tRUMP to send 15,000 troops to Mexican border

[schuylaar]

Mean? He's a silly little bitch.

he's allowed his opinion. we get farther when kindness and open dialogue exists.

 

[Rob Roy]

Precisely.

The entire system is supposed to be for the greater good, that those who can afford to help those less fortunate do so.

But there's just no pleasing a self-centered, arrogant, narcissistic bastard.

Actually "the entire system" was supposed to consist of protecting equality of free choice of individuals, rather than forcibly insisting one person labor for the benefit for another. That's the definition of slavery btw.

When you disallow free choice, you then become the self centered arrogant bastard, like a prohibitionist, etc.

I stand ready to accept your sincere apology and admission that you were wrong.

 

[schuylaar]

Actually "the entire system" was supposed to consist of protecting equality of free choice of individuals, rather than forcibly insisting one person labor for the benefit for another. That's the definition of slavery btw.

When you disallow free choice, you then become the self centered arrogant bastard, like a prohibitionist, etc.

I stand ready to accept your sincere apology and admission that you were wrong.

free choice is important but so is social contract..which side of the road do you drive on? serious question.

 

[schuylaar]

The asshole in charge said this afternoon that the United States would send as many as 15,000 troops to the border with Mexico starting next week, as he doubles down on his stance to stop a caravan of about 4000 walking migrants fleeing violence and poverty in Central America, that are not expected to reach the border for another month.

The numbers cited by shithead today are significantly higher than defense officials have disclosed previously, like the Pentagon said on Monday it was deploying more than 5,200 troops to the border but that the number could possibly rise. This morning it said more than 7,000 troops would support the Department of Homeland Security along the border, but more will probably end up going. Then Trump said this afternoon fucking 15,000 soldiers was more like it. Who knows what tomorrow will bring, 20,000, 30,000, maybe the entire fucking Army?

This guy is a lunatic, seeing as that's more troops than we have in Afghanistan ( THE LONGEST WAR IN AMERICAN FUCKING HISTORY, GET THE FUCK OUT!!!), Iraq and Syria COMBINED!!!!!

WTF!!!!

I really like the timing though, because if this doesn't show the American public before election day that he and the GOP in general need a kick in the balls to wake them up, and that he is off his rocker (except the Trumptards which will applaud it), maybe nothing else will.

Countdown time, for the end of Trump?

Well, if the Dems get the House and Beto wins,

IMPEACH THAT MOTHERFUCKER!!!

Whew, I got that off my chest, time for a spliff

do you REALLY think Mad Dog is going to give the order? He'll quit first. Trump is babbling and throwing poo at the wall to see what stick..he'll say anything right now and the more he does, the more people are coming out..everyone is SICK of him.

the only ones who follow trump are his cult as he is the epitome of cult leader..there's NOT enough of them- there just isn't.

 

[Rob Roy]

free choice is important but so is social contract..which side of the road do you drive on? serious question.

If I want to use something that I don't own, I usually try to honor the owners stipulations regarding use etc. If I don't like the owners offer of how their property is to be used, I should be free to not use their property as well as not be forced to pay for it and / or seek other alternatives. In the road scenario, sensibility dictates to me, to drive on the opposite of the road as oncoming traffic. That would be true, regardless of who owns the road.

A social contract isn't really an agreement or contract though, since it includes the negation of person A's rights in favor of person(s) B's preferences.

Any kind of real contract consists of mutual consent from both sides of the deal, otherwise it's an edict and not a contract. Voluntary versus involuntary etc.


I'm curious what you think the distinguishing characteristics of a "social contract" are and why you consider those characteristics a good thing ?

 

[londonfog]

If I want to use something that I don't own, I usually try to honor the owners stipulations regarding use etc. If I don't like the owners offer of how their property is to be used, I should be free to not use their property as well as not be forced to pay for it and / or seek other alternatives. In the road scenario, sensibility dictates to me, to drive on the opposite of the road as oncoming traffic. That would be true, regardless of who owns the road.

A social contract isn't really an agreement or contract though, since it includes the negation of person A's rights in favor of person(s) B's preferences.

Any kind of real contract consists of mutual consent from both sides of the deal, otherwise it's an edict and not a contract. Voluntary versus involuntary etc.


I'm curious what you think the distinguishing characteristics of a "social contract" are and why you consider those characteristics a good thing ?

Why did you send three kids to public school ?

 

[UncleBuck]

If I want to use something that I don't own, I usually try to honor the owners stipulations regarding use etc. If I don't like the owners offer of how their property is to be used, I should be free to not use their property as well as not be forced to pay for it and / or seek other alternatives. In the road scenario, sensibility dictates to me, to drive on the opposite of the road as oncoming traffic. That would be true, regardless of who owns the road.

A social contract isn't really an agreement or contract though, since it includes the negation of person A's rights in favor of person(s) B's preferences.

Any kind of real contract consists of mutual consent from both sides of the deal, otherwise it's an edict and not a contract. Voluntary versus involuntary etc.


I'm curious what you think the distinguishing characteristics of a "social contract" are and why you consider those characteristics a good thing ?

Stop spamming our forum you neo nazi pedophile

 

[Rob Roy]

Why did you send three kids to public school ?

