European Migration Crisis

Typical Bardock defeatism: NO U.

As I have said from the beginning, it's the principle of letting people into your own home. It's very relevant. The only thing you've clarified is your avoidance of answering such a question relevant to said principle.

I've actually made the analogy closer to the migrant question, but I'll spell it out to you.

I'm specifically referring to German letting in an uncontrolled number of migrants. Some of whom have raped, most if not all belong to a religion known for creating terrorists like the ones in Brussles and Paris.

To put it in perspective, Bardock, allow me to pick house owner Mr Kuwait.

On June 26, 2015, a stranger in Kuwait's home attacked a mosque killing 27 people. On the 24th of November that same year, under the advice of the Gulf cooperation council, Kuwait refused strangers from neighbourhood Syria of entering their country whereas Germany decided it was a good idea for the European Union because not all Muslims are terrorists. In December, Paris got attacked by Muslim terrorists and in March, Brussels got attacked by Muslim terrorists. There were also rapes in Cologne, I attribute this to people who don't understand western principles, you may disagree.

Just because some of the strangers you let into your house are blowing shit up and raping people, " it's not all of them" is a retarded argument against the fact that some of these do that and stricter immigration should be put in place. There are already fences between the Austria Slovenia border and fences in Calais, for example.

Mr Kuwait on the other hand, is glad it didn't let strangers in its house and is not receiving the problems Europe is facing.

Do you understand the principle?

Originally posted by It's xyz!
Typical Bardock defeatism

Originally posted by Slay
I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
i don't think you understand the poetry.

Originally posted by Slay
The poetry of you using words that you don't know the meaning of in hopes of appearing more intelligent than you actually are?

Btw, this is what I would call irrelevant to the discussion.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
no.

Btw, this is what I would call irrelevant to the discussion.

If you would rather cheerleader another member than contribute to a discussion, I suggest you not take part.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
If you would rather cheerleader another member than contribute to a discussion, I suggest you not take part.

Also, Bardock's point was that your analogy and the reality of the migrant question are in fact not alike at all. So you admitting that you have ''...actually made the analogy closer to the migrant question, but I'll spell it out to you.'' really only confirms his earlier point, so there's still no point in addressing your 'analogy'.

Originally posted by Slay
Please quote the post where I was cheerleading a member? I was contributing to this discussion by explaining how you're misuse of words discredit your position. It makes you look a bit dumb. And like a try-hard.

Also, Bardock's point was that your analogy and the reality of the migrant question are in fact not alike at all. So you admitting that you have ''...actually made the analogy closer to the migrant question, but I'll spell it out to you.'' really only confirms his earlier point, so there's still no point in addressing your 'analogy'.

It's clear cheerleading because you're attacking my character using a retort Bardock used on me previously.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=624136&pagenumber=2

This being the thread where you said "lol to the power of 10" you're repeating the retort and attacking my character, not my point or principles. I also find it funny that Bardock has disappeared and you're here to attack me. Robtard insulted my alcoholism, Bardock enters the ring to insult my mathematics skills and you're insulting my use of words, probably as opponent number 3.

It's pathetic cheerleading.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
that word was used to describe Bardock. You're focusing on that word and attacking my character instead of discussing the immigration crisis in Europe.

It's clear cheerleading because you're attacking my character using a retort Bardock used on me previously.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=624136&pagenumber=2

This being the thread where you said "lol to the power of 10" you're repeating the retort and attacking my character, not my point or principles. I also find it funny that Bardock has disappeared and you're here to attack me. Robtard insulted my alcoholism, Bardock enters the ring to insult my mathematics skills and you're insulting my use of words, probably as opponent number 3.

It's pathetic cheerleading.

Originally posted by Slay
Have you considered the fact that we all just happen to disagree with you, think that you behave like you're drunk, are bad at math and misuse words?

Troll harder.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
i have considered that fact, that's why I pointed it out.

Troll harder.

Originally posted by Slay
Oh, because just now you said it was because we were ''cheerleading''. So fickle.

I don't get where the disagreement is considering none of you answer my questions.

Clearly fickle.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
that word was used to describe Bardock. You're focusing on that word and attacking my character instead of discussing the immigration crisis in Europe.

It's clear cheerleading because you're attacking my character using a retort Bardock used on me previously.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=624136&pagenumber=2

This being the thread where you said "lol to the power of 10" you're repeating the retort and attacking my character, not my point or principles. I also find it funny that Bardock has disappeared and you're here to attack me. Robtard insulted my alcoholism, Bardock enters the ring to insult my mathematics skills and you're insulting my use of words, probably as opponent number 3.

It's pathetic cheerleading.

You come in here with the presentation that sure "I wipe my ass", but you know what? The halfway measures you take to do it just aren't it. You think precounting your wipes is enough? Well I got news for you buddy, some poops are disastrous. You can't just roll up 4 balls of toilet paper and think you can clean up a muddy marsh.

So you're just walking around with a sometimes dirty butt and sometimes clean rectum and you think you have the right to talk about something sacred like Muslims? You sicken me like Wendy's chili, but at least I have the decency to use a full roll afterwards if need be.

Considering your Muslim mudslinging (which is fitting coming from a guy with a muddy anus) thoroughly trounced.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
cheerleading each other because you all hate me.

