Jump to content

This is getting out of hand...


FBFan2015

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, PAMFAM10 said:

What is the definitions of unpatriotic, Disrespectful. If I take a knee to protest I can't think of anything more American than exercising the 1st. But many see it as disrespect. I found the display of a flag of traitors the confederate flag to be unpatriotic to this country but I was told it's just a flag. And there bigger issues other than a flag. I also find it unpatriotic to constantly talk about suceeding from this country.

Many times I've heard people complain about political correctness and how you can't offend no one. But when your the one offended. You want action taken. For someone exercising a right. I also find that unpatriotic.

What action was demanded?  I think I understand you.  You believe that Mr. Kaepernick has certain speaking rights but nobody who disagrees with him has the right to criticize him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, new tobie said:

texas folk wanting to succeed from the united states is unpatriotic. Those who want to succeed can just pack their bags and get out.

We definitely want to get out...as in secession. We must secede in order to succeed.

Unpatriotic is wanting to take money from people that earn it and redistribute it to people who did not earn it. Unpatriotic is punishing the successful and rewarding the unsuccessful. Unpatriotic is wanting to stifle the 1st amendment rights of anyone that disagrees with you. Unpatriotic is wanting to limit and deny the 2nd amendment rights of non-elitists. Unpatriotic is the government spying on it's citizens. Unpatriotic is government playing favorites by picking and choosing which companies receives favors based on campaign donations. Unpatriotic is the I.R.S. targeting certain groups. Unpatriotic is people labeling all white people as privileged bigots, misogynists, racists, xenophobes, and many other labels. Unpatriotic is telling every citizen that has paid into Social Security that the money is running low and you won't get a raise, while letting hoards of people who have never paid a dime into the system draw from it. Unpatriotic is letting millions of illegals come into the U.S., then fighting to give them access to Social Security and all of the other social welfare programs that are being paid by American citizens. Unpatriotic is prosecuting citizens for crimes far less egregious than the crimes of elitists who go unprosecuted. Unpatriotic is duping the citizens into allowing redistribution of wealth based on an obvious unproven theory (Global Warming) and just flat out lies (Gender Pay Gap). Unpatriotic is telling every American citizen he has to purchase something just for being American (healthcare insurance). Unpatriotic is using taxpayer money to bail out companies that drove themselves into the ground. I could go on all day with this.

My question is why would anyone not want to secede?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, new tobie said:

texas folk wanting to succeed from the united states is unpatriotic. Those who want to succeed can just pack their bags and get out.

Nope, we love Texas and don't want her ruined by government policies. Do you think secession would be a success?

Sorry Engelbert, saw this post and quoted it. Did not see yours till now.

Good post btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Englebert said:

We definitely want to get out...as in secession. We must secede in order to succeed.

Unpatriotic is wanting to take money from people that earn it and redistribute it to people who did not earn it. Unpatriotic is punishing the successful and rewarding the unsuccessful. Unpatriotic is wanting to stifle the 1st amendment rights of anyone that disagrees with you. Unpatriotic is wanting to limit and deny the 2nd amendment rights of non-elitists. Unpatriotic is the government spying on it's citizens. Unpatriotic is government playing favorites by picking and choosing which companies receives favors based on campaign donations. Unpatriotic is the I.R.S. targeting certain groups. Unpatriotic is people labeling all white people as privileged bigots, misogynists, racists, xenophobes, and many other labels. Unpatriotic is telling every citizen that has paid into Social Security that the money is running low and you won't get a raise, while letting hoards of people who have never paid a dime into the system draw from it. Unpatriotic is letting millions of illegals come into the U.S., then fighting to give them access to Social Security and all of the other social welfare programs that are being paid by American citizens. Unpatriotic is prosecuting citizens for crimes far less egregious than the crimes of elitists who go unprosecuted. Unpatriotic is duping the citizens into allowing redistribution of wealth based on an obvious unproven theory (Global Warming) and just flat out lies (Gender Pay Gap). Unpatriotic is telling every American citizen he has to purchase something just for being American (healthcare insurance). Unpatriotic is using taxpayer money to bail out companies that drove themselves into the ground. I could go on all day with this.

My question is why would anyone not want to secede?

Well said...+1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Doubtful...My question is why are the protests being directed at the police?

What should be protested is the leadership in these cities that creates an environment where there are thousands of interactions with police and if one situation goes bad (and even if it doesn't) the police are the ones that are blamed.

Why not hold the city leaders accountable (such as Chicago) for the miserable conditions they are allowing their inner cities to remain in?

Rather than kneeling during the Nation Anthem, maybe they would be more effective protesting on City Hall steps in cities like Chicago and Detroit.

If you truly kept up Chicago Black's Black communities, you would know there have been grass root movements for years trying to improve conditions there.  It's interesting how the violence was reduced in the Harbour area in Baltimore real fast. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BLUEDOVE3 said:

If you truly kept up Chicago Black's Black communities, you would know there have been grass root movements for years trying to improve conditions there.  It's interesting how the violence was reduced in the Harbour area in Baltimore real fast. 

All you have to do is read the news to see the unbelievable numbers of young men that are killed because of gang violence in Chicago...and it's not getting better.

