Airbnb warns that it may expel 'Unite the Right' rally participants

[Sliske]

people should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason, so i have no problem with this. including those that dont want to serve gays, whites, men, jews, etc.

The reason this kind of thing is generally illegal is because not only does it normalise hate, but in certain areas like small towns there may be only one hotel or one place to get your hair cut or one hospital. If you go there and they're like "what is this darkie doing in my hospital", you're fucked. The next one isn't for 200 miles.

Libertarian nonsense like this just doesn't fit reality any more than socialism or communism does.

[Barnabas]

Why do you always fall back on Charlottesville? Do you know how many rallies there have been before and since where the only people getting arrested and the only people getting violent are antifa? Also, border security and proper immigration control is something both Obama and Clinton campaigned on so why does the issue suddenly belong to white nationals?

people use that one because someone died

[Ragedaug]

Trump specifically called to ban Muslims. This ban was the best iteration he could do based on the United States Constitution. That's why they had to re-write it multiple times.

Trump did not ban Muslims from entering the United States. As easy as this is to look up, it's hard to believe you aren't just lying about this, versus just being misinformed. You are confusing campaign rhetoric for what Trump actually did.

As for Miller, I never called him alt-right, did I? I have called him an ethno-nationalist and white nationalist. Of course, you triesd to claim you had no idea that immigration was restricted... well, that looks like you are woefully ignorant on the issue. I showed how it was. Maybve you should bother to learn some things on your own, since it's clear you are not "aware."

I said the Alt-Right has no Power. You said "Stephen Miller is still there" in direct response to my post. So if I understand what you are saying, you admit that Stephen Miller is not Alt-Right...but you are implying that he does their bidding? Sorry, trying to read between the lines because you are kinda all over the place. As far as a piece of poop, ethno-nationalist, and white nationalist - every Leftist finds a way to call every conservative this, so it doesn't actually mean anything anymore. Show me how he's those things instead of slinging labels. and yes...I'm well aware you claim to be a small government die hard conservative..etc, etc., but that doesn't change anything I've stated.

I did lay out the policies, the ones you claimed you were unaware of, interesting.

You talked about a Muslim ban - which doesn't actually ban Muslims.
You talked about cutting immigration in half, when all that is is empty rhetoric. Ending chain migration doesn't mean lowering the number of immigrants, it just means everyone comes in on their own merit. It means I don't automatically become a citizen of another country because I have a cousin who lives there. Is there any other country that allows you to become a citizen because you have relatives in the country? This is a scare tactic of the Left, which you seem to be happily engaging in.

It makes the left look worse and worse every time they call Trump out on his blatant lies? What does that say about the fools who keep believing Trump and siding with Trump? I guess they want comforting lies, over actual reality.

Nope. If they only did what you are saying, they would be miles ahead of the Republicans in the polls, and Trump's approval would not be in the high-40's, matching Obama's approval rating by this time in his presidency.
What I said was it makes them worse when they lie about him. Kinda like what you've been doing. It doesn't help you.

[Spiffums]

The AirBnB's need to bake that cake!

[Machismo]

Trump did not ban Muslims from entering the United States. As easy as this is to look up, it's hard to believe you aren't just lying about this, versus just being misinformed. You are confusing campaign rhetoric for what Trump actually did.


I said the Alt-Right has no Power. You said "Stephen Miller is still there" in direct response to my post. So if I understand what you are saying, you admit that Stephen Miller is not Alt-Right...but you are implying that he does their bidding? Sorry, trying to read between the lines because you are kinda all over the place. As far as a piece of poop, ethno-nationalist, and white nationalist - every Leftist finds a way to call every conservative this, so it doesn't actually mean anything anymore. Show me how he's those things instead of slinging labels. and yes...I'm well aware you claim to be a small government die hard conservative..etc, etc., but that doesn't change anything I've stated.


You talked about a Muslim ban - which doesn't actually ban Muslims.
You talked about cutting immigration in half, when all that is is empty rhetoric. Ending chain migration doesn't mean lowering the number of immigrants, it just means everyone comes in on their own merit. It means I don't automatically become a citizen of another country because I have a cousin who lives there. Is there any other country that allows you to become a citizen because you have relatives in the country? This is a scare tactic of the Left, which you seem to be happily engaging in.



