LL condemn the recent Executive Order on Immigration

[DejaHo]

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

---

DejaHo wrote:

Islam wanted to build a mosque on the site of the WTC 9/11 attacks.  Do you seriously believe a Caliphate can't be guilt ridden into the Liberals and pacifists . . . I do! 

---

 

In any case, five minutes Googling

and reading would tell you that the site of the proposed "mosque" is not particularly near the site of the WTC 9/11 attacks, and that "mosque" isn't really a particulalry appropriate term anyway: 

 

---

And ten minutes googling will tell you an entirely different story.  Listening to people who live within blocks will aslo tell you a story.  And I will tell you stories.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

What do you say is inaccurate in what I've read? The address of the contentious site is said to be 51 and 45 Park Place, in New York's financial district.  

Google Maps indicates that the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation (built on the site of "Ground Zero") is some 0.2 miles, or five minutes' walk away, and looking both places with Google Street View appears to confirm you wouldn't be able to see the one from the other.

So yes, I'm sure you have found all sorts of alternative facts nonsense on the internet.   But for something like this it's easy enough to track down the actual facts in th matter.

[Pamela Galli]

Just as an aside: I appreciate that in this forum a diversity of opinion is permitted. That is far from true many, if not most, places.

[Devriv]

Perhaps you misunderstood Medhue’s statement.  He asks a very important question, one which, remarkably, despite the presence and abundance of assertive commenters in this thread, remains glaringly unanswered.  With Medhue’s permission I’ll reword it only slightly:

“How about people stand against the [destruction] of these nations, instead of [standing against] a ban on immigration?”

The question is so simple, basic and reasonable that it would require a very good education not to ask it.  In a free society, it is just the question asked by informed citizens and political commentators.  Here, in this thread, it has remained unanswered because the media has not yet provided an answer that someone could safely regurgitate.      

[Qie Niangao]

---

DejaHo wrote:

It was the same thing we said when President Clinton won, and his numbers were way lower - like ~42%   It is the same term applied with any winner.  The country certainly did not NOT want him either.  

---

This must be referring to1992 where Clinton got just over 43%. In that election, Perot took about 19%, so in addition to winning the electoral college, Clinton outpolled George H.W. Bush, by more than 2.5%, and hence it's not possible to argue convincingly that the country "did not want him" more than the incumbent Bush, which was the actual election.

In contrast, Trump got fewer votes than his opponent. He simply lost the popular vote, and by a significant margin. (Everybody -- literally, everybody -- knows that there aren't 3-5 million illegal aliens who risked deportation to cast fraudulent votes for Hillary. That insanity is sign enough that Trump is unfit for office, but there is so much other evidence that any particular proof is lost in the wave of utter lunacy.)

Other presidents have lost the popular vote and won the electoral college, so legalistic "legitmacy" of the presidential win isn't really the issue. On the other hand, the legitimacy of the electoral college system is very dubious. A device originally intended to preserve slavery, it effectively disinfranchises well over half the electorate: Both in pure "red" and pure "blue" states, a vote has no significance beyond mere ritual, and the parties don't spend any effort on issues important to those voters. It's an anachronism that's become downright dangerous to preserving the union.

[Pamela Galli]

---

Qie Niangao wrote:

---

DejaHo wrote:

It was the same thing we said when President Clinton won, and his numbers were way lower - like ~42%   It is the same term applied with any winner.  The country certainly did not NOT want him either.  

---

This must be referring to1992 where Clinton got just over 43%. In that election, Perot took about 19%, so in addition to winning the electoral college, Clinton outpolled George H.W. Bush, by more than 2.5%, and hence it's not possible to argue convincingly that the country "did not want him" more than the incumbent Bush, which was the actual election.

In contrast, Trump got fewer votes than his opponent. He simply lost the popular vote, and by a significant margin. (Everybody --

literally,

everybody

-- knows that there aren't 3-5 million illegal aliens who risked deportation to cast fraudulent votes for Hillary. That insanity is sign enough that Trump is unfit for office, but there is so much

other

evidence that any particular proof is lost in the wave of utter lunacy.)

Other presidents have lost the popular vote and won the electoral college, so legalistic "legitmacy" of the presidential win isn't really the issue. On the other hand, the legitimacy of the electoral college system is very dubious. A device originally intended to preserve slavery, it effectively disinfranchises well over half the electorate: Both in pure "red" and pure "blue" states, a vote has no significance beyond mere ritual, and the parties don't spend any effort on issues important to those voters. It's an anachronism that's become downright dangerous to preserving the union.

---

True, Texas has more blue voters than many other blue states combined, but their votes count for nothing.

[Derek Torvalar]

---

Devriv wrote:

Perhaps you misunderstood Medhue’s statement.  He asks a very important question, one which, remarkably, despite the presence and abundance of assertive commenters in this thread, remains glaringly unanswered.  With Medhue’s permission I’ll reword it only slightly:

“How about people stand against the [destruction] of these nations, instead of [standing against] a ban on immigration?”

