Politically charged altercations at Whataburger

[Dropout 355]

Gracias. It’s like when there is no argument to be made let’s make absurd generalizations about the left trying to abolish the first and second amendment. Generalizations like support assault! Infringing on religious freedoms! No free speech! Take all of our guns! This is not the majority of the left... but if I’d just watch an immigration video it’ll all make sense

[DixonHur 11,344]

3 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I also value religious freedom above all else though, and I don't like some are wanting to infringe upon that to accommodate lifestyles, disabilities, mental illness

Which part of the Bible talks about the righteousness of intolerance and discrimination, again?  I can never seem to find it.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

The militarization of police forces.

The government now works more for the big corporations instead of the American people.

The vilification of immigrants and Muslims while ignoring the even more violent right wing extremist groups.

Criminals have militarized.

You tax the corporations, they get a vote.  One way or the other.

Legal immigration is pretty much embraced.  The right wing extremists are denounced and criticized accordingly. 

[formermav43 4,606]

20 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

There are many vectors that lead to the singularity that is "the country was founded". My favorite is this country was founded by people leaving a country that infringed upon their right to practice their religion, so they came here to find religious freedom.

Well...sort of.

Most who came for “religious freedom” actually meant “setting up our church as the established church.” They weren’t actually for religious freedom in principle, with the exception of Rhode Island.

[safe sex 11,738]

Oatmeal loves to talk about what a centrist they are, but then the whole ~bring gay is a lifestyle~ and ~the trannies are mentally ill~ shit leaks out.

Okay.gif

[bad_teammate 13,220]

19 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

There are many vectors that lead to the singularity that is "the country was founded". My favorite is this country was founded by people leaving a country that infringed upon their right to practice their religion, so they came here to find religious freedom.

Your favorite vector is an almost entirely false narrative essentially created for children. The pilgrims and puritans were religious nutcases who were running away from battles they lost and sought somewhere to be monsters freely and openly. I wonder how the Quakers hanging from Puritan nooses felt about "religious freedom".

It's like saying the Klan is/was merely seeking "racial freedom".

46 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Tent cities and garabage bags filled with human feces, homeless veterans with shitty health care, failing public school systems, failing social security service - these are issues Americans should be spending those recourses not the illegal invasion. 

Do you want to spend our public resources on solving those problems? Yes or No

Quote

You are an ivory tower communist. As you pointed out on the other thread, you have plenty of money and are too old for ATIFA, you want anyone who shows up and claims to not be a criminal granted “asylum”. You want to make sure poor Americans do not have the same opportunity that put you in that ivory tower so you can feel like Mother Teresa while shitting on a whole class of people (Americans). 

You're right, I don't want them to have the same opportunity, I want them to have better opportunities:
- Universal healthcare
- Free college
- Guaranteed job with a living wage

There is no difference between an immigrant American and a natural-born American in my mind. In your mind it does, and I'm sure it has nothing to do with racial prejudice.

Quote

You support policies that have zero effect on your standard of living but will make it even more difficult for the lower economic Americans and their children. 

The policies I support would be great for lower income Americans. I actually want us to use our shared, collective resources to address the problems you outlined above.

3 hours ago, blackmarketbaby said:

You! You dense motherfucker, you!

Man, what a killer argument. I'm slain.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

4 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Well...sort of.

Most who came for “religious freedom” actually meant “setting up our church as the established church.” They weren’t actually for religious freedom in principle, with the exception of Rhode Island.

And many came to start their own cult. 

[Huckleberry 33,044]

4 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Well...sort of.

Most who came for “religious freedom” actually meant “setting up our church as the established church.” They weren’t actually for religious freedom in principle, with the exception of Rhode Island.

Yep. At least 8 of the 13 colonies had official State Churches. Rhode Island was founded because there was not religious freedom in the colonies.

