Children and immigration reform

Archy1221 said:
Because they’re idiots.  I don’t realize that was in question. &nbsp
 

“Under control” is quite different than “peaceful and without incident”.  As you know.   Once again, you are on the side of clownish behavior and I’m not.   That’s ok to disagree, just come out and say you are fine with people burning s#!t in the streets and throwing bricks and rocks at Government vehicles, looting a gas station.    I come out and say I’m against that type of abhorrent behavior.   
 

It’s ok to agree to disagree.   Just own up to what you are agreeing with on your side of the ledger.   Thats all I ask.  
Click to expand...
Under control would seem to me to be the determining factor to not escalate the situation by sending in the NG.

I didn’t realize “idiots” were to be denied their right to peacefully protest. Maybe we’re onto something here. Howabout we also deny idiots the right to vote, the right to own guns, the ability to drive….the freedom to post partisan bulls#!t on a message board.  I might actually be on board with denying things to idiots.

You seem to have trouble comprehending what people actually say and instead morph it into what you want to believe. Nevermind that what you want to believe is not reality. You so badly want to think that I don’t support deporting criminal illegal immigrants, that I want property damage and lawlessness. There really are better fantasies you could entertain. As a bonus, you also might not appear so foolish.

 
Archy1221 said:
Rioting is now en vogue.   Hmmmm.  Who knew?   
Click to expand...


What a stupid attempt at a zinger. 

As mentioned, this is not "rioting" it's "legitimate political discourse" as defined by your party, with a huge leap in violence and consequences before it reaches the level of J6. You said you didn't buy that comparison, but you never explained why. Maybe you were too busy plotting out this zinger. 

 
Is archy consciously borrowing from the trump/fox news playbook, concocting a strawman out of thin air to then argue against and backpat with a gotcha? 

Leftists have always had a friendly or at least familiar/empathetic relationship with rioting and/or protests, there's no hypocritical about face here. 

“And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? ... It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.”

 
Lorewarn said:
Is archy consciously borrowing from the trump/fox news playbook, concocting a strawman out of thin air to then argue against and backpat with a gotcha? 

Leftists have always had a friendly or at least familiar/empathetic relationship with rioting and/or protests, there's no hypocritical about face here. 

“And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? ... It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.”
Click to expand...
Ehhhh

Lefties and righties both are cool with protests if those protests align with what they think is right.

That is normal.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
What a stupid attempt at a zinger. 

As mentioned, this is not "rioting" it's "legitimate political discourse" as defined by your party, with a huge leap in violence and consequences before it reaches the level of J6. You said you didn't buy that comparison, but you never explained why. Maybe you were too busy plotting out this zinger. 
Click to expand...
As defined by me, which is who is posting here and not my party, both situations are rioting as I have previously stated.  
 

It really wasn’t a zinger, more of a statement of disbelief in what you all think is ok now.  

 
Back
Top