What is the party of your Atlas Forum avatar?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Republican, just like my party IRL.

[DC Al Fine]

My avatar represents the Conservative Party of Canada. If I were an American, I'd probably be a right leaning independent.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Green Party.

I have voted Green here in Austria since I was able to vote. But sometimes I disagree with them, like now for example when it comes to the asylum crisis. The Greens simply want to import as many asylum seekers as possible (100.000s of them) and let them have all the goodies that Austria provides for them. I simply want them deported, most of them - especially the 80% of young males that are coming instead of the women and children who are left behind in the war areas and who are the ones who should be here and not the men, who should fight against Assad and IS and not lurk around the local town squares and surf the internet on their 300€ phones ... I favour a moderate asylum approach with 20.000 asylum seekers max. and not 70.000-80.000 like this year and only for those who are really in need, not economic asylum seekers. The Green Party seems to be reality-denying and playing into the hands of the FPÖ with their constant "wide open barn-door philosophy".

It's repulsive that you think you can pass judgment on Syrian refugees from your computer screen.

Its repulsive that you would attempt to guilt trip him into changing his views.

You know, I've tried parsing this statement and I can't even a little bit. What does this mean? Is it morally wrong to disabuse people of reprehensible notions? Is it wrong to discuss people's political views after they have shared them?

Regardless, I was attempting to do nothing of the sort. Tender Branson has made it clear many times that he is mildly racist (which, I suppose, is why he is on the left in Austria, since he is not a Nazi), and I make a point of not arguing with racists. I was simply making a note for everyone else.

I agree.  Asylum is charity.  A nation is in no way obliged to take every person who wants to come in, and as such, immigration levels are a debatable public policy.  I personally favor allowing a lot in, but this is a matter of opinion, not something where there's a definitive "right" or "wrong."

While it is true that one of the surest ways of judging an individual's moral worth is to ask them about their feelings regarding immigration, this is not in fact about anything so tawdry as politics. This goes beyond that.

This is about White Man appointing himself the judge of whether Foreign Man has earned to White Man's satisfaction the right to live his life outside of mortal danger. White Man has pronounced from on high that no, Foreign Man does not have the right to safety, neither in his country nor in any other country, because it is his job to fight! Foreign Man must earn his basic human rights!

Of course, White Man has never fought for anything in his life. Instead White Man has dedicated his life to posting "Hot or Not" threads on the Internet. But still White Man looks down on Foreign Man and says that Foreign Man has to put himself in mortal danger. Foreign Man is not even entitled to the Internet where all these "Hot or Not" threads are available. If Foreign Man has a 300€ phone, that has no effect on White Man's life, but it offends him all the same. Such pleasures are White Man's birthright alone.

Just stop. You are embarrassing yourself and you aren't winning any fans.

no, xahar is absolutely right. you could try making an actual argument.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I demand a DFL-MN label and a Dem-NPL-ND label!

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

haha what

[Oakvale]

Polls_PuffPass detects an argument about racism and springs into action.

[SWE]

"pollspuffass has gotten so much better"