Rules From A Right-Wing Black Man

[Bfgrn]

What's the point of ignoring people? Did you come here to discuss or simply to close your mind and hear yourself talk? If so you might as well go somewhere else. So far you’ve not demonstrated one independent thought. you only spew stupid talking points

Excuse me? What's the point? Why are you asking? The reasons for me coming here are my own. I don't need to explain myself to you or anyone. Close my mind? Hear myself talk? How ridiculous. Equally ridiculous is having to deal with brain dead ideologues, who stereotype, lie, demean, and mischaracterize, along the lines of race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, and politics. When that becomes apparent, I place folks on "ignore", and move on to find dialogue, elsewhere.
The notion that I haven't demonstrated one independent thought, places you, decidedly, on the other side of the fence. Talking points? Pardon me, but I come with links and evidence to back up any position that I take....having done this political debate forum "thing-y" for going on 10 + years. Why don't you simply ignore me, since you obviously like to see your words in print?

I don't ignore people it's stupid. From what I've seem all you’ve been a able to post is talking points such as “Republicans and democrats switched” even though the Republican party as never stood for slavery, lynching’s , segregation, that idiocy makes no sense. The democrat party didn't close down and become something else, they have continued as a party since its creation. By all rights the Democratic Party owes blacks reparations, but you’re too blinded by your liberal talking points to realize that

Conservatives, no matter what party they belonged to have never been advocates for minority rights. They are advocates for individual rights...THEIRS and no one elses.

When and (to an extent) why did the parties switch places? - The Edge of the American West - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?

 

[Ernie S.]

https://www.facebook.com/SECEDEKilgore?fref=ts

https://www.facebook.com/TexasSecede?fref=ts

That in no way backs up your claim about "most."

Most conservative whites in Texas who voted against President Obama.

Bullshit

 

[Ernie S.]

This message is hidden because Unkotare is on your ignore list.

Coward. Afraid you might learn something?

 

[Ernie S.]

Racist fuck? How can one be "racist' against one's own race? By saying I'm racist for calling fellow blacks into account for their ideology, how is that being racist? You won't be able to come up with a solvent answer, because there is none. And you're absolutely correct that the blacks in question are the ones aligning themselves with the racist "Right", who actually hold them in contempt, and seek to deny members of their race, "rights", equality, and the choice to vote Democratic, if they so choose.

blacks calling other blacks uncle Tom or Oreo is the equivalent of a whites calling other whites ****** lover ....so yeah you are a racist.

since i am on the sissies ignore list anyone who would like to type the above post to him is welcome to do so ....it will be interesting to see what he says.

The coward will see it now.

 

[Jroc]

Excuse me? What's the point? Why are you asking? The reasons for me coming here are my own. I don't need to explain myself to you or anyone. Close my mind? Hear myself talk? How ridiculous. Equally ridiculous is having to deal with brain dead ideologues, who stereotype, lie, demean, and mischaracterize, along the lines of race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, and politics. When that becomes apparent, I place folks on "ignore", and move on to find dialogue, elsewhere.
The notion that I haven't demonstrated one independent thought, places you, decidedly, on the other side of the fence. Talking points? Pardon me, but I come with links and evidence to back up any position that I take....having done this political debate forum "thing-y" for going on 10 + years. Why don't you simply ignore me, since you obviously like to see your words in print?

I don't ignore people it's stupid. From what I've seem all you’ve been a able to post is talking points such as “Republicans and democrats switched” even though the Republican party as never stood for slavery, lynching’s , segregation, that idiocy makes no sense. The democrat party didn't close down and become something else, they have continued as a party since its creation. By all rights the Democratic Party owes blacks reparations, but you’re too blinded by your liberal talking points to realize that

Conservatives, no matter what party they belonged to have never been advocates for minority rights. They are advocates for individual rights...THEIRS and no one elses.

When and (to an extent) why did the parties switch places? - The Edge of the American West - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?