[bad_teammate 13,220]

3 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

Oatmeal loves to talk about what a centrist they are, but then the whole ~bring gay is a lifestyle~ and ~the trannies are mentally ill~ shit leaks out.

Okay.gif

"middle" = "I get mad at fellow-right wingers who say the n-word at parties"

[jimmyjazz 46,000]

2 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Is this equation supposed to be damning? Sounds like a reasonable take to have, to me. lol

So you consider yourself as being politically in the middle and yet you support a statement in which you scold your "fellow right wingers"?  Do I have this correct?

[phdhorn 6,224]

Just now, formermav43 said:

Well...sort of.

Most who came for “religious freedom” actually meant “setting up our church as the established church.” They weren’t actually for religious freedom in principle, with the exception of Rhode Island.

Yes, and the original 13 colonies had very, very little use for "a federation".  They saw themselves as almost 13 city states, and cared little for what the other states did or said.  Entire colonies were founded specifically to host a particular religious majority (though in practice they didn't discourage other religions from settling, the common folk didn't much take to it).  Hence you have the Congregationalists and high-octane Evangelicals in New England, the Quakers, Shakers, Unitarians, and other "internal" religions in Pa, Roman Catholics in Maryland, the traditional Anglican church in Virginia, and anti-Anglican Baptists, Dutch Reformed, Presbyterians, and other "moderate" denominations in the Carolina's and New York.  Interestingly, the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland passed ordinances recognizing the Anglican Church as the State Church and requiring fees, yet only Virginia had a majority of Anglicans (the rest not even close).

In practice, though, most churches could worship pretty much as they wanted in most colonies (again with the marked exception of Virginia), but there were often skirmishes and in some cases punishments assessed for the "other guys" if they got too popular.

But most of the colonies handled religious worship completely independently of each other, as the concept of a "United States" was pretty much regarded as completely bogus by the colonists - even the unity to fight the Revolution was regarded as a "necessary evil" until the colonies could hopefully win the peace and get back to their state-oriented operations.  It's a cliche but pretty true that the "United States" as a functional entity didn't really fully happen until after the Civil War.  This was true more than it wasn't.

<looks up> (Holy shit, I posted this in a fucking Whataburger thread?  What the fuck was I thinking??)

[safe sex 11,738]

Wow, nobody said that. I don't believe that. Do I think there are some in that community that suffer from some sort of mental illness? Sure, just like with anything else, but certainly do not consider biological issues and congenital syndromes or disorders to be mental illness or a choice someone is making to live a harder life. 

Well, no, those aren't exact quotes, hence the tildes instead of quotation marks. I'll go back and find some quotes that made me raise my eyebrows, and if they aren't from you or if I misinterpreted what you said, I will duly apologize. But your initial statement that prompted me to post is not the first time I've rolled my eyes at your waffling about ~the left~

First this girl needs her sleep.

[Huckleberry 33,044]

2 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

<looks up> (Holy shit, I posted this in a fucking Whataburger thread?  What the fuck was I thinking??)

You were thinking of ways to kill time until you could go get some Whataburger.

[bad_teammate 13,220]

5 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

No, not exactly.

Oh, you're still pretending? That's a shame. I thought there had been a breakthrough.

[Js1 85,449]

6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

You were thinking of ways to kill time until you could go get some Whataburger.

Whataburger transcends time, distance, space, dimensions.

Clearly, most people left Europe to open Whataburger franchises in the New World. After they acquired Texas from stinky Mexico.

[formermav43 4,606]

13 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

Yes, and the original 13 colonies had very, very little use for "a federation".  They saw themselves as almost 13 city states, and cared little for what the other states did or said.  Entire colonies were founded specifically to host a particular religious majority (though in practice they didn't discourage other religions from settling, the common folk didn't much take to it).  Hence you have the Congregationalists and high-octane Evangelicals in New England, the Quakers, Shakers, Unitarians, and other "internal" religions in Pa, Roman Catholics in Maryland, the traditional Anglican church in Virginia, and anti-Anglican Baptists, Dutch Reformed, Presbyterians, and other "moderate" denominations in the Carolina's and New York.  Interestingly, the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland passed ordinances recognizing the Anglican Church as the State Church and requiring fees, yet only Virginia had a majority of Anglicans (the rest not even close).

