• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Black Church Burned -Vote Trump written on it

Why should I answer your demand question when you don't respond to:

1. The differences between getting to and staying in the US vs. Europe
2. The differences opportunities for Muslims in the US vs. Europe
3. The differences between living in virtual ghettos in Europe and in better locations in the US (Save MN)

Take those to start...but you haven't answered any of them so far.
 
Coach, you're record is much better than that, but it doesn't approach PH's 10,549-0.

I just find it curious that one of jhmd's favorite routines is the "undefeated" bit. I can't seem to remember him ever posting that he was wrong about something.
 
I don't remember that thread- what happened?

Back during the Romney presidential campaign, rj got fooled by some fake news source and posted a flaming hot take about Romney. The only problem is that he got it from a satire site (similar to the Onion). At the end, when everyone had called him out and it was proved to be fake, rj's response was along the lines of, "It appears that we were all fooled by a hoax."

It spawned a ton of parody threads for a few days and became another piece of rj lore.
 
I just find it curious that one of jhmd's favorite routines is the "undefeated" bit. I can't seem to remember him ever posting that he was wrong about something.

Undefeated has one meaning, but undepheated is next level. Put this vocabulary failure down as another loss.

To your point, I'm wrong all the time. It happens. It rarely results in me blaming fake news, Russian hackers or the unattainable brilliance of my positions not being appreciated by the rubiest rural rubes who've ever rubily rubed.
 
Last edited:
Timothy McVeigh killed over 150 people including women and children in cold blood. He's not thought of as "crazy".

Although he didn't kill 50 people at once, Ted Bundy murdered dozens. He's not thought of as "crazy".

Eric Rudolph tried to kill hundreds of people at the Olympics. He's not considered "crazy".

What?
 
I don't understand your question. Those mass murderers were considered evil. They weren't considered crazy as DeacMan was saying in his post above mine.
 
I don't understand the need for the distinction. Regardless, I stopped reading DeacMan a while back. He uses far too many words to say so little.
 
I don't understand the need for the distinction. Regardless, I stopped reading DeacMan a while back. He uses far too many words to say so little.

That's funny.

There is a difference. If you are crazy and do something horrific, you may not have been able to control what you were doing or were manipulated.

If you are just evil, it's on you and you may be able to have followers.
 
That's funny.

There is a difference. If you are crazy and do something horrific, you may not have been able to control what you were doing or were manipulated.

If you are just evil, it's on you and you may be able to have followers.

You may be right about McVeigh and Rudolph, but Bundy was absolutely mentally ill.
 
Why should I answer your demand question when you don't respond to:

1. The differences between getting to and staying in the US vs. Europe
2. The differences opportunities for Muslims in the US vs. Europe
3. The differences between living in virtual ghettos in Europe and in better locations in the US (Save MN)

Take those to start...but you haven't answered any of them so far.

1 - Duly noted in terms of the U.S. not having hundreds of thousands trying to flood across borders. Check.

2 and 3 - Your points just ignore current realities, never mind likely future outcomes.

The U.S. has been admitting refugees from a host of war torn regions for several years now. This year we'll admit 85,000 with most coming from places like Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. The issues and tensions you cite as being unique to Minneapolis are simply not unique to Minneapolis. Just in the Midwest there are a host of rapidly growing refugee communities in a number of cities that present similar profiles to Somalis in Minneapolis. Des Moines (thousands of Sudanese), Omaha (about 10,000 Sudanese), Columbus (about 40,000 Somali), St. Cloud (around 5,000 Somalis). I could go on. The point is obvious. These refugee communities face the same challenges as the Somalis in Minneapolis. The refugees tend to arrive poor, often with limited education and with cultural displacement that is more severe than immigrants from places such as Latin America (not that poor immigrants from these countries don't face their own issues) because the norms and values of these societies are in many ways vastly different from than those of a Westernized culture. These refugee populations in turn face a host of difficult issues - higher incidents of domestic violence, increased crime rates, growing gang issues with youth who struggle to find their way between two vastly different worls and, yes, instances of radicalized behavior.

Your notion of how we settle these refugees in small pockets throughout the country is also flawed. Yes, that is what we try to do in practice. But refugees will do what any other group of immigrants will do. They'll up and move to be within a population of their peers and certain communities will become larger population centers. It is a completely natural and expected outcome. And it is how communities in cities like I've cited above have grown so rapidly.

I've said most of these refugees are law abiding citizens. I've noted that the issues their communities face are very complex. But it is simply naive for your to think the cultural values of these refugee populations (many of such values being grounded in how the cultures in their home country view / adhere to Islam) that stand in contrast to the norms of Western secular society will not create very real tensions. For instance, per Unicef if you are a Somali woman there is a 98% chance your genitals were mutilated as a young girl. The practice of female genital mutilation is a Federal crime in the United States. That is a rather striking example (just one example) of vastly different behaviors and norms towards women. Those viewpoints and norms don't just evaporate in every Somali refugee by setting foot on U.S. soil.