Bullshit… Conservatives stand for individual liberty. The Democratic Party stands for slavery. They always have and still do

 

[katsteve2012]

Texan

Then what is all this "you" and "your" nonsense? Texas is part of the United States last time I checked.

I was talking to peot and all the other anti-white jerks in this country that vote race first and qualification and Country last. All they gave a shit about was getting someone that kind of looks like them and isn't white, it's good enough even if he is over half white. Osama has absolutely nothing in common with most American blacks, Jesse even said that right before he said he wanted to rip his imaginary testicles out. I didn't vote for him and he is an enemy to everything America stands for..... he doesn't respect the office of the Presidency so why should I? As long as an imposter is smelling up the Oval Office, this country is without a President.

Ok, for the sake of dialogue and amusement, not in that specific order, and sans neanderthalistic profanity, I will entertain your diatribe.....with a few questions:

1. Is your source of irritation with Obama himself or those(specifically blacks)who voted for him? And as far as what he "had in common with blacks", i would say that it is a fairly reasonable assumption that his opponent Romney had FAR LESS "in common" with anyone in America, whether they were black, white, brown or "other", than Obama did. The way that he ran his campaign was evidence of that.

2. Are you aware that the so called "black vote" was not the pivotal vote that secured his victory? He appealed to females, Hispanics and young first time voters more than his opponent. His opponent did not even win in his own state, which speaks volumes about him. Before I retired, I used to fly to Boston to do business in Framingham, Massachusettes, which is smaller suburb outside of the city. I still have a few friends there and in surrounding areas. On the night of the election I emailed one of them and asked her why Romney lost in their state, and here is what she wrote:

"I now live in southwestern New Hampshire, which gets most of its TV coverage from Boston news stations, so got the blow-by-blow when Romney was governor. He was pro-choice, then pro-life, vetoed hundreds of bills, most of which were overridden by the legislature, oversaw a state that was 47th in the U.S. in job creation under his watch, referred to people without health insurance as "freeloaders," switched from being pro-gay rights, to actively anti-gay marriage, fired state workers who worked for the unemployment office and outsourced their jobs, so the newly unemployed workers had to try to find out about their unemployment benefits over the phone from someone in a foreign country, and left the state with massive amounts of debt."

Other than that, he was a peach.

Take care.

3. As POTUS, it is one of the perks and tools of his job to fly in the presidential jet. Is there any proof anywhere that he is abusing the privilege/benefit for his his own gain? Or does the very idea of a "half black" president flying around YOUR country spending YOUR" money (as you said which I thought was hilarious) bother you?

4, Since when was it a requirement for a POTUS to know how to "shoot a gun"? Or "throw a baseball?"

5. What do you mean by him " not being able to satisfy a woman"? And what does that have to do with what kind of job he does while in office? And as an editorial comment, he obviously "satisfied" enough women to get more female votes than his hapless opponent.

6. You stated that Obama "does not care about the poor or middle class". Probably not, like most politicians. But what did his opponent do or say that made him appear as if he cared more for that part of society? If anything,
he alienated that demographic with his "47%" gaffe during his losing campaign.

That's all for now. Since the "nation" of Texas is in a different time zone than California, which is part of the United States, people are probably sleeping in YOUR "country" right now.....ROFLMAO!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

But they are 'bucking" to secede...at least most of the cretins are.

Speak for yourself punk!

Oh, please. I had to take Secede Texas, a group on Facebook, to task, about their belief that it's inevitable and worse, "desirable". You know you people and your patron saint, Rick Perry, want to leave the union...I say try. You'll get your hats brought to you. Punk? She's the only one that's a "punk".

Hey dumbass. They do not speak for the entire state of Texas.

