"I don't have to actually read the primary sources myself because the fact is that I don't want to be tax at a higher rate, period."
Did you not read the part about all insurance premiums going down?
"Anything less than that is highway robbery."
Talking about highways, how are you enjoying that socialised and paid-through-taxes luxury? Talking about robbery, how are you enjoying the socialised and paid-through-taxes police that keep you safe? :-)
Here's exactly how the poll was carried out. If you can find fault, do so (rather than just ignoring it because of who it is).
And again, here are the questions that were asked.
Please, I beg you, provide a meaningful rebuke to the poll's questions or methods. I did so with your source, so do me the pleasure of returning the favour.
I actually check my sources first.
“Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.”
You pay a tax to support a service. If tax needs to be increased or decreased to modify the service to better suit the needs of the population, what exactly is the problem with that? The amount of tax you pay changes often depending on the state of the country and reform to services provided. This is whining for the sake of whining. Anyway, let's go to the actual text to really see what's being said:
"MANNER OF NEGOTIATION- The Secretary shall negotiate such rates in a manner that results in payment rates that are not lower, in the aggregate, than rates under title XVIII of the Social Security Act, and not higher, in the aggregate, than the average rates paid by other Qualified Health Benefits Plan offering entities for services and health care providers." [source]
So, you won't be forced to pay any more than the average going rate for healthcare, ever. That is written in to this bill.
“Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.”
There is no section 59. It starts at section 101. Incidentally, there is also no 159, 259, 359, or 459 to speak of. Great source you got there Joe.
“On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17 percent of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20 percent of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.”
This is absolute crap. Do you actually read the primary sources yourself or do you rely on poor journalism to give you incorrect facts about the sources?
Here is what the report actually says:
"CBO estimates that the combination of provisions included in the amendment would reduce average private health insurance premiums per enrollee in the United States relative to what they would be under current law. The average reductions would be larger in the markets for small group and individually purchased policies,
which are the focus of many of the legislation’s provisions. In the small group market, which represents about 15 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by an estimated 7 percent to 10 percent compared with amounts under current law. In the market for individually purchased insurance, which represents a little more than 5 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by an estimated 5 percent to 8 percent compared with amounts under current law. And in the large group market, which represents nearly 80 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by zero to 3 percent compared with amounts under current law, according to CBO’s estimates. The figures are presented for 2016 as an illustrative example. " [source]
That's bullshit, and you know it. You simply can't argue the irrefutable fact that the US was not set up as a Christian country. Here are some more sources, including an actual scan of the paper that the treaty was written on:
http://nobeliefs.com/document.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html (mid-way down the page).
"...but we also need to realize what this nation was founded on... GOD. One nation under God~!"
No it wasn't. Do you know what Article 11 of the The Treaty of Tripoli is? It was a declaration of peace between The United States and the Tripoli of Barbary, signed in 1796 (only 20 years after the Declaration of Independence), which stated:
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." [source]
"This is ONLY for those who oppose homosexuality, homophobics, those who oppose homosexuality within their family."
I oppose homophobia, so I guess I'm in, right? If, as I beleive it is, that is actually a mistake on your part, then why even bother? What's the point of starting a debate, and only allowing people who agree with your view to post?
Anyway, I have absolutely no worry that a child of mine will be gay. Their sexuality will be absolutely none of my business. As I don't adhere to a religious foundation that teaches homosexuality to be wrong or immoral, I can find absolutely no reason to feel any differently about homosexuals than straight people. There's nothing wrong with being homosexual, and therefore I don't worry about my child being so.
"There was a movie in the footsteps of yeti or something of that sort, though i don't know the exact name! It argues that humans were first yetis and that they all were just parting from that place, and they lost hair due to heat and became men! Isn't that suckingly wierd?"
Bad film plots do not count as scientific theories.
"Firstly - Arranged marriages are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to FORCED MARRIAGES."
No they're not. An arranged marriage is essentially a third party selecting your future partner and a person who you have to spend your entire life with. If the third part is selecting, and the selection of that third party holds regardless of the wishes of those being engaged into marriage, that is the very definition of a forced marriage. I'm sure it would be great for yourself, being male; having a wife selected for you who can, as you believe a women's job should be, be great in the kitchen.
