Marine Arena


It is currently 13 Dec 2017, 11:21

All times are UTC




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous 13 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 06 Feb 2017, 20:14 
Offline
Newcomer
Newcomer
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jan 2017, 08:10
Posts: 69
euryleia wrote: I didn't have to do much. I just took the linchpin of your argument, Clinton's EO 12989 and ran that into the USCIS database and found how it is nothing you claimed to it to be. You disputed none of that but did rush to the next conspiracy theory because I learned next that it's ALL about Gitmo and HIV. You asked me to replace Muslim with Haitian, Bill Clinton with DJT, Gitmo with the airports, and HIV with ....? And that's what I got: One self-serving portion of retardedness behind two layers worth of smoke and mirrors.

You have no argument to back up the "similar ban" comparison. You heightened whatever inside your head into the next level of Infowars, no wonder you're confused.

Plus, I don't know if you noticed but what you wrote is kinda cuckoo.
Yes Eury, his EO was a direct interaction to Haiti. You're free to believe whatever u want, plug whatever "database" you claim to have, and talk about inforwars and whatever other thing you want to bring to the table without any facts or evidence, and call me cuckoo, once again doing the most left thing you can do and strawman instead of learn.

I feel sorry for you.


Top
   
PostPosted: 06 Feb 2017, 20:39 
Offline
Newcomer
Newcomer
User avatar

Joined: 05 Jan 2017, 14:57
Posts: 70
i feel like the iranian gf isnt the only one who lost her mind...


Top
   
PostPosted: 06 Feb 2017, 20:40 
Offline
Publisher
Publisher
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jan 2017, 15:41
Posts: 427
There you go again Ragey, grasping for straws. What USCIS stated about 12989 is there for all to read. It mentioned nothing of Gitmo, let alone HIV. The key phrase in that order was "private contractor" but you ignored that.

Furthermore, you ignored the basics of rudimentary thinking, like rooting an argument with observable/measurable indicators. The last 2 pages on this thread showed how far you can take this Full Idiot mode to hide your know-nothing. Your alternative facts and evidence got us nowhere. You used terms like "direct interaction" like it bolster your case but it's just fancy footwork leading to a dead end. You even scare-quoted USCIS database, when you yourself could access it and assess the validity of my claim. But no. Doing that would shatter the ruse that you have something worth reading. Instead, we're back to square one with you still unable to make an apple-to-apple comparison.

Next, I suppose you can tell me how less of a cuckoo you are, or how much this has to do with my dislike of DJT. But we know for a fact that you don't have a case. It's the same thing as your EU-7 postmortem bullshit wrapped up as rational thinking. The list you of changes you proposed has nothing semblance of what went wrong with the event. When people called you out for being a parrot, like they did on the other forum, you couldn't so much as defend it as you wished you didn't get caught and begged to have that thread locked so it could sink to the bottom of the dead sea.

To this minute I still don't get why you posted that list of recommendations since every bullet point could be answered by simply checking with Monty's rules thread and the updates he attached. And that's the thing: the list read like the tourney happened in December 2016 rather than this year. It accounted for nothing happened in-between. I suppose I could write this as the response to that list but doing so would just get you to dance around for 5 more pages over there. So instead of mucking up that place, I thought I let you know here how dumb that list was and how SIMILAR it is to the rest of your replies here as well.

And that's the sorry fact.


Top
   
PostPosted: 07 Feb 2017, 00:19 
Offline
Newcomer
Newcomer

Joined: 04 Jan 2017, 22:19
Posts: 152
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: 07 Feb 2017, 00:46 
Offline
Publisher
Publisher
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jan 2017, 15:41
Posts: 427
Welcome back. Which one of these presidents banned a group purely based on their religion and cited such as acts to protect Nat Sec?


Top
   
PostPosted: 07 Feb 2017, 00:57 
Offline
Tourney Winner
Tourney Winner
User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2017, 16:35
Posts: 65
Funny how US can beat the shit out of any 3rd world country to keep em 3rd world and then act like they need to protect themselves from the broke ass people, who's infrastructure, homes and their towns got totally fucked up. I am sure masses wouldn't have to immigrate if there was no war. Mass media propoganda works so well that many US citizens do what elites want them to do - to justify war. Media turns people into sheeple, thats a fact.
Even the fact that you guys are arguing over things we cannot change, is also a media influence.
Imho all we can do is not to agree in our hearts with crime, wolves in sheep coats, evil that mutated and imrpoved so much that it started to look good, kind and gentle.


Top
   
PostPosted: 07 Feb 2017, 01:04 
Offline
Newcomer
Newcomer

Joined: 04 Jan 2017, 22:19
Posts: 152
Which one of these presidents banned a group purely based on their religion
None and neither did Trump.


Top
   
PostPosted: 07 Feb 2017, 01:10 
Offline
Publisher
Publisher
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jan 2017, 15:41
Posts: 427
I stand by my observation that it is a "Muslim ban," (a) based on his campaign proposals; (b) based on the countries he targeted, where none of the 9/11 hijackers came from to back up the EO's statement of purpose; (c) based on the priority status his EO gave as we discussed earlier.

I do think (a) and (b) provides the strongest reason to my suspicion. Where (b) failed to cover Saudi, Egypt and Jordan, is because those 3 countries could retaliate while Iraq (1 of 7) needed the US aids vs ISIS. Still doesn't make the EO any less immoral, imho.


Top
   
PostPosted: 07 Feb 2017, 01:16 
Offline
Tourney Winner
Tourney Winner
User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2017, 16:35
Posts: 65
euryleia wrote: I stand by my observation that it is a "Muslim ban," (a) based on his campaign proposals; (b) based on the countries he targeted, where none of the 9/11 hijackers came from to back up the EO's statement of purpose; (c) based on the priority status his EO gave as we discussed earlier.

I do think (a) and (b) provides the strongest reason to my suspicion. Where (b) failed to cover Saudi, Egypt and Jordan, is because those 3 countries could retaliate while Iraq (1 of 7) needed the US aids vs ISIS. Still doesn't make the EO any less immoral, imho.


<33333333
Eury u make me wanna marry you and tell my wife to gtfo.
You are too smart for a woman, your place is not just in the kitchen.


Last edited by Aya on 07 Feb 2017, 01:17, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: 07 Feb 2017, 01:17 
Offline
Newcomer
Newcomer
User avatar

Joined: 05 Jan 2017, 14:57
Posts: 70
it doesnt make sense to me why trump would still allow the biggest muslim countries to still send their migrants over if this was a muslim ban.

If this was a muslim ban, there wouldnt A)be any more muslim immigrants, or B) at least a significantly lesser number of immigrants. If both A and B are not true, then its not a muslim ban


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous 13 4 5 6 7 8 Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
Theme Created by HOLLYSMOKE
Theme updated to phpBB 3.1.3 by KamijouTouma