Nope. If they only did what you are saying, they would be miles ahead of the Republicans in the polls, and Trump's approval would not be in the high-40's, matching Obama's approval rating by this time in his presidency.
What I said was it makes them worse when they lie about him. Kinda like what you've been doing. It doesn't help you.

Enjoy building those Straw men? You are arguing against something I simply did not say. Trump called for a ban on Muslims, that is an objective fact that I provided evidence to back up. You trying to argue against something I didn't say is simply disingenuous on your part. Your continued efforts to be disingenuous make you a liar. Period.

Once again, youa r arguing over something I simply did not say. I never called Stephen Miller alt-right. I have called him a ton of other names, that was not one of them. He's simply helping them to push through part of their agenda. Once again, I am right, and you are being disingenuous. Sorry, try again.

You are trying to justify the willful ignorance of the Trumpsters, by blaming the left for it. Once again, you are literally trying to blame the ignorance of Trumpsters on someone else.

Well, now we know who you supported.

Feel free to try more disingenuous bullshit, you've been caught lying twice, I expect more of it in the future.

[Ragedaug]

Enjoy building those Straw men? You are arguing against something I simply did not say. Trump called for a ban on Muslims, that is an objective fact that I provided evidence to back up. You trying to argue against something I didn't say is simply disingenuous on your part. Your continued efforts to be disingenuous make you a liar. Period.

Once again, youa r arguing over something I simply did not say. I never called Stephen Miller alt-right. I have called him a ton of other names, that was not one of them. He's simply helping them to push through part of their agenda. Once again, I am right, and you are being disingenuous. Sorry, try again.

You are trying to justify the willful ignorance of the Trumpsters, by blaming the left for it. Once again, you are literally trying to blame the ignorance of Trumpsters on someone else.

Well, now we know who you supported.

Feel free to try more disingenuous bullshit, you've been caught lying twice, I expect more of it in the future.

Meh. You said "Trump's Muslim Ban", not "Trump called for a Muslim ban". I said "Trump never banned Muslims". If you want to say "I know he never banned Muslims, but he talked about it during his campaign", then I'm not going to argue with you. But when you say "Trump's Muslim Ban", which was never a thing (only talked about but never created), I take exception to it.

Again, if you want to call me out for creating a strawman by you admitting that Trump never banned Muslims and hasn't even tried to ban Muslims, I'll give you full credit and even say you are right, and I'm sorry.

For Stephen Miller, I backed off of saying you said it. I was pretty clear in advising you why I was confused by your language and asked you for a clarification. If you didn't understand, I'll try to reword my request using smaller words.

[Machismo]

Meh. You said "Trump's Muslim Ban", not "Trump called for a Muslim ban". I said "Trump never banned Muslims". If you want to say "I know he never banned Muslims, but he talked about it during his campaign", then I'm not going to argue with you. But when you say "Trump's Muslim Ban", which was never a thing (only talked about but never created), I take exception to it.

Again, if you want to call me out for creating a strawman by you admitting that Trump never banned Muslims and hasn't even tried to ban Muslims, I'll give you full credit and even say you are right, and I'm sorry.

For Stephen Miller, I backed off of saying you said it. I was pretty clear in advising you why I was confused by your language and asked you for a clarification. If you didn't understand, I'll try to reword my request using smaller words.

Trump wanted a Muslim ban, he called for one, and said he would put one in place. That was the best he could do, thanks to the 1st Amendment.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...s-entering-us/

Yep, it happened.

Of course, you also tried to sea lion about Trump and his administration trying to restrict immigration at all. I provided multiple examples of how they did it. You. Are. Welcome.

[Orbitus]

This is your statement.

"You shouldn't be able to discriminate for things that you don't choose - that's why those protections exist. Political ideology is a choice. That's why discrimination is OK in this case."

So then I ask why religion and sexual orientation are protected. They're no different than political ideology, and yet they're protected classes.

Sexual orientation isn't a choice.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

Sexual orientation isn't a choice.

But... being gay is political, right?

These fucking people, man.

[THE Bigzoman]

Someone needs to get fired for bad optics here.