It's not so great for the wife though, being arranged without any choice, in to a loveless and forced marriage of convenience. Women are not commodities. Marriage should be a commitment between two people based on a foundation of love and trust.
Although I don't want to actually get involved in the debate as a whole, I did just have one point that I wanted to make.
"Domesticated cats are just as artificially selected as dogs are. You don't know what you're talking about."
It is actually now thought that "domesticated" cats are the product of natural selection in response to Human agriculture, rather than direct artificial selection for favourable characteristics. So in a way, the evolutionary path to domestication does differ between dogs and cats.
Firstly we must establish that justice is indeed mutable when concerning law within a democratic political system before we discuss measures of righteousness or solutions for dealing with a lack of such.
The majority of western justice systems include measures to amend the law through either the courts or government (in some cases, both). In fact, nearly every democratic country has measures for law addition or amendment by the government. Whilst democracy itself is purely a system of government rather than a statute for how justice is to be determined or whether it be by the elected government, the political theory behind democracy clearly includes the principle that all citizens are equal before the law. Whilst not implicitly stated, it is implied within the very values of democracy that a democratic government should have the power to amend the justice system to better reflect the principle of all citizens being equal before the law.
So, we assume for the remainder of this argument that the justice system is intimately entangled with the principle of a democratic governance system, and therefore measures of a democracy's "righteousness" can theoretically be performed on the quality of the justice system. This measure, as laid out in the description for this debate, should be discretely measurable.
What is far harder to assert within the context of this debate is whether a measure of the righteousness of a democracy in regards to its justice system is even possible, and if so, whether this should affect the ability to amend the law. Scientific measurability is extremely difficult to perform on something that is firmly routed in concept rather than physicality. How exactly does one measure righteousness, and how does one apply that inexact measurement to something as complex as an entire nation's justice system?
Measures of the ability of a justice system are usually performed on conviction rates, or some other measure of effectiveness of conviction or reduction of criminality. However, the current amount of offenders currently being processed (either in prison or awaiting a trial, etc) within the justice system is simply a measure of the effectiveness of the implementation of the laws in place and the effectiveness of enforcing those laws. This is evidently no measure of how right (morally or otherwise) those laws are, or how right the enforcement of those laws are. How do we even begin to discretely quantify a measure of righteousness, and even if we jump that hurdle, how do we apply it to laws? The simple answer, and the one posited at the beginning of this debate, is that we are unable to effectively measure (in any scientific manner, at least) how righteous a law or the enforcement of said law is.
However, I disagree entirely with the solution suggested. I would even go so far as to say that a lack of any scientific measure of the righteousness of justice would in fact point to a solution that specifies that justice must be mutable.
If we ever found an effective measure of righteousness, then justice would be eternal. We would create our laws, create measures to enforce those laws, set up a fair justice system and then effectively end any discussion of what is and isn't fair and just. This assumes an absolute morality though. This would be the only situation where we could have an immutable justice system, because there would never be a need to modify it.
Morals and society change. What would be classed as both morally and legally acceptable even a hundred years ago may now be deemed wrong and illegal. Is this because society was moulded by changes in justice, or was justice moulded by changes in society? (This is most likely a subject best kept to another debate, as it is extremely wide ranging). I suggest that society is always at the forefront when it comes to either justice or morality.
The morals of society drive and mould justice, and this is heavily reflected in the way that the current democratic systems work. Actual governing is carried out by the people governed or the power to do so is granted by them. Members of society choose to elect leaders who, in turn, reflect the wishes of the people within the law. Society picks it government, and its government amends the laws based on the will of the people. (Again, this is something that can be left to another debate: is democracy really the will of the people, or a charade of such?).
If we stick purely to the theoretical aspects of democratic government, it should hold that justice is entirely mutable, and, in fact, a mutable justice system (one with an effective measurement of its righteousness other than by reflecting the wishes of the people) is one of the indicators of a democratic government.
"your an idiot"
Good start. I think you mean "you're."
"without fire eveporation dosent accur (sic)"
Yes it does. Solar energy causes evaporation of water. This is a standard part of the water cycle.
"fire will just attack the person who has the oxygen if you attck with air you give oxygen to the fire"
I'm sure I explained this very very clear in my post.
"if you want to no about the elements ask me cause you are weak (sic)"
I think I'm fine on my own thanks.
