First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply Sweden launches its own 'Berlin Wall' with Denmark as it orders travellers to show ID for the first time in 50 years
runec 
28282 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/17/16 , edited 1/17/16

maxgale wrote:
Considering we re-elected Obama, that is a valid statement.


Yes, truly, he is history's greatest monster. What with the healthcare and the economy and the not coming to take all your guns despite years of screaming how he would. Heck, he's even continued some of Bush's immigration policies for you and yet somehow he's the worst president ever on immigration. And on everything else. Because if you scream it loud enough and long enough to yourself you start to believe it? I don't know. I do know it looks completely insane from the outside and I shudder at the level of cognitive dissonance required to maintain these positions.

Nevermind the raging dumpster fire that is the GOP primary this time around.




27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 1/17/16

runec wrote:


maxgale wrote:
Considering we re-elected Obama, that is a valid statement.


Yes, truly, he is history's greatest monster. What with the healthcare


http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_bills/2015/07/health_care_premiums_going_up_obamacare_has_been_solidified_but_it_s_failed.html




and the economy




http://fortune.com/2016/01/15/stock-market-obama-economy/




and the not coming to take all your guns despite years of screaming how he would.




http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/31/landmark-california-gun-seizure-law-takes-effect




Heck, he's even continued some of Bush's immigration policies for you


And that is why our economy hasn't completely tanked, and why our nation is more secure.

Funny, that, he got elected by not just being Black President! but by claiming to be the "anti-Bush", yet the most fundamental and controversial parts of the Bush administration are what he had to keep to keep the country going.

Imagine that.




and yet somehow he's the worst president ever on immigration.



http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/04/loretta-lynch-vows-prosecute-anti-muslim-speech-calls-san-bernardino-wonderful-opportunity/





And on everything else. Because if you scream it loud enough and long enough to yourself you start to believe it? I don't know. I do know it looks completely insane from the outside and I shudder at the level of cognitive dissonance required to maintain these positions.


Step 1. Go find a mirror.


Step 2. Repeat those words.





35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 1/17/16 , edited 1/17/16

TheOmegaForce70941 wrote:

Yes and no.

If they just go there and expect to get into the country then they won't get in anywhere soon. This is where the majority of immigrants will probably be since they don't know how the country work.

However if they know how Sweden works, then they can and will most likely get in if they demand a permit from the migrationsverket (immigration board) since they pretty much let anyone in. It's literately written on their website that it's their mission is to help and get as many as possible into the country. Also the migration board doesn't get a fuck about who they give a permit and does next to no checks on the person. It's a fact, they've given criminals permits and then protects their identity from the police and use the argument "their new here, and have not yet adapted to the culture". If anything regarding to immigration is gonna change then board controls won't do a thing in Sweden since it's up to the immigration board who pretty much let's anyone in no questions asked.


That is astonishingly reckless. It's just as bad as a policy of closing down the borders entirely to certain ethnic and/or religious minorities and expelling those who've already entered. Neither extreme is a good idea.
runec 
28282 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/17/16 , edited 1/17/16


You might want to read more than the title of the article. Because it doesn't say what you seem to think it does.




"Many of the factors are out of President Obama’s control."
"The U.S. economy remains one of the most stable in the world."
"Growth has been lackluster in part because American consumers still seem reluctant to spend."
"You can chalk the disappointing spending up to flat wage growth."
"None of this means we are headed for a recession."

You didn't read this one either, did you?




You realize this is a state law, not a Federal one right? And that it likewise does not say what you seem to think it does?




maxgale wrote:And that is why our economy hasn't completely tanked, and why our nation is more secure.


You don't even know what policies he continued, do you? And you would not be in this mess in the first place if not for Bush. Claiming he's saving you 7 years on from the mess his administration caused is ridiculous. Bush is not saving you. He's painting dogs. And honestly, seems a lot happier painting dogs. I don't blame him either. If I had spent 8 years around Cheney I would want to crawl away to quiet room somewhere and paint dogs too.



maxgale wrote:Funny, that, he got elected by not just being Black President! but by claiming to be the "anti-Bush", yet the most fundamental and controversial parts of the Bush administration are what he had to keep to keep the country going.


Except no. Obama did campaign against specific Bush policies, but by the time Bush left office many of said policies had already been reformed. Which Obama fully admitted. Other policies, such as, you know, the whole torture thing, Obama did nix.




A Brietbart link? Really? And what in any of that is suppose to be the Bad Thing(tm)? Are you suppose to be for violence and discrimination?

That also had jack and shit to do with immigration.


maxgale wrote:
Step 1. Go find a mirror.
Step 2. Repeat those words.


