Support NeoGAF

[pimentel1]

Yeah blaming someone for another individuals alleged suicide is a bit much, at least without concrete evidence.

This is what I saw:

It’s not a bit much. That’s how it reads.

 

[captainraincoat]

That whole thread was dog piled by the forum with similar banter...Regardless of any one direct impact to this guys mental health having people on mass ganging up like that and being egged on by a moderator is atrocious and is not a good look

Hopefully it’s just a prank but if it isn’t expect the same social justice wheel to spin up again and watch them deflect it

 

[Xaero Gravity]

This is what I saw:

It’s not a bit much. That’s how it reads.

Then you should probably do more research instead of taking the word of a random tweet.

 

[JordanN]

"inflammatory support"

Young Joe Biden bemoaned the lack of empathy for potential lynching parties.

Biden is the front runner because most people aren’t paying attention to the primary yet, he has the highest name recognition, and he was the VP of a popular Democratic president. We haven’t had a single debate yet. Why are some of you so invested in this “All is lost” bullshit?

www.resetera.com

Uh, did they ban him for supporting Trump or Biden? Guise help, my brain can't process this one.

 

[Yoshi]

So I'm going to try again and post some stuff I found on Resetera. And please this time, I hope we don't have 5 users running into this thread screaming for me to stop.

Here is something I was reading yesterday,

Chennai, India's Sixth-Largest City Nearly Out of Water, 550 Protesters Arrested

This is a developing situation that may end up getting worse. Probably a thing we should be keeping an eye on. CNN

www.resetera.com

Keywords: "Climate Refugees" "majority black and brown people"

But that's not all. Here is another post I found dating back from December 2017.

Trump dismisses global warming/climate change because it's cold outside

dp sorry.

www.resetera.com

"Responsible for the millions of climate refugees"

But it's still not over. Here is another post 1 year later.

CBC: Canada to increase annual immigration admissions to 350,000 by 2021

You wouldn't be a particularly smart immigrant if you're trying to exploit the housing market nowadays. There is a lot of volatility in both Vancouver and Toronto currently given the changes in lending practices. Many other markets around the country have already tanked and will take at least...

www.resetera.com

"We need to get comfortable with immigration"
"We need to get comfortable with immigration"
"We need to get comfortable with immigration"
"We need to get comfortable with immigration"

Anyone starting to see a pattern? By the way, I was once again, the first person on the scene to call this nonsense out.




Call it a hunch, but I recognize the danger that you cannot support climate change and unlimited immigration at the same time.

The SJW's however, are much more sneakier than this. They are using the agenda of race to push infinite immigration while disregarding the huge environmental impact this will have on our planet.

It will be interesting to hear how race-expert JordanN proposes to "keep people where they are" when natural catastrophes (caused by the west) make their homes inhabitable.

Under the assumption you do not just want to insist to look at everything through racist goggles, let me explain to you the thought process:
- Mass immigration is a challenge and causes issues in the countries that take in the immigrants. Due to culture clash, due to financial burdens, due to adaptation challenges, due to political push-back.
- If the basis for granting asylum is given, humanity calls for accepting immigration even though the aforementioned challenges exist.
- In other cases, where people illegally immigrated (without base for asylum), but they have been in the country for a long time and adapted well to the society in the host country, it is needlessly cruel to throw them out.
- Climate change is an enormous problem and it sure looks like we will not prevent the worst consequences, because, in large parts, of conservative leaning people and organisations blocking such efforts in pursuit of profits
- As a consequence of climate change, it is projected that serious natural disasters will amass predominantly in poor regions, which makes the places (near) uninhabitable.
- This will lead to refugee number exceeding well beyond what we have seen e.g. in the Syria crisis.

All of these things are consistent: It is preferable to not have a lot of migration due to humanitarian crisis. For several reasons, among them also egoistical points, linked to the challenges of integration. Yet, when there are humanitarian crises, it is our (moral and legal) obligation to take in refugees. Now, it is being pointed out that ignoring the climate crisis will lead to a hard to manage refugee crisis, as a consequence, right-winger positions that combine being anti-immigration and anti-climate-policies are contradictory and will lead to suffering.

 

[JordanN]

It will be interesting to hear how race-expert JordanN proposes to "keep people where they are" when natural catastrophes (caused by the west) make their homes inhabitable.

I wonder what magic Japan used every time they're hit by earthquakes or tsunamis....
Or when Europe destroyed themselves in two world wars but still managed to come back...

- If the basis for granting asylum is given, humanity calls for accepting immigration even though the aforementioned challenges exist.

Who is "humanity"? You mean the United Nations? Yeah they got a good track record of keeping the world in order.

- In other cases, where people illegally immigrated (without base for asylum), but they have been in the country for a long time and adapted well to the society in the host country, it is needlessly cruel to throw them out.

No they don't. This type of thinking is what has lead to current migration problems in Western countries. We initially took on a few, now millions of people continue to pour in because they refuse to to go live in their own countries.

There is no cruelty when they had no right to be here in the first place.

- Climate change is an enormous problem and it sure looks like we will not prevent the worst consequences, because, in large parts, of conservative leaning people and organisations blocking such efforts in pursuit of profits

I don't see liberal politicians riding on bikes to work. Nor living in wood cabins. They're equally just as guilty for contributing to the climate crisis.

Edit: Actually, I lay the bigger blame on the liberal politicians. Whereas conservatives are mostly just ignorant or money hungry, liberals should know that mass migration of people into countries with higher per capita pollution is simply irreversible. They're not going to kick out the 300,000+ people who continue to move here, thus the problem only continues to accelerate faster and faster, but now we also have cultural conflict to deal with.

All of these things are consistent: It is preferable to not have a lot of migration due to humanitarian crisis. For several reasons, among them also egoistical points, linked to the challenges of integration. Yet, when there are humanitarian crises, it is our (moral and legal) obligation to take in refugees.

Except a billion people flooding into Western countries will lead to instant collapse.

It is actually incredibly funny that the only option left is to just keep shuffling people on this earth until there is no where left to run. I do not support this. I support adapting to your environment.

 

[Crash Station]

Yeah, I don't agree with the idea that Beef is really relevant in Etika's potential suicide, at least no more than any random twitter troll is. Tasteless, but not something I'd go out of my way to knock them for.

