Jump to content

Foosters

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    5720
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Foosters

  1. Just now, lemonlime said:

    What does that mean?  They came to a consensus on 17 of the 18 counts, but are deadlocked on 1?  Or they can't come to a consensus on any count? 

    I think the former

  2. 12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

    But when you talk about anchor babies, and criminals, and taxpayers you show your ass. The same goes for wall, thugs, and animals. Those are worn out dog whistles. No one uses those words when discussing illegal immigration from Eastern European countries.

    Don't forget "vermin."

     

    What how is that racist? You can't be racist against a mouse. Dur

  3. 4 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

    The wall is the perfect idiot-test.  Anyone with even a remote understanding of how shit works in the real world knows that it is an unrealistic solution, and that the price tag and construction duration would be orders of magnitude higher than the rumored numbers should it ever actually be built.

    lol at conservatives caring about the cost of something. unless it advantages a minority group.

  4. 30 minutes ago, XR4ticlone said:

    Except no one is throwing those wearing two types of fabrics off buildings...

    Or beheading women who would teach...

     

    I know, I know...there's the whole gay wedding cake thing...which is way more destructive than that.  🙄

    I just want to hear how sharia law gets implemented in this country. Walk me through the legislative process in which sharia law is codified. Please.

  5. 23 minutes ago, XR4ticlone said:

    Linda Sarsour is one of the main leaders of the Women's March group.  She's pro-sharia law...and just a really vile woman...but the left embraces her. 

    Kinda like Farrakhan 
     

     

    First of all, one unelected activist does not represent the "left."  Second, link to her supporting the imposition of Sharia Law?

  6. 19 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    I would love to see a grounded defense of POTUS punishing a private entity for legal activity.

    If this isn't a 1A case, what is?  If the NFL doesn't want to punish players for expressing themselves in the manner they see fit, what right does the government have to intervene when no crime is being committed (hate speech, etc.)?

    Am I missing something here?  Is Jeff Sessions not an attorney?  Can he not advise POTUS that this is a fundamentally flawed course of action?

    Yes. Donald Trump

    • Like 1
  7. 39 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

    I think there are a few lines in the sand where people would care and one is plausible deniability on racism.  Every racist thing he does, he gives an out for people to say “that’s not racist, it just happens the guy is black!”   This takes that excuse away from the party of wink wink nudge nudge.  

    Not so sure about that. Last year, all we kept hearing from his defenders was that he was only opposed to "illegal immigration." Now, of course, he's pushing to revoke legal status for those who have used any type of gov assistance. Predictably, the talking heads have shifted their positions and now have decided that ANY immigration, legal or illegal, that dilutes the power of the white plurality must be stopped.

  8. 13 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

    you just pointed out that nobody paid a 91% tax rate. you're all over the road.

    you also have not yet addressed the growing income disparity as displayed in those charts above. nobody is saying that people shouldn't succeed. that's the american fucking dream man. but what we are seeing with ballooning CEO and executive pay, the middle class is shrinking. when that happens, it's bad for everyone, except the top %. what i'm arguing here is that while it may not be bad for the top 10% now, they are pulling up the ladder behind them. median income is flat, and has remained that way.

    i never argued, anywhere, where someone has to apologize for success. shit, my mother is a perfect example of someone who became a top earner in a time and place when pretty much everything was tilted against that in the 70s and 80s. 

    what i'm saying is that as income and wealth coalesce at the top, so must the tax dollars. we've been moving in the opposite direction. it's madness.

    I know lots of people in their 20s and 30s who used to be left-of-center or moderate. They are swinging FAR left in response to the above. Its hard to be lectured on why your proposed solutions are unworkable when the current model is absolutely eviscerating the middle class and creating a new gilded age.  But good luck with the status quo. Just make sure you secure those gates.

  9. 14 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

    Let’s not forget these numbers don’t include  babies born to non citizens (average of 250k a year) and the 18 year tax bill that comes with them. 

    Again, you have lost all credibility when it comes to concern over the debt/deficit. Sorry about all the new brown US Citizens. Thanks for paying their way until they reach the age to vote your team out!

  10. 20 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

    This is why we need to join the rest of the world with our immigration policies.  Go to merit based instead of the lotto and family connections. 

    More than half of immigrant led households use welfare, the number jumps to near 75% when a child is involved.

    https://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2017/aug/14/david-perdue/sen-david-perdue-half-immigrant-households-benefit/

    Even Mexico required self sufficiency for immigrants, not welfare.

    This is simply making good on what we already know and opponents try to cover up.  We are constantly bringing in a stream of government dependents straining the already minuscule resources of our social welfare programs. 

     

     

    You're free to agree with this proposal, but don't you dare try to use "finite resources" as your support on the same day this administration is announcing the creation of a "space force."

    • Like 2
  11. 19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Nope, just realistic about this stuff.  I predicted OJ would walk.

    Also, I'm not a huge fan of "cooperating witnesses" or "jailhouse snitches" or what I call investigation by indictment.  It's I suppose a necessary evil, but if you look at the wrongful convictions that have been uncovered in the last decade or so, you will find that witnesses relieved of criminal responsibility in return for their testimony figure prominently in them.  Not saying that's what's going on here, but it is truth.

    I agree. I haven't been following the trial, so it may be that the case is strong, but if prosecution is relying on Gates to supply elements needed, then I'd be a bit concerned.

  12. 29 minutes ago, TornACL said:

    What the dipshit trolls fail to understand is that once you've accepted and participated in a meeting with the Russians and don't notify the FBI, you've colluded. You've conspired. End of story.

    It's not a crime if its not illegal*

     

    *Depends on what your definition of "illegal" is. If your definition is "conduct prohibited by penal code," well, then yes, it might be illegal. 

×
×
  • Create New...