Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[Eric the Green]

(04-23-2019, 12:49 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-22-2019, 10:57 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(04-22-2019, 10:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-22-2019, 03:43 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-22-2019, 12:07 PM)David Horn Wrote: FDR was the most socialist President we've ever had in office.  He had to be.  The GD was beating the citizens of the country into the ground, so FDR created the WPA, CCC and other make-work agencies and put people to work.  That's socialism.  What LBJ did was social policy, but at the cultural level.  Socialism isn't cultural, it's economic.

And yes, FDR made some horrendous mistakes: the internment of Japanese Americans was one and refusing the St. Louis the right to dock and disgorge it's refugees was another.  Mistakes and all, he was still a great man.  LBJ did some great things too, but he also got us bogged down in the Vietnam War.  In short, both men were human beings.  Both had good intentions.   Both did good and some not-good.

FDR was the greatest Keynesian president we've had in office. Hint... If FDR was a socialist as you say, we would most likely be a socialist country today. He would've have set the record for Veto's like he did and he wouldn't have insisted on work related programs only. What LBJ did was open the door to socialist policies being set into place and established at the cultural level within impoverished areas at a time when all workers viewed working as essential which resulted in the establishment of a permanent welfare state and Democratic voting block today. IF I'm aware of it, why aren't blues aware of it and continue acting as if the permanent welfare state and the voting block that they've created and largely support, do not exist today. Now, I'm not sure if LBJ knew what he was doing or not, he's not around to ask or see the results either these days. I'd like to ask him about the crooks who took over the social movements after King, Malcolm X and the Kennedy's were assassinated and ask why so many of them are so rich and powerful these days. The truth is that Obama was the 1st socialist minded, socialist educated, socialist influenced person elected President of the United States and we both know how quickly American culture responded and how well American culture was able to control him politically. I doubt a white Obama would do better or have better result but I suppose it makes sense to give it a try.

Classic, isn't it a fact that the policies you so oppose today and call socialist, are the ones instituted by FDR? He did more than use government spending to stimulate the economy. He instituted social security and welfare programs. He created government jobs. LBJ extended it to black populations. Are these the ones you refer to as the welfare state, and are they the voting bloc who support it? Or other ethnic groups? Immigrants?

The welfare state has been cut back so much by 40 years of your philosophy in power, that I don't think you are aware of this. You still think we live in the 1970s. Welfare is a tiny portion of the federal budget, though it is larger in some states like CA. I don't know any crooks who took over the 60s movements who are rich and powerful these days. The rich and powerful are billionaires who mostly support Republicans. That party represents their class, and no-one else. 

Obama's policies were quite mild and moderate, and mostly successfully resisted. Obama sought to enact health reform after many decades of resistance. It was not a new idea at all, had been proposed by Republicans, and it has been adopted more strongly in most other countries. According to you, those other countries are all socialists, and we are special because we aren't. I'd say we are the most backward developed country because we aren't what you call "socialist."

Agree with both actually on this. The backwards part yes and yes special too....not in good ways though to the people of your country unfortunately. Which I think Eric and I can for once agree on.

What do you know about America other than what the  liberals have to say about it? As a general rule, liberals don't have very much good to say about America or Americans in general. I mean, the liberals are so anti American we don't view them as Americans these days.  I mean, we are so backwards and all. Sorry, that crap makes me laugh. I dunno, I guess Eric hasn't strayed far enough from home to see a new American building or a modern American facility or a modern American home or an American farm operation outside the urban areas. We are so backwards ( still chopping wood or shoveling coal to heat our homes and still using newspaper or dried leaves for toilet paper and gas lamps or candles to light our homes or sinking nails with hammers) yet we are advancing so fast that Eric is concerned about cheap blue labor being completely phased out and wondering what we are going to do about that issue. Right now, America is going through a natural process of selection and when the process is nearly complete, a natural separation is going to take place and what the blues do and what the blues vote for and what the blues pass will no longer matter to America. We are pretty much their now. We just need to give people more time for moving.

You express the tenet of social Darwinism, Classic. That is part and parcel of the ideology of free-market economics, and also the justification for Hitler's racism and nationalism. Without saying what your ideology is, exactly, your phrase indicates your belief in this approach to life as competition for survival of the fittest and the devil take the hindmost. We liberals want everyone to have the opportunity to succeed, and help for those who have problems, because we don't blame the problems exclusively on the individual and his/her fitness for survival.

Today, labor is being cut out not by rural and red America folks working and beating out welfare recipients, but by the people whom your votes empower and put in office and in the board rooms. You vote for the oligarchy, in the guise of free enterprise, individualism and survival of the fittest and against welfare and immigrants. The corporate oligarchy directly benefits from your votes, frees them up, and enables them to institute free trade (which means corporations hire cheap labor abroad), computer automation and robotics (which means workers lose their jobs), low wages (which means more people in poverty), corporate buyouts (which results in more job losses and concentration of economic power), reduced regulations (which result in pollution, climate change, financial crashes and poor consumer products), lower taxes for themselves (which creates income inequality) and obstructions to labor unions (which lowers wages and worsens working conditions). Your votes create the current problems of labor being phased out. You vote for it, and your red regions suffer even more from this, and turn to opioids for solace and suicide.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-25-2019, 01:19 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: You express the tenet of social Darwinism, Classic. That is part and parcel of the ideology of free-market economics, and also the justification for Hitler's racism and nationalism. Without saying what your ideology is, exactly, your phrase indicates your belief in this approach to life as competition for survival of the fittest and the devil take the hindmost. We liberals want everyone to have the opportunity to succeed, and help for those who have problems, because we don't blame the problems exclusively on the individual and his/her fitness for survival.