What I WILL knock Era for is the fact they're locking every single Etika thread despite the fact there's lot to discuss, from various updates posted on his subreddit to people actually taking mental health seriously for fucking once. There are people on Era that don't really check other places due to being in a bubble and an Etika thread would actually be relevant to them. But nope, can't have people pointing out the shit your mods have done because that would reflect poorly on you.

What a fucking joke of a forum.

 

[Yoshi]

I wonder what magic Japan used every time they're hit by earthquakes or tsunamis....

The magic of death and suffering on the one hand and strong monetary resources in the aftermath.

Who is "humanity"? You mean the United Nations? Yeah they got a good track record of keeping the world in order.

Not a person, see point 3 in this definition: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/humanity

No they don't. This type of thinking is what has lead to current migration problems in Western countries. We initially took on a few, now millions of people continue to pour in because they refuse to to go live in their own countries.

There is no cruelty when they had no right to be here in the first place.

If you did not manage to identify illegal immigrants for 20 years, they have established a fully integrated life in the country and participate in society as any legal citizen, then yes, it is needlessly cruel to throw them out at that point. Had you managed to find them in the first couple of years, that's a different story, but after such a long while and in case of successful immigration, it is cruel and nothing else.

I don't see liberal politicians riding on bikes to work. Nor living in wood cabins. They're equally just as guilty for contributing to the climate crisis.

Great argument. First of all, green politicians do tend to use more ecological means of transport where available, second, politics goe much beyond the individual behaviour and hinge on general policy. Investing into clean energy sources, outruling non-clean ones, prohibiting unnecessary plastic items, putting (much) higher taxes on less ecological means of transportation (in particular. flights), there are so many issues that can best be tackled on a collective rather than purely individually.

Except a billion people flooding into Western countries will lead to instant collapse.

It is actually incredibly funny that the only option left is to just keep shuffling people on this earth until there is no where left to run. I do not support this. I support adapting to your environment.

You could also try to not cause humanitarian crises in the first place. For instance by not starting unneeded wars in other countries and by majorly investing into green technologies.

 

[crowbrow]

You could also try to not cause humanitarian crises in the first place. For instance by not starting unneeded wars in other countries and by majorly investing into green technologies.

This is my main beef with the typical right-wing western position. They are typically against environmental regulation, drug legalization and regulation and in favor of foreign intervention and wars and then they whine about immigration when their own policies are causing mass immigration because of helping render other latitudes unlivable. It is like the right complaining now about China dominating the market or cultural invasion from other countries when in the 80s and 90s they were selling us "globalization" as the ultimate goal and value of the capitalist system. I mean the left has a lot of shit going on for them but the right has a real problem with facing how the real world works in these instances and facing responsibility for the policies they have been pushing for decades (and it's not like they weren't warned about this).

 

[Papa]

It will be interesting to hear how race-expert JordanN proposes to "keep people where they are" when natural catastrophes (caused by the west) make their homes inhabitable.

Under the assumption you do not just want to insist to look at everything through racist goggles, let me explain to you the thought process:
- Mass immigration is a challenge and causes issues in the countries that take in the immigrants. Due to culture clash, due to financial burdens, due to adaptation challenges, due to political push-back.
- If the basis for granting asylum is given, humanity calls for accepting immigration even though the aforementioned challenges exist.
- In other cases, where people illegally immigrated (without base for asylum), but they have been in the country for a long time and adapted well to the society in the host country, it is needlessly cruel to throw them out.
- Climate change is an enormous problem and it sure looks like we will not prevent the worst consequences, because, in large parts, of conservative leaning people and organisations blocking such efforts in pursuit of profits
- As a consequence of climate change, it is projected that serious natural disasters will amass predominantly in poor regions, which makes the places (near) uninhabitable.
- This will lead to refugee number exceeding well beyond what we have seen e.g. in the Syria crisis.

All of these things are consistent: It is preferable to not have a lot of migration due to humanitarian crisis. For several reasons, among them also egoistical points, linked to the challenges of integration. Yet, when there are humanitarian crises, it is our (moral and legal) obligation to take in refugees. Now, it is being pointed out that ignoring the climate crisis will lead to a hard to manage refugee crisis, as a consequence, right-winger positions that combine being anti-immigration and anti-climate-policies are contradictory and will lead to suffering.

Why do you say that climate change is caused by the West?

 

[JordanN]

The magic of death and suffering on the one hand and strong monetary resources in the aftermath.

I'm not sure what this means. Are you saying Japan becomes rich every time they're hit by a natural disaster? They're not leaving their island because there's financial incentive to stay in it?

Not a person, see point 3 in this definition: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/humanity

And if I don't want my country to continue losing natural habitats and valuable farmland, it also humane to oppose letting infinite numbers of people coming to live here.

But not only that, I just stated why migration is a short term solution. What's going to happen to the U.S when it collapses? Just move everyone to Canada? And when Canada falls, where do we go next?
No, we can't keep reshuffling humans around untill nothing of this planet remains. I already made reference to Australia and Israel as examples of how countries can still thrive in impossible conditions.

Israel is a desert so they must all be thirsty right? WRONG. They came up with technology to help convert sea water into fresh drinking water. We need more innovation and less migration instead.

If you did not manage to identify illegal immigrants for 20 years,

When we try, we get called "racist". Now that there's millions of illegals living in our countries, any attempt at trying to deport them leads to accusations of "Nazis" "concentration camps".

Great argument. First of all, green politicians do tend to use more ecological means of transport where available, second, politics goe much beyond the individual behaviour and hinge on general policy.

I said liberal, not greens. Or do you think Hillary Clinton falls under that umbrella of taxing companies and banning plastic straw?. Again, let me reminds you politcians like her are frequently fliers and live in mansions that produce more waste than the average person does.

You could also try to not cause humanitarian crises in the first place. For instance by not starting unneeded wars in other countries and by majorly investing into green technologies.

I don't recall Sweden bombing any countries lately and yet they're still taking in millions of "refugees" anyway.

Hell, my country too (Canada) hasn't actually engaged in any war mongering, but Justin Trudeau continues to import 1% of our total population each year with new immigrants.

 

[JordanN]

Why do you say that climate change is caused by the West?

Also this too.

90% of the world's plastic pollution comes from Asia & Africa.