In practice, though, most churches could worship pretty much as they wanted in most colonies (again with the marked exception of Virginia), but there were often skirmishes and in some cases punishments assessed for the "other guys" if they got too popular.

But most of the colonies handled religious worship completely independently of each other, as the concept of a "United States" was pretty much regarded as completely bogus by the colonists - even the unity to fight the Revolution was regarded as a "necessary evil" until the colonies could hopefully win the peace and get back to their state-oriented operations.  It's a cliche but pretty true that the "United States" as a functional entity didn't really fully happen until after the Civil War.  This was true more than it wasn't.

<looks up> (Holy shit, I posted this in a fucking Whataburger thread?  What the fuck was I thinking??)

Following up on that, it’s why I think incorporating the establishment clause against the States is nonsensical. That was a limitation on Federal power to protect the States, guaranteeing that they wouldn’t interfere with their established churches. 

(That doesn’t mean I dont think keeping those spheres separate as a matter of policy is good. It just isn’t rooted in the Constitution.)

Edited July 10, 2018 by formermav43

[jimmyjazz 46,000]

I think it's naive at best to not try to understand current political climate in the context of history.  It's not "labeling" for it's own sake.  It's not a leap to suggest that two of the biggest policy efforts in American history were the New Deal and the Civil Rights actions -- those serve as reasonable guideposts (among others) for modern liberalism.  From Reagan on economic policies are eroding much of what was put in place by FDR, and it's hardly a stretch to say that there has been a strong pushback on civil rights for minorities, including (of course) 3rd world immigrants.

The United States has been moving to the right for decades.  Richard Nixon's Presidency is a reasonable starting point.  Others will disagree.

[phdhorn 6,224]

14 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

You were thinking of ways to kill time until you could go get some Whataburger.

Alas, with my dietary need (i.e. don't get fat again), I'm relegated to the Junior versions.  I have to sit there and weep as I see the Monterrey Melt, in all its glorious 4" diameter, being handed out to others.  As Jennifer Jones so artfully said in "Song of Bernadette" (with one slight alteration" when told by the Virgin Mary that she can't heal herself with the miraculous waters of Lourdes), "The spring [bigass, delicious burger] is not for me."

This is not the thorn in my side, it's the telephone pole.  Although once in maybe 2 months... youbetcherass.

Edited July 10, 2018 by phdhorn

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

10 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

You and JimmyJazz believe being a centrist in today's climate is being a right-winger, due to the shifting of the political poles over the years. Others don't believe that. I'm not sure what to believe and, frankly, I don't waste many BTU's on coming up with the perfect label or team because I'm not interested in any team that exists currently in our political arena. I'd rather not play and try to keep the integrity of my faith and beliefs, as I understand and hold them...not as you or anyone else think I should.

They believe a centrist is right wing, because they're so far left that anything leaning towards the center is right wing.  It's that simple.

[jimmyjazz 46,000]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

They believe a centrist is right wing, because they're so far left that anything leaning towards the center is right wing.  It's that simple.

List the ways in which I am so far left.  

[Dropout 355]

Well at least I know what I’m having for lunch

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

List the ways in which I am so far left.  

I have neither the time nor inclination, rather I'll just point to your posting history.

[jimmyjazz 46,000]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

I have neither the time nor inclination, rather I'll just point to your posting history.

Well, that would be silly, because my posting history shows nothing of the sort.

So, you got nothing, as usual.

[phdhorn 6,224]

13 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Following up on that, it’s why I think incorporating the establishment clause against the States is nonsensical. That was a limitation on Federal power to protect the States, guaranteeing that they wouldn’t interfere with their established churches. 