Perry never made any such comment you dishonest puke.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Excuse me? What's the point? Why are you asking? The reasons for me coming here are my own. I don't need to explain myself to you or anyone. Close my mind? Hear myself talk? How ridiculous. Equally ridiculous is having to deal with brain dead ideologues, who stereotype, lie, demean, and mischaracterize, along the lines of race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, and politics. When that becomes apparent, I place folks on "ignore", and move on to find dialogue, elsewhere.
The notion that I haven't demonstrated one independent thought, places you, decidedly, on the other side of the fence. Talking points? Pardon me, but I come with links and evidence to back up any position that I take....having done this political debate forum "thing-y" for going on 10 + years. Why don't you simply ignore me, since you obviously like to see your words in print?

I don't ignore people it's stupid. From what I've seem all you’ve been a able to post is talking points such as “Republicans and democrats switched” even though the Republican party as never stood for slavery, lynching’s , segregation, that idiocy makes no sense. The democrat party didn't close down and become something else, they have continued as a party since its creation. By all rights the Democratic Party owes blacks reparations, but you’re too blinded by your liberal talking points to realize that

Conservatives, no matter what party they belonged to have never been advocates for minority rights. They are advocates for individual rights...THEIRS and no one elses.

When and (to an extent) why did the parties switch places? - The Edge of the American West - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?

Minorities aren't individuals?

See that's the problem with you libidiots, you don't see minorities as individuals.

 

[Bfgrn]

I don't ignore people it's stupid. From what I've seem all you’ve been a able to post is talking points such as “Republicans and democrats switched” even though the Republican party as never stood for slavery, lynching’s , segregation, that idiocy makes no sense. The democrat party didn't close down and become something else, they have continued as a party since its creation. By all rights the Democratic Party owes blacks reparations, but you’re too blinded by your liberal talking points to realize that

Conservatives, no matter what party they belonged to have never been advocates for minority rights. They are advocates for individual rights...THEIRS and no one elses.

When and (to an extent) why did the parties switch places? - The Edge of the American West - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?

Minorities aren't individuals?

See that's the problem with you libidiots, you don't see minorities as individuals.

Your word for the day:

advocate
To speak, plead, or argue in favor of.
n.
1. One that argues for a cause; a supporter or defender: an advocate of civil rights.
2. One that pleads in another's behalf; an intercessor: advocates for abused children and spouses.

 

[Bfgrn]

I don't ignore people it's stupid. From what I've seem all you’ve been a able to post is talking points such as “Republicans and democrats switched” even though the Republican party as never stood for slavery, lynching’s , segregation, that idiocy makes no sense. The democrat party didn't close down and become something else, they have continued as a party since its creation. By all rights the Democratic Party owes blacks reparations, but you’re too blinded by your liberal talking points to realize that

Conservatives, no matter what party they belonged to have never been advocates for minority rights. They are advocates for individual rights...THEIRS and no one elses.

When and (to an extent) why did the parties switch places? - The Edge of the American West - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?

Bullshit… Conservatives stand for individual liberty. The Democratic Party stands for slavery. They always have and still do

Yea, the individual liberty for the poor and minorities to piss in a cup, a woman to turn her uterus over to the state to decide what can be done with it and the individual right of Hispanics to be pulled over and forced to provide papers.

 

[Unkotare]

the individual right of Hispanics to be pulled over and forced to provide papers.

When you are pulled over you don't have to provide your license and proof of insurance? Are you special or something?

 

[Bfgrn]

the individual right of Hispanics to be pulled over and forced to provide papers.

When you are pulled over you don't have to provide your license and proof of insurance? Are you special or something?

Your citizenship papers...

Arizona SB 1070 seeks legalize racial profiling and civil liberties violations. It unlawfully requires the establishment of a Police State in which state and local police are granted vast powers including the right to demand evidence of immigration status from every individual stopped, even for a simple traffic violation or any minor civil infraction, if they have a ‘reasonable suspicion’ that the person is in the U.S. unlawfully. Arizona will hold the power to decide whether a loud noise complaint or jaywalking qualifies as said “minor civil infraction”.

 

[PoliticalChic]

the individual right of Hispanics to be pulled over and forced to provide papers.

When you are pulled over you don't have to provide your license and proof of insurance? Are you special or something?

Your citizenship papers...