Asia, Africa Cause 90% of Plastic Pollution in World's Oceans

Plastic pollution in the ocean is almost exclusively due to the actions of Asia and Africa, not the United States. Banning straws and plastic bags will do nothing to solve the problem.

www.acsh.org

 

[CyberPanda]

Also this too.

90% of the world's plastic pollution comes from Asia & Africa.

Asia, Africa Cause 90% of Plastic Pollution in World's Oceans

Plastic pollution in the ocean is almost exclusively due to the actions of Asia and Africa, not the United States. Banning straws and plastic bags will do nothing to solve the problem.

www.acsh.org

Yea. Primarily China and India.

 

[Yoshi]

Why do you say that climate change is caused by the West?

Historically and right now, western countries have dominated CO2 per capita and note that other countries with high emissions often do so for the benefit of the west (obtaining resources or producing cheaply for the west).

I'm not sure what this means. Are you saying Japan becomes rich every time they're hit by a natural disaster? They're not leaving their island because there's financial incentive to stay in it?

You are being purposefully dense, right? They are not becomning rich, but they are rich, they are no third world country.

And if I don't want my country to continue losing natural habitats and valuable farmland, it also humane to oppose letting infinite numbers of people coming to live here.

If you demonstrate that anywhere in the world an infinite amount of people lives, I will drop my case.

But not only that, I just stated why migration is a short term solution. What's going to happen to the U.S when it collapses? Just move everyone to Canada? And when Canada falls, where do we go next?
No, we can't keep reshuffling humans around untill nothing of this planet remains. I already made reference to Australia and Israel as examples of how countries can still thrive in impossible conditions.

Israel is a desert so they must all be thirsty right? WRONG. They came up with technology to help convert sea water into fresh drinking water. We need more innovation and less migration instead.

Let's compare Israel to a third world country. Seems clever.

When we try, we get called "racist". Now that there's millions of illegals living in our countries, any attempt at trying to deport them leads to accusations of "Nazis" "concentration camps".

You are just being called a racist because you are a prime example of a racist. It is rare to find someone so obsessed with race issues and pseudo-science pertaining to race-issues. Deporting people who you just found illegally crossing the border is fine. The process must be humane, of course, but in principle, disallowing illegal immigration without grounds for asylum is fine. Deporting well-integrated people after 20 years is not.

I said liberal, not greens. Or do you think Hillary Clinton falls under that umbrella of taxing companies and banning plastic straw?. Again, let me reminds you politcians like her are frequently fliers and live in mansions that produce more waste than the average person does.

Why do you discuss Hillary Clinton with me? I have never been in support of her, other than finding her less terrible than Trump. But still terrible. Yes, Clinton would not have done much to combat climate change - she would still have been a better pick than Trump in that regard.

I don't recall Sweden bombing any countries lately and yet they're still taking in millions of "refugees" anyway.

Hell, my country too (Canada) hasn't actually engaged in any war mongering, but Justin Trudeau continues to import 1% of our total population each year with new immigrants.

I never said only the countries that cause the issues are the ones who need to take in refugees as a consequence.

 

[JordanN]

You are being purposefully dense, right? They are not becomning rich, but they are rich, they are no third world country.

So the solution should be letting people stay and fix their countries right? Not move billions into other countries.

Edit: Or if you're suggesting these countries are just economically poor and can't fix themselves, how is moving billions more poor people suppose to make things better? More poor people = more dependence on government. Guess who's going to have pay for the welfare of these "refugees"? Now imagine billions of them on your door step.

If you demonstrate that anywhere in the world an infinite amount of people lives, I will drop my case.

It's infinite based on virtue there are no more immigration caps.
See the Hart Cellar Act which removed 200 years of the USA being able to control who is allowed inside their borders.

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If we can remove that, then immigration would no longer be infinite.

Let's compare Israel to a third world country. Seems clever.

Israel has only existed for nearly 50+ years, but funny they still picked a desert to build their society on.
Maybe just maybe, my point exists, that humans should start learning how to thrive in their environments, not take over others.

You are just being called a racist because you are a prime example of a racist. It is rare to find someone so obsessed with race issues and pseudo-science pertaining to race-issues. Deporting people who you just found illegally crossing the border is fine. The process must be humane, of course, but in principle, disallowing illegal immigration without grounds for asylum is fine. Deporting well-integrated people after 20 years is not.

And who made you the judge of this? It is not a human right to live in the West, but you already made an example of yourself of calling me "racist" for supporting that.
Also, what defines "well-integrated"? Last I checked, not every illegal person has a certified track record. Maybe if they actually came here legally, their name wouldn't have to worry about being stuck in the mud. But there's no gauging an illegal immigrant to that of a gang banger next door. Not my fault, they can go back home.

I never said only the countries that cause the issues are the ones who need to take in refugees as a consequence.

I'll keep this in mind the next the topic of immigration/climate refugees comes up.

 

[Yoshi]

So the solution should be letting people stay and fix their countries right? Not move billions into other countries.

No one is keeping them from trying. They are not being moved to other countries, they move, that is a different thing.

It's infinite based on virtue there are no more immigration caps.
See the Hart Cellar Act which removed 200 years of the USA being able to control who is allowed inside their borders.

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If we can remove that, then immigration would no longer be infinite.

It is not legally limited, but not infinite either. Putting a number limit on immigration based on asylum is against internation law (rightfully so, as asylum is an individual right).

Israel has only existed for nearly 50+ years, but funny they still picked a desert to build their society on.
Maybe just maybe, my point exists, that humans should start learning how to thrive in their environments, not take over others.

Yeah, really funny, I wonder how it could possibly happen that the Israeli wanted that specific land. Probably because they love sand so much and wanted to be motivated to research ways of obtaining sufficient water resources.

And who made you the judge of this? It is not a human right to live in the West, but you already made an example of yourself of calling me "racist" for supporting that.

I call you a racist because of your intelligence "research" stuff, you constant lamenting of white genocide and nefarious political takeovers by means of immigration. Your further anti-immigration stance naturally gets connected to your overall deeply racist views. The position "it is not a human right to live in the west" is not racist. But your base position / worldview why you make this claim is racist as fuck. And you deliberately make innocuous claims such as "it is not a human right to live in the west" to derive crude, inhumane positions from that that more often than not move the agency in a balatant way (see, e.g. the first quoted part of this posting).

