Again, I assign the blame on the parents. The US govt is responsible as far as allowing incentives to be handed out to the people illegally coming here.
So you have no moral or ethical opinion on the subject? You can blame the parents all you want, but then children are hurt. Is that okay with you because it's the parents' fault?
Don't blame me, blame the parents. I did not bring them to a place where there are consequences.
My sympathy with the children is that they are being used as political pawns.
Do you factor in that most of these individuals and families are fleeing violence severe enough that facing these potential consequences seems like the better option?
So you admit this is a better option? We should just send our military in and clear out all the corruption and gangs running those counties and bring all the manufacturing and jobs back to our country so the immigrants coming here can get employment at a decent wage. No paying less to immigrants which drives down employment for people that are already here. That in itself should be a crime.
Claiming asylum is generally seen as a better option than death, yes. I’m not sure why that would be a surprise.
And like I said earlier, the USA has such a wonderful track record of cleaning up messes in other counties... What could possibly go wrong there?
Well the ISIS mess seems less of a threat since we started letting our military run our military. No more lets tell our enemy where we're going to be because that's only fair!?!?!? Are you kidding me that was some f'd up logic. Don't think the people that were being persecuted in the middle east aren't gratteful for having our military over there. They don't want to go through what they went through during the previos administration. Hopefully one day our military can leave there after those countries put in safeguards to make sure that the extremists can never get that much power again. They need to elect some of those badass women that were over there fighting the enemy while the coward men from those countries left them and the children behind to flee with thier balls tucked up their asses.
Tell us, what major changes did Trump make to the military approach regarding ISIS? Most defence experts say that he has generally just continued the approach started by Obama, with minor tweaks, and that the majority of the gains had already started under Obama’s administration. Continuation of the same approach brought some further gains, but no one but Trump claims that he changed the game there.
Trump gave more control to the military. I find it funny that yes Obama did make changes to rules of engagement that didn't take place until his very last month in office. I wonder whyafter all the casualties that it caused for our troops why did he suddenly change the rules of engagement at the very end of his term? You know why, because he knew it was going to get changed. The rules and budget cuts during the Obama administration caused so many negative issues for our military and the people who were being persecuted in those countries that we were supposed to be helping.
Care to back any of those claims with links to reputable sources?
Again, I assign the blame on the parents. The US govt is responsible as far as allowing incentives to be handed out to the people illegally coming here.
So you have no moral or ethical opinion on the subject? You can blame the parents all you want, but then children are hurt. Is that okay with you because it's the parents' fault?
Don't blame me, blame the parents. I did not bring them to a place where there are consequences.
My sympathy with the children is that they are being used as political pawns.
Do you factor in that most of these individuals and families are fleeing violence severe enough that facing these potential consequences seems like the better option?
So you admit this is a better option? We should just send our military in and clear out all the corruption and gangs running those counties and bring all the manufacturing and jobs back to our country so the immigrants coming here can get employment at a decent wage. No paying less to immigrants which drives down employment for people that are already here. That in itself should be a crime.
Claiming asylum is generally seen as a better option than death, yes. I’m not sure why that would be a surprise.
And like I said earlier, the USA has such a wonderful track record of cleaning up messes in other counties... What could possibly go wrong there?
Well the ISIS mess seems less of a threat since we started letting our military run our military. No more lets tell our enemy where we're going to be because that's only fair!?!?!? Are you kidding me that was some f'd up logic. Don't think the people that were being persecuted in the middle east aren't gratteful for having our military over there. They don't want to go through what they went through during the previos administration. Hopefully one day our military can leave there after those countries put in safeguards to make sure that the extremists can never get that much power again. They need to elect some of those badass women that were over there fighting the enemy while the coward men from those countries left them and the children behind to flee with thier balls tucked up their asses.
Tell us, what major changes did Trump make to the military approach regarding ISIS? Most defence experts say that he has generally just continued the approach started by Obama, with minor tweaks, and that the majority of the gains had already started under Obama’s administration. Continuation of the same approach brought some further gains, but no one but Trump claims that he changed the game there.
Trump gave more control to the military. I find it funny that yes Obama did make changes to rules of engagement that didn't take place until his very last month in office. I wonder whyafter all the casualties that it caused for our troops why did he suddenly change the rules of engagement at the very end of his term? You know why, because he knew it was going to get changed. The rules and budget cuts during the Obama administration caused so many negative issues for our military and the people who were being persecuted in those countries that we were supposed to be helping.
Care to back any of those claims with links to reputable sources?
The fundamental issue is our red tape and lack of commen sense. I don’t think anyone should be able to jump the line but they do jump the line because our system forces them to because of no other alternative based on income. I only hope those that choose to leave try to assimilate into our country instead of living in their past and refusing to embrace becoming an American. Why come if you don’t want to belong?
Again, I assign the blame on the parents. The US govt is responsible as far as allowing incentives to be handed out to the people illegally coming here.
So you have no moral or ethical opinion on the subject? You can blame the parents all you want, but then children are hurt. Is that okay with you because it's the parents' fault?
Don't blame me, blame the parents. I did not bring them to a place where there are consequences.
My sympathy with the children is that they are being used as political pawns.
Do you factor in that most of these individuals and families are fleeing violence severe enough that facing these potential consequences seems like the better option?
So you admit this is a better option? We should just send our military in and clear out all the corruption and gangs running those counties and bring all the manufacturing and jobs back to our country so the immigrants coming here can get employment at a decent wage. No paying less to immigrants which drives down employment for people that are already here. That in itself should be a crime.
Claiming asylum is generally seen as a better option than death, yes. I’m not sure why that would be a surprise.
And like I said earlier, the USA has such a wonderful track record of cleaning up messes in other counties... What could possibly go wrong there?
Well the ISIS mess seems less of a threat since we started letting our military run our military. No more lets tell our enemy where we're going to be because that's only fair!?!?!? Are you kidding me that was some f'd up logic. Don't think the people that were being persecuted in the middle east aren't gratteful for having our military over there. They don't want to go through what they went through during the previos administration. Hopefully one day our military can leave there after those countries put in safeguards to make sure that the extremists can never get that much power again. They need to elect some of those badass women that were over there fighting the enemy while the coward men from those countries left them and the children behind to flee with thier balls tucked up their asses.
Tell us, what major changes did Trump make to the military approach regarding ISIS? Most defence experts say that he has generally just continued the approach started by Obama, with minor tweaks, and that the majority of the gains had already started under Obama’s administration. Continuation of the same approach brought some further gains, but no one but Trump claims that he changed the game there.
Trump gave more control to the military. I find it funny that yes Obama did make changes to rules of engagement that didn't take place until his very last month in office. I wonder whyafter all the casualties that it caused for our troops why did he suddenly change the rules of engagement at the very end of his term? You know why, because he knew it was going to get changed. The rules and budget cuts during the Obama administration caused so many negative issues for our military and the people who were being persecuted in those countries that we were supposed to be helping.
"She [a co-owner of the resataurant] told the Washington Post that she decided to ask the Trump spokeswoman to leave the 26-seat, "farm-to-table" restaurant after talking to her staff.
"Tell me what you want me to do. I can ask her to leave," she said she told them. "They said yes."
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
No, it isn't. Your words weren't even used, let alone twisted. H2TM was responding to your comment concerning perceived criminality among immigrants.
You are also twisting my words. Are you saying there are only criminal American citizens?? There has never been a criminal from south of the border come into this country? Stop trying to focus on twisting my words to sound like I think the majority of immigrants coming into this country are criminals. But you can bet your ass I don't want any of the drug dealing rapist gang members coming into this country no matter how small a percentage there is of them. Not one of those scumbags should be able to sneak in. Not only for the people that are already here but also for the immigrants that those low lifes try to prey on. Are the liberals able to comprehend that without twisting my words? I have a hunch not. lol
Question: Do you think our scumbag drug dealing rapist gang murderers are inherently better than the ones from south of the border?
HaHa No but if you f'n liberals stopped fighting for the rights of convicted scumbag murdering rapist drug dealing gang members then maybe it would be harder for them to get back out on the streets.And sanother thing, stop making their time in prison comfortable.
I can't imagine living inside a mind so filled with fear and hatred. I will pray for your soul.
Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
I would of rather they let her eat and pray that she choked on her food!!
I'd say wishing ill will upon an individual is frowned upon as I received a 30 ban for doing so. Maybe it just depends on the person whose demise is wished for.
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
I would of rather they let her eat and pray that she choked on her food!!
I'd say wishing ill will upon an individual is frowned upon as I received a 30 ban for doing so. Maybe it just depends on the person whose demise is wished for.
I’d gladly take a ban or suspension of my posting rights if I knew this pig would not be in this world , so go ahead let mods know I’m braking posting rules !
jesus greets me looks just like me ....
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
I would of rather they let her eat and pray that she choked on her food!!
I'd say wishing ill will upon an individual is frowned upon as I received a 30 ban for doing so. Maybe it just depends on the person whose demise is wished for.
I don’t want to hang out with people that wish ill will on others...
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,757
P.S. Ohhhhh how these threads migrate off-topic.
CHAOS REIGNS!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Again, I assign the blame on the parents. The US govt is responsible as far as allowing incentives to be handed out to the people illegally coming here.
So you have no moral or ethical opinion on the subject? You can blame the parents all you want, but then children are hurt. Is that okay with you because it's the parents' fault?
Don't blame me, blame the parents. I did not bring them to a place where there are consequences.
My sympathy with the children is that they are being used as political pawns.
Do you factor in that most of these individuals and families are fleeing violence severe enough that facing these potential consequences seems like the better option?
So you admit this is a better option? We should just send our military in and clear out all the corruption and gangs running those counties and bring all the manufacturing and jobs back to our country so the immigrants coming here can get employment at a decent wage. No paying less to immigrants which drives down employment for people that are already here. That in itself should be a crime.
Claiming asylum is generally seen as a better option than death, yes. I’m not sure why that would be a surprise.
And like I said earlier, the USA has such a wonderful track record of cleaning up messes in other counties... What could possibly go wrong there?
Well the ISIS mess seems less of a threat since we started letting our military run our military. No more lets tell our enemy where we're going to be because that's only fair!?!?!? Are you kidding me that was some f'd up logic. Don't think the people that were being persecuted in the middle east aren't gratteful for having our military over there. They don't want to go through what they went through during the previos administration. Hopefully one day our military can leave there after those countries put in safeguards to make sure that the extremists can never get that much power again. They need to elect some of those badass women that were over there fighting the enemy while the coward men from those countries left them and the children behind to flee with thier balls tucked up their asses.
Tell us, what major changes did Trump make to the military approach regarding ISIS? Most defence experts say that he has generally just continued the approach started by Obama, with minor tweaks, and that the majority of the gains had already started under Obama’s administration. Continuation of the same approach brought some further gains, but no one but Trump claims that he changed the game there.
Trump gave more control to the military. I find it funny that yes Obama did make changes to rules of engagement that didn't take place until his very last month in office. I wonder whyafter all the casualties that it caused for our troops why did he suddenly change the rules of engagement at the very end of his term? You know why, because he knew it was going to get changed. The rules and budget cuts during the Obama administration caused so many negative issues for our military and the people who were being persecuted in those countries that we were supposed to be helping.
Care to back any of those claims with links to reputable sources?
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
No, it isn't. Your words weren't even used, let alone twisted. H2TM was responding to your comment concerning perceived criminality among immigrants.
You are also twisting my words. Are you saying there are only criminal American citizens?? There has never been a criminal from south of the border come into this country? Stop trying to focus on twisting my words to sound like I think the majority of immigrants coming into this country are criminals. But you can bet your ass I don't want any of the drug dealing rapist gang members coming into this country no matter how small a percentage there is of them. Not one of those scumbags should be able to sneak in. Not only for the people that are already here but also for the immigrants that those low lifes try to prey on. Are the liberals able to comprehend that without twisting my words? I have a hunch not. lol
Question: Do you think our scumbag drug dealing rapist gang murderers are inherently better than the ones from south of the border?
HaHa No but if you f'n liberals stopped fighting for the rights of convicted scumbag murdering rapist drug dealing gang members then maybe it would be harder for them to get back out on the streets.And sanother thing, stop making their time in prison comfortable.
I can't imagine living inside a mind so filled with fear and hatred. I will pray for your soul.
Thank you. I'll pray for yours too. Like I already said I only fear God. And what hatred? I gave my opinion. You seem to be defending the very people the immigrants are fleeing their countries from??? You got some friends on the inside you feel you need to bat for? Sorry, I'll stick to defending the rights of the immigrants seeking help and citizens of this country.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,757
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
Post edited by brianlux on
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I'm not sure if Trump has done a good ring or a bad thing with his 'license to operate'.
Once a decision has been made to undergo a military operation, it's likely best not micromanaged by people removed from the situation; however, the latitude Trump has afforded to the pentagon comes with a price to pay: in particular- civilian deaths.
Further, by removing himself from the operations, Trump gets to be squeaky clean when things go badly.
His 'empowering' the military seems to be two things to me: he is indifferent to the people at risk... and he's removed himself from criticism. In other words, if things go well... he says, "Look. Look what I've done by giving the pentagon the latitude to do their job!" If things go poorly... he points the finger.
I'm not sure if Trump has done a good ring or a bad thing with his 'license to operate'.
Once a decision has been made to undergo a military operation, it's likely best not micromanaged by people removed from the situation; however, the latitude Trump has afforded to the pentagon comes with a price to pay: in particular- civilian deaths.
Further, by removing himself from the operations, Trump gets to be squeaky clean when things go badly.
His 'empowering' the military seems to be two things to me: he is indifferent to the people at risk... and he's removed himself from criticism. In other words, if things go well... he says, "Look. Look what I've done by giving the pentagon the latitude to do their job!" If things go poorly... he points the finger.
Trump empowering the military will give the military the credit for whats's being done and him indirect responsibility either way. He is commander and chief he doesn't get a pass if it goes wrong. Not to me. I agree there has to be a balance but the thousands of people killed that could have been saved, not to mention the people that were injured, kidnapped and enslaved would have been far less if our military would have had more freedom and budget to stop them.
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,757
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
My post had nothing to do with "cake". You responded to what I said. I responded to what you said.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
pick. It's all or nothing. What's it gonna be?
Why would one have to pick all or nothing?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Comments
How about any source at all?
How about any source at all?
Sarah Sanders is upset a restaurant wouldn’t serve her. She’s OK with it happening to gays. - Vox https://apple.news/AfpvzQaBTTSiUhrFc-FjVQg
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44588939
"She [a co-owner of the resataurant] told the Washington Post that she decided to ask the Trump spokeswoman to leave the 26-seat, "farm-to-table" restaurant after talking to her staff.
"Tell me what you want me to do. I can ask her to leave," she said she told them. "They said yes."
I will pray for your soul.
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/us/politics/rules-of-engagement-military-force-mattis.html
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/02/24/us-changes-rules-engagement-mosul-fight-iraq.html
There are more if you'd care to look.
Thanks for your links.
I'm not sure if Trump has done a good ring or a bad thing with his 'license to operate'.
Once a decision has been made to undergo a military operation, it's likely best not micromanaged by people removed from the situation; however, the latitude Trump has afforded to the pentagon comes with a price to pay: in particular- civilian deaths.
Further, by removing himself from the operations, Trump gets to be squeaky clean when things go badly.
His 'empowering' the military seems to be two things to me: he is indifferent to the people at risk... and he's removed himself from criticism. In other words, if things go well... he says, "Look. Look what I've done by giving the pentagon the latitude to do their job!" If things go poorly... he points the finger.
Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?