You're having another Unite the Right Rally, didn't even bother to change the name, one year after the first shitshow, in Washington DC before the midterms?

Come on man.

[Poopymonster]

Someone needs to get fired for bad optics here.

You're having another Unite the Right Rally, didn't even bother to change the name, one year after the first shitshow, in Washington DC before the midterms?

Come on man.

To be fair, they wanted Unite the White.

[Deleted]

Racists should be denied service everywhere they go, they are the most primitive and disgusting people on the planet.

Yes, give them no option but to commit crimes to survive or live as hermits in the woods, that makes sense.

How about NO? Especially given how abused the term racism has been.

Would this apply to ALL racists or just to those evil crackers? We all know the answer with leftists in charge. Double standards all the way.

How do you define racism? The left sees all white people as racists simply because they participate in a system they have deemed "systemically racist". They also think anyone who denies them is by default racist. They think the phrase "I don't care about color" is racist too.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump wanted a Muslim ban, he called for one, and said he would put one in place. That was the best he could do, thanks to the 1st Amendment.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...s-entering-us/

Yep, it happened.

Of course, you also tried to sea lion about Trump and his administration trying to restrict immigration at all. I provided multiple examples of how they did it. You. Are. Welcome.

The "Muslim ban" was not really a Muslim ban, it was a ban on 6 or 7 countries majority Muslim out of 50+ countries + North Korea and Venezuela later which are definitely not Muslim majorities.

All these nations are hostile to the US. Trump was wrong for not EXPANDING the list to more countries.

There is no conceivable reason why the US needs anyone from those countries. There are almost 7 billion non-Americans. There is no shortage of potential immigrants AND tourists.

The ban was also not total, it allowed for some exceptions.

[Jonnusthegreat]

This is your statement.

"You shouldn't be able to discriminate for things that you don't choose - that's why those protections exist. Political ideology is a choice. That's why discrimination is OK in this case."

So then I ask why religion and sexual orientation are protected. They're no different than political ideology, and yet they're protected classes.

You missed a few posts buddy. It's OK that you didn't read them. I am also able to read directly what you quoted. Thanks for the recap and reassurance that you haven't been reading the thread.

[Machismo]

Yes, give them no option but to commit crimes to survive or live as hermits in the woods, that makes sense.

How about NO? Especially given how abused the term racism has been.

Would this apply to ALL racists or just to those evil crackers? We all know the answer with leftists in charge. Double standards all the way.

How do you define racism? The left sees all white people as racists simply because they participate in a system they have deemed "systemically racist". They also think anyone who denies them is by default racist. They think the phrase "I don't care about color" is racist too.

- - - Updated - - -



The "Muslim ban" was not really a Muslim ban, it was a ban on 6 or 7 countries majority Muslim out of 50+ countries + North Korea and Venezuela later which are definitely not Muslim majorities.

All these nations are hostile to the US. Trump was wrong for not EXPANDING the list to more countries.

There is no conceivable reason why the US needs anyone from those countries. There are almost 7 billion non-Americans. There is no shortage of potential immigrants AND tourists.

The ban was also not total, it allowed for some exceptions.

And Trump called for a ban on Muslims, did he not? That was just what he could get away with, because we have that darned 1st Amendment that he seems to despise so damn much. It was only shown to be more the case, when he tried to say that Christians would be given special privileges to come here from those countries.

[Deleted]

And Trump called for a ban on Muslims, did he not? That was just what he could get away with, because we have that darned 1st Amendment that he seems to despise so damn much. It was only shown to be more the case, when he tried to say that Christians would be given special privileges to come here from those countries.

Do campaign words matter or results? The result is: it's not a Muslim ban. Period. If it were, it would ban only Muslims, all Muslims.

And even if it were, the 1st amendment is US jurisdiction only. It doesn't apply to someone who's not in the US and not a US citizen. The president could even issue a totally arbitrary immigration/travel ban like "no blondes born in 1985, except if born on Tuesday or August". If he thinks that class of people is detrimental to US interests, he can halt their admission into the US. Don't like it? Tough shit, he's the president, the safety of US citizens comes first, that's his duty. Entrance into the US is not a human right, it's a privilege. Just like entering someone's house.

You also don't have a right to simply enter any country you please at any time.