You didn't even read your own sources. You can act smart when you, you know, actually do something smart. Like read. Reading is good.



7553 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Offline
Posted 1/17/16
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 1/17/16 , edited 1/17/16

runec wrote:



You might want to read more than the title of the article. Because it doesn't say what you seem to think it does.




See, some of us are able to read sources we disagree with, so long as they are able to put forth the effort to be as truthful as possible.


Such as, say, super liberal sites which even while bashing the other side acknowledge that, welp, they kinda didn't deliver what was promised, and yep, there were legitimate critiques which turned out to be correct after all.


What was that you were saying about not reading things closely?....








"Many of the factors are out of President Obama’s control."
"The U.S. economy remains one of the most stable in the world."
"Growth has been lackluster in part because American consumers still seem reluctant to spend."
"You can chalk the disappointing spending up to flat wage growth."
"None of this means we are headed for a recession."

You didn't read this one either, did you?






It's almost as if, bear with me, I try to offer the most insightful analysis possible, which means finding that which cuts through partisan bickering to arrive at what is actually going on.


And that is:

"But the narrative leading into the new year was that low unemployment and low gas prices would mean smooth sailing for the U.S. economy in 2016. The persistent drop in the market may suggest it is time to reconsider that story."


Strange how you would leave that out!





You realize this is a state law, not a Federal one right? And that it likewise does not say what you seem to think it does?




Funny, I don't find the Obama administration challenging that, almost as if they are agreeing with it by defaulting on challenging it.





You don't even know what policies he continued, do you? And you would not be in this mess in the first place if not for Bush. Claiming he's saving you 7 years on from the mess his administration caused is ridiculous. Bush is not saving you. He's painting dogs. And honestly, seems a lot happier painting dogs. I don't blame him either. If I had spent 8 years around Cheney I would want to crawl away to quiet room somewhere and paint dogs too.




Security:


http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/06/18804146-obama-continues-extends-some-bush-terrorism-policies?lite


Auto bailouts, TARP, etc.:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/obama-george-bush_n_3145804.html



I mean, it's not surprising you didn't know this, I doubt anyone could hold the positions you and the Left do if they were aware of the most basic facts.







A Brietbart link? Really? And what in any of that is suppose to be the Bad Thing(tm)? Are you suppose to be for violence and discrimination?

That also had jack and shit to do with immigration.





I don't particularly like Breitbart myself, but I just had to see if you were like so many Leftists who refuse to acknowledge information just because of who is saying it.


Which you kinda proved by displaying total ignorance of the article.




You didn't even read your own sources. You can act smart when you, you know, actually do something smart. Like read. Reading is good.







Since you proved you don't read at all, I guess I'll have to repeat if for you:


Step 1. Go find a mirror.
Step 2. Repeat those words.


Maybe you'll read it this time!
runec 
28282 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/17/16

maxgale wrote:
See, some of us are able to read sources we disagree with, so long as they are able to put forth the effort to be as truthful as possible.

It's almost as if, bear with me, I try to offer the most insightful analysis possible, which means finding that which cuts through partisan bickering to arrive at what is actually going on.


Really? You're going to claim nuanced bipartisanship in the same breath after "Obama is the worst, only Bush is saving us" then linking Brietbart? Aside from being complete bullshit that doesn't even make sense. Since it would mean you just responded to my argument by posting links that agreed with me or had nothing to do with the topic while disagreeing with me as you posted them.

If you're trolling me, I am not amused. If you are not trolling me, I find myself worrying even more about the future of your country.

Optionally, I will also accept that you're just high.
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 1/17/16

runec wrote:


maxgale wrote:
See, some of us are able to read sources we disagree with, so long as they are able to put forth the effort to be as truthful as possible.

It's almost as if, bear with me, I try to offer the most insightful analysis possible, which means finding that which cuts through partisan bickering to arrive at what is actually going on.


Really? You're going to claim nuanced bipartisanship in the same breath after "Obama is the worst, only Bush is saving us" then linking Brietbart? Aside from being complete bullshit that doesn't even make sense. Since it would mean you just responded to my argument by posting links that agreed with me or had nothing to do with the topic while disagreeing with me as you posted them.

If you're trolling me, I am not amused. If you are not trolling me, I find myself worrying even more about the future of your country.

Optionally, I will also accept that you're just high.




It's almost as if I began by linking something from the equivalent of a liberal Breitbart to display how one should be open to the facts, regardless of where they come from, because we need to be aware of our own biases and that of others so we can better look for sources that are as unbiased as possible.


And then offered a link to a source that while factual ran counter to your biases, to gauge whether or not you would be willing to acknowledge that information, or even read it, since your entire schtick was that I wasn't even bothering to read what I was putting forth.


Or something.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.