https://www.liquidpoker.net/


LP international Poland    Contact            Users: 444 Active, 0 Logged in - Time: 10:48

Multiple terrorist attacks in Paris 13.11.2015

New to LiquidPoker? Register here for free!
Forum Index > General
  First 
  < 
  9 
  10 
  11 
  12 
  13 
 14 
  All 
dogmeat   Czech Republic. Dec 15 2015 07:44. Posts 6374

ban baal 

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. Dec 15 2015 12:30. Posts 9634

First of all closing borders wont accomplish anything. Borders are something imaginary fixed by international contracts, its not like the refugees wont just move through. Its not like they ll stop there and say " oooh look we shouldn't pass that " . Eastern european countries dont have the resources to stop the refugees nor will they do any time soon so there s nothing anyone can do so far about it. Western europe does NOT have any borders anywhere. So what are you suggesting exactly ? Building a fence and putting patrols everywhere ? There s a reason the EU is part of NATO and inner security is a huge part of it. Not to mention how Turkey can just flood Europe with 5x the amount of refugees if they stop giving a fuck. Europe does not have the means to react adequately in the situation and there s nothing they can do. Do you think Hollande said they ll continue taking refugees even after the attacks on Paris because he has such beliefs and not because he knows he cant stop it at this point ?

And yes I'd rather have them change their ways of life to something better rather than be the oppressor. Those refugees didn't randomly decide to zerg rush Europe, nor are they so violent towards the west cause of something as stupid as Sharia law, sure some of them are, majority have just had enough of them and their families and friends being tortured for no apparent reason. Why are the refugees not radicalized towards any other region in the world can you answer that ?

An actual good short term solution would be to make another nation as military powerful as Israel in the region so they wouldn't stomp on anyone when they wish and people would regain a part of their liberty. Of course there s no leading nation that would allow such " atrocity "

P.S. lol at saying you dont think you re a moral authority but supporting their oppression, pick a side you cant be both

 Last edit: 15/12/2015 12:38

whamm!   Albania. Dec 15 2015 17:10. Posts 11625

Partially letting them in isn't doing so great either, so your ultimate solution is just say fuck it and leave the gates open because planet earth was designed that way?


Spitfiree   Bulgaria. Dec 15 2015 17:37. Posts 9634

No my solution is to continue letting them in but with better process, since you wont stop them, you ll just lose resources and preach hate towards yourself if you do what dogmeat suggests. Matter of a fact if you stop someone it ll be the ones that are worth saving since criminals wont give 2 fucks and will find a way to migrate anyway
There s no real " solution " though nor will we find it in this forum

 Last edit: 15/12/2015 17:37

Santafairy   Korea (South). Dec 15 2015 20:22. Posts 2224


  On December 14 2015 19:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Show nested quote +



I don't like the labelling of political opponents, and I hate that we (and as someone who identifies as the political left, I honestly think we have been more guilty of this than the right) tend to equate political beliefs with morality. (The right on the other hand, imo equally stupidly, equates political stance with intelligence - but that's besides the point. ) I think these natural inclinations of people on both sides of the debate are huge detractors from what could be a fruitful debate - but when leftists turn it into an issue of morality and rightists turn it into an issue of intelligence, they just cement already established views because it's much harder to change your opinion when your original opinion derived from 'I was a selfish immoral/amoral jerk' or 'I was stupid' rather than 'I just didn't know enough about the issue'.

congratulations on being part of the left. luckily, i'm not a part of anything so i can plainly see that what you're talking about is not. the right doesn't ultimately consider the left unintelligent for being pro-choice, nor does the left consider the right immoral for rejecting climate change. this is something you've just made up in your head to try to explain why people don't agree. this isn't correlated to the political spectrum. people just have trouble admitting if they're wrong. or rather, it's hard to convince people they're wrong, and that's a good thing because if you weren't wrong and someone convinced you that you were wrong, you would be something of a pushover, you would be easily susceptible to bullshit, pseudoscience, scams, etc.