Today, labor is being cut out not by rural and red America folks working and beating out welfare recipients, but by the people whom your votes empower and put in office and in the board rooms. You vote for the oligarchy, in the guise of free enterprise, individualism and survival of the fittest and against welfare and immigrants. The corporate oligarchy directly benefits from your votes, frees them up, and enables them to institute free trade (which means corporations hire cheap labor abroad), computer automation and robotics (which means workers lose their jobs), low wages (which means more people in poverty), corporate buyouts (which results in more job losses and concentration of economic power), reduced regulations (which result in pollution, climate change, financial crashes and poor consumer products), lower taxes for themselves (which creates income inequality) and obstructions to labor unions (which lowers wages and worsens working conditions). Your votes create the current problems of labor being phased out. You vote for it, and your red regions suffer even more from this, and turn to opioids for solace and suicide.

Funny, a social Darwin self promotes, defines, educates and convinces themselves and other social Darwin's that they're the most valuable and most powerful deer in the woods and then do whatever they can or have to do to as fake deer to avoid contact and serious encounters and getting into fights with members of the real deer population. Me, I tend to remain true to my nature and not pretend or allow others to convince me of being someone or something other than myself. A social Darwin breaks the law and pays a fortune to have a child of theirs accepted by an elite college who normally would not accept them based on their true merits. A social Darwin imposes rules and laws that favor the acceptance mediocre students based of their race or gender or sexual orientation or ideological beliefs and does whatever it can to hamper and exclude those who actually have merit. In other words, social Darwinism as you say, ain't natural and often undermines, defies or seeks to destroy what's natural or often viewed and accepted as natural. In short, I'm a Darwin but I'm not a social Darwin or one of their followers/believers like yourself and other liberals who used to post in the old forum. Hint, American Classical Liberalism and natural selection eventually prevailed over social Darwinism back then.

What am I voting for today? I'm voting for a stronger presence of American troops and American law enforcement officials and additional security measures like fences and high tech security apparatus's to be positioned along our southern border. Unknowingly, you are voting and have been voting for justification of them as you've been voting for the defense of liberal policies which have allowed it to grow, become larger and become a more troublesome issue for more Americans. Dude, we already have the social Darwin males by their balls and they know it, like you know it. BTW, if you end up meeting the Devil, you won't be able to blame me or the Republicans because the Devil will know that we weren't involved in the decision to reject your entrance to heaven and send you to hill. Personally, I don't care where you end up as far as that goes.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-24-2019, 05:43 PM)taramarie Wrote: There is no full ban on firearms intended here. Just certain types have been banned. You certainly still can defend yourself here. Yes its the ones that allow for rapid fire which are banned here now. The limit here is on those types of guns. Guns still are legal but with restrictions.

What kind of weapons were banned?

[Classic-Xer]

(04-25-2019, 04:56 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(04-25-2019, 04:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-24-2019, 05:43 PM)taramarie Wrote: There is no full ban on firearms intended here. Just certain types have been banned. You certainly still can defend yourself here. Yes its the ones that allow for rapid fire which are banned here now. The limit here is on those types of guns. Guns still are legal but with restrictions.

What kind of weapons were banned?

Changes to firearms law - prohibited firearms

there you go. The latest article on the topic for you to read.

You can still defend yourself with a pea shooter but your ability to defend yourself was just significantly reduced by your government. Were large mass shootings a common occurrence before the Australian citizen did what he did? From what I read, your country already had strict gun laws in place relating to the purchase/ownership of the guns that are banned. I don't live there. So, what your government does and what its people support it doing doesn't matter much to me. Like I said, I would have looked at the issue as an individual issue vs a social issue and passed a law that restricts foreign citizens from Australia or any other country from purchasing firearms in New Zealand. BTW, I figured New Zealand would do what Australia did a while ago.

[Eric the Green]

(04-25-2019, 02:44 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-25-2019, 01:19 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: You express the tenet of social Darwinism, Classic. That is part and parcel of the ideology of free-market economics, and also the justification for Hitler's racism and nationalism. Without saying what your ideology is, exactly, your phrase indicates your belief in this approach to life as competition for survival of the fittest and the devil take the hindmost. We liberals want everyone to have the opportunity to succeed, and help for those who have problems, because we don't blame the problems exclusively on the individual and his/her fitness for survival.

Today, labor is being cut out not by rural and red America folks working and beating out welfare recipients, but by the people whom your votes empower and put in office and in the board rooms. You vote for the oligarchy, in the guise of free enterprise, individualism and survival of the fittest and against welfare and immigrants. The corporate oligarchy directly benefits from your votes, frees them up, and enables them to institute free trade (which means corporations hire cheap labor abroad), computer automation and robotics (which means workers lose their jobs), low wages (which means more people in poverty), corporate buyouts (which results in more job losses and concentration of economic power), reduced regulations (which result in pollution, climate change, financial crashes and poor consumer products), lower taxes for themselves (which creates income inequality) and obstructions to labor unions (which lowers wages and worsens working conditions). Your votes create the current problems of labor being phased out. You vote for it, and your red regions suffer even more from this, and turn to opioids for solace and suicide.

