ilovefuzz.com

snipelfritz wrote:

Snufkino wrote:Why aren't other high ranking politicians of any other party saying anything about how insane this is? And what about the public?

Uhhhhhhhhhhh...because they are?

http://www.wisn.com/article/president-t ... nt/8661575

For some reason the article won't load on my phone, but from what I've heard, Harley Davidson (who was sponsoring) canceled the event because they were worried about the imminent protests.

https://www.etsy.com/listing/476438124/ ... e_active_1

lame.

Andrew wrote:

gr8 pl8 m8 i r8 8/8

nieh wrote:

snipelfritz wrote:

Snufkino wrote:Why aren't other high ranking politicians of any other party saying anything about how insane this is? And what about the public?

Uhhhhhhhhhhh...because they are?

http://www.wisn.com/article/president-t ... nt/8661575

For some reason the article won't load on my phone, but from what I've heard, Harley Davidson (who was sponsoring) canceled the event because they were worried about the imminent protests.

Yes.

My ultimate point is that, in this information-gone-mad age, there is a news source, political blog, forum post, something (legitimate or clearly slanted or utter bullshit) you can easily google that will report or prove anything you want to hear. Anyone saying "why am I not hearing about this?" or "what 'The Media' isn't showing you" is full of shit.

(on "showing what the media isn't showing")If you're putting something online YOU ARE "THE MEDIA" and you must've gotten that information from somewhere, therefore starting/headlining an article with anything along those lines is innately a lie and completely removes that article from any legitimacy in intelligent (the only kind that matters) discussion.

And let's not call it a Muslim ban, let's call it what it is: A ban on what xenophobes think of as "scary brown people." That's the only legitimate title, because any and all references to national security are debunked.

I love the "we need to figure out a vetting process/what's going on" argument. Like that's just admitting you don't know what you're doing. Are you expecting the entire world to stop until you can get acquainted with the job you spent 16 months applying for? Or perhaps you're just full of shit.

Andrew wrote:

Gold.

snipelfritz wrote:And let's not call it a Muslim ban, let's call it what it is: A ban on what xenophobes think of as "scary brown people." That's the only legitimate title, because any and all references to national security are debunked.

I love the "we need to figure out a vetting process/what's going on" argument. Like that's just admitting you don't know what you're doing. Are you expecting the entire world to stop until you can get acquainted with the job you spent 16 months applying for? Or perhaps you're just full of shit.

Speaking from the point of view of a member of the entire world (ie, not America) this is pretty much what we're all thinking.
Except Pauline Hanson, I'm pretty sure she's fingering herself stupid while trying to shit Seafood sticks out into Malcolm Roberts' mouth.

Was that a real TV about the Supreme Court or something? I thought all the rage was about storage units auctions?

rustywire wrote:Because. You never let facts get in the way of a good story @jwar

Also, it isn't a muslim/moslem/islam immigrant ban. Those who suggest it is are editorializing.
We're truly at a place where fact-based reporting/actual journalism in the free press has been replaced by sensationalized blogging; free of fact-checking, proofreading and integrity.

Second line is wrong. First line is pessimistic, third line is totally true.


A) Giuliani confirmed that he was approached to make a Muslim ban not sound like a Muslim ban;

B)A ban that exclusively and deliberately targets Muslims can, more or less, be referred to as a Muslim ban;

C)Trump's own family is hashtagging it as Muslim ban;

D) This is after the dude went on record saying that he'd like to have a registry of Muslim citizens, so this presumption of ill-will is fairly grounded.

E) Any time you say "if you are Christian or Jewish this does not apply to you" in majority Muslim countries... it's a Muslim ban.

F) Any time you run on a blanket ban of "Muslims" (aka brown people from the Middle East) and you have the support of folks who want to "keep the terrorists out" when they associate terrorism exclusively with Islam... it's a Muslim Ban

G) If you tell Israel that none of their 145,000 citizens who were born in any of these seven countries are going to be affected by this ban... it's a Muslim ban.

H) If you want me to concede that it's a ban on Middle Eastern and North African Muslims coming out of countries that we have strategic interest in while shamelessly ignoring the places where actual terrorists who have killed US citizens have come from because El Naranja is a shallow pathetic husk of discarded bronzer and Aqua Net... I would agree to that.

J) "They totally left out Indonesia, how can it be a Muslim ban."

snipelfritz wrote:And let's not call it a Muslim ban, let's call it what it is: A ban on what xenophobes think of as "scary brown people." That's the only legitimate title, because any and all references to national security are debunked.

I love the "we need to figure out a vetting process/what's going on" argument. Like that's just admitting you don't know what you're doing. Are you expecting the entire world to stop until you can get acquainted with the job you spent 16 months applying for? Or perhaps you're just full of shit.

If it were [a ban on what xenophobes think of as "scary brown people"] then wouldn't it extend to every nation of scary brown people?
Seven countries (which were apparently picked by the Obama administration for a similar, temp 6 month bill in 2015) make up the so-called, editorialized "muslim ban" being echoed around ***THE MEDIA*** [insert spooky sound effects]

To combine/condense replies...I think it's to be understood when someone rants about ***THE MEDIA*** it's an umbrellaed critique or condemnation of the old-hat mainstream news media (or what presently passes for it) ie regional newspapers like NYT & WaPo... and tv networks such as CBS NBC ABC CNN MSNBC yet curiously enough...not FOX which has been the most popular for at least 10 of the past 20 years. Now most people get their news from facebook and/or twitter, which is new mainstream media but not necessarily...***THE MEDIA***

The old media frames narratives in a way optimized for mass consumption. The new media tailors narrative to influence the individual by using algorithms, which take into account who you associate with/are connected to and your search/purchase history.

to the Obama thing, Foreign Policy did a great explainer on the differences:


http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sor ... ation-ban/

rustywire wrote: Seven countries (which were apparently picked by the Obama administration for a similar, temp 6 month bill in 2015)

I think, more likely, they were picked by Republicans during the Obama administration.

He's insulting Australians now: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 99f87dd752

D.o.S. wrote:Muslim ban

Tali Ban.

ffs

you just saved my morning.

Chankgeez wrote:He's insulting Australians now: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 99f87dd752

Here's my question though. Why were these refugees in detainment camps?