The question is so simple, basic and reasonable that it would require a

very

good education not to ask it.  In a free society, it is just the question asked by informed citizens and political commentators.  Here, in this thread, it has remained unanswered because the media has not yet provided an answer that someone could safely regurgitate.      

---

Or any one of a number of Foreign Policy decisions for that matter. Or even more importantly the Domestic Policy decisions. You know, guns, health care, the state of some inner cities which resemble the citites the refugees are fleeing from. What is LL positionon on all these policies. 

What about LL's position on other countries, like Russian and China? Where is the moral outrage?

And as far as LL making claims to "tolerance", well, what a crock. The hypocrisy of that statement is not to be believed.

Bottom line, it is nothing but pandering. 

[Luna Bliss]

 

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

---

Luna Bliss wrote:

Well Innula what do you think...are we going to be able to prevent the Holocaust 2?

Reality has a bit of an ominous feel to it atm, especially when casting awareness out to the big picture.

---

Well, the Russian and Chinese governments will be pleased to see a diminution in American prestige, influence and economic power, so I think they can be trusted to be the adults in the room and quietly consolidate their gains for the next four years.    

Meanwhile,  I'm pretty sure that the US military and  the grown-ups in the White House and the cabinet will have put in place some safeguards similar to what Henry Kissinger is said to have set up towards the end of Richard Nixon's tenure in office -- apparently if instructions to launch a nuclear attack were received after business hours (and, therefore, when the President had likely been drinking), they should not be carried out without the authorisation of Kissinger or some other senior figure).

So I'm reasonably hopeful we'll survive the next four years.  Though I'm very thankful I don't live in either the USA or the Baltic states.

---

I hope you're right, Innula

I am woefully ignorant about just what kind of power Trump actually has now, as it's not something I've studied much.

[Medhue Simoni]

---

Devriv wrote:

Perhaps you misunderstood Medhue’s statement.  He asks a very important question, one which, remarkably, despite the presence and abundance of assertive commenters in this thread, remains glaringly unanswered.  With Medhue’s permission I’ll reword it only slightly:

“How about people stand against the [destruction] of these nations, instead of [standing against] a ban on immigration?”

The question is so simple, basic and reasonable that it would require a

very

good education not to ask it.  In a free society, it is just the question asked by informed citizens and political commentators.  Here, in this thread, it has remained unanswered because the media has not yet provided an answer that someone could safely regurgitate.      

---

Thank you, Devriv!

I sit here and read all this outrage, over an immigration "ban". Where was and is the outrage over real people dying, on almost a daily basis? Getting blown to bits? This has gone on for well over a decade. Please people, direct your outrage to the bad policies that created this situation. I'm sure that Trump will likely continue this same program that Obama expanded on. Let's stop the cause, and there need not be any bans. Back in the day, we got nations to cooperate and love us with trade, and exporting our products. We did it with voluntary solutions, not with using force. Force and aggression is the problem.

Instead, we see people on the left arguing whether it is OK to sucker punch those that they don't agree with. Yet, these same people want to project moral superiority on the topic of immigration. That is just crazy!

[Luna Bliss]

 

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

---

Devriv wrote:

Perhaps you misunderstood Medhue’s statement.  He asks a very important question, one which, remarkably, despite the presence and abundance of assertive commenters in this thread, remains glaringly unanswered.  With Medhue’s permission I’ll reword it only slightly:

“How about people stand against the [destruction] of these nations, instead of [standing against] a ban on immigration?”

The question is so simple, basic and reasonable that it would require a

very

good education not to ask it.  In a free society, it is just the question asked by informed citizens and political commentators.  Here, in this thread, it has remained unanswered because the media has not yet provided an answer that someone could safely regurgitate.      

---

Thank you, Devriv!

I sit here and read all this outrage, over an immigration "ban". Where was and is the outrage over real people dying, on almost a daily basis? Getting blown to bits? This has gone on for well over a decade. Please people, direct your outrage to the bad policies that created this situation. I'm sure that Trump will likely continue this same program that Obama expanded on. Let's stop the cause, and there need not be any bans. Back in the day, we got nations to cooperate and love us with trade, and exporting our products. We did it with voluntary solutions, not with using force. Force and aggression is the problem.

Instead, we see people on the left arguing whether it is OK to sucker punch those that they don't agree with. Yet, these same people want to project moral superiority on the topic of immigration. That is just crazy!

---

Medhue, I think that LL took the right stance and at the right time.

All wars/bombings can be traced back to one fundamental cause -- the objectification of the "other" and the subsequent justification to demonize and do whatever we want with that "other".
For the first time in a long while there is an attempt to codify, to bring to the forefront and legitimize, to sanction, to make a law regarding our right to demonize a group of people in this way. There is no greater danger than demonizing others, as all war springs from it. There is an attempt to set a dangerous precedent in the US (in modern times).