i'm not labeling opponents, if that was an accusation. "progressives" is a concept, it means a group of people, it doesn't mean they're exclusively progressives, and it doesn't mean i necessarily disagree with them on everything. it's simply true that it's a progressive tactic that you can try to discredit someone by calling them a sexist, racist (it's happened in this thread of course), bigot, or whatever. normally there's no cost associated with maligning someone in this way... that is, if it works then the person you're attacking isn't credible anymore, and if it doesn't work then you didn't lose anything. it's just that in the case of trump, people aren't buying it


  On December 14 2015 19:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
So honestly, I'm not fully disagreeing with what you are saying here. But I think you're wrong specifically about Trump. Trump was never attacked for 'disliking illegal immigrants' - he was initially attacked for describing mexicans as rapists, for stating that mexico sends their rapists to the US, and for stating that he would build a giant wall which he would make Mexico pay for.


trump brought up illegal immigration at the start of the campaign, and the MSM thought they could easily brush it off with smoke and mirrors bullshit calling him racist because he's a political outsider. it's textbook progressivism.


  On December 14 2015 19:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:And while I think the Hitler comparison is off by a couple magnitudes (Hitler is not notorious for branding the Jews, he's notorious for attempting to exterminate them), you yourself described the very policy recommendation of his that has received most criticism as extreme - just that this was before he actually made the suggestion.


yes, i said closing borders to muslims or refugees is an extreme measure (we were talking about europe at that time, but whatever). extreme, as in drastic, do you see? not extreme as in extremist, not extreme as in "inherently bad," but "extreme" as in there's ultimately not much more you could do beyond not letting people into the country apart from actually kick people out of it, "extreme" as in it's so unlikely to happen, whether it would be good or bad, that i'm basically wasting time even explaining this


  On December 14 2015 20:23 lebowski wrote:
Show nested quote +


Drone covered most things I'd comment on this post. Trump is funny in a bad way and tbh he's making Colbert's job way too easy.
I'm not even talking about the specific vid I linked earlier, I could probably make a compilation of cringe worthy statements just from seeing a bunch of vids this morning.
I guess commenting on Trump's persona or the way he markets himself isn't really on topic though, I just couldn't resist after I saw that photo of him with the gun


once again, i wasn't talking about trump, and i don't care about the vid you linked. whatever drone said wasn't in reference to my point. i'm asking a simple question:








is this funny? is this educational? a guy lecturing into the camera from a desk about some issue or other? it looks like garbage to me

and the new media meme is that trump "isn't funny anymore" so.


  On December 15 2015 11:30 Spitfiree wrote:
First of all closing borders wont accomplish anything. Borders are something imaginary fixed by international contracts, its not like the refugees wont just move through. Its not like they ll stop there and say " oooh look we shouldn't pass that " .


"closing borders" isn't something that you just say you're doing, it's something that you actually do. it's not like when michael scott goes "i declare bankruptcy," you stop letting people into the country if you don't want them

people know borders are not doors that you literally close. but borders are not imaginary any more than countries are imaginary.


  On December 15 2015 11:30 Spitfiree wrote:
Eastern european countries dont have the resources to stop the refugees nor will they do any time soon so there s nothing anyone can do so far about it. Western europe does NOT have any borders anywhere. So what are you suggesting exactly ? Building a fence and putting patrols everywhere ?


so you believe europe is powerless to keep refugees out, but also perfectly capable of handling the refugees who come in.


  On December 15 2015 11:30 Spitfiree wrote:
the EU is part of NATO


lol welp


  On December 15 2015 11:30 Spitfiree wrote:Not to mention how Turkey can just flood Europe with 5x the amount of refugees if they stop giving a fuck.


that'd be good though, right? because borders are imaginary and everyone has a right to live in europe and denying refugees access to berlin is what the terrorists want!!!!!!!!!!!!

that wouldn't be a colossal mistake for all parties involved or anything

wait, are you saying one county, turkey, has the ability to hold 1 million refugees and control where they go, but the entire continent of europe is powerless to stop tens of thousands or a hundred thousand?