This is a failure of the city leaders (Democrats) in Chicago, not the police...a well used police force is the answer to the problem...remember NYC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

All you have to do is read the news to see the unbelievable numbers of young men that are killed because of gang violence in Chicago...and it's not getting better.

This is a failure of the city leaders (Democrats) in Chicago, not the police...a well used police force is the answer to the problem...remember NYC?

They are killed because of drug turf wars.  I wish the gangs would stop making guns and making those drugs in their hood. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, new tobie said:

This is the hidden content, please

all of this didn't just happen in chicago

I assume with that link you are trying to make a point about the atrocities of gun violence. Let's have a conversation about how many people use a gun protecting themselves versus how many people use a gun in aggression. While we are at it, let's have a conversation about how many guns are used in aggression in urban environments versus rural environments. I would love to debate you on these issues. But I have a strong inclination that you are one of the many that will run from that conversation. Please prove me wrong! I will be out of town for the next couple of days, but I will anxiously await your insightful and well-researched stats to debate Monday. I feel confident that nothing will be forthcoming. And this is an open invitation to anyone else that thinks guns are the bane of societies ills. Please please please can we converse on this topic. History has shown no conversation will be at hand. But I'm still holding out slim hope.

Secede to Succeed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Englebert said:

I assume with that link you are trying to make a point about the atrocities of gun violence. Let's have a conversation about how many people use a gun protecting themselves versus how many people use a gun in aggression. While we are at it, let's have a conversation about how many guns are used in aggression in urban environments versus rural environments. I would love to debate you on these issues. But I have a strong inclination that you are one of the many that will run from that conversation. Please prove me wrong! I will be out of town for the next couple of days, but I will anxiously await your insightful and well-researched stats to debate Monday. I feel confident that nothing will be forthcoming. And this is an open invitation to anyone else that thinks guns are the bane of societies ills. Please please please can we converse on this topic. History has shown no conversation will be at hand. But I'm still holding out slim hope.

Secede to Succeed!

This is the hidden content, please

Didn't see Illinois in the top ten even with the chicago violence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, new tobie said:

This is the hidden content, please

Didn't see Illinois in the top ten even with the chicago violence

Well it shouldn't be by states. It should be by cities, especially the ones with the strictest gun laws. That puts Chicago and New Orleans right at the top. Chicago is working on a record this year.

Never seen the word secede......simply amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2016 at 10:26 AM, stevenash said:

They are being taught early in their lives to disrespect something that most folks consider sacred.  If you don't want to call it hateful, how about defiant?  If you HONESTLY analyze the statistics regarding the very issue they are "protesting", it is a very insignificant number, one which is undeserving of such "protests" and notoriety. 

I will never stand!!!. I taught high school health classes last uear and I did NOT make my students stand. Some teachers were horrified. I told them where to "shove it". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2016 at 9:06 PM, LumRaiderFan said:

So the gangs are innocent bystanders being influenced by outsiders...come on.

OK, so in your opinion, whose fault is the violence and whose problem is this to solve?

What about "white " gangs. The skinheads and the other big one. My son told me the name of the gang, but I don't remember. Why don't we ever hear about the violence they inflict?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2016 at 8:21 PM, LumRaiderFan said:

All you have to do is read the news to see the unbelievable numbers of young men that are killed because of gang violence in Chicago...and it's not getting better.

This is a failure of the city leaders (Democrats) in Chicago, not the police...a well used police force is the answer to the problem...remember NYC?

White people are violent as well. Google white terrorists. The angry white youth are committing school and theatre massacres in dtoves. Black gangs have turf wars. Angry white youth shoot 32 innocent classmates because they feel "isolated" and different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Big girl said:

White people are violent as well. Google white terrorists. The angry white youth are committing school and theatre massacres in dtoves. Black gangs have turf wars. Angry white youth shoot 32 innocent classmates because they feel "isolated" and different.

How much is a drove?

32 dead is less than a month in Chicago alone, but let's not point that out. Are they angry? No, just business as usual. At least I condemn the white murderers. You worship the gangsters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • No offense, but both sides do it.  The Rs in Texas want to do away with decades of precedent and demand that Dems are no longer given chair positions on any committees in the Tx House. It sounds reasonable enough, until you arrive at a point when the Ds enjoy a single seat majority in the house, select the most leftist speaker of all times, and the refuse to give Rs any say in the legislative process by refusing to give them any committee chairs.     Experience has shown me that any time a party seeks to consolidate power in a legislative body, it backfires.    What I don’t like is a world where we cheer for Manchin for doing his own thing, but also re-elect guys like Paxton and Patrick when they make threats to R Legislators if they don’t do exactly what the Radical Right demands. Our Rep here in Hardin County lost his spot for voting against private school vouchers-his wife is a teacher. He also voted his conscience on the Paxton impeachment.  It cost him his seat…. Not because of the will of the voters in his district, but because if millions of outside dollars pumped into the race from outside the district and even an endorsement of his unknown challenger by Donald Trump himself.    Why do people like you applaud Manchin for being his own man and then vote against Phelan for doing the same thing?
    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...