Thursday December 12, 2013
Jump to content
Now, Mel, I've been polite and circumspect in my reply to you tonight, but if you think I or anyone else in the Tea Party would deny your grandfather citizenship and send him home -- IF HE WAS A LEGAL IMMIGRANT -- then you are a G-D liar and you bloody well know it. Yeah, there's a lot of hate and bigotry in the world and I'm sure your grandfather suffered a lot of it, but I am glad he stood up against it and I stand up against it -- I do not tolerate viciousness or bullying -- but if he was legal I'll stand with him and if you are legal I would stand with you against that kind of crap. In fact, I would stand with either of you even if you weren't legal, but I'd have you deported as soon as the viciousness and bullying was put down. If you think the Tea Party opposes legal immigration, you've been drinking Obama's Kool-Aid and you need to stop it.
Your seventh paragraph: Given where Obama and his criminal Marxist Mafia is taking the country, they have a right to feel insecure. And yeah, Mel, if we believe in the fundamental principles of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and we are willing to put our lives on the line fighting for those principles in the nation that is still, today, the last best hope for the liberty of Mankind (if we can kick the G-D Marxist Mafia out), then yes: You are right: We ARE superior to others who think we should become a second-rate Soviet Union or third-world satrapy, like this twerp in the White House believes.
Your last paragraph: Yes, Mel, you are darned right I am proud of that, and I don't give a flying Frisbee what you intended by it.
I hope your prejudices and bigotry and hate for people who stand up for principle and justice under the rule of law is a little dented now, Mel. I could tell you've been drinking a lot of Kool-Aid. But at least you stood up and said what you believe and gave me an opportunity to address it. That's more than 99% of the other liberals have done in the last 38 years, and I commend you for it. It's a beginning, and I don't mind discussing this with you a bit more if you wish.
I don't think any officer of a corporation should escape personal accountability for the decisions he makes in the name of the corporation, ESPECIALLY when those decisions deprive citizens of their rights on premises open to the public.
Further to your fifth paragraph: Indeed, why not "Fascist"? If you look at the reality of those hair-splitting labels for political ideologies, you find their only real purpose is to keep ignoramuses spinning their wheels instead of doing something about injustice. You go far enough to the left and the result at the street level is indistinguishable from the far-right fascist. Both are statist andauthoritarian; both presume that some figurehead jerk can make better decisions about your life than you can, or has the authority to rob everyone blind to bail idiots out for their bad life decisions -- and then, when the money runs out, when they can't borrow any more, the poor and the downtrodden riot over their loss of freebies from government and the First Sock-Puppet has the justification for Martial Law he has been after all along. Fascism is no better than Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Nazi-ism, Corporatism -- they all seek to make those who do the governing not accountable to those who are governed. And as long as you want to bring up Fascism, Mel, how about "Liberty"? You notice that is the one political ideology, supported in the world EXCLUSIVELY by our Constitution and Bill of Rights and rule of law (currently being ignored by our Marxist administration). Why don't I hear you extolling the virtues of that political ideology, Mel?
Your sixth paragraph: What makes you think I or people like me demonize and denigrate immigrants? I don't, and I don't know of anyone among my acquaintances who do. I do demonize and denigrate criminals and people who break the law, and that includes people who are committing an illegal act by simply being here. If they want to be here they can apply for citizenship and have their backgrounds checked and prove they know what being an American is REALLY all about, and wait their turn like other law-abiding immigrants. It probably means nothing to you, but I do have a lot of sympathy for people who were brought here as infants by their illegal alien parents; I think their parents have handed them a really rough, raw deal. But while it is terrible to send them home, it would be equally unfair to everyone else to give them a pass. No other country in the world would, and I see no reason why we should exempt them from the law because their parents were criminals.
Continued in Part 4.
Or as Ben Franklin said, "A Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch." We don't have -- or at least we are not supposed to have -- a Democracy in this country, Mel. We are supposed to have a Constitutional Republic, with democratically-chosen representation. And the federal government does not have any lawful authority to do ANYTHING the subject matter authority for which is not delegated to it by the Constitution of the United States. Read the Tenth Amendment. In fact, read the whole thing: It is the Bible of our federal government, and they ignore it.