  On December 15 2015 11:30 Spitfiree wrote:
Europe does not have the means to react adequately in the situation and there s nothing they can do. Do you think Hollande said they ll continue taking refugees even after the attacks on Paris because he has such beliefs and not because he knows he cant stop it at this point ?


France has like 500 refugees. Hollande was saying they are continuing with their plan to accept 30,000 refugees over 2 years. This is a drop in the bucket of 4+ million refugees of the war in Syria/Iraq. I'm pretty sure it's a political ideal, because the same dialogue is happening in the USA, which is on a continent on the other side of the world separated by an ocean, and could easily say no to the couple of ten thousand refugees it's talking about.


  On December 15 2015 11:30 Spitfiree wrote:
And yes I'd rather have them change their ways of life to something better rather than be the oppressor. Those refugees didn't randomly decide to zerg rush Europe, nor are they so violent towards the west cause of something as stupid as Sharia law, sure some of them are, majority have just had enough of them and their families and friends being tortured for no apparent reason. Why are the refugees not radicalized towards any other region in the world can you answer that ?


are you seriously saying refugees are radicals now? are you even trying to be consistent?

i have a question, why are the refugees not migrating towards any other region in the world? besides the middle east and europe? lot of refugees swarming into hong kong? hong kong is rich, why not? borders are just imaginary. lot of refugees swarming into nigeria? why not? maybe nigeria is shit but germany is paradise?

what if radicalism was not a vector? why do you think geographical direction is a necessary parameter of radicalism? why did isis kill japanese civilians? why is there sectarian violence? because they're radicalized towards the west... ? lol


  On December 15 2015 11:30 Spitfiree wrote:
An actual good short term solution would be to make another nation as military powerful as Israel in the region so they wouldn't stomp on anyone when they wish and people would regain a part of their liberty. Of course there s no leading nation that would allow such " atrocity "


speechless.

speechless that you think making a country is a short-term solution

speechless that you didn't notice what US-led coalitions have been doing this whole time

speechless that you think militaries come out of thin air

speechless that you think 1 jewish state surrounded by 20 muslim ones is unbalanced in favor of the jewish state

speechless that you think another muslim country needs nuclear weapons


  On December 15 2015 11:30 Spitfiree wrote:
P.S. lol at saying you dont think you re a moral authority but supporting their oppression, pick a side you cant be both


excuse me Spitfiree, are there beggars where you live? homeless people? do you ever give them money, like spare change? that's nice of you

but that's just a temporary solution, don't you think? you're making the problem worse than if you didn't do anything at all. why don't you let homeless people move in and live with you instead? your apartment is something imaginary, fixed by housing contracts. you need to let homeless people in your house or you're supporting their oppression

It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen 

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. Dec 15 2015 21:16. Posts 9634

speechless that any good international relations professor will tell you exactly the same about a Mid-East arab country ( Iran for example ) lacking nuclear weapon is what makes the region unstable
and no Europe cant stop the refugees at this point
and lol at most of your quotes and responses, are you even trying ?


  On December 15 2015 11:30 Spitfiree wrote:
the EU is part of NATO


lol welp





 
speechless.

speechless that you think making a country is a short-term solution



you re a joke


  speechless that you think 1 jewish state surrounded by 20 muslim ones is unbalanced in favor of the jewish state



are you for real to be writing this as if its something rhetorical and untrue ? wont bother
as i've said you re a joke
after all 20> 1 for sure ! thats how military power works
after all 20 arabic countries > 1 USA too so i guess bye bye usa as well :D
hilarious

try thinner grasps might work better

 Last edit: 15/12/2015 21:18

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. Dec 15 2015 21:22. Posts 9634

but then again Iran might use its nuclear weapon then right? cuz they re savages and shit
and in the west we re super secure, bankers would never force wars where hundreds die daily, we re so much more civilized, oh wait


Baalim   Mexico. Dec 16 2015 08:22. Posts 34246

No idea who half of those guys are... but John Olivier is funny and very educational

