Liberalism = a mental disorder wrote:
People who want the wall:
How many nicknames do you have?
Liberalism = a mental disorder wrote:
People who want the wall:
How many nicknames do you have?
Democrats are a disgrace.
Robert "Hot Take" Johnson continues his run as the biggest idiot on this board. And that's saying a lot.
rojo wrote:
I don't know why so many people assume I'm calling Zuck a hypocrite and am taking the conservative viewpoint on this.
Because that's what you're doing.
One of the LetsRun.com co-founders voted for Bernie during this election cycle. Stop assuming you know our political idealogy.
Which one? The reason was probably to try and neutralize Clinton to increase Trump's chances of winning, not because of actually supporting Sanders.
rojo wrote:
2) I don't know why so many people assume I'm calling Zuck a hypocrite and am taking the conservative viewpoint on this. Do people not see the question mark after hypocrite?? I'm trying to get you to think (and make money half a penny at a time. Click bait baby).
One of the LetsRun.com co-founders voted for Bernie during this election cycle. Stop assuming you know our political idealogy.
The answer to your question is "No". He's not really a hypocrite. At least not for building walls around his private estate and jogging with a security detail.
Here's an analogous scenario. A crackhead breaks into your house. He has a knife. The guy's just totally gone. High on PCP, coming at your kids, whatever. You shoot him and kill him to defend your family. End of story.
A few years later, Whoopie Goldberg runs for President. She proposes that we send the U.S. Military into Canada to shoot and kill everybody in Canada. No exceptions. They all have to be shot. The whole nation. You strongly appose Whoopie's proposal.
Are you a hypocrite? After all, you shot a man and killed him. Is it really that different?
If Trump wins don't be surprised if he moves the White House to that ARK being built on the Kansas prairie.
Rojo wrote:
reallyrojo? wrote:So do you agree with what they are both doing (nationalist, isolation) or disagree?
I'm just creating an interesting discussion for the message board and trying to get people to think.
Why is it 'wrong' to build a wall around your country but fine to do it around your house?
Rojo -
I think you bring up a good point. How can someone build a wall and then condemn another wall?
I think, though, that you are bringing into play larger themes - that when viewed from a broader perspective - become less alike.
Wall around house = personal privacy
Wall around country = national security
The theme of national security is related to why countries even have borders in the first place, and as much as my younger idealistic self have wondered about a world without borders, I read the book "Lessons From History" by Will Durant and realized that humans will always kill other humans. Out of all the thousands of years of recorded history, only ~300 of them have been peaceful.
So should we have borders between countries? And for the group that's "inside" and enjoying the prosperity of a particular country, should we have the right to privacy? What would the world look like if everyone had a wall around their house? And every country had a wall around it?
Liberal fascists Romney and Bush's comments about Trump make Zuckerberg look like a Trump cabinet member. I wonder if they live fenceless lives without security details?
Nice job promoting your Trumpaganda to the front page. Do you ever think that driving a bit of click-bait via your post is not worth it in terms of overall loss of readership? Or the promoting of an actual KKK-obliging fascist?
Impressive way to make yourself look like a clown
Nothing wrong with the concept of building a wall. A lot wrong with promoting Trump. A hella lot wrong with parroting Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh but pretending they're your original ideas
Maybe the next headline can be about a real life Mexican rapist, just to prove the point to all the retarded liberals out there that Trump was right. Or, conversely, you could run a headline about a Syrian refugee who was let into the country by the TOTALLY INEPT MUSLIM FASCIST OBAMA ADMINISTRATION and then raped a woman, spoiling the purity of our bloodlines and infecting 'us' with ISIS. Your pick. Can't wait!!!! :) :) :)
Bring these potential headlines up at the next LRC staff meeting. Let them know that it's important to the LRC co-founders that the site drive big clicks and attention to pro-Trump threads created by the editors. Livestream it for us so we can watch your employees squirm
Sad!
they're all alike wrote:
Our dear friend, the sub-3h (or was it 4+h) marathoner, Paul Ryan isn't less of a hypocrite:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/17/paul-ryan-builds-border-fence-around-mansion-doesnt-fund-border-fence-omnibus/
Our dear speaker ran a decent 1500m over the weekend:
10 Paul Ryan Unattached 3:54.43
1:50.522 (1:50.522) 2:51.723 (1:01.201)
http://www.rtspt.com/events/usatf/jr16/160624F025.htmYou can go back to your KKK rally now...
every time you use the dailymail as a news source, you already lost. shame shame shame.
Surprise! wrote:
Not a liberal, but I don't really see the correlation between securing a private estate and building a wall between nations.
Not commenting on if a wall is a good idea or not.
Exactly. Building a wall around your estate to keep out thieves and criminals is a bit different than building a wall around the country to keep out those darn immigrants who want to work hard and live the American dream.
rojo wrote:
I'm trying to get you to think (and make money half a penny at a time. Click bait baby).
You'd get more clicks if you didn't delete the good threads.
They took our jobs! wrote:
Surprise! wrote:Not a liberal, but I don't really see the correlation between securing a private estate and building a wall between nations.
Not commenting on if a wall is a good idea or not.
Exactly. Building a wall around your estate to keep out thieves and criminals is a bit different than building a wall around the country to keep out those darn immigrants who want to work hard and live the American dream.
Why do you think the people invading Zuck's property are thieves and criminals? They are simply 'undocumented' and maybe they just want to live the American dream too!
there's something to what you say in that rich people in this country and even middle class are creating physical barriers to hoi polloi and leading existences with no interaction whatsoever. however, there is no good analogy between individual walls and national walls. Zuckerberg wants immigrants in the country to work for him. Do you seriously want to say that because you want immigrants to a country, you must also want anyone to be able to enter your private home at any time? That is just asinine.
Clinton's speaking fees of $200k are egregious, no doubt, because of the influence corrupting politics. But this article lists Trump's at $1.5 million, W.'s at $150k after his disastrous presidency, $60k for Newt, $75k for Cheney.
FYI I have seen Zuck running around Palo Alto and he was alone and with no security.
I don't mind the idea of protecting our borders. But more people are here illegally from overstaying their visas. So why doesn't Trump propose a solution to this problem? The answer is it's really hard and has been attempted for decades.
Trump and his supporters understand a wall: I'm here, you're there and there's a wall in between us. You can't come over here because if you tried you'd bump into the wall. But in reality, that wouldn't tackle half of the problem.
Furthermore, Trump is convincing his blue collar supporters that somehow this will bring their lives back to where they were when America was great! This is false too. Most politicians are encouraging retraining to adapt to a changing global economy. They encourage looking forward and evolving like we have for billions of years. Trump wants to look backward. It would be terrible for his supporters. They'd sit around waiting for greatness to fall in their lap and it would never come.
The land the US claims to own belongs people. People can purchase land which they own. The US doesn't own the majority of the land in this country so why should they be able to keep people out? If a group of property owners from Texas to Maine want to band together and make a proverbial underground railroad for immigrants, why shouldn't they be allowed to come in? The people own the land, not the government.
d rump wrote:
I don't mind the idea of protecting our borders. But more people are here illegally from overstaying their visas. So why doesn't Trump propose a solution to this problem? The answer is it's really hard and has been attempted for decades.
He does, he proposes stricter punishments for the companies who hire them.
But that's besides the point. There are still people (and drugs and sex slaves) pouring through the border. Yes people can still get here but it's harder. The wall is a step in the right direction.