You love the diversity of our nation. Well, I've never ever disliked anyone for the color of their skin, or for their religion, and I would cheerfully vote for Alan Keyes or Allen West for President in a New York Second, and they are both blacker than Barry Soetoro --er, "Obama" -- by half. But history rejects the concept that "diversity" of culture makes a nation strong. It has resulted in strife and tumult in every nation that has encourage it, and it has destroyed some. The Muslim infestation in Europe and in Michigan is totally destroying the traditional cultures in both places and replacing them with Sharia Law. Good luck with that.
Your fourth paragraph: What gives you the idea that we support gerrymandering and voter suppression? Everyone in the Tea Party I know absolutely hates gerrymandering -- oh, dear; there's that word again -- and a Democratic-dominated committee just gerrymandered the heck out of Arizona for THEIR benefit, not ours. Gerrymandering is pure-dee vote manipulation, and we oppose it whether Democrats or Republicans do it. As for "voter suppression," what the heck are you talking about? We spend most of our time trying to "get out the vote" -- however, we don't like Democrats trying to stuff the ballot boxes by making it legal for illegal aliens to vote early and often. Voting is a farce if you don't require voters to prove they are eligible by citizenship and by district of residence to vote. Marxists and the Mafia (I'm being redundant here) just LOVE it when incompetent judges rule any danged fool from any country in the world has a right to vote in our elections.
Your paragraph five: What the heck makes you think I or we (I assume you are referring to the Tea Party) we support corporate welfare? I don't, and I don't know anyone in the Tea Party who does. I point out to you that OBAMA is the one who is famous for handing out corporate welfare to outfits like Solyndra, who promptly go belly up and head for the hills with the taxpayer's money -- and several other equally shaky companies just because they supported his election. As for me personally, I don't believe in the whole concept of "limited liability incorporation;" it is no different than English feudalism and exists for the same reason.
Continued in Part 3.
Hey! I am amazed! It is rare that a troll ever deigns to actually engage in a debate instead of throwing empty rhetoric around. I appreciate it, Mr. Mevis; it is so much more worthwhile than flame wars. We don't have time for flame wars; time is short.
Okay, since you bring up some specific points, I will address your specific points:
Your second paragraph: I think the Marxists in Democrat feathers in the Progressive Caucuses in Congress do a much better job of fostering hate, prejudice, and bigotry than the Tea Party or the Republicans. Your attitude toward anyone who disagrees with your political ideology is an excellent example of that. And Progressive comments about anyone who believes in our fundamental, Constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms are outrageous: Accusing us of being Neanderthals, baby killers, supporting the KKK -- BTW, the KKK was almost entirely a Democrat membership. And since you mention a final solution, we know what the "national socialist" final solution is, don't we? Hitler and Stalin both proved that, with 40 million unarmed people murdered between 1929 and 1945. The question I have for you, is why do you support that by challenging people who express a hatred for it? What does that make you?
Your third paragraph: Yeah, when its free. It hasn't been free for decades, thanks to a steady slide down the slippery slope to Statism and Socialism and now Marxism, and soon it will be the Stalinist version of Marxism. It started with an avowed Socialist named Woodrow Wilson, was thoroughly entrenched with a far-left F.D.R., and it has been accelerating more with each far-left-influenced President since -- some through no fault of their own, but due to the heavily-infiltrated bureaucracy and the Marxist infestations in the House and Senate over the last sixty years or so. About the only one who really slowed it down was Ronald Reagan, but even he feel for a few Marxist/Statist ploys. Every President since has either been a Marxist sympathizer if a Democratic or a Statist thug if a Republican, and every Republican has gotten laws passed that make it easier for the Marxists when it is their turn.
As for free speech, you're darned right. Even when it is wrong. Which is why I appreciate you engaging this time; I've had 38 years of liberals bailing out every time someone who knows their game tries to engage them in the "rational debate" they are always whining about. At least you are willing to stand here and slug it out if you disagree with me, and everyone will learn from that.
If you think "Democracy" is so great, I invite you to read what the founding fathers said about it in the Federalist Papers: "Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
Continued in Part 2.
I think it is really interesting and revealing that I made my point very clear, and you did not. You have no challenge for any of the facts I presented; all you have is sarcasm and empty rhetoric. That makes you a troll, possibly a paid troll (they are quite common under Marxist administrations) and not worthy of our time. Have a good day (on your own time).