Also, what defines "well-integrated". Last I checked, not every illegal person has a certified track record. Maybe if they actually came here legally, their name wouldn't have to worry about being stuck in the mud. But there's no gauging an illegal immigrant to that of a gang banger next door. Not my fault, they can go back home.

Being fluent in the language, having a job or succesful business, having children in public schools, being an active member of the community. There are numerous indicators to that. Your gang banger insinuation is just another racist talking point and one I will not entertain.

 

[pimentel1]

Then you should probably do more research instead of taking the word of a random tweet.

Kinda hard when they’re deleting everything. And yeah, I’ll take the tweets word over theirs any day considering they’ll label people, including myself, bigots and harass people, because frankly, this sounds right up their alley. But there, I fixed that post. Me fixing my post on the other page is more than they would ever do for me or you.

 

[JordanN]

No one is keeping them from trying. They are not being moved to other countries, they move, that is a different thing.

And I'm saying they can't keep moving to Western countries indefinitely. Especially when there isn't even a climate diaster actually happening. Maybe that tells me they don't actually care and they're just making their way to Western countries anyway?

It is not legally limited, but not infinite either. Putting a number limit on immigration based on asylum is against internation law (rightfully so, as asylum is an individual right).

Source for this?
If that's true, how does Japan get away with only admitting only 20 asylum seekers in a year?

Yeah, really funny, I wonder how it could possibly happen that the Israeli wanted that specific land. Probably because they love sand so much and wanted to be motivated to research ways of obtaining sufficient water resources.

They cared enough that they didn't actually abandon it when they saw first hand Israel is no Europe. It still took people to construct the roads and buildings that could flourish in a desert environment. Maybe the rest of the third world should take notice before they choose to move?

call you a racist because of your intelligence "research" stuff,

Lol, keep crying. If you can't actually refute scientific evidence, calling someone "racist" becomes 100% bottomless.
I only post facts. Just as how I am posting facts in this conversation, it doesn't do me any favors to use "emotions" instead.

I've also posted before that immigration helps turn a blind eye to Native American issues. After all, if governments are happy to import new a population of people, what do you think is going to happen to the old stock?

Or am I suppose to believe that the millions of people who move to the USA are all eager to speak Cherokee and practice native traditions?

. And you deliberately make innocuous claims such as "it is not a human right to live in the west" to derive crude, inhumane positions from that that more often than not move the agency in a balatant way (see, e.g. the first quoted part of this posting).

I don't have a human right to live in Japan. Does that make the Japanese inhuman? I don't think they are. I respect that borders exist and without them, we can't just have millions of people migrating and overwhelming entire infrastructures.

THAT'S humanity. Unlimited immigration to the West because you refuse to fix your own country, that is inhumane.

Being fluent in the language, having a job or succesful business, having children in public schools, being an active member of the community. There are numerous indicators to that.

Except there's nothing that guarantees every illegal immigrant does this. Like I said, they chose to have the baggage thrown on them when they refused to become a legal citizen. That's not my problem and if they hate our countries so much for enforcing OUR LAWS, then why don't they go back?

They choose to come here, they can't demand people respect them. Respect is something that is earned.

 

[nush]

Can you guys take this to the politics forum?

 

[Yoshi]

Source for this?
If that's true, how does Japan get away with only admitting only 20 asylum seekers in a year?

The UN Refugee Convention. The fact that Japan only admitted 20 asylum seekers in one year is, to my best knowledge, not a consequence of a general rule that at most 20 asylum seekers may be admitted.

And I'm saying they can't keep moving to Western countries indefinitely. Especially when there isn't even a climate diaster actually happening. Maybe that tells me they don't actually care and they're just making their way to Western countries anyway?

There are other legitimate asylum reasons. And yes, also people who only move for economical reasons, but these people have no asylum basis for their immigration and therefore are not included in the group I was talking about.

They cared enough that they didn't actually abandon it when they saw first hand Israel is no Europe. It still took people to construct the roads and buildings that could flourish in a desert environment. Maybe the rest of the third world should take notice before they choose to move?

Maybe you are still using idiotic equivalences here, because from the beginning, Israel was not a third world country, with the financial implications that come with it.

Lol, keep crying. If you can't actually refute scientific evidence, calling someone "racist" becomes 100% bottomless.
I only post facts. Just as how I am posting facts in this conversation, it doesn't do me any favors to use "emotions" instead.

You are not posting facts, you are posting racist conjecture based on fringe statistics research. Your "black people are genetrically stupid" line of talking was not not factual. And you ongoing "white genocide" idiocy and the corresponding "war on white people" Resetera-quotations are deeply rooted in your own feelings of superiority and fears of the foreign. It is thinly veiled racist fear mongering and nothing else.

I don't have a human right to live in Japan. Does that make the Japanese inhuman? I don't think they are. I respect that borders exist and without them, we can't just have millions of people migrating and overwhelming entire infrastructures.

THAT'S humanity. Unlimited immigration to the West because you refuse to fix your own country, that is inhumane.

I would need to look into Japanese laws pertaining to immigration to answer that question. Japan is not exactly the easiest country to reach from Syria. I am respecting borders as well and have said that it is fine to prevent illegal immigration. It is just not OK to throw out people who have established themselves over many, many years after immigrating illegally, to treat illegal immigrants inhumanely or to outrule legitimate asylum seekers. You fix your own country talking point when it comes to legitimate asylum is so downright idiotic that I do not think you even mean it.

Except there's nothing that guarantees every illegal immigrant does this. Like I said, they chose to have the baggage thrown on them when they refused to become a legal citizen. That's not my problem and if they hate our countries so much for enforcing OUR LAWS, then why don't they go back?

I never siad there is a guarantee for that. Refusing to become a legal citizen is a very nice term again. Because it is so very easy to become a legal citizen after illegal immigration. You describe it as if they were asked "Hey, do you want to become US citizen?" and they said "Nah, I rather stay illegal immigrant, thanks". How can you not see how this view is totally skewed?

That's not my problem and if they hate our countries so much for enforcing OUR LAWS, then why don't they go back?

They do not hate the country, they do not like being thrown out long after establishing a life in the country. You are again totally misrepresenting people here in a downright demagogic way.

Commenting on what you edited in:

I've also posted before that immigration helps turn a blind eye to Native American issues. After all, if governments are happy to import new a population of people, what do you think is going to happen to the old stock?

