actually, she did it to herself..sorry, trump cult can't take any credit.
RIP infowars
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
actually, she did it to herself..sorry, trump cult can't take any credit.
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
..Except Hillary is still on the planet, and Obamacare isn’t erased. Only a Trumpian Redneck would consider a loss a win.
Last edited:
GreenHighlander
Well-Known Member
FEMA camps are comin folks hahahahahahahahahaha
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
Good, we need a place to put these treasonous tRUmp supporters.
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Yes that was fucked up, so is telling someone they are not allowed to eat at a public restaurant due to color of skin.Comin' back you mean?
dandyrandy
Well-Known Member
He might be correct. I don't trust either of the goofs.
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
Maybe. As a soldier, I think we’d notice if we were forcing our own people, as a nation, into FEMA camps. I just can’t see anyone not recognizing that order to not be lawful. I’ve been caught off guard before, though.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
In the first circumstance FDR violated rights, "at the point of a gun" and acted as if he owned those people and their property. FDR was a tremendous douche bag.
In the second circumstance, I agree it's fucked up, as in I don't like it. Different set of variables than the first circumstance though.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you have a chance in real time to speak out against concentration camps but you don't because you're a dumbshit racist just like dumbshit trump
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
londonfog
Well-Known Member
bottom line. Both are fucked up and should never happen in any world or utopia.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
In the first instance, when FDR (the thug) ordered people into camps and acted as if he owned their property, it should never have happened, since FDR was applying a form of offensive force. FDR never had the valid right to determine the use of OTHER peoples property etc. only they do / did.
In the second instance, while I have a dislike for racists and prefer it didn't happen, as long as a racist is attempting to control HIS property and not attempting to control another persons property, I can't see how the racists behavior is a form of offensive force.
The person insisting (under threat of using force) the racist use his property and body to serve them, is acting as if THEY own the property and not the racist. Just like FDR did eh?
Do you believe that in the first instance, it's wrong for the racist FDR to abuse other persons property and then in the second instance it's okay for other people to abuse the racists right to control his own property? If so, you are advocating two opposing things at once.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
I believe both instances are wrong and both instances have everything to do with racism and why people should not support it.
We have laws that protect the owner and his property. One would be the way he picks to manage his business. Open to the public or private.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
That's a reasonable tone, which I appreciate, but your idea is contradictory.
It defaults to the idea that a government aggression against a person / property is somehow exempt from scrutiny and that those kinds of aggressions can take place to the extent they remove the choices of the property owner and somehow your fallacious claim that the property owner is now being "protected" is also valid. Inconsistent argument right there.
You see, when you use opposing concepts to buttress your argument, your argument remains flaccid and ineffectual.