Oh, sorry -- I failed to point out: You're right: Your reply is not a rebuttal; it is just a typical Marxist playbook flame.
So you believe it is inappropriate to hate a political ideology (Marxist-Stalinism) that rationalized the murdered 20 million people from 1929 to 1945 in the Balkans, and a variation of the same political ideology called (National socialism, aka Nazi-ism), that murdered another 20 million people in Germany and surrounding nations from 1933 to 1945 under the direction of a man named Hitler whose followers called him "Der Fuhrer"?
You don't think murdering 40 million people is worthy of your hate? Do you think it is fun and games, perhaps distasteful to some, but everyone has a right to their own opinion about vicious murder of millions? If so, what planet are you from? What evil muck did you crawl out of?
You are wrong: I was not "taught" to hate murderous viciousness, and I was not "taught" to hate the political ideologies that try to justify it or rationalize it with the politics of hate, Like you, I was "taught" to live and let live -- until I discovered, on my own, that if you allow Marxists or Nazis to gain power, "live and let live" is not an option -- or at least it is not YOUR option. It is the option of your masters, dependent entirely on how much amusement they can derive from controlling you down to the last breath you take..
Well, Sylvia, you are confused. You are confusing "Pro-Constitution" with "anti-government." Neither Brenda Barton or the other activists opposing what we see happening to our nation of liberty, including myself, are "anti-government." We believe in government. We just oppose "unconstitutional government," and we oppose "anti-Constitutional government," such as that being imposed upon us by the Marxist Mafia infesting our White House, our U.S. Senate, and much of the House of Representatives. We oppose the Marxist-focused U.N. and its Agenda 21, which has infested practically every school board and planning commission in the United States. And we are supporting Rep. Brenda Barton's comments, because Obama has admitted on the record he favors "wealth redistribution," which is theft by socialism any way you look at it, and he claims to be our "national" President. That makes him a "national socialist" by definition and the German gutter slang for "national Socialist" is "Nazi." And Hitler -- Der Fuhrer -- was head of the Nazis.
Question, Sylvia: Do you think a political ideology that murdered six million people is worthy of "hate?" I do. If you don't, I would recommend you re-orient your philosophy to one including more love, compassion, humanity, and -- not to put too fine a point on it -- principle.
Oh, Raymond. You blew it in the very first paragraph, I thought I'd seen every foolishness of which the followers Vladimir Lenin (of Marxist-Leninist fame) called "useful idiots" were capable, but I will give you credit for leaving me open mouthed and astonished.
"Anarchist Tea Party?" Really?
Let's see: Who is it trying to restore the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, and rule of law to the United States government? Why, it is the TEA Party, of course! It is the First Marxist Sock-Puppet infesting our White House who is tearing the rule of law apart and making an anarchic mockery of our rule of law. Him and his Marxist Mafia sycophants in the U.S. Senate.
I read the rest of your letter with equal amazement and disbelief that anyone with enough intelligence and education to set words on paper could actually set forth such drivel and expect people to take it seriously. Nothing you say in your letter above comports even distantly with reality. SB1070 doesn't deprive Latinos of their Constitutional rights, Brenda Barton didn't make Arizona a laughing stock of the rest of the nation, or if she did, then laughing at Arizona for standing on principle says more about them and you than it does about us.
Obama is a socialist; he has admitted it on the record and everything he does is an attempt to advance the kind of socialism that eventually leads to a violent Marxist revolution, and he claims to be (but is not) national President. That makes him a "national socialist" by definition, and the German gutter slang word for "national socialist" is "Nazi" and Hitler was leader of the Nazis. Obama is a Marxist, a Socialist, and a Nazi. Period. You need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
And BTW, Raymond, you really ought to stop bowing and scraping before that illegal twerp like he is some kind of messiah. It's embarrassing to see an adult debase himself so.
Rex, I take your point, but I think Mr. Rhea is inferring that we (the people) deserve it because we have been derelict in our duty all these decades to keep government bound down by the chains of the Constitution. I take his point too, though I heap much greater blame upon the insidious thugs in government who have no right to lead us down this dangerous path. I'm just suggesting that yeah, we don't deserve it, but we are going to get it because of our failure to do our duty. Therefore maybe we should direct our anger at the thugs doing it instead of each other.
Last login: Thursday, October 24, 2013