Or am I suppose to believe that the millions of people who move to the USA are all eager to speak Cherokee and practice native traditions?

I am confused, what do you think does immigration have to do with fertility rates of Native Americans? Do you feel that Native Americans say "I would really like to get some more children, but since there are ten Mexican immigrants in the neighbouring town, I will keep my genitals in my pants"? What "rational" point do you take away from these statistics?

 

[Contica]

Can you guys take this to the politics forum?

I suggested to Jordan weeks ago he take this in the political thread, but I got laughed out because everything era does is political.

But whining about immigration isn't an era issue, it's a political issue, and I'm fucking tired of reading about immigration in the god damn era thread.

 

[JordanN]

There are other legitimate asylum reasons. And yes, also people who only move for economical reasons, but these people have no asylum basis for their immigration and therefore are not included in the group I was talking about.

To make a long story short, they can take their asylum claims to actual near by countries. The USA doesn't directly border South America and yet migrants still end up on their soil anyway. That becomes obvious they're gaming the system by refusing to to take asylum in the first country they actually cross.

Maybe you are still using idiotic equivalences here, because from the beginning, Israel was not a third world country, with the financial implications that come with it.

Funny you say that. Countries don't just become wealthy out of thin air. It still takes a group of people or a type of society that enables success to flourish or be rewarded.

But even still, if you buy into the argument that these countries are just going to be poor forever, then how is migration/asylum suppose to be a good thing? If you missed my edit, I clearly mentioned that must mean you are going to see more and more people depending on the government, which translates into paying for more welfare.

So which one is it? Do you support mass migration/asylum even if it means most people coming will still need help from the government, or do you believe these people can fix their countries but refuse to and just seek out Western ones instead?

You are not posting facts, you are posting racist conjecture based on fringe statistics research

There is no such thing. Your [lack of] rebuttals and poor memory of what I've actually said (there was never a post I made calling black people "genetically stupid") shows you are still very much ignorant on the subject Refusing to look up any facts, and just throws yourself into a sea of feelings.
You can either be a grown man/woman and actually read the papers presented to you, or you can continue to throw temper tantrums and live in your own reality of delusion. The choice is yours.

Edit: If you are serious about discussing this separate topic in depth, reach me through PM. If not, don't bother to bring it up in future arguments.

I would need to look into Japanese laws pertaining to immigration to answer that question. Japan is not exactly the easiest country to reach from Syria.

This myth has been debunked.
Japan's distance does not actually stop people from moving there. We have people from Central Africa or the Middle East still touch down in America or even England, why the hell would Japan be exempt from the same technology that moves large amounts of people across land mass?

Edit: Also mathematically speaking, Japan is closer to Syria than the U.S is.

I am respecting borders as well and have said that it is fine to prevent illegal immigration. It is just not OK to throw out people who have established themselves over many, many years after immigrating illegally, to treat illegal immigrants inhumanely or to outrule legitimate asylum seekers.

They didn't establish anything. They broke the law and are apprehended as such. I made no mention of treating them inhumanely.
Regarding "asylum seekers", if Japan can only admit 20 people, then I want other countries to establish similar limits.

I never siad there is a guarantee for that. Refusing to become a legal citizen is a very nice term again. Because it is so very easy to become a legal citizen after illegal immigration. You describe it as if they were asked "Hey, do you want to become US citizen?" and they said "Nah, I rather stay illegal immigrant, thanks". How can you not see how this view is totally skewed?

It's called waiting in line. If I want Japanese citizenship, I would send an application and wait for approval. If I cross into Japan without actually being accepted, Japan would be 100% within their right to remove me from their territory. The fault is only those who refuse to follow the rules.

They do not hate the country, they do not like being thrown out long after establishing a life in the country. You are again totally misrepresenting people here in a downright demagogic way.

Because it's not theirs!
If they hate our laws, they have to go back.

 

[JordanN]

Can you guys take this to the politics forum?

When you look at the topics on ERA, the two are nearly inseperable from each other.

For example, just as I was discussing with Yoshi , another immigration thread popped up on Reset.

Italy is in a 'demographic recession' not seen since World War One

China, Japan, South Korea..... now Italy too? Mamma Mia... https://www.thelocal.it/20190620/italy-is-in-a-demographic-recession-not-seen-since-world-war-one

www.resetera.com

And the posts that follow are from the usual suspects with the same themes.

People may not like it, but "immigration" will keep showing up in headlines more and more more frequently. Especially when you look at the agenda tied to each and every one of them.

 

[Yoshi]

Can you guys take this to the politics forum?

So what should I actually do to respond to JordanN's continued racist and xenophobic talling points in this thread? Open a new thread "This is why JordanN's postings in that other thread are unbearable"?As long as these discussions of random Era postings of political issues happen here, I feel the only appropriate place to answer on them is also here.

To make a long story short, they can take their asylum claims to actual near by countries. The USA doesn't directly border South America and yet migrants still end up on their soil anyway. That becomes obvious they're gaming the system by refusing to to take asylum in the first country they actually cross.

The first country suitable to apply for asylum depends on the route. There are indeed rules that asylum seekers who crossed save third party countries can be rejected for that, so I do not know what your point is here.

Funny you say that. Countries don't just become wealthy out of thin air. It still takes a group of people or a type of society that enables success to flourish or be rewarded.

Israel was founded as a rich country, not out of thin air, but out of western protection, and the people who moved there from the west. Israel is a pretty unique situation, it is pretty dumb to holding that up as an example for development of third world countries.

So which one is it? Do you support mass migration/asylum even if it means most people coming will still need help from the government, or do you believe these people can fix their countries but refuse to and just seek out Western ones instead?

I support asylum for legitimate asylum reasons, even if it means people need government assistance, yes. However, after the asylum reason has passed, staying in the country should very much depend on your integration efforts.

This myth has been debunked.
Japan's distance does not actually stop people from moving there. We have people from Central Africa or the Middle East still touch down in America or even England, why the hell would Japan be exempt from the same technology that moves large amounts of people across land mass?

Edit: Also mathmatically speaking, Japan is closer to Syria than the U.S is.

Look at what needs to be crossed to get from Syria to NA (the sea) and what needs to be crossed to reach Japan (a couple of super dangerous countries). Difficult to reach does not exclusively pertain to distance. Also, if asylum laws are particularly strict in Japan, that of course is also a legitimate reason to choose another country as destination.

