decent moderate Muslim from a radical Muslim extremist you are absolutely giving no better option that for America to import radical Muslim extremists) but I would wonder whether your argument of "Now, admittedly your radicalised Muslims make for great headlines and the associated fear-mongering, but the fact is that you (meaning a US citizen, not the literal you, silly) are actually more likely to be killed by your own furniture than by a terrorist attack" may be of comfort to the families of victims of 9/11 or the Boston bombings or perhaps the families of gay people killed in Pulse?
Hey maybe you should say something like this?



Oh that Hillary!

Perhaps you could tell those families, "Could have been worse, they could have been squashed by a sofa bed....LOL"

No? Well shit, Odeon, maybe you did not make your point again.

Tell me IF you do not want a London style Bombing in US or a Paris style attack in a gun controlled city in US or a Brussels style airport attack in US or Cologne like New Years Eve celebrations or Swimming pool problems like in your Sweden or radicalised Muslim rape gangs like Rotherham...what is the alternative? Business as usual is not evidently enough and neither is gun controls. What do you have to reduce the risk of US importing these issues?

Is it talking about the severity of falling furniture? I hope you have a lot better than that.

[odeon]

Still no evidence, then? Nothing in the way of practical ideas on how to handle the stopping of those evil Muslims or how the FBI could ever learn? I didn't think you would... because an emotional argument is all that there is. It's what Donald does and it's what you do.

There are lots of risks associated with everyday living significantly higher than a terrorist attack. Rationally speaking, a government should probably address the higher risks before the lower ones, don't you think?

But where did I ever say that nothing should be done to a possible terrorist threat?

[Al Swearegen]

Still no evidence, then? Nothing in the way of practical ideas on how to handle the stopping of those evil Muslims or how the FBI could ever learn? I didn't think you would... because an emotional argument is all that there is. It's what Donald does and it's what you do.

There are lots of risks associated with everyday living significantly higher than a terrorist attack. Rationally speaking, a government should probably address the higher risks before the lower ones, don't you think?

But where did I ever say that nothing should be done to a possible terrorist threat?

Well I expect you will trot out the line "There are lots of risks associated with everyday living significantly higher than a terrorist attack" next time there is a Paris attack or a Brussels attack or next 9/11 style attack. Go on, promise me you will.

"Nothing in the way of practical ideas on how to handle the stopping of those evil Muslims or how the FBI could ever learn?"

Which evil Muslims are you talking about? Are you talking about radicalised Muslim extremists being evil or Muslims in general? If so why? Your words, I am just clarifying to see whether it is something I need to defend or something that I have never claimed or implied.

As for practical ideas....what? Now Odeon, just so that I have you right, you KNOW that Trump had a concept or idea which has not been fleshed out into a strategy or a policy. Right? When you say practical ideas this is exactly what you are asking right? Either you are saying what is the practical ideas (policies/strategies) around this OR can you make executive decisions to create strategies and policies around a concept that someone else had made mention of that you saw some merit in, right?

I mean correct me if I am wrong here. IS THAT what you are saying? I am absolutely fine with his idea in principle. I have no idea if it will work in practice and I have already told you some flaws in it I see. But that is fine I can agree with ideas in principle and that does NOT mean I have to work out the policies or practices, or procedures. Not my job Odeon. It would be MORONIC to imagine that there would be an expectation for me to create a framework or a set of policies or strategies for or on behalf of Donald Trump or the Government of America.

No Odeon when or if Donald Trump expands on this concept and fleshes it out, I, you and everyone else can them say "Okay that makes sense and seems workable" or "No that is terrible and will not work". We can do that from idea stage to after delivery. We are fine agreeing in principle with the concept and disagreeing or agreeing when it is better fleshed out as a practical idea to draw up policies around, we still can agree or disagree when it becomes a black and white policy, but even here once it is implemented the practical application may be great though it looked unworkable OR it may have seemed so great in theory and fallen apart when put in place.

We are at that very first stage. This is what we can judge it against. A concept. I see merit in it in broadbrush terms. I have mentioned my concerns about its application. It is imperfect and NEEDS work. I already stated too that it needs to have a measure of what and how the vetting process will be measure. Improve the vetting process, by what measure and how can we know when it is fixed and the freeze could be revoked. If it is temporary what end date or what other measure of conformity to unfreeze the temporary ban?

But whilst I have highlighted these things already, you say "I" have to address them? No, No Odeon the originator of the idea needs to address them if he is to put them in place. Who am I and who originated them? Who is in the position to address these things?

Have you forgotten who you are talking to? In your #NotAllMuslims, Falling furniture threat, Ebola=/=Muslims, Bigotry overly emotional narrative, did you forget who I was? I am not Donald Trump. I am not even a huge fan of his. I did not create this concept. He did. He did it primarily for an American audience and for their consumption but we foreigners CAN say whether we agree with it as a concept. You don't, I do.