Funny, a social Darwin self promotes, defines, educates and convinces themselves and other social Darwin's that they're the most valuable and most powerful deer in the woods and then do whatever they can or have to do to as fake deer to avoid contact and serious encounters and getting into fights with members of the real deer population. Me, I tend to remain true to my nature and not pretend or allow others to convince me of being someone or something other than myself. A social Darwin breaks the law and pays a fortune to have a child of theirs accepted by an elite college who normally would not accept them based on their true merits. A social Darwin imposes rules and laws that favor the acceptance mediocre students based of their race or gender or sexual orientation or ideological beliefs and does whatever it can to hamper and exclude those who actually have merit. In other words, social Darwinism as you say, ain't natural and often undermines, defies or seeks to destroy what's natural or often viewed and accepted as natural. In short, I'm a Darwin but I'm not a social Darwin or one of their followers/believers like yourself and other liberals who used to post in the old forum. Hint, American Classical Liberalism and natural selection eventually prevailed over social Darwinism back then.  

What am I voting for today? I'm voting for a stronger presence of American troops and American law enforcement officials and additional security measures like fences and high tech security apparatus's to be positioned along our southern border. Unknowingly, you are voting and have been voting for justification of them as you've been voting for the defense of liberal policies which have   allowed it to grow, become larger and become a more troublesome issue for more Americans. Dude, we already have the social Darwin males by their balls and they know it, like you know it. BTW, if you end up meeting the Devil, you won't be able to blame me or the Republicans because the Devil will know that we weren't involved in the decision to reject your entrance to heaven and send you to hill. Personally, I don't care where you end up as far as that goes.

You don't know the term Social Darwinism? It has nothing to do with socialism. It means applying Darwin to understanding society. That's what you're doing, and this also includes what the inventor of Social Darwinism Herbert Spencer called it: survival of the fittest. That is your belief. Social Darwinism in a capitalist society is equivalent to classical and neo-liberalism.

[pbrower2a]

(04-25-2019, 02:44 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-25-2019, 01:19 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: You express the tenet of social Darwinism, Classic. That is part and parcel of the ideology of free-market economics, and also the justification for Hitler's racism and nationalism. Without saying what your ideology is, exactly, your phrase indicates your belief in this approach to life as competition for survival of the fittest and the devil take the hindmost. We liberals want everyone to have the opportunity to succeed, and help for those who have problems, because we don't blame the problems exclusively on the individual and his/her fitness for survival.

Today, labor is being cut out not by rural and red America folks working and beating out welfare recipients, but by the people whom your votes empower and put in office and in the board rooms. You vote for the oligarchy, in the guise of free enterprise, individualism and survival of the fittest and against welfare and immigrants. The corporate oligarchy directly benefits from your votes, frees them up, and enables them to institute free trade (which means corporations hire cheap labor abroad), computer automation and robotics (which means workers lose their jobs), low wages (which means more people in poverty), corporate buyouts (which results in more job losses and concentration of economic power), reduced regulations (which result in pollution, climate change, financial crashes and poor consumer products), lower taxes for themselves (which creates income inequality) and obstructions to labor unions (which lowers wages and worsens working conditions). Your votes create the current problems of labor being phased out. You vote for it, and your red regions suffer even more from this, and turn to opioids for solace and suicide.

Funny, a social Darwin self promotes, defines, educates and convinces themselves and other social Darwin's that they're the most valuable and most powerful deer in the woods and then do whatever they can or have to do to as fake deer to avoid contact and serious encounters and getting into fights with members of the real deer population. Me, I tend to remain true to my nature and not pretend or allow others to convince me of being someone or something other than myself. A social Darwin breaks the law and pays a fortune to have a child of theirs accepted by an elite college who normally would not accept them based on their true merits. A social Darwin imposes rules and laws that favor the acceptance mediocre students based of their race or gender or sexual orientation or ideological beliefs and does whatever it can to hamper and exclude those who actually have merit. In other words, social Darwinism as you say, ain't natural and often undermines, defies or seeks to destroy what's natural or often viewed and accepted as natural. In short, I'm a Darwin but I'm not a social Darwin or one of their followers/believers like yourself and other liberals who used to post in the old forum. Hint, American Classical Liberalism and natural selection eventually prevailed over social Darwinism back then.

No, Social Darwinism is not what you think it is. Paradoxically it is neither social nor in any way connected to Charles Darwin (who rejected it). It is not corruption in the sense of bribing institutions to get ahead. It is the idea that those who gain advantages in a capitalist society due to fortunate investments or to bureaucratic power have the God-given (or should I say, Mammon-given) right to treat their lessers badly because such reflects and promotes economic 'evolution'. Charles Darwin was very much on the extreme Left of his time -- so much that Karl Marx sought to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin, reflecting Marx' belief that Marx' style of socialism was itself a great evolution in economics and morality. (Marx' prediction of a glorious world in which the State ran the economy has some serious flaws and became obsolete when capitalists decided that it was far safer to have the proletariat as consumers with a stake in capitalism than as near-serfs who had cause to destroy capitalism).

Quote:What am I voting for today? I'm voting for a stronger presence of American troops and American law enforcement officials and additional security measures like fences and high tech security apparatus's to be positioned along our southern border.