Regarding "asylum seekers", if Japan can only admit 20 people, then I want other countries to establish similar limits.

Nowhere does it say that this is an established limit, it's only in your head. Whether Japan has too strict Asylum laws (probably yes?) is a different issues.

It's called waiting in line. If I want Japanese citizenship, I would send an application and wait for approval. If I cross into Japan without actually being accepted, Japan would be 100% within their right to remove me from their territory. The fault is only those who refuse to follow the rules.

How is this relevant to the lifes of illegal immigrants who are now already living in the US and have established themselves a life there? They could have tried different routes, i.e. apply to visa (or citizenship, but applying for citizenship from another country is pretty much a waste of time and you, as a huge immigration-enemy should know that), but that's a decision long in the past and it is still completely baseless to then say they refused to become legal citizens. Refusing to become a legal citizen would necessitate an offer of such.

Because it's not theirs!
If they hate our laws, they have to go back.

They do not hate US laws in general, they do not like being removed from the country.

 

[nush]

So what should I actually do to respond to JordanN's continued racist and xenophobic talling points in this thread? Open a new thread "This is why JordanN's postings in that other thread are unbearable"?

That's a good start.

 

[JordanN]

The first country suitable to apply for asylum depends on the route.

Ok, now you're being dishonest.
Once again, I have proof of asylum seekers themselves admitting they walked through several countries but demanded they only get "asylum" in America.

A country not being "suitable" is not my problem. Maybe they're not actually refugees then if the're mad they're not given free food and a cheque to go shopping?

Israel was founded as a rich country

I thought they were founded by persecuted WW2 survivors? Are you saying they were rich?

Israel is a pretty unique situation, it is pretty dumb to holding that up as an example for development of third world countries.

It's only unique in that the country itself is still rich in spite of its lack of resources and its ability to thrive in the desert.
Meanwhile there are 3rd world countries right now sitting on resources worth billions but 99% of the population remain poor.

I support asylum for legitimate asylum reasons, even if it means people need government assistance, yes.

Well that money has to come from somewhere and if we're talking climate levels of disaster, you are admitting letting in refugees could easily bankrupt nations on a world scale.

Look at what needs to be crossed to get from Syria to NA (the sea) and what needs to be crossed to reach Japan (a couple of super dangerous countries).

There are no dangerous countries in the Americas? What happen to Mexico? Maybe the asylum seekers should go there!

Also, if asylum laws are particularly strict in Japan, that of course is also a legitimate reason to choose another country as destination.

How would they even know?
It's kinda funny to think people living in a warzone somehow also have an encyclopedia with them. Maybe they could apply it to their own region first?

Nowhere does it say that this is an established limit, it's only in your head. Whether Japan has too strict Asylum laws (probably yes?) is a different issues.

All I'm saying is if Japan can get away with such a low number, I request the same for all over countries as well.

How is this relevant to the lifes of illegal immigrants who are now already living in the US and have established themselves a life there? They could have tried different routes, i.e. apply to visa (or citizenship, but applying for citizenship from another country is pretty much a waste of time and you, as a huge immigration-enemy should know that), but that's a decision long in the past and it is still completely baseless to then say they refused to become legal citizens. Refusing to become a legal citizen would necessitate an offer of such.

Then maybe they just shouldn't bother coming here in the first place? Once again, you seem to be arguing that illegals have a right to skip ahead of the line and take a piece of the country for themselves. They don't have that right. They gotta go back home and apply legally if they want in. There sob story is not a right to disobey the law.

They do not hate US laws in general, they do not like being removed from the country.

It is the U.S law to charge people with trespassing.

Hey. Why don't these illegal aliens go trespass the White House or Area 51? Would they still scream racism when the secret service or the army forcefully kicks them out?

 

[Yoshi]

Ok, now you're being dishonest.
Once again, I have proof of asylum seekers themselves admitting they walked through several countries but demanded they only get "asylum" in America.

A country not being "suitable" is not my problem. Maybe they're not actually refugees then if the're mad they're not given free food and a cheque to go shopping?

A suitable country is one that is safe to apply for asylum (and has proper asylum laws). But of course, you need to continue your fundamentally racist abuse angle.

I thought they were founded by WW2 survivors? Are you saying they were rich?

Maybe you should then collect some information on the role western countries, in particular UK and US, played in establishing Israel.

It's only unique in that the country itself is still rich in spite of its lack of resources and its ability to thrive in the desert.
Meanwhile there are 3rd world countries right now sitting on resources worth billions but 99% of the population remain poor.

It is unique in almost every way: Population, founding, support.

Well that money has to come from somewhere and if we're talking climate levels of disaster, you are admitting letting in refugees could easily bankrupt nations on a world scale.

And I also argue towards putting maximum effort into preventing climate change levels of disaster. Yes, a climate disaster would be an existential crisis for humanity and that includes rich countries.

There are no dangerous countries in the Americas?

Where did I say that? It's not like a refugee from Syria would have to cross all of America to reach the US. Also, I'd rather be in Mexico than Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan.

How would they even know?
It's kinda funny to think people living in a warzone somehow also have an encyclopedia with them. Maybe they could apply it to their own region first?

I am unsure whether you have heard about it, but there was an invention called the internet, where you can get information. It is pretty neat, even though it of course also offers opportunities for hardcore racists to spread their ideology. In fact, there was a huge discussion of refugees "mysteriously" owning internet-capable touch phones a few years back. If you were to move to another country from a war-ridden country, would you not take a look which options you have and which appear to be the best choice, among various variables, such as liklihood of getting accepted?

All I'm saying is if Japan can get away with such a low number, I request the same for all over countries as well.

Maybe you should move to Japan then, if you hate current laws in your country so much.

Then maybe they just shouldn't bother coming here in the first place? Once again, you seem to be arguing that illegals have a right to skip ahead of the line and take a piece of the country for themselves. They don't have that right. They gotta go back home and apply legally if they want in. There sob story is not a right to disobey the law.

I did not argue they have the right to, I argue that if it takes decades to find someone has crossed the border illegally, then it is too late to act on that, especially if they have established a life in the country they immigrated into. You do not have the right to steal from me, but if it takes me 20 years to find out you did so, in many countries, you will not be criminally charged anymore, for instance. It's about the time span, the proportionality and collateral damage (family!).