Clare Lopez a former CIA operative and analyst has stated that countries like Syria and Libya have very poor infrastructure and record keeping as a result of the protracted conflicts have taken on their nations. She said that at best the records are substandard to non-existent for immigrants from these countries. She said screening is ineffective by any measure for immigrants from countries like these two and that ISIS has already confirmed that they will be implanting ISIS members in with regular moderate Muslims as a jihadi form of hijrah.

Now is Clare correct? Is Comey misspeaking? Maybe. I do not need to do further investigating and I sure as Hell don't need to make a Presidential Nominees policies and strategies for him. Anyone who thinks so is an idiot. (Charitably Odeon, I do not really think yo believe, this on a rational level. I believe you are letting your emotions or perhaps your hormones - if I may be so bold - run away with you). I think that when it comes to politics, religion, sex and money, some people become a little bit fired up. I think that you are probably one of those people. Politics. Fuck me. I am not right wing but I see right wing politics piss you right off. Good to know.

I used to be pretty traditional liberal (Classical Liberal) but they have lost their way. They have allowed Progressives (SJWs) into their nest and like the cuckoos, they are now feeding and raising people in the nest that act like them, but are not them, and are parasitical in nature. Now I am middle of the road. I will listen to Bill Maher, Christina Hoff Sommers and Dave Rubin and Milo Yiannapolous and Sean Hannity.

But you Odeon, the mere thought that the decent Muslims of Syria may be denied automatic immigration status to a foreign land may be a crime against humanity? A transgression again the most basest human right? Have a chill pill and relax. Want to dissuade undesirables from immigrating illegally or without correct identification? Villawood. No? It does dissuade people. If an extremist wants to fudge their ID but has to wait around in a detention centre in Australia for a couple of years and risk deportation, it may be easier to go to Sweden and hang on for two years in their Swimming Pools.

I don't mind holding different opinions to you Odeon. We are from different countries, different cultures and different life experiences. We are different BUT you lie about me and I WILL pursue it all around the board. I do not tolerate that in "real life" nor here. I do not care if you disagree with me. We all hold different opinions. I do care if you misrepresent or lie about me and you've been doing it a fair bit lately.

[odeon]

Very little Trump has said has actually been fleshed out in any way. Yet here you are, agreeing with him, and neither of you has bothered to prove anything. Well done, Al.

[Al Swearegen]

Very little Trump has said has actually been fleshed out in any way. Yet here you are, agreeing with him, and neither of you has bothered to prove anything. Well done, Al.

Okay this is how idiotic this is.

Pick a social issue:

Reduction of carbon emissions;
Intolerance of guy people;
Unemployment ;
Illegally rates;
Drug problems ;
Teenage parents;
Poverty ;

Whatever. Now if someone says that they would like one of these things improved and give a suggestion of how they may go about it. Then someone else says "I agree with them. What they have said so far, I agree with. They are right in acknowledging the issue and it's great that they have an idea I want to hear more"
You then going to the latter and demanding the plan, schedule, policies or procedures is really moronic. You think the latter needs to do that? You are not really that stupid are you?
If you wanted that information you would go to the former right? I mean that is if you wanted further details on THEIR idea because it is THEIR idea. The latter would be making it up if the former had not told the latter anything else. Furthermore the information shared was the same as you had, right? So what would you be asking? Proof?

Tell me you are not honestly and in good faith, asking for proof of information, that I cannot possibly have and positions on said information, that I cannot have assessed, and are not conflating this moronicly with me not proving something, that is possibly provable?

And "agreeing with him"? Agreeing with what? In principle with a concept? Absolutely,  I want to hear more and see whether it flashes and as a plan or not. With everything he says? No. With how he says things? Sometimes.

What exactly are you saying and what do you imagine I need to give account of and why?

[Al Swearegen]

This is what happens when you get too emotional in an argument.

Suddenly someone agreeing in principle with an idea becomes a need for that person to agree to that idea and every aspect of its application and to take ownership of the origination of the thought and personally develop that concept to its end result complete with answers to all aspects of how that idea may work in said end result.

Here is how such a situation may work:

Person 1: Hmmm I read in a science magazine once that some scientists are considering colonising Mars. I think that is a great idea.
Person 2: Really? Fucking really? How are you going to do that?
Person 1: "How am "I" going to do that?" I am not it is an idea someone else had.
Person 2: No, you said that its a good idea, so why is it a good idea?
Person 1: In my opinion it will allow us to reach beyond our planet, and develop planet forming technology. I think it may help with population control and be a fresh start for a new generation of people. Also if one planet's people die off say with Asteroid or nuclear war or the like, we will have chance of our population surviving.
Person 2: So prove to me your idea will work.
Person 1: Prove? What?
Person 2: How will they terraform? What technology will they use? How will they create enough oxygen and water? Come on how will it plan out?
Person 1: Dude go fuck yourself, it is a great idea and even though it has not been fleshed out as a strategic plan (which I may or may not agree with), the concept I like and I have told you why I like it. There is NOTHING I need to prove and certainly not for you.
Person 2: See its all beliefs with you isn't it? No proof.
Person 1: Moron.