I was unaware of the inequity, at that time.

Why would you force a black guy to labor for another person against his will?

 

[Rob Roy]

Stop spamming our forum you neo nazi pedophile

Stop telling other people what to do while pretending you don't like guns.

You love guns, when they're used to take from others and give you the things you want. You floor abusing cat shit weed curing nincompoop.

 

[UncleBuck]

Why would you force a black guy to labor for another person against his will?

“Civil rights are bad because it will force black people to serve whites against their will. I cannot name a single example of this happening.”


It took you years to make this failure of an argument you neo nazi pedophile

 

[londonfog]

I was unaware of the inequity, at that time.

Why would you force a black guy to labor for another person against his will?

Give an example of how I would force a black guy to labor ? I can a respect a man who debates from the side of reality, not make shit up because they losing points.

Do you use the USPS

 

[Rob Roy]

“Civil rights are bad because it will force black people to serve whites against their will. I cannot name a single example of this happening.”


It took you years to make this failure of an argument you neo nazi pedophile

Actually "civil rights are bad" because it's offered as the antidote to government sponsored forced segregation. But it merely repoints the gun. Forced integration and forced segregation are bad because they remove choices from the involved people to consensually interact or not and both rely on the initiation of force.

If the argument is such a failure, make your argument for forcible labor then, since that's what you are advocating.

 

[Rob Roy]

Give an example of how I would force a black guy to labor ? I can a respect a man who debates from the side of reality, not make shit up because they losing points.

Do you use the USPS

If a black guy didn't ask for permission to open a business and began selling widgets to other people on a consensual basis, and he was fined for not asking for permission, do you support his being fined? Why?

 

[UncleBuck]

Actually "civil rights are bad" because it's offered as the antidote to government sponsored forced segregation. But it merely repoints the gun. Forced integration and forced segregation are bad because they remove choices from the involved people to consensually interact or not and both rely on the initiation of force.

If the argument is such a failure, make your argument for forcible labor then, since that's what you are advocating.

Civil rights doesn’t remove choices for anyone, even racists like you who want to hang polite and reasonable racial segregation signs

Just open a private club you dumb neo nazi pedophile

 

[Rob Roy]

Civil rights doesn’t remove choices for anyone, even racists like you who want to hang polite and reasonable racial segregation signs

Just open a private club you dumb neo nazi pedophile

All property is already the private business of the owner, regardless of their race or they aren't really the owner.

Also, I think you forgot to call me a racist. Slipping.

 

[UncleBuck]

All property is already the private business of the owner, regardless of their race or they aren't really the owner.

Also, I think you forgot to call me a racist. Slipping.

You have spent years building an argument that hinges on you pretending that deciding what type of business you would like to open is rape and slavery rather than a decision you get to make freely

It’s taken you years to construct the worlds shittiest argument ever

 

[londonfog]

If a black guy didn't ask for permission to open a business and began selling widgets to other people on a consensual basis, and he was fined for not asking for permission, do you support his being fined? Why?

First that law would apply to anyone of any color. And exactly what are these widgets ? are they harmful to children ? to ones self ? What was the reason for not applying for a business license. are his widget illegal ? so many questions with your make believe story, I don't know where to began.

What size dress does your sweet beautiful mother wear ?

 

[Rob Roy]

First that law would apply to anyone of any color. And exactly what are these widgets ? are they harmful to children ? to ones self ? What was the reason for not applying for a business license. are his widget illegal ? so many questions with your make believe story, I don't know where to began.

What size dress does your sweet beautiful mother wear ?

Just because you equally remove every person of every race right to self determine doesn't mean you are supporting equal freedom. You're really supporting equal suppression and equal removal of everyone's self determination over their own body and justly acquired property. Huge difference, as usual you are misunderstanding the fruition and reality of what your "argument" means, slugger.

Lets say the black guy didn't apply for a license because it violated his conscience. Let's say his product was legally prohibited, but still in great demand from consenting buyers. You okay with fining him and harming him if doesn't comply ? Begin there.


My mother doesn't wear dresses. She wears a traditional grass skirt, remember, I'm a Pacific Islander that lived in a hut as a young child until I became feral and was raised by a band of Sasquatches.

 

[Rob Roy]

You have spent years building an argument that hinges on you pretending that deciding what type of business you would like to open is rape and slavery rather than a decision you get to make freely

It’s taken you years to construct the worlds shittiest argument ever

Your argument is flaccidly buttressed by a government imposed false dichotomy and falls flat because it excludes other possibilities. (hey that was pretty good Rob Roy!...ahem...polishes nails and smiles condescendingly)

Let me explain, numb nuts. You think choosing between two sets of circumstances laid out by your master constitutes all of the possibilities. It doesn't. If a person isn't free to decline both of your restrictive possibilities and choose neither or take a different course of action, your "choice" is revealed as the same kind of "choice" parents give children when they are employing psychology to control the outcome.

So, anyway. You're still losing.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Your argument is flaccidly buttressed by a government imposed false dichotomy and falls flat because it excludes other possibilities. (hey that was pretty good Rob Roy!...ahem...polishes nails and smiles condescendingly)

You are sad.