I totally agree that the US has been paramount in the conflict in the Middle East, and that the bombings are egregious and should be ceased. But LL can't go around taking a political stance on every conflict in the world -- it would never cease and they are not a political organization anyway.
I feel that had we attempted to ban those from another country outside the US they would have taken the same stance, so the bombing in the Middle East is a moot point from this perspective.

It makes sense that they would take a stance on the core root of the problem that is now surfacing and so threatening to the peace of the entire world, and that they would focus on their 'family' -- those employees affected by the current climate.

[Maelstrom Janus]

Of course Lindens is barriers free all all...

assuming you have the cash and youre prepared to pay it in dollars.....

[Maelstrom Janus]

I wonder how many people congratulating Lindens stance have ban lines keeping people out of their own little plot of virtual reality

 

[Luna Bliss]

---

Maelstrom Janus wrote:

Of course Lindens is barriers free all all...

assuming you have the cash and youre prepared to pay it in dollars.....

---

Maelstrom, how do you define the difference between a good boundary/barrier vs a bad one?

[Maelstrom Janus]

I dont - Im not the hypocrite condeming peoples boundaries while setting up my own...

[Luna Bliss]

---

Maelstrom Janus wrote:

I dont - Im not the hypocrite condeming peoples boundaries while setting up my own...

---

So you mean you think we should treat people unfairly or differently based on the color of their skin, or their gender identity/sextual preference, or their religion?

[Maelstrom Janus]

So whats the basis of ban lines in sl then ? Presumably no one who objects to Donny's tactics is going to object if Lindens set the standard by switching off ban lines and cancelling the useof security drones etc in scond life. After all Donalds talking terrorism...I dont see the majority of those factors coming into it all all.....whats the reason for ban lines in sl ??

[Luna Bliss]

---

Maelstrom Janus wrote:

So whats the basis of ban lines in sl then ? Presumably no one who objects to Donny's tactics is going to object if Lindens set the standard by switching off ban lines and cancelling the useof security drones etc in scond life. After all Donalds talking terrorism...I dont see the majority of those factors coming into it all all.....whats the reason for ban lines in sl ??

---

Privacy is one of the good boundaries. I don't want people to come into my house uninvited, or for someone to barge into my dressing stall as I try on a new outfit when out shopping. And in SL I'd like to be able to choose to talk to someone in privacy, or build in privacy so I am not distracted. These are rights I believe all people should have.

But to create a boundary that causes undue hardship on someone based on the color of their skin, their religion, or their sexual preference is unfair and demonstrates prejudice.

They should not be discriminated against and have less rights simply because they were born as a darker person, a woman, or a gay person.

Of course we can always choose not be around anyone we don't like, but we should not have the right to create rules/laws that steal from them what we freely give to others.

[Meow2016]

Makes me wonder if there are employees at LL that support Trump. Maybe have their own personal political views.

Might suck to work there and even be a moderate that is undecided on the issues.

No one wants to say things that make you unpopular at work. Or completely go against stated company values. Replace This issue with anything else up for debate: stretch your self and imagine it with something you are on the fence about and that it is your job. Like I'm against mustang round ups and would hate if a boss sided with the BLM and the mustangs need to be culled.

just feeling bad for that one LL employee that voted trump and has to hide it for job security.

[Maelstrom Janus]

Like I said hypocrite ....Boundaries which suit you....

[Maelstrom Janus]

You cant set up boundaries aimed at stemming very real terrorism but a barrier to protect the privacy of an animated figure is okay...  talk about warped logic lol

[Luna Bliss]

---

Maelstrom Janus wrote:

You cant set up boundaries aimed at stemming very real terrorism but a barrier to protect the privacy of an animated figure is okay...  talk about warped logic lol

---

What proof do you have that the boundaries are aimed at stemming terrorism?

[Luna Bliss]

---

Maelstrom Janus wrote:

Like I said hypocrite ....Boundaries which suit you....

---

Do you allow people to barge into your house or apartment whenever they want?

 

Do you feel we have a right to discriminate against others based on race, gender, or sexual orientation?

[Maelstrom Janus]

Are you nuts or just here for an argument...take a couple of spoonfuls of reality.....

[Luna Bliss]

You didn't answer my question....what proof do you have that the ban is aimed at stemming terrorism?

 

I answer your questions but you never or seldom answer mine.

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Maelstrom Janus wrote:

I wonder how many people congratulating Lindens stance have ban lines keeping people out of their own little plot of virtual reality

 

---

Is that really how you regard the USA -- as the President's own personal plaything, to do with pretty much how he wishes and from which he may exclude people for any reason or none without having to give an explanation?

It's a pretty poor analogy, if you think about it.  I mean, presumably you'd have no particular objection to me, as a Brit, vacationing in the USA, but you might very well complain if I decided to spend that vacation staying in your spare room without your permission.    That doesn't make you a hypocrite.