Something Wicked This Way Comes!

a reply to: burdman30ott6

So, Conservatives in your estimation believe that those who seek their civil rights acknowledged by the Constitution of the United States ... are all just conveniently using that as an excuse? Pandering for votes?

You just suggested that your long list of well, let's face it, your version of deplorables, are not exercising their rights but are merely covering for their own stupidity, laziness or lack of self control?

If you are, you are mistaken. One of the cornerstones of American conservatism is support for the Constitution and our rights as citizens. Just because you don't favor the actual effects of those freedoms is your own issue.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No, I simply disagreed with the ridiculous idea that conservatives are the dividers in America.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gryphon66

Meh, fine then. Whatever costs me the least money, opens the most doors to opportunity, and keeps my country above the rest of the world I'm for. If that makes me a statist, okie dokie. Let it be known I am only one because of who is currently in power and when that changes I may well return to calling for the whole works to be burnt to the ground.

Your point?

I can't fault your honesty. So, love the state when it benefits you? Fair enough.

Oh, usually we don't refer to the POTUS as being "in power" ... that smacks a little too dictatorish for most.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gryphon66

No, I simply disagreed with the ridiculous idea that conservatives are the dividers in America.

Actually, you went a lot further than disagreement, in my opinion.

Here's the reality. We are all dividers, as you pointed out in your other post. You're in this for what is best for you and yours.

Assuming your comments about all those that irritate you so much are true ... are you going to fault them for doing the same thing?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Oh, usually we don't refer to the POTUS as being "in power" ... that smacks a little too dictatorish for most.

I care.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Oh, usually we don't refer to the POTUS as being "in power" ... that smacks a little too dictatorish for most.

I care.

Really? About what?

a reply to: Gryphon66

You mentioned the Constitution... 14th Amendment, equal protection clause... every special interest group and pondered minority collective I listed are in violation of it. Take "hate crime" laws as an example. How is classification of crime based solely on the by definition "specially protected status" of the victim not a violation of the Constitutional law that clearly states that there must be "equal protection of the law?"

That's my issue.

Double post

a reply to: rickymouse

The kids are better off in that facility than being out on the streets as homeless kids.

How do you know this? I know many kids are abused in places that supposedly are helping them.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Oh, usually we don't refer to the POTUS as being "in power" ... that smacks a little too dictatorish for most.

I care.

Really? About what?

Clearly not about who my usage of "in power" makes uncomfortable. I was being facetious...

That said, your comment on me using "in power" really highlights just how full of hyperbole the "opposition" is currently. Google any past president of the USA along with "in power." Jesus Christ, it's a figure of speech the media and society have used for EVERY POTUS. Why in the name of all thing sour and grape like is it making people uncomfortable now and, perhaps more importantly, when in hell has anyone been expected to change standard usage terms simply because a handful of overly paranoid people are suddenly situationally uncomfortable with the term's standard usage?

It's borderline mass hysteria, dude.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gryphon66

You mentioned the Constitution... 14th Amendment, equal protection clause... every special interest group and pondered minority collective I listed are in violation of it. Take "hate crime" laws as an example. How is classification of crime based solely on the by definition "specially protected status" of the victim not a violation of the Constitutional law that clearly states that there must be "equal protection of the law?"

That's my issue.

LOL ... so, ALL of your list is in violatoin of one of the very strongest parts of the Constitution directed at insuring the rights of the minority?

Care to cite the laws regarding hate crime rather than providing your convenient paraphase?

Your argument loses all credibilty. No hate crime law speaks of a "specially protected status."

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: rickymouse

The kids are better off in that facility than being out on the streets as homeless kids.

How do you know this? I know many kids are abused in places that supposedly are helping them.

So they should be thrown out on the streets till their parents get out of jail? Alrighty.

None of these issues would exist if proper border security existed in the first place.

Common sense needs to stop being stamped out by partisans.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Dude. Your words don't make me uncomfortable. But apparently mine made you so. Try a little less projection maybe? LOL.

As far as your assertion that all Presidents are referred to as "being in power" it's not worth research in any sense.

It was, at best, a side-ways comment that apparently, and I use the term choicefully, triggered you.

I agree with the mass hysteria ... I don't agree with who you think is suffering from it.