I think the Founders would shit their pants, clean it up, read it again, and shit them again if they saw 1) how much Federal power has exponentially increased since the founding, and 2) how much power specifically has been usurped by the President (Executive Branch) since then.  (The Constitution clearly lays out the idea that the Legislative Branch would be the most powerful branch of government, because it was the most deliberative and mass-minded, and therefore most resistant to knee-jerk government and very slow to change, or worse, too much power into to few people).

I honestly think that even the big Federalist hawks like Washington, Adams, and Hamilton would have their minds blown (cue gif) at the scope of how power has shifted today.

Edited July 10, 2018 by phdhorn

[Dropout 355]

Oligarchy... that crazy Bernie Sanders

[F250 28,802]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Actually, the country was founded on illegal treason.

Texas was founded on both treason and illegal immigration.

[Brian Fantana 6,689]

1 hour ago, zork said:

I've never read Johnny Sack use those words.  Are those words, names,  you use to describe people?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

 my posting history shows nothing of the sort.

 

Funniest post of the week.

[jimmyjazz 46,000]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

Funniest post of the week.

So you have time to snark about my alleged far-leftism but you don't have time to spew out a couple of simple examples?

Funny how that works. 

[Brian Fantana 6,689]

Well, he's a die hard truck nuts big dick Trump supporter, so making statements that he can't possibly back up with facts and walking off into the sunset is normal behavior.

[jimmyjazz 46,000]

8 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Well, he's a die hard truck nuts big dick Trump supporter, so making statements that he can't possibly back up with facts and walking off into the sunset is normal behavior.

This should take maybe 10 seconds of Onboard's time, but somehow he's just too busy.  I mean, what could be easier than showing I'm a communist?

[Whitman 694]

22 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

..... 2) how much power specifically has been usurped by the President (Executive Branch) since then. 

I honestly think that even the big Federalist hawks like Washington, Adams, and Hamilton would have their minds blown (cue gif) at the scope of how power has shifted today.

I agree completely with the result, but think it is more by an abrogation of duties by Congress.   Fuckers don't want to do much of anything except get re-elected, cut taxes and increase spending.

[Whitman 694]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

 I mean, what could be easier than showing I'm a communist?

Showing that you are a whiny dick.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

So you have time to snark about my alleged far-leftism but you don't have time to spew out a couple of simple examples?

Funny how that works. 

You are very seldom, if ever, as critical of ideas from the left as opposed to those from the right.

 

You’re right though, there is not a lot of original thought in your posts on which to draw.  Mainly you just get pissy when you disagree with something.

Edited July 10, 2018 by slorch

[jimmyjazz 46,000]

7 minutes ago, slorch said:

You are very seleom, if ever, as critical of ideas from the left as opposed to those from the right.

 

You’re right though, there is not a lot of original thought in your posts on which to draw.  Mainly you just get pissy when you disagree with something.

Well, there's a hot take.  Someone who is clearly left of center isn't as critical of leftist ideas as he is those of the right.  Groundbreaking information. 

I'll leave it to the gentle reader to judge your criticism of my lack of original thought.  That's some funny stuff right there.

Here's an idea I've been critical of:  certain proposed gun control measures, as I feel some go too far

Here's another: overzealous pursuit of "clean" energy 

 

But yes, I am in support of Roe V Wade, I am against the Republican tax cut, I am in support of single payer health care.  Need more detail?

[Huckleberry 33,044]

This is a pretty bad beatdown at this point. Three posters trying to dogpile jimmyjazz at this point and not a single one of you can come up with a single example of his supposed far-left ideas?

"Oh we could do that, but we don't want to."

[hayden_horn 11,364]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

This is a pretty bad beatdown at this point. Three posters trying to dogpile jimmyjazz at this point and not a single one of you can come up with a single example of his supposed far-left ideas?