Arizona SB 1070 seeks legalize racial profiling and civil liberties violations. It unlawfully requires the establishment of a Police State in which state and local police are granted vast powers including the right to demand evidence of immigration status from every individual stopped, even for a simple traffic violation or any minor civil infraction, if they have a ‘reasonable suspicion’ that the person is in the U.S. unlawfully. Arizona will hold the power to decide whether a loud noise complaint or jaywalking qualifies as said “minor civil infraction”.

Clarity is more important than agreement....

...so, do you agree that it is in the nation's interest to know how many, if any, individuals are in the country illegally, i.e., outside of protocols set up by law?

A simple yes or no would be satisfactory.

 

[Bfgrn]

When you are pulled over you don't have to provide your license and proof of insurance? Are you special or something?

Your citizenship papers...

Arizona SB 1070 seeks legalize racial profiling and civil liberties violations. It unlawfully requires the establishment of a Police State in which state and local police are granted vast powers including the right to demand evidence of immigration status from every individual stopped, even for a simple traffic violation or any minor civil infraction, if they have a ‘reasonable suspicion’ that the person is in the U.S. unlawfully. Arizona will hold the power to decide whether a loud noise complaint or jaywalking qualifies as said “minor civil infraction”.

Clarity is more important than agreement....

...so, do you agree that it is in the nation's interest to know how many, if any, individuals are in the country illegally, i.e., outside of protocols set up by law?

A simple yes or no would be satisfactory.

No. Not if we have to usurp 'protocols', because 'protocol' is following the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the presumption of the innocence. Would YOU would be willing to trade places and walk in their shoes? Because THAT is the true test of 'liberty'. Whatever you 'claim', we already KNOW you right wing extremists scream totalitarian police state if a city council eliminates toys from Happy Meals, or heaven forbid, run background checks on people buying a lethal weapon.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your citizenship papers...

Arizona SB 1070 seeks legalize racial profiling and civil liberties violations. It unlawfully requires the establishment of a Police State in which state and local police are granted vast powers including the right to demand evidence of immigration status from every individual stopped, even for a simple traffic violation or any minor civil infraction, if they have a ‘reasonable suspicion’ that the person is in the U.S. unlawfully. Arizona will hold the power to decide whether a loud noise complaint or jaywalking qualifies as said “minor civil infraction”.

Clarity is more important than agreement....

...so, do you agree that it is in the nation's interest to know how many, if any, individuals are in the country illegally, i.e., outside of protocols set up by law?

A simple yes or no would be satisfactory.

No. Not if we have to usurp 'protocols', because 'protocol' is following the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the presumption of the innocence. Would YOU would be willing to trade places and walk in their shoes? Because THAT is the true test of 'liberty'. Whatever you 'claim', we already KNOW you right wing extremists scream totalitarian police state if a city council eliminates toys from Happy Meals, or heaven forbid, run background checks on people buying a lethal weapon.

I just needed to get you on record squirming not to answer the question.
And I just did.

Now...watch how easily I skewer you....although this Punch and Judy act is becoming redundant.....

""The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a phrase in American political and legal discourse. The phrase expresses the belief that constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people. It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln,..."
The Constitution is not a suicide pact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




It appears that you and I are pretty much the same....I mean, once you remove my education and intelligence.

 

[Bfgrn]

Clarity is more important than agreement....

...so, do you agree that it is in the nation's interest to know how many, if any, individuals are in the country illegally, i.e., outside of protocols set up by law?

A simple yes or no would be satisfactory.

No. Not if we have to usurp 'protocols', because 'protocol' is following the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the presumption of the innocence. Would YOU would be willing to trade places and walk in their shoes? Because THAT is the true test of 'liberty'. Whatever you 'claim', we already KNOW you right wing extremists scream totalitarian police state if a city council eliminates toys from Happy Meals, or heaven forbid, run background checks on people buying a lethal weapon.

I just needed to get you on record squirming not to answer the question.
And I just did.