The border wall that Donald Trump proposes will be full of graft and short of value. That is Donald Trump for you. High technology for catching illegal border-crossers? We already have a pretext for that in suppressing the import of illegal drugs. But let us remember why people cross the border with illegal drugs: American addicts, which includes people of all ethnic and social groups.  What do you want to do about the plague of illegal drugs?

[David Horn]

(04-24-2019, 07:44 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-24-2019, 02:05 PM)David Horn Wrote: You might be advised to do a little reading.  No one discounted the value of work; certainly not LBJ or MLK -- FDR least of all.  I would like to know where that came from.  I can say one thing about "the welfare state" you seem so adamant to trash.  That little idea came directly from the GOP, believe it or not, and the reason was a typical GOP reason: cost cutting.  LBJ's Job Corps was intended to be a job for anyone who needed and couldn't find one.  The GOP said that was too expensive (for reference: the Job Corps as it currently exists generates $2 of benefit for every $1 spent), so, at their insistence, the cost was cut by converting a lot of it into cash welfare, which the GOP immediately started hating too.  Now it's the Earned Income Tax Credit that's in their sights, which is funny because its a GOP program.

I ignored the rest as nonsense.

Hopefully, you won't be around when America votes to cut bait with the liberals and the bulk of their socialist programs and social policies these days. I assume the 2 to 1 folks are a group of well educated and well paid professionals (physicists, engineers, lawyers, accountants, chemists and such)  who work for various departments of the federal government like some friends of mine do now and a brother who worked for the Air Force with the Space Shuttle Program in the past. Am I correct about them? If so, I did a little reading and figured this out myself.

Job Corps doesn't provide jobs, as originally intended.  It's primarily a career training program with career counseling.  I don't see it preparing graduate degreed professionals.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-25-2019, 07:56 PM)taramarie Wrote: We are still able to defend ourselves. We don't need those sorts of guns for home defence. I think you would find it interesting knowing this little detail that we were asked by our government prior to these guns being banned. Overwhelmingly it was agreed on that we do not want these guns to continue to be legal in this country. I do agree with you there also needs to be a law restricting non citizens purchasing firearms.  https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christc...poll-finds

That's what you say, seem to believe, but the truth is that you're less able to defend yourselves now. Mean while, Americans are more able to defend themselves than anytime in American history. A fact that keeps its far left liberal groups at bey and keeps their ambitions of ruling America in check. Right now, they only have the power to rule about a quarter of it as far as America's population goes. However, the bulk of its land mass and its overall production capabilities are still governed by reds or purples or Americans as I say. Once you understand this, one can understand the position the liberals are in as a ruling group and the position the Democratic population is now in today as well.

[Eric the Green]

(04-26-2019, 05:30 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-25-2019, 07:56 PM)taramarie Wrote: We are still able to defend ourselves. We don't need those sorts of guns for home defence. I think you would find it interesting knowing this little detail that we were asked by our government prior to these guns being banned. Overwhelmingly it was agreed on that we do not want these guns to continue to be legal in this country. I do agree with you there also needs to be a law restricting non citizens purchasing firearms.  https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christc...poll-finds

That's what you say, seem to believe, but the truth is that you're less able to defend yourselves now. Mean while, Americans are more able to defend themselves than anytime in American history. A fact that keeps its far left liberal groups at bey and keeps their ambitions of ruling America in check. Right now, they only have the power to rule about a quarter of it as far as America's population goes. However, the bulk of its land mass and its overall production capabilities are still governed by reds or purples or Americans as I say. Once you understand this, one can understand the position the liberals are in as a ruling group and the position the Democratic population is now in today as well.

The majority of Americans are willing to support and vote for the left liberal blue program, which is only what America needs for its own good, prosperity, and to be truly American. It's true these liberal blue voters occupy far less than half the land mass, but they supply the vast majority of economic productivity.

Without respect for human rights, there is no such thing as "America." Trump and the GOP assault human rights. The right-wing you uphold seems always to keep the true Americans in check these days. That's because they have been more fanatically dedicated to protecting their illusions and their status and wealth, by rigging the elections to discourage non-whites from voting, gerrymander districts, pack the Courts so they rule in their favor in tight elections (e.g. year 2000), and deceive white people in red states into voting for them by promising to uphold their prejudices and assuage their fears.

The only human right you uphold is the ability to impose your power on others at the barrel of a gun, or to rule others through uncontrolled wealth. But we blues are coming for your guns. We will take ALL of your guns, Classic Xer, melt them down and make bicycles out of them. Then we will tear down all the border walls and fences and encourage America to be overrun with non-white people. That way we will be sure to outvote you too, and keep you from violently rebelling as we rule the country and impose our blue liberal agenda on you, including raising your taxes sky high to pay for welfare for all these immigrants and non-whites, so they are loyal to us and vote for us.
ha ha.

[pbrower2a]

[Classic-Xer]

(04-25-2019, 08:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You don't know the term Social Darwinism? It has nothing to do with socialism. It means applying Darwin to understanding society. That's what you're doing, and this also includes what the inventor of Social Darwinism Herbert Spencer called it: survival of the fittest. That is your belief. Social Darwinism in a capitalist society is equivalent to classical and neo-liberalism.

