Navizel wrote:
I ain't clicking that huffpo link niqqa
Not forcing you to, I image the most important paragraphs. If I missed that one, my bad.
lol what
Only makes sense, refugees are technically immigrants. They take from us, they give back.
So you admit that Blacks commit more crimes but you complain that there are more blacks in jail? Although I agree that justice should be fair not only between whites and non whites but also between men and women.
I'm not complaining that there are more blacks in jail: I'm complaining that blacks have a much higher chance of detainment/imprisonment than whites for the same crime.
B1rd wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-wei ... 85138.html
The important part is here, key words are "non-Muslim extremists":
I'm not clicking on your stupid leftist news sites. If you want to share something link to studies directly.
From this I can probably dismiss whatever else you write.
So lets have a look at the information in the text .jpg...
'Since Sep11'
So you're discounting the largest terrorist attack on American soil for what reason? If you include the deaths from that, the number would dwarf any of the deaths from non Muslims. And it's non-Muslim terrorist, not Christian terrorists. So, let's include 9/11, Muslim kills vs Christian kills, and the Muslim number is multiple times higher. And you're also ignoring the fact that in America, there are hundreds or thousands of times more Christians than Muslim. So if we look at the statistics per capita, the killing are skewed in the Muslim side to an extreme degree.
And that's not even counting all of the terror attacks in Europe, where the terrorists are focusing their efforts. It is a first hand example of the decline of Western societies when they let in large numbers of 'refugees' and Muslims. For example, rape and crime statistics skyrocket after immigrants. And then there's the financial burden of giving welfare to so many people who are unwilling or unable to integrate into the economy (and the society itself, for that matter). And a thousand more reasons why refugees are nothing but detrimental to a country. I think I'm quite lucky to be able to live where I am now in a largely homogenous white society that doesn't have these problems. But the way things are going, that might not last long either.
Going to leave this here.
>If you want to share something link to studies directly.
A liberal news site is better than nothing at all.
Christians have differing political opinions don't make them a problem. I think immigrants are 'problematic', because they tend to vote left, for more wellfare, a more authoritarian government, et cetera. The real problem isn't the demographics, it's the democracy itself. Tyranny of the majority, and all that.
Minorities don't get any extra civil rights because they already have equal rights to everyone else. Businesses should be allowed to discriminate against whomever they please, it's their business.
Immigrants are problematic because they vote left, and you vote right.
Just going to leave it at that.
Goes to show a leftist's understanding of the econemy. Government don't pay for roads, taxpayers do. Taxpayers are people. Now what if, people could pay for the roads they use directly, rather than being forced to give their money to the government and having the government use the money however it wishes?
What if people pay for private police forces and firefighter?
The government is inherently inefficient compared to the free market. It is also prone to corruption. And mass murder. If you lift up a stone in a river, water takes its place. Private companies can provide all the services of a government, and do it better. There is no reason why businesses wouldn't provide the services that a government does.
They wouldn't. They wouldn't pay for roads, they wouldn't pay for a private police force, fire department, etc.
The thing with conservatism is that it assumes the people with money are going to use it for the good of the community. That doesn't happen. Kansas had a governor that believed this theory, so much so that he cut taxes immensely. He said it would create jobs among other things. Not giving the government money doesn't work, as the data show. The Kansas City Star, a newspaper in that very state, agrees. Link:
http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-c ... 54187.htmlImage for the important bit:

Not having a government means there's no one to protect the rights of anyone. If there were to be a private police force, the one that owns it can say "Hey, I don't like my neighbors, so when they dial the emergency number ignore them." If they paid for private firefighters, the person/group that owns it can say "I don't like you, so the FD won't come when you need help." That's why, even though a public service is ineffective, is still more effective than a private service.
Yes, the government is prone to corruption, but simultaneously big money is prone to corruption. The only difference between the two is that the government, once found, is held accountable while big money isn't.
FuZ wrote:
can someone move this shit thread to GD
Current American politics is a joke, therefore, keep it in Off Topic.
RoseusJaeger wrote:
This thread has gone to hell and back, but it's fun to read. So far, rep1se seems to be the one with most sanity and rational sense.
I'm not flattered