Now...watch how easily I skewer you....although this Punch and Judy act is becoming redundant.....

""The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a phrase in American political and legal discourse. The phrase expresses the belief that constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people. It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln,..."
The Constitution is not a suicide pact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




It appears that you and I are pretty much the same....I mean, once you remove my education and intelligence.

So, I just needed to get you on record that you have no problem with a police state, just as long as the color of your skin is not tone being persecuted.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No. Not if we have to usurp 'protocols', because 'protocol' is following the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the presumption of the innocence. Would YOU would be willing to trade places and walk in their shoes? Because THAT is the true test of 'liberty'. Whatever you 'claim', we already KNOW you right wing extremists scream totalitarian police state if a city council eliminates toys from Happy Meals, or heaven forbid, run background checks on people buying a lethal weapon.

I just needed to get you on record squirming not to answer the question.
And I just did.

Now...watch how easily I skewer you....although this Punch and Judy act is becoming redundant.....

""The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a phrase in American political and legal discourse. The phrase expresses the belief that constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people. It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln,..."
The Constitution is not a suicide pact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




It appears that you and I are pretty much the same....I mean, once you remove my education and intelligence.

So, I just needed to get you on record that you have no problem with a police state, just as long as the color of your skin is not tone being persecuted.

I fully understand that there are lots burned out lightbulbs on your marquee....

C'mon....even you could fabricate something of more substance than that.

Maybe.

Don't you want to backtrack and admit that open borders represent untold danger....?

Or does that reek of too much common sense for you?



This is your big chance to show that you're not one of the early failures of electroshock therapy!

 

[Bfgrn]

I just needed to get you on record squirming not to answer the question.
And I just did.

Now...watch how easily I skewer you....although this Punch and Judy act is becoming redundant.....

""The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a phrase in American political and legal discourse. The phrase expresses the belief that constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people. It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln,..."
The Constitution is not a suicide pact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




It appears that you and I are pretty much the same....I mean, once you remove my education and intelligence.

So, I just needed to get you on record that you have no problem with a police state, just as long as the color of your skin is not tone being persecuted.

I fully understand that there are lots burned out lightbulbs on your marquee....

C'mon....even you could fabricate something of more substance than that.

Maybe.

Don't you want to backtrack and admit that open borders represent untold danger....?

Or does that reek of too much common sense for you?



This is your big chance to show that you're not one of the early failures of electroshock therapy!

Have you ever authored a post without trying to cloak your massive insecurities with insults? Where did I ever promote open boarders? That is what's called a polarized argument. I MUST be painted as having an extreme position to buffer your extremism.

Would you object to you and people who LOOK like you being targeted, stopped and harassed by the police, by LAW? Targeted, stopped and harassed solely because you LOOK like you could be guilty? If that is your definition of 'common sense' then why aren't you a big fan of Woodrow Wilson or FDR who you regularly chastise for rounding up certain people? THAT'S different?

Here are some real words of wisdom for you...from Thomas Jefferson and Edmund Burke.


It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
Thomas Jefferson

It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law than that he should escape.
Thomas Jefferson

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson

Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.
Edmund Burke

Among a people generally corrupt liberty cannot long exist.
Edmund Burke

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
Edmund Burke

It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do.
Edmund Burke

Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.
Edmund Burke

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.
Edmund Burke

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke

People crushed by laws, have no hope but to evade power. If the laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to the law; and those who have most to hope and nothing to lose will always be dangerous.
Edmund Burke

Toleration is good for all, or it is good for none.
Edmund Burke

Who was Edmund Burke?
The philosopher who is generally considered the father of modern conservatism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, I just needed to get you on record that you have no problem with a police state, just as long as the color of your skin is not tone being persecuted.

I fully understand that there are lots burned out lightbulbs on your marquee....

C'mon....even you could fabricate something of more substance than that.

Maybe.

Don't you want to backtrack and admit that open borders represent untold danger....?

Or does that reek of too much common sense for you?



This is your big chance to show that you're not one of the early failures of electroshock therapy!