I understand what you meant by social Darwinism and how it relates to molding society and understood the application of it that you used as an example to describe me as well.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-26-2019, 09:58 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(04-26-2019, 09:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-26-2019, 05:30 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-25-2019, 07:56 PM)taramarie Wrote: We are still able to defend ourselves. We don't need those sorts of guns for home defence. I think you would find it interesting knowing this little detail that we were asked by our government prior to these guns being banned. Overwhelmingly it was agreed on that we do not want these guns to continue to be legal in this country. I do agree with you there also needs to be a law restricting non citizens purchasing firearms.  https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christc...poll-finds

That's what you say, seem to believe, but the truth is that you're less able to defend yourselves now. Mean while, Americans are more able to defend themselves than anytime in American history. A fact that keeps its far left liberal groups at bey and keeps their ambitions of ruling America in check. Right now, they only have the power to rule about a quarter of it as far as America's population goes. However, the bulk of its land mass and its overall production capabilities are still governed by reds or purples or Americans as I say. Once you understand this, one can understand the position the liberals are in as a ruling group and the position the Democratic population is now in today as well.

The majority of Americans are willing to support and vote for the left liberal blue program, which is only what America needs for its own good, prosperity, and to be truly American. It's true these liberal blue voters occupy far less than half the land mass, but they supply the vast majority of economic productivity.

Without respect for human rights, there is no such thing as "America." Trump and the GOP assault human rights. The right-wing you uphold seems always to keep the true Americans in check these days. That's because they have been more fanatically dedicated to protecting their illusions and their status and wealth, by rigging the elections to discourage non-whites from voting, gerrymander districts, pack the Courts so they rule in their favor in tight elections (e.g. year 2000), and deceive white people in red states into voting for them by promising to uphold their prejudices and assuage their fears.

The only human right you uphold is the ability to impose your power on others at the barrel of a gun, or to rule others through uncontrolled wealth. But we blues are coming for your guns. We will take ALL of your guns, Classic Xer, melt them down and make bicycles out of them. Then we will tear down all the border walls and fences and encourage America to be overrun with non-white people. That way we will be sure to outvote you too, and keep you from violently rebelling as we rule the country and impose our blue liberal agenda on you, including raising your taxes sky high to pay for welfare for all these immigrants and non-whites, so they are loyal to us and vote for us.
ha ha.

I was about to say something but actually after reading the rest of this yes...hes just dicking with him on red paranoia

Is he dicking around as you say or is that really what he wants/hopes to see happen here? Me, I have a right to defend myself and other people as well and a right to purchase an elite weapon that is capable of doing that task.  Now, Eric should be able to understand that real America isn't going to allow itself to be over run by a bunch of foreigners. A small portion of Blue America maybe, but not the rest of the nation. The rest of the country ain't that stupid.

[Eric the Green]

(04-28-2019, 05:46 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-25-2019, 08:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You don't know the term Social Darwinism? It has nothing to do with socialism. It means applying Darwin to understanding society. That's what you're doing, and this also includes what the inventor of Social Darwinism Herbert Spencer called it: survival of the fittest. That is your belief. Social Darwinism in a capitalist society is equivalent to classical and neo-liberalism.

I understand what you meant by social Darwinism and how it relates to molding society and understood the application of it that you used as an example to describe me as well.

Very good.

[Eric the Green]

(04-28-2019, 06:28 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-26-2019, 09:58 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(04-26-2019, 09:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-26-2019, 05:30 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-25-2019, 07:56 PM)taramarie Wrote: We are still able to defend ourselves. We don't need those sorts of guns for home defence. I think you would find it interesting knowing this little detail that we were asked by our government prior to these guns being banned. Overwhelmingly it was agreed on that we do not want these guns to continue to be legal in this country. I do agree with you there also needs to be a law restricting non citizens purchasing firearms.  https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christc...poll-finds

That's what you say, seem to believe, but the truth is that you're less able to defend yourselves now. Mean while, Americans are more able to defend themselves than anytime in American history. A fact that keeps its far left liberal groups at bey and keeps their ambitions of ruling America in check. Right now, they only have the power to rule about a quarter of it as far as America's population goes. However, the bulk of its land mass and its overall production capabilities are still governed by reds or purples or Americans as I say. Once you understand this, one can understand the position the liberals are in as a ruling group and the position the Democratic population is now in today as well.

The majority of Americans are willing to support and vote for the left liberal blue program, which is only what America needs for its own good, prosperity, and to be truly American. It's true these liberal blue voters occupy far less than half the land mass, but they supply the vast majority of economic productivity.

Without respect for human rights, there is no such thing as "America." Trump and the GOP assault human rights. The right-wing you uphold seems always to keep the true Americans in check these days. That's because they have been more fanatically dedicated to protecting their illusions and their status and wealth, by rigging the elections to discourage non-whites from voting, gerrymander districts, pack the Courts so they rule in their favor in tight elections (e.g. year 2000), and deceive white people in red states into voting for them by promising to uphold their prejudices and assuage their fears.

The only human right you uphold is the ability to impose your power on others at the barrel of a gun, or to rule others through uncontrolled wealth. But we blues are coming for your guns. We will take ALL of your guns, Classic Xer, melt them down and make bicycles out of them. Then we will tear down all the border walls and fences and encourage America to be overrun with non-white people. That way we will be sure to outvote you too, and keep you from violently rebelling as we rule the country and impose our blue liberal agenda on you, including raising your taxes sky high to pay for welfare for all these immigrants and non-whites, so they are loyal to us and vote for us.
ha ha.