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

dogmeat   Czech Republic. Dec 16 2015 20:48. Posts 6374


  On December 15 2015 11:30 Spitfiree wrote:
First of all closing borders wont accomplish anything. Borders are something imaginary fixed by international contracts, its not like the refugees wont just move through. Its not like they ll stop there and say &amp;amp;quot; oooh look we shouldn't pass that &amp;amp;quot; . Eastern european countries dont have the resources to stop the refugees nor will they do any time soon so there s nothing anyone can do so far about it. Western europe does NOT have any borders anywhere. So what are you suggesting exactly ? Building a fence and putting patrols everywhere ? There s a reason the EU is part of NATO and inner security is a huge part of it. Not to mention how Turkey can just flood Europe with 5x the amount of refugees if they stop giving a fuck. Europe does not have the means to react adequately in the situation and there s nothing they can do. Do you think Hollande said they ll continue taking refugees even after the attacks on Paris because he has such beliefs and not because he knows he cant stop it at this point ?

And yes I'd rather have them change their ways of life to something better rather than be the oppressor. Those refugees didn't randomly decide to zerg rush Europe, nor are they so violent towards the west cause of something as stupid as Sharia law, sure some of them are, majority have just had enough of them and their families and friends being tortured for no apparent reason. Why are the refugees not radicalized towards any other region in the world can you answer that ?

An actual good short term solution would be to make another nation as military powerful as Israel in the region so they wouldn't stomp on anyone when they wish and people would regain a part of their liberty. Of course there s no leading nation that would allow such &amp;amp;quot; atrocity &amp;amp;quot;

P.S. lol at saying you dont think you re a moral authority but supporting their oppression, pick a side you cant be both



obv closing borders for ILEGAL immigrants means building a fence
your logic:
they have resources to monitor millions of ppl, securing inner security, handing out welfare checks to +Xmillions per year.... yet unable to build a fcking fence LMAO


  On December 15 2015 19:22 Santafairy wrote:
wait, are you saying one county, turkey, has the ability to hold 1 million refugees and control where they go, but the entire continent of europe is powerless to stop tens of thousands or a hundred thousand?

briliant :D

and please tell me how am i the oppressor? i want to build a wall and let ragheads do w/e they wanna do.

also love how you ignore 1400 years of jihad, 1000+ years of sectarian violence, muslim violence in SE asia, africa or any part of the world for that matter and just focus on western foreing policy in last few decades. ignorance surely is a bliss



  On November 19 2015 03:51 whamm! wrote:



40:00 a muslim says how stupid you and baal are

ban baalLast edit: 16/12/2015 21:02

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. Dec 16 2015 22:10. Posts 9634

you don't even bother to read cant really have any meaningful communication like that ... whatever makes you sleep at night, my point wont matter, neither will yours in the end and this thread has become a joke considering there are just random quotes taken out of context used to something completely unrelated ... so yeah good luck viewing the world in black and white

 Last edit: 16/12/2015 22:11

Baalim   Mexico. Dec 17 2015 03:27. Posts 34246


  On December 16 2015 19:48 dogmeat wrote:

i want to build a wall and let ragheads do w/e they wanna do.



And you feel insulted when people call you a bigot lol

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Baalim   Mexico. Dec 17 2015 03:34. Posts 34246


  On December 16 2015 19:48 dogmeat wrote:



40:00 a muslim says how stupid you and baal are



You stupid moron, since the first post Ive been saying that Islam is barbaric, violent and a big contributor for terrorism, and exactly as the guy on 40:00 says I also think foreign policy is a contributor for this

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro OnlineLast edit: 17/12/2015 03:52

dogmeat   Czech Republic. Dec 17 2015 06:17. Posts 6374

sorry baal but you consistently come off a guy who thinks the current situation is 95% foreign policies fault


  On December 17 2015 02:27 Baalim wrote:
Show nested quote +



And you feel insulted when people call you a bigot lol


do they wear rags? i dont see a problem here -_-

ban baal 

devon06atX   Canada. Dec 17 2015 07:07. Posts 5458

You guys still yelling at each other nonsensically, not getting anywhere?