It is the U.S law to charge people with trespassing.

I am no expert on US law, but I very much assume this is not the only law in existence in the US. Disagreement with one individual law does not mean one hates the US law in general.

Hey. Why don't these illegal aliens go trespass the White House or Area 51? Would they still scream racism when the secret service or the army forcefully kicks them out?

Do you expect any answer to this drivel?

 

[Michele]

Can we please stop talking like this hostility and go talk in Politics, Yoshi and JordanN ? Talking about politics on ERA here is fine, but if it's between two it's not cool at all. Stop it, okay?

JordanN , regarding the Italy Immigration thread- the comments in that thread are so insulting. I'm talking this as a Italian person.

 

[JordanN]

A suitable country is one that is safe to apply for asylum (and has proper asylum laws). But of course, you need to continue your fundamentally racist abuse angle.

You could rewrite the definition of "safe" to exclude any country you don't like. That is no longer asylum. It's abusing a system.

Also "racist"? Aren't the refugees racist for wanting to skip an entire continent just to go straight to America? Why don't you call them out if none want to apply for asylum with the neighbors they have next door? Why avoid them or believe their countries aren't "safe"?

Maybe you should then collect some information on the role western countries, in particular UK and US, played in establishing Israel.

The United States had an embargo on Israel until 1967. The UK also made active attempts to stop Jews from emigrating to Israel during the war years. In fact, the same Jewish immigrants had to be smuggled into Palestine with the help of militia groups.

Maybe you're the one who needs to collect more information?

Edit: To also suggest that only Israel had foreign support is HIGHLY misleading. There are third world countries today that still have millions of dollars pumped into them, yet living standards still remain the same as it was decades ago. In other cases, they even went completely backwards (see, the fall of Rhodesia to modern Zimbabwe. Or the fall of former Portuguese territories).

It is unique in almost every way: Population, founding, support.

I already pointed out the population was founded by persecuted WW2 survivors. In terms of support, Israel was up against the entire Arab world and literally a fought a civil war before declaring true independence.. You are actually providing the worse examples right now that Israel was born rich.

And I also argue towards putting maximum effort into preventing climate change levels of disaster. Yes, a climate disaster would be an existential crisis for humanity and that includes rich countries.

If climate disaster still takes place, then clearly your solution would have failed. Mass migration of the economically poor would result in several nations going bankrupt.

Case and point, an all out acceptance of climate refugees would be the fastest way to accelerate complete societal decline.

Where did I say that? It's not like a refugee from Syria would have to cross all of America to reach the US.

And the same can be said about going from Syria to Japan.
Again, your arguments are starting to look dishonest. Did you really think people only go to Japan by crossing dangerous countries?

I am unsure whether you have heard about it, but there was an invention called the internet, where you can get information. It is pretty neat, even though it of course also offers opportunities for hardcore racists to spread their ideology. In fact, there was a huge discussion of refugees "mysteriously" owning internet-capable touch phones a few years back. If you were to move to another country from a war-ridden country, would you not take a look which options you have and which appear to be the best choice, among various variables, such as liklihood of getting accepted?

Well if I was in a war torn country, my first choice wouldn't be to go on the internet and waste time looking up a foreign country that doesn't even speak the same language as mine, let alone, have two completely different cultures. I would either evacuate to safer parts of the country or actually fight back.

It actually speaks volumes if there are millions of people with access to technology but they would rather permanently desert, then either enlist in the army or go into hiding until the war is over.

Maybe you should move to Japan then, if you hate current laws in your country so much.

Fortunately for me, I actually try and have hope for my own country first before choosing to abandon it. I actually don't want to suffer the same fate of Syria if the population is more occupied with living in foreign countries with completely opposite cultures then actually staying behind and trying to improve it.

I did not argue they have the right to, I argue that if it takes decades to find someone has crossed the border illegally, then it is too late to act on that, especially if they have established a life in the country they immigrated into.

I hope you apply this logic to all other crimes in life. Do murderers get away with killing someone 20 years ago if they weren't caught yet?

I am no expert on US law, but I very much assume this is not the only law in existence in the US. Disagreement with one individual law does not mean one hates the US law in general.

Which country came up with it? If you answer U.S, they are hating a law that was passed by actual citizens of the country.

Do you expect any answer to this drivel?

If illegals can make a blatant mockery of U.S laws, then I would prefer for them to be true to their convictions. Let them tresspass into governemnt sanctioned buildings and sell their sob story to the President.

 

[fantomena]

Jesus christ on a stick, get that shit out of here.

I don't care and you guys are filling the pages with walls of texts and quotes.

 

[JordanN]

I think it's actually important to leave it up.

It serves as proof that one can make arguments against immigration, while the other side is only use to calling the other "racist".

This is how we define narratives. If one side has facts on their side, but the other only has emotion, which do you feel is more important to guide public policy?

Unfortunately, when you look at modern politics at large, most people are too afraid of including facts in their arguments. That is how we end up with modern people being very susceptible to brainwashing because they're not taught to think critically for themselves.

 

[fantomena]

I think it's actually important to leave it up.

It serves as proof that one can make arguments against immigration, while the other side is only use to calling the other "racist".

Make a thread then. I don't care. Probably lots of other people that also don't care.

Make a thread for those who cares.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

anyone find it weird that incest pr0n thread keeps showing up on their front page?

 

[RSB]

Make a thread then. I don't care. Probably lots of other people that also don't care.

Make a thread for those who cares.

Yeah, it's an interesting topic IMO, but it would definitely be better to discuss it in its own thread.

 

[Yoshi]

You could rewrite the definition of "safe" to exclude any country you don't like. That is no longer asylum. It's abusing a system.

This is not for the refugees to define, but for the countries that accept or reject refugees. For instance, for Germany, safe third party countries are every EU country, Switzerland, Norway,

The United States had an embargo on Israel until 1967. The UK also made active attempts to stop Jews from emigrating to Israel during the war years. In fact, the same Jewish immigrants had to be smuggled into Palestine with the help of militia groups.

Maybe you're the one who needs to collect more information?

Israel only exists since 1948, so it was only 20 years until they obtained a particularly strong (unique even) support by the US in form of the qualitative military edge. Israel's situation is not comparable to a third world country at all.