I don't get where the disagreement is considering none of you answer my questions.

Clearly fickle.

Originally posted by One Big Mob
I bet your butt smells like shit too. I don't think you know how to wipe good enough.

You come in here with the presentation that sure "I wipe my ass", but you know what? The halfway measures you take to do it just aren't it. You think precounting your wipes is enough? Well I got news for you buddy, some poops are disastrous. You can't just roll up 4 balls of toilet paper and think you can clean up a muddy marsh.

So you're just walking around with a sometimes dirty butt and sometimes clean rectum and you think you have the right to talk about something sacred like Muslims? You sicken me like Wendy's chili, but at least I have the decency to use a full roll afterwards if need be.

Considering your Muslim mudslinging (which is fitting coming from a guy with a muddy anus) thoroughly trounced.

Good point.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
if I don't know how to wipe properly, I shouldn't make an informed discussion regarding open imitation.

Good point.

If you can prove to me with 5 gifs that your butt comes out clean, I will consider your arguments legit. Only then though.

Originally posted by Slay
There's no point in answering your questions because your questions don't reflect the reality of the migrant situation, which is the topic of this thread. Your questions are loaded with bias and are nothing more than a 'trap' you've set in the hopes of getting us to 'admit' to agreeing with you. You're the one that's refusing an actual discussion here.

The topic is immigration. I'm discussing open door vs regulated. I've made many points regarding the actual topic of immigration and I've asked Robards if he thinks it's a good idea to let 25 people in his house. His analogy was so shit he had to edit his post once he realised open door policy is retarded and saying he'd let 25 strangers escaping lunacy in his own house is probably not a good idea.

I've even gone as far as refer to Kuwait, a country that refused Syrian refugees and you more fixated on a 'trap' I've set up, my apparent refusal to discuss immigration (which is simply untrue) and my use of the word defeatist.

You're also taking my posts out of context in the GDF in the hopes of gaining attention from other members at my expense. Using words such as "trigger" to provoke me.

It's shameful and I don't think the mods appreciate this kind of thread derailing or cyber bullying.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
Youre insane.

The topic is immigration. I'm discussing open door vs regulated. I've made many points regarding the actual topic of immigration and I've asked Robards if he thinks it's a good idea to let 25 people in his house. His analogy was so shit he had to edit his post once he realised open door policy is retarded and saying he'd let 25 strangers escaping lunacy in his own house is probably not a good idea.

I've even gone as far as refer to Kuwait, a country that refused Syrian refugees and you more fixated on a 'trap' I've set up, my apparent refusal to discuss immigration (which is simply untrue) and my use of the word defeatist.

You're also taking my posts out of context in the GDF in the hopes of gaining attention from other members at my expense. Using words such as "trigger" to provoke me.

It's shameful and I don't think the mods appreciate this kind of thread derailing or cyber bullying.

Originally posted by Slay
You're just proving my point here. How does ''Letting 25 lunatics escaping an asylum into your house'' relate to offering sanctuary to refugees fleeing a war-torn country? Your whole analogy is based on the premise that Muslim refugees are on par with ''lunatics who escaped an asylum''. Like I said, it's loaded with bias. Of course no-one here would allow 25 lunatics into their house. It's just that that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread. That, is why it's apparent that you're not here to have an actual discussion. You just want to assert your hatred of Muslims. THAT, is what's shameful.

Considering the fact that the original post by Robtard was 25 strangers and 2 of them Happened to be criminals...

Lunacy was Robtards choice of words, referring to me and as a metaphor for the Syrian crisis, not the 25 in question.

Originally posted by Robtard
Looking at the world-wide number of immigrants, even whittling it down to "asylum seekers from Muslim countries" specifically, no, the rape to immigration numbers are not "statistically insane".

This is one incident in Japan. It's like inviting twenty-five random strangers into your house and two happen to turn out to be insane criminals and you blanket claim "two in twenty-five random strangers are criminally insane!", when really, you could repeat that same test a hundred more times and not have a single insane criminal.

But I must remember you like to lie about me.

I'm merely illustrating the differences between open door immigration vs regulated immigration. Using the metaphor of letting strangers into your house as open door migration crisis, and you stating that no one would let strangers in their house, it's pretty sensible to assume that open door immigration is a bad idea. Especially considering, exactly what has happened from a small minority of a small minority.

The fact that they're Muslim is actually very irrelevant and this is the first time I've mentioned them being Muslim. The only migration I've referred to apart from Germany was the Eastern Europeans who migrated to the Americas. It's pretty clear that the native Americans weren't very good at securing their borders.

Now I feel I have to say that Muslims are not pilgrims or you might think that's the case and lol about it in the GDF. I don't think Muslims are pilgrims.

Secure immigration is necessary to avoid criminals, otherwise you get rapes in Cologne and terrorists in Brussels and Paris. Kuwait had a terrorist attack in June and decided "no mass immigration". In fact, a lot of rich Arabic countries decided this, and none of them have had issues of terrorism since.

Mexico has border patrol on its southern border. Austria has border control on Slovenia. Israel has border control on Palestine, and Britain has border control in Calais.

It's not irrational to have secure borders to lessen the likelihood of dangerous criminal activity, just like it's not irrational to not let strangers into your house. Can you at least admit that?