Sweet!

Good debate.


Santafairy   Korea (South). Dec 17 2015 08:22. Posts 2224


  On December 15 2015 20:16 Spitfiree wrote:
speechless


sounds a lot like what i just said but np

  On December 15 2015 20:16 Spitfiree wrote:
that any good international relations professor


so we're going with "good" meaning agrees with you i bet

  On December 15 2015 20:16 Spitfiree wrote:
will tell you exactly the same about a Mid-East arab country ( Iran for example ) lacking nuclear weapon is what makes the region unstable


now this is news to me

remembering that geopolitics doesn't admit to the same rigor as the scientific parts of academia like the sciences, i would really like to know more about people who are putting forth this idea. if they're leftists it would be fascinating to see people now switching to argue for nuclear proliferation in the name of cultural diversity

does this apply to any region? the korean peninsula is more stable with nuclear weapons? or is it less stable because there's now a nuclear imbalance, or wait it's not an imbalance because china was the only one with nuclear weapons before. can we help africa or south america become more stable by encouraging nuclear proliferation? or does this only apply to the middle east?

why didn't you bring this up before in the thread if you knew how to fix the middle east? i don't remember you talking about nuclear weapons. in fact, i was the first one to mention them because you just brought up israel completely out of left field. like the civil wars in syria, iraq, yemen, regime change in libya, iran-iraq war, kurdish independence problem, sectarian violence everywhere, all of these are israel's fault for making the region unstable? i don't know if i'm strawmanning you but i'm really suspicious of the sudden blame of israel

what do we do, do we just roll a 20 sided die to figure out who to give nuclear weapons to? or do we want to encourage a nuclear arms race in the region? because i doubt any country could do it before Iran, so basically you're saying let Iran specifically have nuclear weapons? and this will help reach peace in Syria? these are countries where any jackass with an ak47 can join a paramilitary group. i'm not trying to poke fun but unless this argument gets fleshed out, i seriously do not see the connection to nuclear weapons

i imagine if you had a 4 year old kid who wanted cookies, then the family situation would ostensibly be more stable if you gave him a cookie jar, yet most parents probably wouldn't do that, and those are cookies, let alone a weapon that can vaporize a city, and no, i'm not trolling, nuclear weapons are not some theoretical panacea that you can introduce to cure political instability in a region, they're real, physical bombs that can cause armageddon

i don't think there's any merit to saying you can just make one of these countries stronger militarily. iran, saudi arabia, egypt, turkey, these countries have modern militaries, they just don't want to fucking fight for any long term goal


  On December 15 2015 20:16 Spitfiree wrote:
and no Europe cant stop the refugees at this point





  On December 15 2015 20:16 Spitfiree wrote:
and lol at most of your quotes and responses, are you even trying ?


if you think i took something out of context, please explain how i mischaracterized you. because i think i've been sincere, although not charitable, in representing your position. if there's something specific that i've misunderstood you about, i would like to know about that in case i'm wrong about something, or if i still disagree, so i can find the real reason i think you're wrong. otherwise you should just say you want to agree to disagree, which is fine, there's nothing wrong with having an opinion you don't want to change your mind about, just be honest about that instead of saying i took something out of context but not telling me what or how


  On December 15 2015 20:16 Spitfiree wrote:
are you for real to be writing this as if its something rhetorical and untrue ? wont bother
as i've said you re a joke
after all 20> 1 for sure ! thats how military power works
after all 20 arabic countries > 1 USA too so i guess bye bye usa as well :D
hilarious

try thinner grasps might work better


israel is a country of 8 million people, the usa 300+ million

i consider it lucky for israel that all the surrounding muslim countries failed to destroy them in the multiple wars they've fought as coalitions.