[Machismo]

Do campaign words matter or results? The result is: it's not a Muslim ban. Period. If it were, it would ban only Muslims, all Muslims.

And even if it were, the 1st amendment is US jurisdiction only. It doesn't apply to someone who's not in the US and not a US citizen. The president could even issue a totally arbitrary immigration/travel ban like "no blondes born in 1985, except if born on Tuesday or August". If he thinks that class of people is detrimental to US interests, he can halt their admission into the US. Don't like it? Tough shit, he's the president, the safety of US citizens comes first, that's his duty. Entrance into the US is not a human right, it's a privilege. Just like entering someone's house.

You also don't have a right to simply enter any country you please at any time.

Yes, they do matter, as it shows what he was trying to do. Results also matter, and luckily, we have a 1st Amendment that prevented him from going full fascist.

The United States Constitution applies to all people under the jurisdiction of the United States government. yes, that even applies to immigrants and illegal immigrants. But hey, I am enjoying you trying to defend fascism, keep going... it's adorable.

Your hatred of freedom is noted.

[OokOok]

people should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason, so i have no problem with this. including those that dont want to serve gays, whites, men, jews, etc.

Interesting, I notice your examples didn't include any controversial exampls? Blacks? muslims? Indians?

Nope, just gays.....whites.....men?(wtf is this one lol? ok feminist antifa calm down)... jews?

[Deleted]

Yes, they do matter, as it shows what he was trying to do. Results also matter, and luckily, we have a 1st Amendment that prevented him from going full fascist.

The United States Constitution applies to all people under the jurisdiction of the United States government. yes, that even applies to immigrants and illegal immigrants. But hey, I am enjoying you trying to defend fascism, keep going... it's adorable.

Your hatred of freedom is noted.

It applies to legal residents on US soil. It doesn't apply to a foreigner seeking admission for the first time. The Supreme Court made that clear. Leftists and lolbertarians are trying to redefine laws to suit their agenda. To quote: "The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores."

https://www.mtsu.edu:8443/first-amen...cle/904/aliens

There's nothing fascist about having standards of immigration. Italy in the 40's was fascist. The US had immigration rules and fought fascism. Every country that fought fascism had immigration rules. This is pointless hyperbole.

An illegal immigrant is not in any meaningful sense under the jurisdiction of the US. He is under the jurisdiction of his home country or the country in which he last entered and stayed legally. No passport was stamped, no entry/departure approved. Legally speaking, his physical presence is a contradiction of the paperwork. He's out of place. He shouldn't be there.

A crook does not become a home owner or legal tenant simply by breaking into a home. He may be physically inside the home, but he has no right to be there.

An inmate does not become free simply by breaking out of prison. He's still under the jurisdiction of the warden.

[Machismo]

It applies to legal residents on US soil. It doesn't apply to a foreigner seeking admission for the first time. The Supreme Court made that clear. Leftists and lolbertarians are trying to redefine laws to suit their agenda. To quote: "The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores."

https://www.mtsu.edu:8443/first-amen...cle/904/aliens

There's nothing fascist about having standards of immigration. Italy in the 40's was fascist. The US had immigration rules and fought fascism. Every country that fought fascism had immigration rules. This is pointless hyperbole.

An illegal immigrant is not in any meaningful sense under the jurisdiction of the US. He is under the jurisdiction of his home country or the country in which he last entered and stayed legally. No passport was stamped, no entry/departure approved. Legally speaking, his physical presence is a contradiction of the paperwork. He's out of place. He shouldn't be there.

A crook does not become a home owner or legal tenant simply by breaking into a home. He may be physically inside the home, but he has no right to be there.

An inmate does not become free simply by breaking out of prison. He's still under the jurisdiction of the warden.

You are defending the banning of Muslims, end of fucking story.

Enjoy your fascism. And yes, your hatred of freedom is noted.

[Deleted]

You are defending the banning of Muslims, end of fucking story.

I'm defending the president's powers to ban whatever foreigners he wants. If you don't like it, then don't support him next election.

Immigration to a foreign country isn't a human right. Not for Muslims, not for non-Muslims, not for blondes born in 1985, not for Trump, not for me, not for you. Not for anyone or any group.

Either a country controls its borders or it doesn't.