"Then it would be VERY, VERY difficult for you to understand where I'm coming from."
I understand. I just think you're wrong.
"Read the disclaimer.. sigh... will you please stop with this xenophobic bs... I'm glad you found a wiki article about it... but don't keep bringing it up here."
I'm sorry if being told the truth annoys you. And I don't use Wikis, just my natural intelligence. ;-)
"When you ask a Brit why he's proud of being a Brit.. would he not bring the past into it? Say because it was one of the greatest empires ever? How powerful it was? Started the industrial revolution and is now one of the most influential nations etc. etc.?"
Some will, and some won't. That's the point. You're stereotyping to create a negative portrayal of white British citizens. Not a single one of those things is a part of my identity and I wouldn't mention a single one of those if someone asked me why I'm proud to be British. (Quite frankly, I find the idea of being proud of where you happened to be born pointless.)
I don't identify myself as a reflection of my country's current or past actions. My identity is my doing, not the collection actions of people who happen to live on the same bit of land mass as me.
"then it's wrong for anybody to dislike anybody (in terms of races/nations).. and I'm pretty sure you dislike French. ;)"
I have absolutely no problem at all with French people. I don't see any sense in essentially grouping together individuals under a collective label and having any feelings, positive or negative, about that group.
You can continue to deny that you're being xenophobic, but I'm sorry, you are. Whether you feel you have a justification to be so or not is irrelevant. People who are racists feel equally that they have justification for their cause, and they, like you, are misguided.
"Xenophobic. I like that. Too bad it's not me though..."
Well, you're doing a very good job of portraying yourself as xenophobic.
"Tell you what.. read upon the history between India and Britain. Read the Indian biased sides, read the British biased sides.."
I know exactly what the history is, and I'm sorry but it's completely and utterly irrelevant.
"THEN tell me why I shouldn't dislike whites. Or have feelings of bitterness at the least."
Because I have no control over history. What my ancestors did to your ancestors is irrelevant in how modern British culture should be portrayed, and is not, in my opinion, a valid justification for the way you feel.
"Home invasions almost always means that they are just there for your stuff."
Actually, yes. Thousands of burglaries happen every day, and I'm sure in a lot of cases they happen when people are at home. There are not, however, thousands of the scenario you described. So, yes, home invasion almost always means that they are there for your stuff.
"Uh, who's going to collect the insurance?"
If they were to burgle my house, then me. I'd buy some nice shiny new shit, and enjoy it knowing that I didn't get shot in the face because I tried to be a hero.
Firstly, I'm an Atheist, so no problem with Abrahamic religion there. Secondly, I dislike capitalism because of what it causes to those outside of the capitalist "bubble"; imperialism, poverty, oppression, exploitation and abuse of human rights. Those inside the capitalist society live it up by exploiting those outside of it; as is the case with Africa. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Thirdly, democratic politics doesn't work with a majority of centrist parties, as is the case in the UK. Democracy should work, and is by far the best possible system of politics, but it's ruined by capitalism's influence. The affluent become politicians, and politics makes you affluent.
So there you go; stereotype broken. I'm yet to see justification from you. Enjoy living your life with the burden of a xenophobic outlook.
"For example, many of us don't like the Iranians because of their threat to the world, not because they practice Islam and have tan/brown skin."
That's still not a morally valid position to hold. For example, would it be acceptable for me to say I hate Americans because I think that their (ex) president was a war-mongerer? No, of course not, because the actions of your president do not reflect on the individuals.
The same with Iranians. Just because their leader is a nutcase doesn't mean that you should hate Iranians. It's exactly the same as the OP's xenophobic stance.
"I want government out of my life."
That's a really naive statement, and simply implies that you don't understand (or you do understand and you're choosing to ignore it) the full extent to which the government is involved in aspects of your life that you would find extremely hard to live without. Do you drive on roads? Do you use electricity? Do your kids go to school? Do you enjoy the freedoms and protections granted to you in a constitution drawn up by government?
"Have you ever talked with a Canadian or a Brit asking them their honest truth about the health care? I have and they hate it."
As a Brit, I can tell you that this is certainly not the case. The NHS is one of the most cherished British institutions in place. Attempting to insinuate that the NHS is a broken and/or unvalued system to try to push your political bias is at best untruthful and at worst insulting to the millions of people (including members of my family and Stephen Hawkings) who owe their lives to it.