Have you ever authored a post without trying to cloak your massive insecurities with insults? Where did I ever promote open boarders? That is what's called a polarized argument. I MUST be painted as having an extreme position to buffer your extremism.

Would you object to you and people who LOOK like you being targeted, stopped and harassed by the police, by LAW? Targeted, stopped and harassed solely because you LOOK like you could be guilty? If that is your definition of 'common sense' then why aren't you a big fan of Woodrow Wilson or FDR who you regularly chastise for rounding up certain people? THAT'S different?

Here are some real words of wisdom for you...from Thomas Jefferson and Edmund Burke.


It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
Thomas Jefferson

It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law than that he should escape.
Thomas Jefferson

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson

Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.
Edmund Burke

Among a people generally corrupt liberty cannot long exist.
Edmund Burke

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
Edmund Burke

It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do.
Edmund Burke

Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.
Edmund Burke

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.
Edmund Burke

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke

People crushed by laws, have no hope but to evade power. If the laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to the law; and those who have most to hope and nothing to lose will always be dangerous.
Edmund Burke

Toleration is good for all, or it is good for none.
Edmund Burke

Who was Edmund Burke?
The philosopher who is generally considered the father of modern conservatism.

1. In a vast and deep history of erroneous posts, none reveals the depth of lunacy as well as this one:

"Have you ever authored a post without trying to cloak your massive insecurities ..."

Insecure???

Me????

You have no idea how much time I spend wondering why there isn't an action figure of me yet!


2. "Where did I ever promote open boarders?"

By throwing every possible roadblock in front of attempts to make it difficult for illegal border-crossers to simply blend in to the population, that is promotion of open borders.

 

[Bfgrn]

I fully understand that there are lots burned out lightbulbs on your marquee....

C'mon....even you could fabricate something of more substance than that.

Maybe.

Don't you want to backtrack and admit that open borders represent untold danger....?

Or does that reek of too much common sense for you?



This is your big chance to show that you're not one of the early failures of electroshock therapy!

Have you ever authored a post without trying to cloak your massive insecurities with insults? Where did I ever promote open boarders? That is what's called a polarized argument. I MUST be painted as having an extreme position to buffer your extremism.

Would you object to you and people who LOOK like you being targeted, stopped and harassed by the police, by LAW? Targeted, stopped and harassed solely because you LOOK like you could be guilty? If that is your definition of 'common sense' then why aren't you a big fan of Woodrow Wilson or FDR who you regularly chastise for rounding up certain people? THAT'S different?

Here are some real words of wisdom for you...from Thomas Jefferson and Edmund Burke.


It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
Thomas Jefferson

It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law than that he should escape.
Thomas Jefferson

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson

Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.
Edmund Burke

Among a people generally corrupt liberty cannot long exist.
Edmund Burke

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
Edmund Burke

It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do.
Edmund Burke

Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.
Edmund Burke

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.
Edmund Burke

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke

People crushed by laws, have no hope but to evade power. If the laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to the law; and those who have most to hope and nothing to lose will always be dangerous.
Edmund Burke

Toleration is good for all, or it is good for none.
Edmund Burke

Who was Edmund Burke?
The philosopher who is generally considered the father of modern conservatism.

1. In a vast and deep history of erroneous posts, none reveals the depth of lunacy as well as this one:

"Have you ever authored a post without trying to cloak your massive insecurities ..."

Insecure???

Me????

You have no idea how much time I spend wondering why there isn't an action figure of me yet!


2. "Where did I ever promote open boarders?"

By throwing every possible roadblock in front of attempts to make it difficult for illegal border-crossers to simply blend in to the population, that is promotion of open borders.

You don't fool me PC. You are a product of a very strict authoritarian upbringing. You are an authoritarian, it is all you can ever be.

So, if you and everyone who LOOKS like you was being targeted, stopped and harassed by the police, by LAW you would be fine with that? A simple 'yes' and you win the argument...go for it, it would be a first...