Steve Kerr
- Thread starter HRTheCard
- Start date
I just don't really care what Kerr thinks about anything tbh.
...you do realize that Venezuela is Hispanic, right?
What's your point? There are over 400 million native Spanish speakers. To suggest that there is a ban on Catholics or Latinos, is just as ridiculous as to say there's a Muslim travel ban. There are 50 majority Muslim nations.
My point is you brought up Venzuela like it was an example counter to OP's image, while that could not be further from the truth.
Why so people have such a hard time admitting when they made a mistake? Mistakes happen, but denying it just makes people look sad.
Last edited:
And my point, which apparently you're still not getting, is that the travel bans were never based on religion. If so, there would be a heckuva lot more nations on that list. The perpetrators of the three biggest Islamic extremist attacks since Trump's been a political figure (San Bernardino, Orlando nightclub, NYC truck attack) don't even have ties to the 5 Muslim-majority nations on the travel ban.
And the point that YOU seem to be missing is that the OP never said it was based soley on religion. Are you somehow unable to see the word Hispanic in OP's image, or do you just need to make a straw man argument to feel like you won?
Neither "Black" or "Hispanic" are religions, in case you need some help understanding.
So Trump and his administration made travel bans on Muslim countries that had zero ties to any of the Islamic extremist mass-shootings in recent years? Seems a little capricious. The media absolutely ran with the "Muslim ban" narrative. There is no correlation between the mass shootings perpetrated by Muslims and the travel bans of Libya, Iran, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria. So yes, my original post was relevant because the whole Muslim murderer-travel ban connection was hogwash from the beginning.
Your initial post was about Venezuela being majority Catholic, because you thought you had a gotcha (THEY AREN'T MUSLIMS!!!) Problem was, your post was NOT relevant because you were too dense to realize that Venezuelans are Hispanic and were actually already addressed in the image in the original post.
There are two possibilities. Either you:
A) Can't be bothered to read past the first word in a post before typing out a reply that is completely irrelevant and adds nothing to the discussion.
or
B) Were not smart enough to realize that Venezuelans are Hispanic.
So which is it?
Your initial post was about Venezuela being majority Catholic, because you thought you had a gotcha (THEY AREN'T MUSLIMS!!!) Problem was, your post was NOT relevant because you were too dense to realize that Venezuelans are Hispanic and were actually already addressed in the image in the original post.
There are two possibilities. Either you:
A) Can't be bothered to read past the first word in a post before typing out a reply that is completely irrelevant and adds nothing to the discussion.
or
B) Were not smart enough to realize that Venezuelans are Hispanic.
So which is it?
Kerr explicitly believes that the travel bans were placed BECAUSE of RELIGION. "Was the murderer Muslim? --> Yes ---> Travel bans."
He gave his reason right there. He believes the travel bans from the Trump administration occurred due to the perpetrators of a mass-shooting being Muslim. No one in their right mind believes Venezuela is on the list for either race or religion (400 million+ native Spanish speakers/1 billion+ Catholics). Extreme comparison to illustrate a point. The ban was placed on those 5 countries because of active terrorism. It has nothing to do with who the Muslim shooters in America. Also, consider that the culprits of these mass-shootings have ties to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Uzbekistan - not any of the 5 countries on the banned list, and you might begin to realize how much of a disconnect there is with Kerr's belief and reality.
So you agree that you can't be bothered to read past the first line of his image? Possibility A confirmed, I am going assume B is true as well.
And I wonder why people would think Trumps "Travel ban" was based on religion? Oh wait:
Donald Trump said:
If this thread WAS actually just about the Muslim Travel ban, Kerr isn't exactly putting words in Trumps mouth.
For the record, Kerr's point was the issue is always (to some) a problem with the minority population when the shooter is brown, and a problem with society as a whole when the shooter is white. It wasn't a statement about Muslims in particular. Hope that helps you understand what is actually being discussed.
Uh huh. That was back in 2015. You know, before he actually had the power to do anything. Seems like he modified his stance a bit, seeing how only 5 of the 50 Muslim-majority countries are on the travel ban.
And obviously I was only focusing on the first part of the image. I didn't say anything about a wall. I didn't say anything about race. I was only referencing religion, because that is the initial grievance that Kerr makes. Okay? Fact of the matter, Kerr is wrong. It's not a ban based on religion.
It was a promise he made on the freaking campaign trail, or you know his campaign's official policy. Official policy that he tried to enact almost immediately after taking office. Get out of here with this bullshit argument. And once again, the purpose of this thread is not the freaking Muslim ban. What is with your Muslim obsession?
More than a year before he took office. So yeah, not the same thing. At the top of Kerr's page it says, "Our government's policy guideline:" I guess something a presidential candidate says a year before taking office takes precedence over the official governmental policy on immigration. Who knew? Of course deliberating over policy is more meaningful and substantive than words we might say shortly after an emotional event. This is nothing different.
Anyway, let's move on. Because this circuitous argument is getting old.
And fun fact: the immigration executive order was issued within his first week of his presidency. Not once does the executive order mention anything about religion. Weird.
Yeah, it's almost like his lawyers told him he had no chance of getting it past the courts unless he changed his rhetoric.
I honestly don't even care about the ban, but your attempt to act like it wasn't specifically just to ban Muslims is pathetic.It was his stated policy for when he took office. Don't be dense.
I must have missed the part where everyone is supporting white folks for killing these people.
Thoughts and prayers to Steve Kerr for being a re / Lib-tard
Thoughts and prayers to Steve Kerr for being a re / Lib-tard
You missed a lot in the political thread. But pretty much if you’re white you’re racist
Where did anyone say white shooters were supported by the masses? Another day, another strawman.
There is nothing at all wrong with being white (I'm white as hell). Rational people just have a problem when the reaction to events change based on the color of the perpetrators skin. The color of the perpetrators skin should never be a reason to demonize an entire race or culture. And I mean that in both directions (people can be just as racist against white people, without a doubt).
Yup, it’s pretty disturbing. You’ll have people justify this in some way, too.
Clay Travis is terrible.
Should have to lick the spoon.
Should have to lick the spoon.