I was about to say something but actually after reading the rest of this yes...hes just dicking with him on red paranoia

Is he dicking around as you say or is that really what he wants/hopes to see happen here? Me, I have a right to defend myself and other people as well and a right to purchase an elite weapon that is capable of doing that task.  Now, Eric should be able to understand that real America isn't going to allow itself to be over run by a bunch of foreigners. A small portion of Blue America maybe, but not the rest of the nation. The rest of the country ain't that stupid.

There is some justification for orderly entrance of immigrants so that the nation is not "over run" or overwhelmed. 

But is there really such a thing as a "foreigner" in a nation of Immigrants? Tribes from Asia came here over 10,000 years ago. Spanish and Mexicans were the first whites to come to America, settling New Mexico in the 16th century. Some of them were also combos racially with the tribes that were here before Columbus. White Spanish Europeans also settled Florida, and then the British came in 1607 and the French soon after. Largely British immigrants settled the East Coast, and came further west mostly in the 19th century. The Spanish and then the Mexicans colonized California at the same time that American independence was being declared. Until 1848 the entire southwestern United States was part of Mexico. Blacks from Africa were imported by the slave traders from the 17th century until 1865. 

Even by 1804 Lewis and Clark explored what is now the NW USA where no whites had ever been, except for a few fur traders like John Jacob Astor. Some Irish and Germans followed the British to America, and more came after the famines and revolutions of 1846-48. Many Germans settled in the northern Mid-west, a land not unlike their own. Eastern Europeans came in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island were built, including Russian Jews after the 1880s pograms. Chinese came to the West to farm, mine, do business, and help build the railroads. Japanese followed, and were sent to prison camps in world war II. More Jews came to NY and CA after the Holocaust. Mexicans came to work the fields in the 20th century, and more settled in the southwest in recent years, including undocumenteds. At various times, political parties have opposed immigration and erected anti-immigrant laws directed at particular ethnic groups.

You claim Red America is not so stupid as to allow immigration, and yet the nation has asylum laws that were passed long before the nation was divided into red and blue increasingly since 1968. We are required by law to accept immigrants who can show they are oppressed in the land from which they came. Now there is a crisis which the Republican Party itself has largely created, through its support of fossil fuel-driven climate change, and with the help of some bad decisions by Democrats as well. Drought has caused civil war in the Middle East (especially Syria), causing more Muslim immigration. Now a new emergency has been caused by drought and oppression in Central America, and asylum seekers are flooding the border.

I hope of course that the "elite" semi-automatic weapons will be outlawed during the progressive era soon to come. We'll see. It needs to be done, though I am not unmindful of the potential violent reaction by red-state gun nuts. But assuming a consensus has been reached to outlaw these weapons, a progressive blue-run administration will be able to crush this rebellion without too much trouble. The right-wing supreme court may be able to stop such gun laws, however. Originally, the rulings of the Scalia Court did not imply that such laws could not be passed.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-29-2019, 03:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: There is some justification for orderly entrance of immigrants so that the nation is not "over run" or overwhelmed. 

But is there really such a thing as a "foreigner" in a nation of Immigrants? Tribes from Asia came here over 10,000 years ago. Spanish and Mexicans were the first whites to come to America, settling New Mexico in the 16th century. Some of them were also combos racially with the tribes that were here before Columbus. White Spanish Europeans also settled Florida, and then the British came in 1607 and the French soon after. Largely British immigrants settled the East Coast, and came further west mostly in the 19th century. The Spanish and then the Mexicans colonized California at the same time that American independence was being declared. Until 1848 the entire southwestern United States was part of Mexico. Blacks from Africa were imported by the slave traders from the 17th century until 1865. 

Even by 1804 Lewis and Clark explored what is now the NW USA where no whites had ever been, except for a few fur traders like John Jacob Astor. Some Irish and Germans followed the British to America, and more came after the famines and revolutions of 1846-48. Many Germans settled in the northern Mid-west, a land not unlike their own. Eastern Europeans came in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island were built, including Russian Jews after the 1880s pograms. Chinese came to the West to farm, mine, do business, and help build the railroads. Japanese followed, and were sent to prison camps in world war II. More Jews came to NY and CA after the Holocaust. Mexicans came to work the fields in the 20th century, and more settled in the southwest in recent years, including undocumenteds. At various times, political parties have opposed immigration and erected anti-immigrant laws directed at particular ethnic groups.

You claim Red America is not so stupid as to allow immigration, and yet the nation has asylum laws that were passed long before the nation was divided into red and blue increasingly since 1968. We are required by law to accept immigrants who can show they are oppressed in the land from which they came. Now there is a crisis which the Republican Party itself has largely created, through its support of fossil fuel-driven climate change, and with the help of some bad decisions by Democrats as well. Drought has caused civil war in the Middle East (especially Syria), causing more Muslim immigration. Now a new emergency has been caused by drought and oppression in Central America, and asylum seekers are flooding the border.

I hope of course that the "elite" semi-automatic weapons will be outlawed during the progressive era soon to come. We'll see. It needs to be done, though I am not unmindful of the potential violent reaction by red-state gun nuts. But assuming a consensus has been reached to outlaw these weapons, a progressive blue-run administration will be able to crush this rebellion without too much trouble. The right-wing supreme court may be able to stop such gun laws, however. Originally, the rulings of the Scalia Court did not imply that such laws could not be passed.