I absolutely love the NHS, and most other Brits do too. Don't use the "Brits hate the NHS" argument, because it doesn't hold water.
"By the way if you want the truth Obama is the biggest fraud out there he won't even open up is file so that we Americans can read is college thesis, gee I wonder what he must be hiding"
The following extract taken from this source:
A spokesman said that no student technically could have written a thesis in 1983, since the university didn’t even have a thesis requirement for undergraduates then.
"At the time Barack Obama was a student, the political science department had no mechanism by which undergraduate political science majors in Columbia College could receive recognition for writing an independent thesis,” said university spokesman Robert Hornsby. “The department's procedures for students to write theses were created in the 1990s."
Seriously, how hard is it to spend one minute (that is literally how long it took me to find this source) searching Google before you post irrelevant and unsubstantiated claims?
The calendar on my PC only goes to 2099. Does that mean the world will end in 2099? No, of course not. It simply means that someone decided that they should probably stop somewhere, and arbitrarily chose 2099. The very same way that the Mayans chose 2012 (or not, seeing as it's actually a misinterpretation of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar).
"Surely conservatives have a larger brain."
As those girls in shampoo adverts would say; "here comes the science part."
"The country was still founded by christians. The founding fathers placed their trust in GOD."
Wrong. Do you know what Article 11 of the The Treaty of Tripoli is? No? Well, check it out.
"Yeah, you know, everyone is a victim. Everyone's rights are being trampled on. In this it is the atheists whose rights are being trampled, in the gun control issue it is the pacifists (or whatever you want to label them)."
Well, more specifically it's everyone who doesn't adhere to a monotheistic religion, which is about 20%.
Actually, it's everyone's rights, whether they know it or not. America was set up to escape the religious persecution occurring at the time, and your constitution was set up to protect the rights of the people.
"I guess you can either chose to be a victim as often as possible by subscribing to the views held by every activist trying to change the world or chose not to be a victim by siding with the status quo."
My point was that people cherry pick which parts of the constitution they want to uphold and protect based on their biases and personal beliefs. America is very religious, and will find excuses and poor justifications for why, in this instance, it is okay to go against the constitution's very clear message regarding religion. Yet, because they also really love their guns, the constitution suddenly becomes water-tight with absolutely no leeway.
If you're happy picking which bits you like and which you don't then fine; go ahead. Just spare a thought for all of the history that preceded and shaped the document that became the constitution. As a Brit, I admire the spirit and ideals of your constitution, and by allowing one part of it to be so clearly violated, you open yourself up to the parts of it you do like being next to go.
Saying God clearly indicates a monotheistic religion, and there's no way you can worm around that fact. Regardless of any of the arguments used to back it up, such as it being used to differentiate from Communists (which is a poor excuse to pass unconstitutional law) or that it actually encompasses all beliefs (which it doesn't), it is clearly the acceptance of a monotheistic God (namely, the Christian god) in complete and utter contempt for the first amendment.
"And if you worship no one... it doesn't matter."
Well, people disagree with you, so it clearly does matter. It matters that the constitution can be so clearly contravened with such little opposition, and that the tyranny of the majority is so prevalent and has such sway.
But God forbid if anyone has the balls to try and curtail the ability to freely buy weapons on the naive thought that civilians could rise up against a highly trained and well funded military, but actually use on each other leading to one of the world's highest firearms death rates. Now THAT'S clearly unconstitutional.
"So, to sum up what you are saying, we just don't know about the origins of the universe at this place and time..."
That bit is right, yes.
"...and that the big bang theory is just an assumption and cannot be considered as the beginning of the universe."
But this bit you've misunderstood. The Big Bang definitely happened. It was not, however, the beginning of the universe. It was an event that happened at a finite point in the past that caused space-time to grow exponentially. The universe existed before (though remember what I said about the assumption that time existed pre-Big Bang) the Big Bang, and the Big Bang was simply the rapid expansion of the already existent universe.
What I'm trying to get across is that anything regarding the state of the universe pre-Big Bang is purely speculation (apart from the fact that it existed, as that is required in order for it to expand), as there is no way for us (currently) to see beyond the Big Bang. There may very possibly not have even been a before, as to talk about "before" means that we are subscribing to our linear understanding of time (which is a property of the universe itself). Therefore, any assumptions made about the universe (such as whether time existed, whether the universe had a "beginning", etc) are all just speculation.