EDIT: You know me ... had to Google President in power ... there's nothing on the first two pages. SOoo ...

What the hell do you think is gonna happen to an Americans kids if they illegally enter into Mexico with their parents.....I don't think their gonna have a damn fiesta for them. Normally an adult would spend a considerable amount of time behind bars. Ask yourself this......Why are they coming here ? Why is their country not to their liking? And last, why do they choose to do it the illegal way instead of getting in line and doing the right thing. We have 25 million illegals because of 3 other Presidents.....25 million didn't cross over the night Trump was elected. We let this happen. We let it get to this point. We have no one to blame except ourselves for not enforcing the damn law when it needs to be enforced. IMHO the parents of these children should be brought up on child endangerment charges.....can't be to safe walking across that sieve of a Southern border. Mexico has social services just same as us. They should use their s first, prior to deciding to do an illegal act. I.E, Crossing the border illegally,

a reply to: Wookiep

No wookie. I'm not anybody you know. Just me and my own ability to think and form my own opinions.
I don't understand why you would want to pretend I'm someone else. I wouldn't do that to you.
Besides, why address anything to me at all, since you already know what I will say and "bitch about".

Sorry, didn't watch your vid.

a reply to: openyourmind1262

The question many people, during their emotionally driven virtue signalling rants rarely, if ever ask is how do other countries deal with illegal immigration?

Among the ones that have lax policies, how's that working for them? Look at countries like Sweden.. Not going so well!

People need to start getting real about this and forget the current pop culture fantasyland garbage. If were going to talk about globalism, the people who support the open border nonsense will be the ones who brought us to Orwells 1984. They all think they are so smart now...

a reply to: angeldoll

Not surprised at all. I shouldn't have bothered. Go back to your bubble.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: angeldoll
WE ARE ALL JUST PEOPLE

Wait, wait, wait... are you suggesting Conservatives came up with the NAACP, GLAAD, LGBT, ANTIFA, La Raza, adding whatever country your minority ancestry came from before "-American" when describing yourself, 80 different pandering and excuse dripping terms for "less fortunate," the devisive concept of white privilege, "Mansplaining," hiring quotas, tracking all incarcerations by race to compare to white rates, special protection under the law groups, "hate crime" laws, and I could continue but the idea is clear? Are you seriously ballsy enough to suggest Conservatives are behind application of all these classifications, or is it just that the classifications only matter when they can conveniently be used as an excuse, a tool to pander for future votes, or when some special unequal legal consideration is needed to grab a quick payday or save an ass from their own stupidity, laziness, or lack of self control?

As if this has anything to do with what I said?

I don't give a damn if Mother Teresa ripped nursing babies from it's mother's breast.
It's freaking wrong. I don't care if St. Francis decided some groups of humans are deserving, and others are not.
It's freaking wrong. Just go away. I hate talking to you.

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: angeldoll

Not surprised at all. I shouldn't have bothered. Go back to your bubble.

Well, if insulting me is all you can muster, then it is what it is.

Enjoy your evening.

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: angeldoll
WE ARE ALL JUST PEOPLE

Wait, wait, wait... are you suggesting Conservatives came up with the NAACP, GLAAD, LGBT, ANTIFA, La Raza, adding whatever country your minority ancestry came from before "-American" when describing yourself, 80 different pandering and excuse dripping terms for "less fortunate," the devisive concept of white privilege, "Mansplaining," hiring quotas, tracking all incarcerations by race to compare to white rates, special protection under the law groups, "hate crime" laws, and I could continue but the idea is clear? Are you seriously ballsy enough to suggest Conservatives are behind application of all these classifications, or is it just that the classifications only matter when they can conveniently be used as an excuse, a tool to pander for future votes, or when some special unequal legal consideration is needed to grab a quick payday or save an ass from their own stupidity, laziness, or lack of self control?

As if this has anything to do with what I said?

I don't give a damn if Mother Teresa ripped nursing babies from it's mother's breast.
It's freaking wrong. I don't care if St. Francis decided some groups of humans are deserving, and others are not.
It's freaking wrong. Just go away. I hate talking to you.

"Ripped nursing babies from their mother's breast" holy God, hyperbolize much?