The State Loves You...

So ya think corporations love you?



- - - Updated - - -

I don't trust corporations. That's why I'm a liberal Democrat.

Conservative Republicans work tirelessly to increase the size and scope of corporations.

 

I don't recall saying that I don't like to refer to people as men women and children. What I did point out however, was that when you used "men women and children" instead of simply referring to them as people, you were using rhetoric that was intended to pull the heartstrings of your audience in an effort to vilify your political opponents. This pathos rhetoric that you use is a classic tactic used by liberals to gain support by manipulating the emotions of their audience.

I don't recall saying that it was. As for the due process, do you happen to know what the civil penalty is for unlawful presence?

Does this perceived racism effect whether the article in question is true or not? BTW, the left overuses the term "racism" for the same reason as why you refer to non law abiding people as law abiding men, women and children. You are attempting to generate anger from your audience towards your political opponent by painting a picture of evil people doing bad things to victims. Pathos rhetoric.

No it is not. This is yet another classic liberal tactic where you have inverted the situation. I have read a lot of your posts, and have noticed that you don't like refer to conservatives as simply "conservative". Instead, I see you painting a picture of conservatives as extremists who spend their time hanging out with neo nazis. I am quite aware that liquor store hold ups are an exclusive liberal activity, but it would not be accurate for me to portray liberals in general as a group of liquor store thugs. It is you who can't seem to distinguish conservatives from extremists, and you have tried to invert the situation. I have a hunch that there are plenty of members here that would agree that you portray conservatives as extremists and worse.

 

They can have their due process, which in this case is simple. They applied to live and work here or they didn't. Next.

What is this long example of the government seizing land to build a wall? What private property exists on the border where there are already fences? What private property exists in the unpopulated deserts? That was an amazing two paragraph smokescreen.

 

I'm glad you agree. Now let's allow those charged with enforcing the process insure that it is followed.

If you need to pretend that the government will construct a multi-billion dollar contiguous barrier all along the Southern border (even as more Mexican immigrants are leaving than are entering) and that no private property will be confiscated by the State in the process, you may need to ask yourself why the State has already seized private property to build surveillance towers. Whether the Trump pays his "five or six times the property's value" from the public coffers, it's a much greater exercise of eminent domain we must confront for the wall pipe dream if we're being honest.

 

Do not change my quotes, if you quote me, you will quote me in entirety.

Let's take a look at your story. First of all you link to a story on Infowars. Ok, no problem. Here's the link that follows off the Infowars site.

http://www.kgun9.com/news/local/Feds-take-over-private-land-221429491.html

Click that and you will have your answer as to your claims.

 

ISIS is murdering thousands and Obama, if that is his name, is combating
global warming.

Trump is going to stop the threat of muslim terrorism coming to our nation
through our open borders. I don't think he will make it to the Oval Office
in time to stop the attack on America, which will destroy Obama's, if that is
his name, legacy.

 

If you need to believe that The Great Flatu will summarily banish 11-12 million people from the nation, and build an enormous wall all along the Southern border, both at no cost to the taxpayer, and that no human rights will be violated and no private property seized as he does what he says, I'll just say, "Good luck with that."

I'm not concerned that either fantasy will ever actually happen.

- - - Updated - - -

You can always hope, I guess.

 

Is The Great Flatu that old racist term for black people? I can't remember.

I hope that I'm wrong about Obama, if that is his name, allowing ISIS to attack here in the US.

 

Why do you keep writing "if that is his name" after Obama? Birther nutjob?

 

No, I'm not a birther, no not at all. I believe that Obama, if that is his name, is an American because his mother was an American.

I do believe that Obama, if that is his name, has provided two completely false birth certificates. They are fakes, forgeries, frauds.

So, aside from not knowing for sure who his father really is, or if his legal name is or is not Barry Soetoro, that is why I keep saying that.

 

So you're challenging the accuracy of Obama's authenticated birth certificate but you claim you're not a birther?

You're a birther by definition. It shows.

 

I was not aware that this notion originated with any current politician, but there is a lot that I don't know. Do you happen to know what the civil penalty is for unlawful presence? I am not really up on immigration law, but I would think that a penalty for illegal presence would already exist. Which penalty is he going to change?

 

I don't trust big business any more than I trust big government and at least I have some small teensie-weensie bit of say so in who runs big government. That's why I remain a liberal Democrat.

 

No, a birther would say they think Obama, if that is his name, was not an American citizen.

I'm saying he is an American citizen who has released two fraudulent birth certificates.

I'm not a birther, I'm a frauder.

 

Thanks but I don't view there being a distinction.

 

I just told you how I am different. Don't call me a birther and I won't call you a fraud denier.

 

I'll pass on your offer, thanks.