  On December 15 2015 20:22 Spitfiree wrote:
but then again Iran might use its nuclear weapon then right?


how are you being facetious about this?

a huge risk of nuclear proliferation is 1) the weapons being used 2) the weapons being lost 3) the weapons being lost and falling into the hands of someone who uses them 4) mutiny and the weapons being used 5) nuclear accidents 6) the weapons being in the hands of someone who can use them as a shield to commit crimes against humanity behind


  On December 15 2015 20:22 Spitfiree wrote:
cuz they re savages and shit


what's your problem?

would you feel more safe, and more optimistic about the future of humanity, or less safe, if every country on Earth had a nuclear arsenal? i think most people who worked on the manhattan project ended up in favor of nonproliferation. oppenheimer got mccarthy'd over it, if you remember.

  On December 15 2015 20:22 Spitfiree wrote:
and in the west we re super secure, bankers would never force wars where hundreds die daily, we re so much more civilized, oh wait


I assume you're talking about the war in Iraq, but I wish you could see what a non sequitur it is to say that the USA making one mistake or another in Iraq is a reason to let a completely different country have nuclear weapons. and we've gone in something of a circle now, because when the war in iraq was brought up earlier, i remember explaining that the baathist regime actually did have a history of using WMDs

It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen 

Big_Rob_isback   United States. Dec 17 2015 09:28. Posts 211

I took a political science class in 2006 where we were "taught" that nuclear weapons makes the world safer from world wars. Because there hasn't been a war between two superpowers who own them since (or something of that nature).

And I was like..... "sample size.... lol?"

just playing live poker for funLast edit: 17/12/2015 09:29

Baalim   Mexico. Dec 17 2015 10:36. Posts 34246


  On December 17 2015 05:17 dogmeat wrote:
sorry baal but you consistently come off a guy who thinks the current situation is 95% foreign policies fault

do they wear rags? i dont see a problem here -_-



No I dont, in this thread Ive said over and over that the liberals are absolutely wrong in excusing Islam, if I ever came off like that to you is because you have your head so far up your ass that you dont listen.


Obviously ragheads is a pejorative and bigoted term, and you trying to justify it as it wasnt is transparent and pathetic.

You must think you share ideology with Harris or Hitchens but in reality your understanding of the situation is as basic as your average redneck

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

dogmeat   Czech Republic. Dec 17 2015 10:54. Posts 6374

i m not trying to justify it lol. you should realise ppl using "pejorative and bigoted" terms dont necessarily base their opinions on prejudice.

and wow, you are so smart and educated, i bow to you. thou you should put some time into studying bible before you embarass yourself again next time

ban baal 

dogmeat   Czech Republic. Dec 17 2015 11:13. Posts 6374


  On November 14 2015 07:16 Baalim wrote:
Of course Islam is barbaric, backwards and the worst religion in the modern world but what has radicalized most people against the west has been the US foreign policy for the last few decades.


all your post are in this spirit, the west 'radicalized' them, made ourselves a target, completely ignoring 1400years of jihad against the western civilization mostly



  On December 17 2015 05:17 dogmeat wrote:
sorry baal but you consistently come off a guy who thinks the current situation is 95% foreign policies fault

do they wear rags? i dont see a problem here -_-


my point was that you at least to me come off as someone who puts wat too much weight on the influence of western interventions, doest matter if its 95:5 or 70:30. and i hope you can see why.
have you ever thought about the same situation happeing x years later even without any western intervention? how do you explain rising fundamentalism in asia, turkey or even 19th century SA? ever thought about radicalization over time being natural for ideologies like islam?

btw hatered against west is completely natural, in their minds, one religion - islam - should reign the world, but thats simply not happening, they made 0 progress for ccenturies while they see the west flourishing


ban baalLast edit: 17/12/2015 12:15

dogmeat   Czech Republic. Dec 21 2015 21:26. Posts 6374

ban baal 

 
  First 
  < 
  9 
  10 
  11 
  12 
  13 
 14 
  All 



Poker Streams

















Copyright © 2024. LiquidPoker.net All Rights Reserved
Contact Advertise Sitemap