This is the kind of argument you just had over Donald Trump's Muslim ideas.

Sometimes people have ideas. Concepts may sound great and actually be bad ideas once they are fleshed out. Or may sound bad and after assessing them and fleshing them out, actually quite good and innovative. Ideas are starting point. We can all have opinions on them but as ideas we can only assess them on what they are IF they are someone else's ideas. If you think I am somehow Donald Trump's Strategic Advisor or Policy Maker or that I ought to assume such a standard when I agree with someone's concepts or ideas.

This is how stupid your position is. Why has your rational faculty fallen? Emotion.

[odeon]

I love it how you still haven't addressed Trump's campaign book ideas.

Oh well.

[Al Swearegen]

I love it how you still haven't addressed Trump's campaign book ideas.

Oh well.

What campaign book and why would you imagine I would need to address them.

I tend to find Sigmund Freud efforts on dealing with victims of post traumatic stress disorder meritorious but his ideas on Pens envy and the like sheer nonsense. Must I endorse or have to support both ideas?

What idea have I not vouch an opinion on of Trumps and why do you believe I must have an opinion on it, endorse it, defend it and share it with you?

['Butterflies']

I tend to find Sigmund Freud efforts on dealing with victims of post traumatic stress disorder meritorious but his ideas on Pens envy and the like sheer nonsense. Must I endorse or have to support both ideas?

Sheer nonsense indeed

[odeon]

[Al Swearegen]

I love it how you still haven't addressed Trump's campaign book ideas.

Oh well.

What campaign book and why would you imagine I would need to address them.

I tend to find Sigmund Freud efforts on dealing with victims of post traumatic stress disorder meritorious but his ideas on Penis envy and the like sheer nonsense. Must I endorse or have to support both ideas?

What idea have I not vouched an opinion on of Trump's and why do you believe I must have an opinion on it, endorse it, defend it and share it with you?

There, fixed.

Again, why do you imagine I must vouch an opinion on Trump's campaign book and endorse it and defend it to you? Ought I care? If so why? What opinion must I have and why? Why ought I feel compelled to share it with you? Why would I believe I needed t defend it?

[odeon]

So tell me again why you started a gazillion callout threads and went on and on about the same shit for months and months.

Or not. It's amusing how you want everyone else to back up their stuff but not when it comes to your shit.

[Al Swearegen]

So tell me again why you started a gazillion callout threads and went on and on about the same shit for months and months.

Or not. It's amusing how you want everyone else to back up their stuff but not when it comes to your shit.

What is my "own shit" that you want me to back up. This "campaign book" you want me to back up is not "my own shit'.

The first mention of it was from you. If it is anyone's "shit" I suppose it would be Donald trump's shit. After that, perhaps it may under some consideration be considered "your shit" as you bought the campaign book into the conversion and wish to talk about it. Me? I have no particular thoughts on it one way or another. So how this is suddenly me not backing myself, I have no idea.

Pretty stupid comment there, Odeon.

As to the comments that Trump made in a couple of interviews, that were expressing a concept, yes I agree in principle with them. So THAT is a position. Happy to defend that. If he later makes a different position or further expands on that. I am happy to comment on THAT new position and whether I think it is good bad or indifferent.

What would be stupid, is to get into your head that IF I agree with one idea he has that I must:
Agree with everything he says;
Support every possible ramification of the concept once put in practice;
Know what further implication or development the person who originally had conceived the idea would have;
Take ownership of this concept as my own idea and be responsible for developing the concept or putting it into practice;
Can uni-Mind with the person who had the idea in the first place to;
Have to agree with the idea's originator when they further develop the idea.

If you are expecting me to do any of the above, not only ought you brace yourself to be disappointed but you sure be embarrassed by what you are asking.
"YOU agreed with something someone said? That is it! You must know everything they have and will ever say and defend everything they say. Then if you can't I will accuse you of not proving your points"

That is how ridiculous your comment is. So now you are being ridiculous as well. First you lied and then you went to ridiculous absurdities.

The reason I start four callout threads (or was it a gazillion?) was because of YOU. You wanted a reaction from me and you got one. I was defending myself from insults you leveled unreasonably at me. In the midst of doing this you have thrown poor defend on top of poor defend and not only doubled down on your unreasonableness but also lied, made separate false claims against me and in one instance said you would no longer back yourself in a specific thread. All of these are reason enough for me to start a new callout against you.

As for months and months? And....? You wanted a reaction and you played for one, you got one. I'd have not done the same had I have been in your position but you made your  choice to do so and so I do not think you ought to question the result now. This is a result of your actions.

What exactly are you finding "amusing" again?