The word immigrant no longer applies to most American citizens these days. Yes, there was a time when most Americans where immigrants like a hundred and fifty years ago on my fathers side and well over two hundred years ago on my mothers side. I dunno, I hope we don't see the day when Mexican Americans naturally divide or split between those who still primarily identify as Mexicans and those who primarily identify as Americans. I think things are going to get ugly if the current negative crap that's going on with the liberals these days continues. I'd say the reason we're seeing so many asylum seekers coming in mass is because the global blues understand that the good old days of taking advantage of America is on the verge of coming to an end. I like what Trump threatened to do about the illegal immigrant issue. Hell, I suggested doing something similar myself a while ago. Of coarse, he's not suggesting to remove your border security personnel and eliminate your boarder walls like me. He's just suggesting the idea of busing them in mass and releasing them in blue areas like yours for the blues to deal with right now. Like I've said, Trump is willing to give the bluer American folks a chance to prove themselves to the rest of America at this point. I've already told you that I'm not going to be there to save you or defend you when things start getting rough in blue areas.

[pbrower2a]

It is not 'fun', but it is cogent and relevant. What the late Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) said of Donald Trump in 2017:

Wednesday, April 12, 2017 1:00 am
Lugar harshly critical of Trump policy
Says downsizing US role will lead to global crisis
BRIAN FRANCISCO | The Journal Gazette

Former U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar charged Tuesday that President Donald Trump's foreign policy ambitions are “squandering America's international leverage.”

The Indianapolis native reportedly said during a lecture to the Foreign Policy Association in Washington that the Trump administration's “skepticism or even disdain” for America's global leadership role could lead to more conflict around the world and leave a host of threats – climate change, extreme poverty and hunger, communicable diseases, nuclear proliferation and terrorism – “almost impossible to solve.”

Lugar, a Republican, described as “simplistic, prosaic and reactive” White House goals to deport undocumented immigrants, build a wall along the Mexican border, seek concessions from trade partners, require that European allies pay more for their defense and severely cut the State Department budget.

“Taken together, these policies do nothing to enhance American productivity or competitiveness at home or influence overseas,” Lugar said, according to a transcript. “These are goals that normally would be associated with a selfish, inward-looking nation that is being motivated by fear, not a great superpower with the capacity to shape global affairs.”

Lugar, 85, represented Indiana in the Senate from 1977 through 2012. He is a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and gained international recognition for his work with ex-senator Sam Nunn of Georgia to rid former Soviet Union countries of their nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

Lugar is president of the Lugar Center, a Washington think tank that focuses on foreign policy issues, bipartisan governance, nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction and food and energy security.

During his Tuesday lecture, Lugar said Trump's early foreign policy choices are “offering a vision that is so lacking in ambition and so devoid of American heroism,” according to the transcript.

“Unfortunately the first three months of the Trump presidency have been an exercise in squandering America's international leverage in favor of campaign-driven foreign policy themes that are fundamentally contradicted by centuries of world history,” he said.

“The president is choosing to wager American prosperity and security on the discredited panaceas that industry growth can be preserved by greater protections from global trade, that American jobs can be preserved by building a border wall and deporting immigrants, and that American security can best be protected by downsizing the U.S. role in the world.”

If Trump follows through on these themes, Lugar predicted the result “would be an economic and geopolitical disaster.”

“We doom our nation's workforce to a dismal future if we shift the blame to trade and immigrants” instead of improving the business environment and retraining workers for new jobs, he told the Foreign Policy Association.

Lugar said it is too early to assess Trump's military policies, including last week's missile attack on a Syrian air base.

“A strong, well-funded military remains as important as ever in deterring aggression and addressing threats that cannot be solved in any other way,” Lugar said. “But we cannot bomb our way to security.”

He said the president's attempt to ban entry to the United States by citizens of predominately Muslim nations “gives verbal ammunition to any terrorist leader who seeks to focus followers on the United States.”

bfrancisco@jg.net

Fort Wayne (Indiana) Journal-Gazette

[Eric the Green]

(04-29-2019, 07:26 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-29-2019, 03:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: There is some justification for orderly entrance of immigrants so that the nation is not "over run" or overwhelmed. 

But is there really such a thing as a "foreigner" in a nation of Immigrants? Tribes from Asia came here over 10,000 years ago. Spanish and Mexicans were the first whites to come to America, settling New Mexico in the 16th century. Some of them were also combos racially with the tribes that were here before Columbus. White Spanish Europeans also settled Florida, and then the British came in 1607 and the French soon after. Largely British immigrants settled the East Coast, and came further west mostly in the 19th century. The Spanish and then the Mexicans colonized California at the same time that American independence was being declared. Until 1848 the entire southwestern United States was part of Mexico. Blacks from Africa were imported by the slave traders from the 17th century until 1865. 

Even by 1804 Lewis and Clark explored what is now the NW USA where no whites had ever been, except for a few fur traders like John Jacob Astor. Some Irish and Germans followed the British to America, and more came after the famines and revolutions of 1846-48. Many Germans settled in the northern Mid-west, a land not unlike their own. Eastern Europeans came in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island were built, including Russian Jews after the 1880s pograms. Chinese came to the West to farm, mine, do business, and help build the railroads. Japanese followed, and were sent to prison camps in world war II. More Jews came to NY and CA after the Holocaust. Mexicans came to work the fields in the 20th century, and more settled in the southwest in recent years, including undocumenteds. At various times, political parties have opposed immigration and erected anti-immigrant laws directed at particular ethnic groups.