They can, therefore, not be used within any logical reasoning (The Transitive Property of Equality you provided in your previous argument) as they are points that are presumed to be correct (axioms) but are actually not so.
"I'm not really getting what you are saying."
I misunderstood the point you were making with referring to the second law of thermodynamics. I've often heard it used to show how the Big Bang could not have happened. Apologies.
The cosmological argument is based on incorrect assumptions and therefore contains a logical flaw.
"2.The universe had a beginning (Big Bang)"
Here is the assumption. The Big Bang was not (or at least, cannot currently be known to be) the beginning of the universe. The Big Bang actually refers to an event in which the Universe expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past. Unfortunately, due to technological constraints, we can not accurately say what happened before the Big Bang; in fact, we can't even say with any certainty that a before even existed. Remember that time is (or could be) a property contained within the universe, and therefore the universe itself exists within a plane that may or may not contain the dimension of time (or, at least, our linear representation of time). Take the first and second law of thermodynamics too. They obviously apply within the bounds of the universe, but do they apply to the actual universe itself? The universe, before the Big Bang occurred, may well have been infinite. Therefore, everything we think regarding the conditions of a pre-Big Bang universe are simply speculation at best.
"The First Law of Thermo talks about the universe being constant, in other words, that it only has a finite amount of energy. "
Time is an integral part of our universe so it is not clear how exactly one would characterise the energy before and after the Big Bang in a precise enough way to conclude it was not conserved. The idea of the "total energy of the universe" is difficult to define properly, especially with regards to gravitational relativity. In quantum mechanics, the Hamiltonian measures the total energy of a system, and the Hamiltonian calculation for the universe shows a zero amount of energy when you offset gravitational potential energy against actual energy, assuming a closed universe. If we assume an open universe, however, then talk of energy conservation is meaningless anyway.
"With the Law of Entropy, things naturally fall apart over time, right? If the universe is becoming less ordered, then where did the original order come from? ... The universe could not be eternal, because if it were, we would have reached complete entropy by now."
This may or may not be true. Thermodynamics considers the evolution through time of the entropy of systems. As such, we can say that the the total entropy of the universe ought to decrease through time (that's assuming the the universe as a whole can be considered a "system" in the thermodynamics sense; which is not at all clear). However, If the origin of the universe also marked the beginning of time itself, then the universe can "start" with an arbitrarily large amount of useful energy without any contradiction to thermodynamics; because there is no period of time during which the universe's useful energy is increasing nor its entropy decreasing. Again, we're making assumptions about time and whether the laws of thermodynamics apply to the universe itself rather than within the bounds of the universe.
I'm not saying you're right or wrong, just that things are far more complicated when they come to the existence of the universe, and absolutely no assumptions can be made, which is what the majority of these "logical quandaries" about the origins of the universe are based on.
Incidentally, does your view of God (ie, infinite) not break the laws of thermodynamics? If you apply special properties to God that allow him to sit outside the bounds of physics, why not allow the same for the universe?
There is nothing to rebuke. You have yourself failed to provide any reason why the points you mentioned point towards any god, let alone the Christian god, being a probable or required starting point for the universe.
Provide some reasons why the afformentioned "acronyms" point towards the existence of a god, and I will gladly rebuke them for you. Are you simply repeating information that you have heard, or do you really understand the concepts you are trying to put across? We'll see. Okay, just for fun, let's take your first point regarding the second law of thermodynamics as the first point of contention.
The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a closed system can never decrease. The entropy is a parameter for disorder. More order means less entropy. The second law of thermodynamics is often used by the religious to implicate a god in the perceived organisation of the world. However, this is a huge misunderstanding, as the second law applies to a closed system only. Although the entropy of a closed system never decreases, the entropy of a local system within the closed system may decrease, as long as the total entropy of the closed system does not decrease. This is very important to remember. Therefore, ordered structures can be created in a local system. For instance, water molecules may combine to form more ordered liquid water. If the second law prevented the decrease in entropy within a closed system and thus the formation of ordered structures, we would never have rain.