"Oh we could do that, but we don't want to."

it's actually quite indicative of current trump supporter thought. i've been accused of being a far left liberal here, as i know you have as well. it's because we are critical of the current administration when it has completely deserved the criticism. it's a duality of thought that i think is quite dangerous to this country. and i'd be willing to bet that none of these posters would admit to voting for trump. it's uncanny.

[sidis 9,832]

it's always fascinating to click on cloak room thread topics that you haven't read or participated in until page 10 or so just to see what the hell the discussion evolved into topically (as it is rarely the op topic).

[Huckleberry 33,044]

Well yeah, but at least jimmyjazz actually falls on the left side of the spectrum. When the usual suspects call me a liberal it's doubly entertaining.

[American Swindle 102]

Just wanted to say ya'lls tribalism is showing.......

carry on.

[EMAWesome 101]

33 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

it's actually quite indicative of current trump supporter thought. i've been accused of being a far left liberal here, as i know you have as well. it's because we are critical of the current administration when it has completely deserved the criticism. it's a duality of thought that i think is quite dangerous to this country. and i'd be willing to bet that none of these posters would admit to voting for trump. it's uncanny.

You might be far left but you don't come anywhere near making a far left top ten list on this board.  Compared to Dennison, Hugo, bad-teammate, and several others you come off as James Webb.

[Huckleberry 33,044]

*y'all's

Also, that's good timing right after it's pointed out that the people on one side of this standard political forum shitfest belong to different political tribes. Good work.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,510]

This thread needs an enema

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

1 minute ago, EMAWesome said:

You might be far left but you don't come anywhere near making a far left top ten list on this board.  Compared to Dennison, Hugo, bad-teammate, and several others you come off as James Webb.

Hayden is center left.  Always has been.  Brisket is center right in spite of his anti-Trump histrionics, although he may be left of Hayden on immigration.

[hayden_horn 11,364]

2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Hayden is center left.  Always has been.  Brisket is center right in spite of his anti-Trump histrionics, although he may be left of Hayden on immigration.

i'm center left on some things. i'm center right on others. i thought bush's immigration policy was the most sensible we've ever had, but republicans squashed it. this need to define people as "this or that" however, as evidenced on this thread by those trying to nail jimmy down, is the biggest problem i see. i've taken criticism from those on the left and those on the right for agreeing or disagreeing with certain policies. i happen to think it's important to separate the party from the policy. it shouldn't be so personal. some of these people take this very personally.

[Anastasis 23,480]

32 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

it's actually quite indicative of current trump supporter thought. i've been accused of being a far left liberal here, as i know you have as well. it's because we are critical of the current administration when it has completely deserved the criticism. it's a duality of thought that i think is quite dangerous to this country. and i'd be willing to bet that none of these posters would admit to voting for trump. it's uncanny.

It's indicative of our politics generally. Same shits flowing both ways.

[Anastasis 23,480]

34 minutes ago, sidis said:

it's always fascinating to click on cloak room thread topics that you haven't read or participated in until page 10 or so just to see what the hell the discussion evolved into topically (as it is rarely the op topic).

This threads a pretty good example.  Seems like a new tangent materializes each page. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

This threads a pretty good example.  Seems like a new tangent materializes each page. 

I hear Whataburger is switching to Sir Kensington ketchup.

[Brian Fantana 6,689]

33 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

Just wanted to say ya'lls tribalism is showing.......

carry on.

 

26 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

*y'all's

Also, that's good timing right after it's pointed out that the people on one side of this standard political forum shitfest belong to different political tribes. Good work.

Clearly a Russian.

[jimmyjazz 46,000]

I would characterize hayden, Huckleberry, Brisket, and Anastasis as thoughtful center to right-center posters, probably in that order, and outside of Brisket's somewhat overwrought but understandable recent nihilism, they've all been the same for years.  I've probably moved a little more left since Trump gained the nomination, no doubt as a reaction to what I see going on.  Nobody would call me a stoic.