Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Final pre-Iowa R debate

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by R. Evans View Post
    DoD wouldn't do that.

    Font 1 guy on the other hand just might.
    I've been taking a break from all this lunacy - most of it being DoD's, of course.

    Leave a comment:


  • R. Evans
    replied
    Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
    You're tolling us aren't you?
    DoD wouldn't do that.

    Font 1 guy on the other hand just might.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Escape2Victory View Post
    I would think this creates a similar problem to Europe though? One nation / US State has an open door immigration policy but what about the impact on neighbours. If said migrants skip across the border to a nation / State that doesn't want them, isn't that an issue in both Europe and the US?
    So you let the states handle it. If they don't like what you're doing, then they shut down their border with you as a reprisal. Simple, elegant, and left up to the individuals rather than enforcing a "one size fits all" solution.

    After all, if I want to collapse my economy, shouldn't that be my choice?

    Leave a comment:


  • Escape2Victory
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    Should be doing? What it should be doing is as little as possible - let the states sort this out themselves. I don't believe in the federal government as a problem solver theory.

    Though state governments are just as incompetent and oppressive, so they're not a real solution either.
    I would think this creates a similar problem to Europe though? One nation / US State has an open door immigration policy but what about the impact on neighbours. If said migrants skip across the border to a nation / State that doesn't want them, isn't that an issue in both Europe and the US?

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
    You're tolling us aren't you?
    Nope. I have little regard for the state, in any form. The whole 'necessary evil' part of it means just what it says on the tin - it's an evil that should only be tolerated insomuch as it is absolutely necessary.

    And there is precious little at the state or federal level that is absolutely necessary.

    Leave a comment:


  • frisco17
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    Should be doing? What it should be doing is as little as possible - let the states sort this out themselves. I don't believe in the federal government as a problem solver theory.

    Though state governments are just as incompetent and oppressive, so they're not a real solution either.
    You're tolling us aren't you?

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Tsar View Post
    This is one of the things that the Feds should be doing since it involves several states.
    Should be doing? What it should be doing is as little as possible - let the states sort this out themselves. I don't believe in the federal government as a problem solver theory.

    Though state governments are just as incompetent and oppressive, so they're not a real solution either.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tsar
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    I support the continued non-enforcement of federal law. Gotta be bold if you want to oppose big government.
    This is one of the things that the Feds should be doing since it involves several states.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tsar
    replied
    Originally posted by Tsar View Post
    Once again heather you seem to have missed what was really said (you have to stop listening only to the left wing media). What he said was that he would suspend TEMPORARILY immigration of Muslims until we can get a handle on the vetting process.
    This sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Why would we allow unvetted or unchecked individuals of any race, country, or religion to be allowed to come and stay here?
    Originally posted by Biscuit View Post
    I'm not being cute. I'm serious. Anyone who knows me, knows I'm not liberal. Your message was lost in a ridiculously misguided personal attack.

    Moving on to better discussion now. Pick someone else if you want to fight.
    And where exactly was my “ridiculously misguided personal attack” in that message?

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
    Immigration law. As in the rules our government created to determine who can and cannot enter the US. You know the ones that nobody follows anymore. Those rules.
    I support the continued non-enforcement of federal law. Gotta be bold if you want to oppose big government.

    Leave a comment:


  • frisco17
    replied
    Immigration law. As in the rules our government created to determine who can and cannot enter the US. You know the ones that nobody follows anymore. Those rules.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
    Why shouldn't it? Last I checked this was our country, not theirs. We owe them nothing and they should only be allowed in with our permission under our rules. They have ZERO right to enter otherwise. Why shouldn't we be able to pick and choose who we want to live with us on our land and enforce that decision?
    What do you mean "our" rules?

    Leave a comment:


  • frisco17
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
    So funny how temporary gets emphasized literally every time someone questions that ban. As if they weren't already aware and that makes any difference.
    Why shouldn't it? Last I checked this was our country, not theirs. We owe them nothing and they should only be allowed in with our permission under our rules. They have ZERO right to enter otherwise. Why shouldn't we be able to pick and choose who we want to live with us on our land and enforce that decision?

    Leave a comment:


  • Biscuit
    replied
    Originally posted by Tsar View Post
    Oh that is so cute. I didn’t define why you were a liberal. I merely pointed out that you were misunderstanding what had been said. Although it is good to see that you have down the "attack any dissenting view" tactic that libbys love so much.
    I'm not being cute. I'm serious. Anyone who knows me, knows I'm not liberal. Your message was lost in a ridiculously misguided personal attack.

    Moving on to better discussion now. Pick someone else if you want to fight.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
    Or instead of the word "libbys" insert the word "Trump"

    This kind of sums up why I like US political debates so much. When it comes to tone and debating style, the pot can be so animated and self-righteously outraged by the color of the kettle.
    Hypocrisy is the name of the game in American politics.

    Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, both are so nearly identical in tone and behavior (and in the grand scheme of things are pretty close politically) that the great furor over the "threat" each side poises is incredibly interesting to watch.

    Like two Christians getting red in the face arguing about how different they are because one of them tolerates infant baptism, it's a mixture of hyperbole and self-delusion that really does create an amusing show.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X