Order can most likely be created in a closed system which is far from equilibrium. When a closed system is in the equilibrium state, its entropy has reached a maximum value. The entropy of the closed system cannot increase further. Hence, there is no room to compensate for the entropy decrease of a local system within the closed system unless it is accompanied by an entropy increase in a neighboring local system. By contrast, if a closed system is far from equilibrium, its entropy will increase dramatically, which can compensate for a substantial entropy decrease of a local system. Thus, ordered structures are more likely to be created from a non-equilibrium state than an equilibrium state.
The Big Bang theory backs up this view of the world. The Big Bang creates an initial universe which contains an enormously high energy density and is extremely far from equilibrium. In order to reach an equilibrium state, the universe expanded rapidly, resulting in dramatic increase in entropy. This can compensate for the entropy decrease due to the formation of ordered structures such as galaxies, stars, planets and the life on Earth.
Next!
That's not even remotely close to what he said.
Science is a generalised concept to encapsulate many individual entities. He's right in saying that "science" itself didn't create the earth; it was a process that occured which we encapsulate within the concept of science. The big bang occured, which led to the eventual creation of the universe. The big bang is a scientific theory. So, one of the scientific theories led to the earth's creation, not science itself.
Firstly, learn what fascism is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Secondly, if anyone fits the mould of a fascist, then it is Michael Savage. Let's take a look at some of the defining features of a fascist.
- "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
- "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
- "Obsession With a plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often involves an appeal to xenophobia or the identification of an internal security threat. He cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
- "Pacifism is Trafficking With the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" - there must always be an enemy to fight.
- "Contempt for the Weak" - although a fascist society is elitist, everybody in the society is educated to become a hero.
Michael Savage hits five out of ten (half, just incase you didn't get that) of Umberto Eco's features of fascism, and probably more if I took the time out to go through his quotes a little better and find more specific instances of his disgusting views. Try also comparing Michael Savage to Marx's view on fascism; you may find the exercise interesting.
You're so quick to throw the fascism label around without truly understanging it; using it as little more than a pejorative epithet to attempt to discredit opponents with differing views. Yet you immediately come to the defence of someone who clearly displays the agreed features of fascism.
"In America we have something called the freedom of speech"
I feel I've already covered this irrelevant point in my previous post, so I'll just reiterate it for you. If he wants to engage in religious hatred in his own country, that is his right. His rights as an American do not extend across borders though, and the UK has absolutely no obligation to let him in. If you're going to engage in religious hatred and incitement to violence then I don't want you in my country.
"Give me a link to him saying all Muslims should die."
Third quote down, he advocates the killing of a a billion mulims; well over half of all muslims. If, as you claim, he is only advocating the killing of extreme muslims, then he is labeling over half of the world's population of mulims as extremists. Both clearly wrong and clearly vile.
I tend to stay away from pre-built machines, especially Dell and their customised hardware which ties you into using them exclusively for upgrades, etc. You'll find it cheaper to build your own, or even pay someone a bit to put a customised one together for you.
"He was talking about the Muslim EXTREMISTS! not the normal Muslims!"
He mentioned killing up to a billion muslims. Considering that there are between 1.3 and 1.8 billion muslims in the world, do you think that well over half of them are extremists? He is arguing for genocide, and it defies belief that any person would try to justify and stand up for his disgusting views.
He is clearly spouting religious hatred, and I am proud that my country has made it perfectly clear to him that he is not welcome here. If he wants to engage in religious hatred in his own country, that is his right. His rights as an American do not extend across borders though.
"But if they free North Ireland then they could change their name to Britain. Britain would be the states of England, Scotland, & Wales."
They wouldn't need to change the name; the name for England, Scotland and Wales is already Great Britain. Great Britain and the UK are two seperate things, both exist at the same time and denote different things. There would be no change in name by expelling Northern Ireland; the United Kingdom would simply no longer exist and only Great Britain would be left.
No, you're obviously not understanding. The name would stay the same, as Great Britain refers to the constitutional monarchy and unitary state of England, Scotland and Wales. The United Kingdom wouldn't actually exist without Northern Ireland.
Either way, your point is totally irrelevant. If Northern Ireland were to be returned to the Irish, then the United Kingdom would no longer exist. It wouldn't be a matter of choice.
The United Kingdom is actually a shortened version of "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," so without Northern Ireland there is no United Kingdom.