You claim Red America is not so stupid as to allow immigration, and yet the nation has asylum laws that were passed long before the nation was divided into red and blue increasingly since 1968. We are required by law to accept immigrants who can show they are oppressed in the land from which they came. Now there is a crisis which the Republican Party itself has largely created, through its support of fossil fuel-driven climate change, and with the help of some bad decisions by Democrats as well. Drought has caused civil war in the Middle East (especially Syria), causing more Muslim immigration. Now a new emergency has been caused by drought and oppression in Central America, and asylum seekers are flooding the border.

I hope of course that the "elite" semi-automatic weapons will be outlawed during the progressive era soon to come. We'll see. It needs to be done, though I am not unmindful of the potential violent reaction by red-state gun nuts. But assuming a consensus has been reached to outlaw these weapons, a progressive blue-run administration will be able to crush this rebellion without too much trouble. The right-wing supreme court may be able to stop such gun laws, however. Originally, the rulings of the Scalia Court did not imply that such laws could not be passed.

The word immigrant no longer applies to most American citizens these days. Yes, there was a time when most Americans where immigrants like a hundred and fifty years ago on my fathers side and well over two hundred years ago on my mothers side. I dunno, I hope we don't see the day when Mexican Americans naturally divide or split between those who still primarily identify as Mexicans and those who primarily identify as Americans. I think things are going to get ugly if the current negative crap that's going on with the liberals these days continues. I'd say the reason we're seeing so many asylum seekers coming in mass is because the global blues understand that the good old days of taking advantage of America is on the verge of coming to an end. I like what Trump threatened to do about the illegal immigrant issue. Hell, I suggested doing something similar myself a while ago. Of coarse, he's not suggesting to remove your border security personnel and eliminate your boarder walls like me. He's just suggesting the idea of busing them in mass and releasing them in blue areas like yours for the blues to deal with right now. Like I've said, Trump is willing to give the bluer American folks a chance to prove themselves to the rest of America at this point. I've already told you that I'm not going to be there to save you or defend you when things start getting rough in blue areas.

Immigrants 100 or 150 years ago, and immigrants today. No difference. We are a nation of immigrants. Our history, our heritage, our essence, is one of immigrants coming to this land. Republicans shot down reforms that would have smoothed out the system, preferring fear and prejudice. Now they are reaping the consequences. The more Trump threatens to "end" the "good old days of taking advantage of America," the more they come, because we fail to help those people to rid themselves of their banana republic system and continue through our support for climate change to ruin their lands.

You have your own challenge in Minnesota, because you have not yet managed to turn your state red. It's probably going back to its long-time blue heritage now, which has brought it such benefits.

Interestingly, I was reading about the global warming episode 56 million years ago called The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) https://www.wunderground.com/climate/PETM a fascinating episode in Earth history when to adapt many mammals including our ancestors moved north to colder regions. Today's Republican-caused global warming is heating up the planet 10 times faster, and probably farther than the PETM (which started from a much warmer base climate), and now too humans are adapting by fleeing the tropical drought-stricken areas and moving north. You Classic Xer cannot stop the whirlwind of global migration, which your Reaganomics policies have caused because they stopped the needed regulations to encourage and bring about the transition to an economy that emits less greenhouse gases.

[David Horn]

(04-28-2019, 06:28 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: ... Me, I have a right to defend myself and other people as well and a right to purchase an elite weapon that is capable of doing that task.  Now, Eric should be able to understand that real America isn't going to allow itself to be over run by a bunch of foreigners. A small portion of Blue America maybe, but not the rest of the nation. The rest of the country ain't that stupid.

Your "elite weapon" is just that: a weapon. It's not intended as a defensive arm. It's strictly offensive. The round fired by an AR-15, or any of the many lookalikes, travels fast and spins slowly. What it strikes is shattered, and the slow spin makes the unstable round into a tumbling death-dealer, tearing bone and tissue in ways that are difficult, if not impossible, to repair. Injuries tend to be permanent. Death is highly likely, even for hits in non-critical areas of the body.

No, you should NEVER have a right to one of these!

[pbrower2a]

[Classic-Xer]

(04-30-2019, 10:12 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-28-2019, 06:28 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: ... Me, I have a right to defend myself and other people as well and a right to purchase an elite weapon that is capable of doing that task.  Now, Eric should be able to understand that real America isn't going to allow itself to be over run by a bunch of foreigners. A small portion of Blue America maybe, but not the rest of the nation. The rest of the country ain't that stupid.

Your "elite weapon" is just that: a weapon.  It's not intended as a defensive arm.  It's strictly offensive.  The round fired by an AR-15, or any of the many lookalikes, travels fast and spins slowly.  What it strikes is shattered, and the slow spin makes the unstable round into a tumbling death-dealer, tearing bone and tissue in ways that are difficult, if not impossible, to repair.  Injuries tend to be permanent.  Death is highly likely, even for hits in non-critical areas of the body.

No, you should NEVER have a right to one of these!

Dude, any gun/weapon can be used strictly for defense. Guns/ weapons aren't for offensive use only as you say.