And the same can be said about going from Syria to Japan.
Again, your arguments are starting to look dishonest. Did you really think people only go to Japan by crossing dangerous countries?

No, I was arguing that one reason why the way to Japan may be seen as more dangerous than to America is, that the direct line you suggested in your images would cross several dangerous countries, whereas it would only cross the sea to reach America.

Well if I was in a war torn country, my first choice wouldn't be to go on the internet and waste time looking up a foreign country that doesn't even speak the same language as mine, let alone, have two completely different cultures.

If you were about to run away from your country, I am pretty sure you would research where to go. It would be tremendously stupid not to. And if you were coming from a majority muslim state, choosing one with very similar culture would provide difficult, because the majority of majority muslim countries are not exactly liberal democracies.

It actually speaks volumes if there are millions of people with access to technology but they would rather permanently desert, then either enlist in the army or go into hiding until the war is over.

Enlist in the army to fight for Assad is your solution? You seem to forget that Syria is not a democracy.

I hope you apply this logic to all other crimes in life. Do murderers get away with killing someone 20 years ago if they weren't caught yet?

Murder in most countries has no limitations, but other crimes do. It is unsurprising you want to put murder and illegal immigration on the same level though.

Which country came up with it? If you answer U.S, they are hating a law that was passed by actual citizens of the country.

They dislike ONE law in the US, not US law in general was all I said, no idea how what you answered now relates to that.

If illegals can make a blatant mockery of U.S laws, then I would prefer for them to be true to their convictions. Let them tresspass into governemnt sanctioned buildings and sell their sob story to the President.

I will read that as "no".

 

[JordanN]

No, I was arguing that one reason why the way to Japan may be seen as more dangerous than to America is, that the direct line you suggested in your images would cross several dangerous countries, whereas it would only cross the sea to reach America.

You're being dishonest again.

Syrians aren't walking on water. They're taking an airplane to go to the U.S. An airplane doesn't drive itself into the ground to get to Japan.


And with that, I think I'm done lest I hear an argument that airplanes are racist.

 

[JORMBO]

I keep scrolling past these giant wall of text posts. You guys can PM each other to discuss since you two are the only ones that care.

 

[Yoshi]

You're being dishonest again.

Syrians aren't walking on water. They're taking an airplane to go to the U.S. An airplane doesn't drive itself into the ground to get to Japan.

There are other means to traverse water than airplanes and thus we have one reasonably safe way to get to Japan, that is entirely the same for going to the US, but an additional reasonably save way to get to the US (by boat / ship). And if you take an airplane anyway, then it is reasonable to consider factors such as
- how likely is it one gets accepted?
- do you maybe already understand the language (partially)
- ... or at least the alphabet used?

 

[kbear]

Someone nuke this page.

 

[nush]

anyone find it weird that incest pr0n thread keeps showing up on their front page?

That's based on your internet history. Embarrassing huh?

 

[sevoro]

I don't think either side is providing cold hard facts cause I don't see any indisputable (neither left or right leaning) sources, therefore I ask for facts.

 

[EviLore]

Leave the political bickering out of this thread or the involved parties will get reply banned. Start a thread in the Politics section or a PM conversation if you’d like to continue the discussion. Thanks.

 

[JORMBO]

ERA pretty much already does this. I wonder if they will make it an official stance...
“Popular knitting and crocheting website Ravelry (with approx. 8 million members) bans all support for Donald Trump”

Popular knitting and crocheting website Ravelry (with approx. 8 million members) bans all support for Donald Trump

https://www.ravelry.com/content/no-trump

www.resetera.com

 

[48086]

ERA pretty much already does this. I wonder if they will make it an official stance...
“Popular knitting and crocheting website Ravelry (with approx. 8 million members) bans all support for Donald Trump”

Popular knitting and crocheting website Ravelry (with approx. 8 million members) bans all support for Donald Trump

https://www.ravelry.com/content/no-trump

www.resetera.com

The meltdown when Trump wins 2020 is going to be unbelievable.

 

[NickFire]

ERA pretty much already does this. I wonder if they will make it an official stance...
“Popular knitting and crocheting website Ravelry (with approx. 8 million members) bans all support for Donald Trump”

Popular knitting and crocheting website Ravelry (with approx. 8 million members) bans all support for Donald Trump

https://www.ravelry.com/content/no-trump

www.resetera.com

Critical error. Does not compute. Restart now or continue?

Was told Republican party almost irrelevant because consists mainly of old people. Now a website for old people bans all Republicans from speaking. Does not compute. Why is 8 million member website banning its 8 million users from expressing vote. Cannot explain. Brain fried. Shutting down now.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Critical error. Does not compute. Restart now or continue?

Was told Republican party almost irrelevant because consists mainly of old people. Now a website for old people bans all Republicans from speaking. Does not compute. Why is 8 million member website banning its 8 million users from expressing vote. Cannot explain. Brain fried. Shutting down now.

Y'know, in an ironic way, these ideologues are doing a great job of showing why "hierarchies" are flawed, because they can be infected by self-righteous do-gooders and corrupted in this way to affect a large number of people at a time.

 

[NickFire]

Y'know, in an ironic way, these ideologues are doing a great job of showing why "hierarchies" are flawed, because they can be infected by self-righteous do-gooders and corrupted in this way to affect a large number of people at a time.

I switched from like to LOL cause I'm laughing at the thought they would ever let facts ever become a narrative. You know how this works. Starting tomorrow the majority of nitters are highly educated people under 35 with 2 children and 3 jobs.

 

[Nester99]

Anyone not banned at era able to start a thread about Steph Curry’s new UA clothing line? Could be interesting as he is clearly a White Supremacy advocate

 

[Deleted member 713885]

Reparations for black folk, how should we do it

So in my mind its not and if, but only a how to accomplish it. So if you want to have a debate on if, then this isn't for you. So I propose a 1 trillion dollar package of straight cash and community reinvestment/housing. I would propose we first do away with tax burden on those 18 and over...

www.resetera.com

HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Deleted member 713885]

Reparations for black folk, how should we do it

So in my mind its not and if, but only a how to accomplish it. So if you want to have a debate on if, then this isn't for you. So I propose a 1 trillion dollar package of straight cash and community reinvestment/housing. I would propose we first do away with tax burden on those 18 and over...

www.resetera.com

HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH