To our liberal, progressive friends on here...

[Riveting]

More on the collateral child damage. Aren't you glad as a lib that it wasn't your kid?

Joseph did not have a valid Ohio driver's license and provided OHSP troopers who were investigating the crash with a driver's license from Mexico. Testimony at trial, according to the News-Sun, confirmed Joseph had a state identification card, but not a valid state driver's license.

 

[Purdue95Grad]

This likely is of no importance to you since it is just more child collateral damage.

Ohio jury convicts man who caused first day of school bus crash that killed 11-year-old

A Clark County jury deliberated for about an hour before reaching the unanimous verdict. Aiden Clark, 11, died in the Aug. 23 crash.

www.dispatch.com

That was a terrible thing, yes. But you’re using it to try to paint an entire group of people as bad, and that’s where the issue lies. Even the victim’s parents have spoken out and said they don’t want what happened to be used as a hate mechanism. But that’s exactly what you’re doing.

And if we want to talk about children being used as collateral damage, let’s just talk about any school shooting. I saw nary a word from you or anyone else about the shooting last week, but here you are, freaking out about a concocted bunch of nonsense about a group of immigrants.

You won’t talk about the things that are real, but damn you sure are good at running with the most nonsensical shit out there because it’s easier for you to hate.

 

[Riveting]

You won’t talk about the things that are real, but damn you sure are good at running with the most nonsensical shit out there because it’s easier for you to hate.

You mean like 300,000 children the Biden/Harris admin has lost track off? Do you consider the horrors that many of them are undoubtably going through just part of the cost of cheap labor for the establishment?

 

[Purdue95Grad]

You mean like 300,000 children the Biden/Harris admin has lost track off? Do you consider the horrors that many of them are undoubtably going through just part of the cost of cheap labor for the establishment?

Until you show some outrage with this happening under the former administration, this is just more nonsense. Like I said, you’re not serious.

 

[Riveting]

Until you show some outrage with this happening under the former administration, this is just more nonsense. Like I said, you’re not serious.

"Serious' to you means mindlessly accepting whatever the regime media and puppet Biden/Harris admin tells you. You didn't even know about the crimes against children taking place under Biden/Harris because they didn't tell you, right?

I had to post something from the DHS IG - and I bet you still don't believe it because of the lib groupthink you are stuck in.

 

[SKYDOG]

"Serious' to you means mindlessly accepting whatever the regime media and puppet Biden/Harris admin tells you. You didn't even know about the crimes against children taking place under Biden/Harris because they didn't tell you, right?

I had to post something from the DHS IG - and I bet you still don't believe it because of the lib groupthink you are stuck in.

Hard to imagine some on here still believe the border is not open. They must only think the port of entry is the only place illegal immigrants enter the country. Never mind all the other areas along the border where people’s farms are a crossing and the property owners are constantly in fear.

These same so called smart posters also want people to feel outrage about something that occurred years ago. Give a pass to the here and now, but blame the Trump administration. They are good little sheeple following what the media tells them to believe.

 

[bonefish1]

Hard to imagine some on here still believe the border is not open. They must only think the port of entry is the only place illegal immigrants enter the country. Never mind all the other areas along the border where people’s farms are a crossing and the property owners are constantly in fear.

These same so called smart posters also want people to feel outrage about something that occurred years ago. Give a pass to the here and now, but blame the Trump administration. They are good little sheeple following what the media tells them to believe.

The lefty libs here will deny that the numbers of illegal border crossings has increased exponentially under Harris/Biden (despite what the facts and statistics say).
They also will deny that these crossings, which did not occur in anywhere near the numbers under Trump, are not because of Harris/Biden policy. Perhaps it's coincidental..or covid.....or Jan 6 (Bob?)

 

[Bank Shot Podcast]

Democrats have been crying for years now how Trump is a "threat to democracy." And then actively and openly support a coup ran on a sitting president and a different candidate installed. They whine and cry about how awful Russia is... And then take notes straight from them.

 

[BB62]

The lefty libs here will deny that the numbers of illegal border crossings has increased exponentially under Harris/Biden (despite what the facts and statistics say).
They also will deny that these crossings, which did not occur in anywhere near the numbers under Trump, are not because of Harris/Biden policy. Perhaps it's coincidental..or covid.....or Jan 6 (Bob?)

No Jan 6 was an attempt by the sitting president and his supporters to prevent the first peaceful transfer of power in the history of our country........and he threw a couple other means for accomplishing that goal in for good measure. If he loses this election, he will pay for it. Others already are.

Tonight shouldn't be the first time he meets Harris........but it will be because the little man and his ego didn't have the balls to go to the inauguration. Ran home to Mara Lago.

 

[Purdue95Grad]

"Serious' to you means mindlessly accepting whatever the regime media and puppet Biden/Harris admin tells you. You didn't even know about the crimes against children taking place under Biden/Harris because they didn't tell you, right?

I had to post something from the DHS IG - and I bet you still don't believe it because of the lib groupthink you are stuck in.

Again, until you acknowledge it was going on under your guy, there’s nothing else to discuss with you on this.

 

[Purdue95Grad]

Hard to imagine some on here still believe the border is not open. They must only think the port of entry is the only place illegal immigrants enter the country. Never mind all the other areas along the border where people’s farms are a crossing and the property owners are constantly in fear.

These same so called smart posters also want people to feel outrage about something that occurred years ago. Give a pass to the here and now, but blame the Trump administration. They are good little sheeple following what the media tells them to believe.

Again, you’re free to go test your theories. That would require you stepping outside of course. But then you’d have to worry about spotting a Haitian immigrant eating a cat. I can see why up is down in your world.

 

[tjreese]

The border isn’t open, soooo……….

Having two deceased cousins that worked the border and personally being down there MANY times in various locations in Mexifornia, Texas and Arizona...the border is open. Your comment tells me you either gobble up what you are told (as previous evidence has shown) or have no experience with the border. Millions of unvetted illegals have been moved into various locations in the USA crossing the southern, open border. Whether any are eating dogs and cats I have no idea. I do know that illegals from those countries have in fact eaten dogs and cats in their countries, but that is very minor compared to the real disasters that we know have resulted. The border is open and desired open by the Harris/Biden administration through their whole term.

 

[Riveting]

Having two deceased cousins that worked the border and personally being down there MANY times in various locations in Mexifornia, Texas and Arizona...the border is open. Your comment tells me you either gobble up what you are told (as previous evidence has shown) or have no experience with the border. Millions of unvetted illegals have been moved into various locations in the USA crossing the southern, open border. Whether any are eating dogs and cats I have no idea. I do know that illegals from those countries have in fact eaten dogs and cats in their countries, but that is very minor compared to the real disasters that we know have resulted. The border is open and desired open by the Harris/Biden administration through their whole term.

Well said, but don't be too hard on 95 or he may whine about us again on the hoops forum.

 

[tjreese]

Well said, but don't be too hard on 95 or he may whine about us again on the hoops forum.

The most interesting thing beside me wondering if 95 was his birth year was that he immediately sought support about a place he complained and then lives over here. I absolutely don't mind, but find it interesting the regurgitation of what he has been fed absent of what appears actual experience or personal understanding. BTW, some of the places I've been to were known ports of entry...not counting the walk across river spots between towns and such. The fools apparently can't grasp historical movements of cultures many times not assimulating and holding on to their third world cultures on the whole as well as the financial and social impact for generations to come. It is as though their understanding comes from the media...which even the slow should know by now to be biased

 

[Purdue95Grad]

Having two deceased cousins that worked the border and personally being down there MANY times in various locations in Mexifornia, Texas and Arizona...the border is open. Your comment tells me you either gobble up what you are told (as previous evidence has shown) or have no experience with the border. Millions of unvetted illegals have been moved into various locations in the USA crossing the southern, open border. Whether any are eating dogs and cats I have no idea. I do know that illegals from those countries have in fact eaten dogs and cats in their countries, but that is very minor compared to the real disasters that we know have resulted. The border is open and desired open by the Harris/Biden administration through their whole term.

And which administration were these cousins at the border under, do tell?

Lol at the dogs and cats comment. Kids get their heads blown off at school regularly here and you go on a meandering, meaningless ride about someone else in a different country supposedly eating a dog or a cat. I would say make it make sense but you were already over that line from the first post of yours I ever read on here.

 

[tjreese]

And which administration were these cousins at the border under, do tell?

Lol at the dogs and cats comment. Kids get their heads blown off at school regularly here and you go on a meandering, meaningless ride about someone else in a different country supposedly eating a dog or a cat. I would say make it make sense but you were already over that line from the first post of yours I ever read on here.

A quick read and I remember



Oh a long time ago, I don't recall the administration. I however have been down there quite a few times as well as more central locations. It was well known that the border town stores were fronts for illegal activity. The point was that the border has been open in a lot of spots for many years and has ONLY recently been a HUGE problem. So, you are not close on your understanding of the border that I have experience and you have been fed...like many things. Just off the top of my head on "border towns only" Matamoros, Reynosa, Juarez, Ciudad Acuña for Texas...Nogales for Arizona and Tijuana for Mexifornia. The other sites were more centrally located. Those border towns were some of the main towns for illegals.

Now relative to people continuing to eat cats and dogs in this country as they did in their previous country, it serves little more than to show the misfit into the USA. Now here is a police video that was sent to me. Unlike other video that shows people, this is only an audio on geese...unaware of the law in the USA. It too isn't a biggy for me in comparison to the REAL disasters. Geese hunting with hands? For someone with a brain, should there be any surprise that many illegals dumped into the USA have no idea of the laws and customs?

href="">

 

[tjreese]

A quick read and I remember

View embedded media

Oh a long time ago, I don't recall the administration. I however have been down there quite a few times as well as more central locations. It was well known that the border town stores were fronts for illegal activity. The point was that the border has been open in a lot of spots for many years and has ONLY recently been a HUGE problem. So, you are not close on your understanding of the border that I have experience and you have been fed...like many things. Just off the top of my head on "border towns only" Matamoros, Reynosa, Juarez, Ciudad Acuña for Texas...Nogales for Arizona and Tijuana for Mexifornia. The other sites were more centrally located. Those border towns were some of the main towns for illegals.

Now relative to people continuing to eat cats and dogs in this country as they did in their previous country, it serves little more than to show the misfit into the USA. Now here is a police video that was sent to me. Unlike other video that shows people, this is only an audio on geese...unaware of the law in the USA. It too isn't a biggy for me in comparison to the REAL disasters. Geese hunting with hands? For someone with a brain, should there be any surprise that many illegals dumped into the USA have no idea of the laws and customs?

href="

View embedded media

">

View embedded media

a bit more on the police report and a video






Haitians say they are not eating pets, but getting your tax dollars as we know. I've heard of the magic stick, but now learning of the magic card

 

[charlespig]

Having two deceased cousins that worked the border and personally being down there MANY times in various locations in Mexifornia, Texas and Arizona...the border is open. Your comment tells me you either gobble up what you are told (as previous evidence has shown) or have no experience with the border. Millions of unvetted illegals have been moved into various locations in the USA crossing the southern, open border. Whether any are eating dogs and cats I have no idea. I do know that illegals from those countries have in fact eaten dogs and cats in their countries, but that is very minor compared to the real disasters that we know have resulted. The border is open and desired open by the Harris/Biden administration through their whole term.

OK, let's agree that we need to address the issue of illegal immigrants.

I have two questions:

1) Would you have supported the bipartisan border bill on the border?

2) So much talk about the border but what to do with those who enter the country legally but overstay?

 

[tjreese]

OK, let's agree that we need to address the issue of illegal immigrants.

I have two questions:

1) Would you have supported the bipartisan border bill on the border?

2) So much talk about the border but what to do with those who enter the country legally but overstay?

Without going back and recalling the actual pork I wouldn't have. Your question suggests that both parties wanted to close the border and that simply isn't true as we know or we should know. The dem's fought against closing it. The dems accused Trump as a racist for wanting to close it. BTW, do you recall accusing me of being a racist when I previously mentioned how articulate Trey was after an interview totally unaware of my fondness for Thomas Sowell?

The dems immediately reversed Trumps approach to keep them in Mexico which led to what we have now. Today it is much worse than it was, and it was on purpose to not only gather votes, but to grow the government and control. I also found the comments from Harris laughable when she mentioned she wanted to bring people together and yet the number one staple of the dems is Intersectionality...which even a blind man should see as divisive in it's foundation.

Overstaying illegally is still illegal. No matter the decision there will be some winners and losers if you allow some to stay. Certainly, substantial evidence of a contribution would be mandatory. Hard for a team to move forward when a player doesn't want to show up for practice and put in the work to contribute and then take minutes from those that contributed. I would have to know a lot more about the specifics and numbers of various categories, but no doubt would expect some to be removed.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

That was a terrible thing, yes. But you’re using it to try to paint an entire group of people as bad, and that’s where the issue lies. Even the victim’s parents have spoken out and said they don’t want what happened to be used as a hate mechanism. But that’s exactly what you’re doing.

And if we want to talk about children being used as collateral damage, let’s just talk about any school shooting. I saw nary a word from you or anyone else about the shooting last week, but here you are, freaking out about a concocted bunch of nonsense about a group of immigrants.

You won’t talk about the things that are real, but damn you sure are good at running with the most nonsensical shit out there because it’s easier for you to hate.

Do you not believe and can agree that there is a very large number of illegals who are a "group" of criminals who have no fear of death and no fear of being deported. That same group of illegals that would take your billfold and your child's life without a thought about doing so?

 

[Purdue95Grad]

Do you not believe and can agree that there is a very large number of illegals who are a "group" of criminals who have no fear of death and no fear of being deported. That same group of illegals that would take your billfold and your child's life without a thought about doing so?

I mean I suppose? But time and again we see the white boys going and doing the mass shootings and you don’t say shit about that. Gee. Wonder why.

 

[tjreese]

I mean I suppose? But time and again we see the white boys going and doing the mass shootings and you don’t say shit about that. Gee. Wonder why.

They probably know how to load the gun. Seriously, it is one of a few questions that need investigated. Why is life not as valued today as years ago? What has changed in the last several decades in people's respect towards another's life? Why don't mass shooters (and we know the definition changes) handle rejection? There was rejection for all people in the past, what happened? Was there no or very little coping experience to fall back on and now when things get elevated, they are void of the requisite background?

Why does mass shootings with significantly less frequency and total carnage get all the exposure and smaller daily shootings get ignored? Is a violent death a violent death or are the different ways someone is killed weighted different...no matter the total deaths? Are some violent murders a love crime and others a hate crime? All violent murders are hate crimes and yet we have been led to believe that some violent murders less troublesome than other violent murders. Is killing someone that you believe was too wealthy less hate than killing someone that said something you didn't like or a different sex or race? Does Intersectionality also play into this? What is obvious is that there is a culture deterioration that has taken place over the decades, but addressing the real issue is harder and requires people to change and there exists obstacles to valuing life. Did "knockout" exist years ago? None of this is to dismiss any violence in the past, but "mass" shootings although not very frequent do in fact generate more emotion. Is some of this just due to Randolph Hearst's approach to the media?

Certainly "mass shootings" arouse more emotion than someone saving several lives with a gun or people killing people daily, but less in a time. What happened to the dignity of "life" should be the starting point to addressing this and other violent actions that result in death?

 

[Purdue95Grad]

They probably know how to load the gun. Seriously, it is one of a few questions that need investigated. Why is life not as valued today as years ago? What has changed in the last several decades in people's respect towards another's life? Why don't mass shooters (and we know the definition changes) handle rejection? There was rejection for all people in the past, what happened? Was there no or very little coping experience to fall back on and now when things get elevated, they are void of the requisite background?

Why does mass shootings with significantly less frequency and total carnage get all the exposure and smaller daily shootings get ignored? Is a violent death a violent death or are the different ways someone is killed weighted different...no matter the total deaths? Are some violent murders a love crime and others a hate crime? All violent murders are hate crimes and yet we have been led to believe that some violent murders less troublesome than other violent murders. Is killing someone that you believe was too wealthy less hate than killing someone that said something you didn't like or a different sex or race? Does Intersectionality also play into this? What is obvious is that there is a culture deterioration that has taken place over the decades, but addressing the real issue is harder and requires people to change and there exists obstacles to valuing life. Did "knockout" exist years ago? None of this is to dismiss any violence in the past, but "mass" shootings although not very frequent do in fact generate more emotion. Is some of this just due to Randolph Hearst's approach to the media?

Certainly "mass shootings" arouse more emotion than someone saving several lives with a gun or people killing people daily, but less in a time. What happened to the dignity of "life" should be the starting point to addressing this and other violent actions that result in death?

Two things can be true: a perceived lack of respect for life AND a pervasive gun issue in this country.

You completely ignored the second part, though, so I question your sincerity on the first.

 

[tjreese]

Two things can be true: a perceived lack of respect for life AND a pervasive gun issue in this country.

You completely ignored the second part, though, so I question your sincerity on the first.

This may be news to you, but guns don't shoot by themselves. They are ONLY shot by someone and hence your deflection from the real issue as hard as it may be to address should have me question your sincerity. I don't question your sincerity, nor am I going to call you names, but guns have existed for a long time and this issue was pretty much non existent decades ago. Obviously guns are NOT the root cause. I'm guessing you forgot about guns existing for a long time as well as there being more guns than people and yet millions of guns do not kill anyone every day. I believe your thoughts were sincere, unlike your determination of what is sincere towards me. I do think you are misguided, but sincere in your misguided belief. Another easy way to look at it is that if you respect life like the millions of people that have guns and don't kill people, then that absence of shooting people is tied directly back to a respect for life of those people that have millions of guns.

 

[Katscratch]

This may be news to you, but guns don't shoot by themselves. They are ONLY shot by someone and hence your deflection from the real issue as hard as it may be to address should have me question your sincerity. I don't question your sincerity, nor am I going to call you names, but guns have existed for a long time and this issue was pretty much non existent decades ago. Obviously guns are NOT the root cause. I'm guessing you forgot about guns existing for a long time as well as there being more guns than people and yet millions of guns do not kill anyone every day. I believe your thoughts were sincere, unlike your determination of what is sincere towards me. I do think you are misguided, but sincere in your misguided belief. Another easy way to look at it is that if you respect life like the millions of people that have guns and don't kill people, then that absence of shooting people is tied directly back to a respect for life of those people that have millions of guns.

.
That is such a red herring, nonsense argument.

Using your logic, everyone should be allowed to have a collection of live grenades, or a nuclear weapon because those also don't get launched and detonate by themselves -- as you say, "They are ONLY shot by someone."

So it's a multi-faceted, complex problem and a line drawing exercise. How violent and high-capacity a weapon should be allowed to be owned by the general public? I am for protecting Second Amendment rights while banning weapons that are far too often re-purposed as mass killing instruments with no other purpose.
.

 

[Purdue95Grad]

.
That is such a red herring, nonsense argument.

Using your logic, everyone should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon because those also don't get launched and detonate by themselves -- as you say, "They are ONLY shot by someone."

So it's a multi-faceted, complex problem and a line drawing exercise. How violent and high-capacity a weapon should be allowed to be owned by the general public? I am for protecting Second Amendment rights while banning weapons that are far too often re-purposed as mass killing instruments with no other purpose.
.

All of this.

And this is what a good chunk of people support, but all folks like tj think is that the libs are coming for all their guns. Utterly ridiculous straw man arguments in essay form then follow. It’s laughably absurd.

 

[tjreese]

.
That is such a red herring, nonsense argument.

Using your logic, everyone should be allowed to have a collection of live grenades, or a nuclear weapon because those also don't get launched and detonate by themselves -- as you say, "They are ONLY shot by someone."

So it's a multi-faceted, complex problem and a line drawing exercise. How violent and high-capacity a weapon should be allowed to be owned by the general public? I am for protecting Second Amendment rights while banning weapons that are far too often re-purposed as mass killing instruments with no other purpose.
.

Actually, live grenades or personal nuclear weapons are already not allowed , but of course dirty bombs could be made. Had your example been in the hands for many decades without issue, then they too might not be so scary. The reality is that people "NOW" are more likely to shoot people than years ago and so that is the real root problem. You wouldn't care if scary weapons were held by people if they were not used by people to kill others...and again the over riding number of gun owners that don't kill people should not lose their freedom to protect themselves. You also appear to dislike a less frequent mass shooting that kills less than another gun that kills more. I have no idea what guns are "re-purposed" for mass killing with no other purpose...and you don't either. That is the reality. Should an AR 15 not be allowed to a homeowner to protect his property...or to shoot animals that he wishes to shoot whether a groundhog or a Russian boar if decided? If you don't like the AR with its small bullet, do you prefer a .308 semi or is the bullet size of an AR okay for a mini 14.

What are the weapons you wish to ban and why...the "violent guns" and "high-capacity" types. You can do group or herd work with 95 to make your list if you desire

 

[Katscratch]

Actually, live grenades or personal nuclear weapons are already not allowed , but of course dirty bombs could be made. Had your example been in the hands for many decades without issue, then they too might not be so scary. The reality is that people "NOW" are more likely to shoot people than years ago and so that is the real root problem. You wouldn't care if scary weapons were held by people if they were not used by people to kill others...and again the over riding number of gun owners that don't kill people should not lose their freedom to protect themselves. You also appear to dislike a less frequent mass shooting that kills less than another gun that kills more. I have no idea what guns are "re-purposed" for mass killing with no other purpose...and you don't either. That is the reality. Should an AR 15 not be allowed to a homeowner to protect his property...or to shoot animals that he wishes to shoot whether a groundhog or a Russian boar if decided? If you don't like the AR with its small bullet, do you prefer a .308 semi or is the bullet size of an AR okay for a mini 14.

What are the weapons you wish to ban and why...the "violent guns" and "high-capacity" types. You can do group or herd work with 95 to make your list if you desire

Right; personal nuclear weapons are already not allowed. Maybe we can agree that it's a line drawing exercise. Where would I draw the line?

Bump stocks and in general weapons that have are or have the capacity to be converted to automatic weapons. Full disclosure: My answer is pretty general - I am a gun owner and have shot many types of weapons, but I am by no means a gun expert. More knowledgeable people than me have made more detailed distinctions. The now-repealed Brady Bill seemed like it was pretty good.

 

[tjreese]

Right; personal nuclear weapons are already not allowed. Maybe we can agree that it's a line drawing exercise. Where would I draw the line?

Bump stocks and in general weapons that have are or have the capacity to be converted to automatic weapons. Full disclosure: My answer is pretty general - I am a gun owner and have shot many types of weapons, but I am by no means a gun expert. More knowledgeable people than me have made more detailed distinctions. The now-repealed Brady Bill seemed like it was pretty good.

No matter what, the real problem is the difference in people and as I've said that is difficult to solve. However, it doesn't get enough attention as emotional outbursts want "something...anything" to give the appearance of trying to prevent what pulls at the heart strings of people. Almost all the people that look towards some type of control and "another" law ignore that current law was almost always not followed. Another law not followed only serves to limit freedoms of the millions that already follow the law...and no law will ever exist that will prevent someone from killing another...or mass killings which may be bombs in the future.

You may want most of the 2nd, but some don't wany any part of it and yet without it all the other freedoms are at risk. There have been incremental gun control measures over the years and we know or should know that the largest mass killing in the USA outside a war was when guns were taken away...and as we know Kamala would like that, but unless she wins and is able to pack the court that will not happen. Citizens had superior firepower over the government issue in the Revolutionary War and that is nowhere close to being true today, nor will happen again in the future.

 

[Katscratch]

No matter what, the real problem is the difference in people and as I've said that is difficult to solve. However, it doesn't get enough attention as emotional outbursts want "something...anything" to give the appearance of trying to prevent what pulls at the heart strings of people. Almost all the people that look towards some type of control and "another" law ignore that current law was almost always not followed. Another law not followed only serves to limit freedoms of the millions that already follow the law...and no law will ever exist that will prevent someone from killing another...or mass killings which may be bombs in the future.

You may want most of the 2nd, but some don't wany any part of it and yet without it all the other freedoms are at risk. There have been incremental gun control measures over the years and we know or should know that the largest mass killing in the USA outside a war was when guns were taken away...and as we know Kamala would like that, but unless she wins and is able to pack the court that will not happen. Citizens had superior firepower over the government issue in the Revolutionary War and that is nowhere close to being true today, nor will happen again in the future.

While "differences in people" is always a challenge, it is the broadest of brushes when applied to a much less broad American societal problem.

I know you don't claim to be a Constitutional scholar, but to say that banning certain types of weapons is somehow violative of the 2nd Amendment is just plain wrong. As you said, legislation that bans personal possession of nukes is on the books and the Brady Bill survived judicial scrutiny. The Second Amendment is not a piece of legislation - it is a broad, established guideline that is defined by the judicially appropriate legislation that follows.

 

[BB62]

There's a young men problem in this country that many are not aware of.

They don't date. They're not having sex. Many don't have friends. They don't feel they have been treated fairly when it comes to economic opportunity. Covid set them back socially and personally. They play video games and live at home with their parents. More prone to suicide. Meanwhile young women are getting more college degrees, own more homes, have good jobs with opportunity.

This is real. They aren't all looking to kill people but more are likely to if we don't recognize this problem and address it.

Boys to Men | No Mercy / No Malice

America has a vision of itself as the land of opportunity, with rights and liberty for everyone. That is not and has never been the reality. But for 250 years we’ve been closing that gap at a greater pace than any other multicultural democracy. Lately, however, there’s evidence we’re losing...

www.profgalloway.com

 

[Boilermaker03]

OK, let's agree that we need to address the issue of illegal immigrants.

I have two questions:

1) Would you have supported the bipartisan border bill on the border?

2) So much talk about the border but what to do with those who enter the country legally but overstay?

We didn't need a new bill. Just enforce the laws we already have. Biden has all the power he needs to at least get the issue back to as good as it was under Trump.

 

[tjreese]

While "differences in people" is always a challenge, it is the broadest of brushes when applied to a much less broad American societal problem.

I know you don't claim to be a Constitutional scholar, but to say that banning certain types of weapons is somehow violative of the 2nd Amendment is just plain wrong. As you said, legislation that bans personal possession of nukes is on the books and the Brady Bill survived judicial scrutiny. The Second Amendment is not a piece of legislation - it is a broad, established guideline that is defined by the judicially appropriate legislation that follows.

AND semi automatic .223 guns have been allowed for decades. It is not armor piercing like maybe an 7.62 X 39 (AK-47) could be and much smaller than the 30-06 of the Garand in WW2 that Patton called the most accurate gun out of the box. A .223 (62 gr) is only a fraction larger than the typical .22 (40 gr) that nobody concerns itself with. The real difference is the velocity. Now the old Garand might load 160 gr several times the weight and size of an AR-15. What about the 22-250 and other fast bullets? Are fast bullets the issue? Would a slower 9mm semi automatic rifle or slow velocity Tommy gun 45 cal be okay and by what standard? The problem is...almost all the people in positions to advocate for gun control know so little about that which they want to influence...and that reality probably extends to many other things like education and such.

"Automatic" rifles take a very special license and very few have them and yet people wanting gun control talk about "assault", "military" and "automatic" guns as though they are used in shootings. You want something to shoot up close that is deadly...maybe a Tommy gun does the trick. You want something that can shoot pretty accurate at a distance that is also a semi...maybe a .308 (used by some snipers). There are semi-automatics in many different calibers and there are many different calibers due to specialties in different scenarios and so we are down a road that may sound good, but putting your finger on what is desired to be controlled without violating the other uses for the gun is tricky. Enough...I think you get the picture of the reality of the situation...

 

[BB62]

We didn't need a new bill. Just enforce the laws we already have. Biden has all the power he needs to at least get the issue back to as good as it was under Trump.

Like trump, Biden would have to use executive orders. How do you not know that at this point? Border policy will change every time the WH changes parties. How does that make sense unless you want to use the border as political fodder?

 

[Boilermaker03]

Like trump, Biden would have to use executive orders. How do you not know that at this point? Border policy will change every time the WH changes parties. How does that make sense unless you want to use the border as political fodder?

Yes, you're right. So why did Biden get rid of Trump's executive orders that had the border mostly under control (at least compared to how it is now)? He did that on day 1. Sounds like Biden and the left used it as political fodder when Trump had it fairly under control and a plan was in action to put up a wall to mostly stop illegal crossings.

 

[BB62]

I'm not gonna defend the Biden border policy. It made no sense.

I'm arguing against your statement that we didn't or don't need a border bill.

A bill has to go through a lot of scrutiny to become a law, including being reviewed for possible legal challenges. Executive orders not so much so they are constantly challenged in court. Changing a law is not as easy as throwing out another EO so we can start to get some consistency in our border policy. Less time and money spent fighting over it. This is insane.

I have no idea what the dem policy on the border is. It appears they want the border bill to pass after ignoring the problem for years. The republicans appear to want to keep border policy controlled by EO. That will allow trump to do whatever he wants, except when challenged in court, when they have the WH and use the border as a political issue when they don't.

 

[bonefish1]

There's a young men problem in this country that many are not aware of.

They don't date. They're not having sex. Many don't have friends. They don't feel they have been treated fairly when it comes to economic opportunity. Covid set them back socially and personally. They play video games and live at home with their parents. More prone to suicide. Meanwhile young women are getting more college degrees, own more homes, have good jobs with opportunity.

This is real. They aren't all looking to kill people but more are likely to if we don't recognize this problem and address it.

Boys to Men | No Mercy / No Malice

America has a vision of itself as the land of opportunity, with rights and liberty for everyone. That is not and has never been the reality. But for 250 years we’ve been closing that gap at a greater pace than any other multicultural democracy. Lately, however, there’s evidence we’re losing...

www.profgalloway.com

Bob,
is this an autobiography, espeically the part about no friends and no sex?
Just kidding, relax.

 

[Boilermaker03]

I'm not gonna defend the Biden border policy. It made no sense.

I'm arguing against your statement that we didn't or don't need a border bill.

A bill has to go through a lot of scrutiny to become a law, including being reviewed for possible legal challenges. Executive orders not so much so they are constantly challenged in court. Changing a law is not as easy as throwing out another EO so we can start to get some consistency in our border policy. Less time and money spent fighting over it. This is insane.

I have no idea what the dem policy on the border is. It appears they want the border bill to pass after ignoring the problem for years. The republicans appear to want to keep border policy controlled by EO. That will allow trump to do whatever he wants, except when challenged in court, when they have the WH and use the border as a political issue when they don't.

The border bill they want will not secure the border. Much like the Inflation Reduction Act, the border bill they proposed would have done the exact opposite and allowed more people in. The Democrats are lying P.O.S.

 

[BB62]

The border bill they want will not secure the border. Much like the Inflation Reduction Act, the border bill they proposed would have done the exact opposite and allowed more people in. The Democrats are lying P.O.S.

That's a lie. You apparently don't know the bill very well. Just take the opposite position and keep repeating it.

I guess when "secure the border" means we only let the best and brightest come in you may be right. When you believe that "many of those coming in are criminals " and there are "millions and millions of them" you think people who push back are lying POS.

 

[Boilermaker03]

That's a lie. You apparently don't know the bill very well. Just take the opposite position and keep repeating it.

I guess when "secure the border" means we only let the best and brightest come in you may be right. When you believe that "many of those coming in are criminals " and there are "millions and millions of them" you think people who push back are lying POS.

No it isn't. You obviously have bought into the propaganda about the bill.

The bill would allow 5,000 people to cross illegally a day before they start to turn people back. During the Obama administration, 1,000 a day overwhelmed the border agents. The bill would have made it mandatory for the agents to let them cross until that threshold was met. That's almost 2,000,000 people a year to come in illegally.

The bill also wanted to make it possible for these people to get work visas immediately.

This bill would not secure the border. No, instead it would codify what is already happening. This isn't a border security bill. It's a mass amnesty bill.

Loading…

cis.org