And it is just naive for you to think some of these tensions don't become flashpoints for some awful outcomes. And, among the worst of these outcomes, are people who engage in terrorism. On another thread you cited the truck driver in Berlin as an outcome somehow grounded in Europe's experience with Muslim refugees. Yet within the last few months . . .

1 - Refugees in the Twin Cities are sentenced to prison for trying to aid and join ISIS

2 - A refugee in St. Cloud (around 5,000 Somalis in that community) stabbed 10 people in a mall after he asked them if they were Muslim and they told him no.

3 - A refugee in Columbus posts on facebook about his anger towards the treatment of Muslims around the world before driving a truck into a crowd on the Ohio State campus and then exiting the vehicle and attacking bystanders with a butcher's knife.

This isn't normal and it shouldn't be a "new" normal. How do we come to grips with these issues?

So I've engaged on your questions. Address mine.
 
Last edited:
One guy out of 40,000 in Columbus. In 2015, there were 99 homicides in a population of 822,000. That's 1/4 the rate of the general population.

One guy out of 5000 in St.Cloud. http://www.areavibes.com/st.+cloud-mn/crime/ As you can see, they have an assault rate of 198.5/100K. this is about 10/5000. How many more Somalis committed assault?

How many tried to join ISIS out of the 50,000 in the Twin Cities? How many people in that area succeeded at joining gangs and committing crimes?

The only way to avoid any criminals from any group committing a crime in the US is to ban that group entirely. Are for banning all Muslims coming to live in the US? That's the only way to guarantee zero crimes.

Of course to guarantee zero crimes by Muslims, we'd have to exile all those who are already here legally. Is that what you want?

We'd also have to come up with a way to keep other Muslims from visiting Disneyland or other locations. We'd also have to have 24/7 surveillance on members of staffs of foreign governments just in case there was an angry Muslim.

It sounds like we let in large groups rather than individuals. The current policy (that Trump will decimate or eliminate) isn't letting such large groups at once. It sounds like we have learned a lesson.

It's never going to be perfect unless we enact a no Muslim policy.
 
So now you are using acts of Islamic terrorism to try and calculate overall crime rates? Should I post articles from the media to demonstrate to you the realities these refugee communities face? Domestic violence, mistreatment of women generally, gang violence and crime. These are complex issues. Tell me you aren't basically dismissing them as non-existent because "only" a few convictions or acts of radical terrorism have happened in the last few months.

If I didn't know better, I might even conclude you are implying these acts are just a part of life we all have to accept? And that if we can't just accept this as the new normal, you might be viewed as suggesting our only alternative is to ban all Muslim immigration (which seems ridiculous given the number of Muslims that exist around the world).

At the very least you now seem to acknowledge impoverished refugees actually do live here in a number of population centers.
 
He is just arguing the perfect solution fallacy again and again until you give up.
 
So now you are using acts of Islamic terrorism to try and calculate overall crime rates? Should I post articles from the media to demonstrate to you the realities these refugee communities face? Domestic violence, mistreatment of women generally, gang violence and crime. These are complex issues. Tell me you aren't basically dismissing them as non-existent because "only" a few convictions or acts of radical terrorism have happened in the last few months.

If I didn't know better, I might even conclude you are implying these acts are just a part of life we all have to accept? And that if we can't just accept this as the new normal, you might be viewed as suggesting our only alternative is to ban all Muslim immigration (which seems ridiculous given the number of Muslims that exist around the world).

At the very least you now seem to acknowledge impoverished refugees actually do live here in a number of population centers.

The reality is if you let 100s of thousands of people of any ethnicity, religion or national origin into the country, there will be bad apples. It's human nature. Look at what happened with people from Italy in the early 1900s.

You talk about domestic violence but only in one community. Without numbers and context versus other communities of similar socio-economic factors, it is meaningless.

You don't want to be seen as a person who wants to ban all Muslims coming into or staying the US, but your expecting no crime from a group of several million people sure looks like you are looking for an excuse.
 
The reality is if you let 100s of thousands of people of any ethnicity, religion or national origin into the country, there will be bad apples. It's human nature. Look at what happened with people from Italy in the early 1900s.

You talk about domestic violence but only in one community. Without numbers and context versus other communities of similar socio-economic factors, it is meaningless.

You don't want to be seen as a person who wants to ban all Muslims coming into or staying the US, but your expecting no crime from a group of several million people sure looks like you are looking for an excuse.

So, acts of terrorism against collections of random civilians are now an acceptable and expected outcome of immigration?

You really want to call into question the prevalence of domestic violence and mistreatment of women in the countries from which Muslim refugees are flowing? You have filled a barrel full of fish. Meaningless is a really poor word choice.

You keep repeating your last paragraph - which is not accurate.
 
I never said that, but you've been intentionally misrepresenting what I have said for decades. It's sad but is, was and seems like will always be you MO.

The only way to ensure zero acts of terrorism is to end all immigration from those areas and ban visit, business and student exchanges from Muslims nations and by all Muslims. That's the only way to get to zero.

In fact to get to zero, you'd have to also exile all US citizen Muslims, green card Muslims and all Muslim countries' diplomatic corps. The combination of these two are the only way to get to zero.
 
two. These two have been going at it since the mid 90s

latest
 
Back
Top