This classless nonsense needs to stop now.

[I_M4_AU 7,768]

On 9/17/2021 at 12:47 PM, AU9377 said:

A full on assault to change our beliefs and systems of governing?  Do tell. 

Joe Biden - nobody can question that he is a man of faith.  Compare that to a president that has never asked for forgiveness because he has never done anything that needed forgiving.  I believe it was Lindsey Graham who said "If you can't admire Joe Biden as a person... u got a problem... cause what's not to like"....  I understand that this does not fit with the narrative pushed by the talking heads at Fox of OAN, but ask yourself who is most likely telling the truth about a man's character?

I'll leave then entire thing here to make it easy to understand.

 

Again you are focusing on the previous President, which has nothing to do with our current President and how he is guiding this country down a divided path.

One issue is immigration.  The House is purposing a “path to citizenship” in the new $3.5 Billion Infrastructure saying that these *Dreamers* are, as Jerry Hadler puts it, HUMAN INFRASTRUCTURE. Does this sound like something you would like to be called?  Almost sounds like chattel of the U.S..

A new House bill could provide green card relief for thousands of individuals and families waiting years in backlogs and grant legal status to millions of immigrants living in the United States without legal status. Although the bill does not contain permanent structural changes to the legal immigration system, it would likely allow more individuals to gain permanent residence than the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act and provide relief for many families, high-skilled immigrants and employers.

Background: On September 10, 2021, the House Judiciary Committee released a press statement: “Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) announced the committee printfor the Committee markup on Monday, September 13th on legislative proposals under the budget reconciliation instructions.” Before becoming law, the provisions would have to pass the Judiciary Committee, the House of Representatives and the Senate and be signed by the president. (Update: On September 13, 2021, “The House Judiciary Committee voted 25-19 along party lines to advance [the] legislation,” reported Suzanne Monyak of CQ/Roll Call. No substantive amendments passed that changed the underlying immigration provisions in the bill. )

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2021/09/13/dreamers-and-legal-immigration-changes-highlight-new-house-bill/

So, is Biden pushing the path to citizenship because he is a God fearing man?

Do you think a man with religious convictions would be OK with men competing in women’s MMA matches and brutalizing their opponents?

 https://nypost.com/2021/09/11/transgender-fighter-alana-mclaughlin-wins-mma-debut/

How about allowing a 4 year old decide their own gender?

https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/commentary/pelosis-equality-act-could-lead-more-parents-losing-custody-kids-who 

Do you agree with the administration’s stance on these subjects?

 

[AU9377 4,914]

9 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Again you are focusing on the previous President, which has nothing to do with our current President and how he is guiding this country down a divided path.

One issue is immigration.  The House is purposing a “path to citizenship” in the new $3.5 Billion Infrastructure saying that these *Dreamers* are, as Jerry Hadler puts it, HUMAN INFRASTRUCTURE. Does this sound like something you would like to be called?  Almost sounds like chattel of the U.S..

A new House bill could provide green card relief for thousands of individuals and families waiting years in backlogs and grant legal status to millions of immigrants living in the United States without legal status. Although the bill does not contain permanent structural changes to the legal immigration system, it would likely allow more individuals to gain permanent residence than the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act and provide relief for many families, high-skilled immigrants and employers.

Background: On September 10, 2021, the House Judiciary Committee released a press statement: “Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) announced the committee printfor the Committee markup on Monday, September 13th on legislative proposals under the budget reconciliation instructions.” Before becoming law, the provisions would have to pass the Judiciary Committee, the House of Representatives and the Senate and be signed by the president. (Update: On September 13, 2021, “The House Judiciary Committee voted 25-19 along party lines to advance [the] legislation,” reported Suzanne Monyak of CQ/Roll Call. No substantive amendments passed that changed the underlying immigration provisions in the bill. )

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2021/09/13/dreamers-and-legal-immigration-changes-highlight-new-house-bill/

So, is Biden pushing the path to citizenship because he is a God fearing man?

Do you think a man with religious convictions would be OK with men competing in women’s MMA matches and brutalizing their opponents?

 https://nypost.com/2021/09/11/transgender-fighter-alana-mclaughlin-wins-mma-debut/

How about allowing a 4 year old decide their own gender?

https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/commentary/pelosis-equality-act-could-lead-more-parents-losing-custody-kids-who 

Do you agree with the administration’s stance on these subjects?

 

Do you really see who the MMA is allowing to fight who as a national issue?  It isn't.  I simply do not care.

As for the gender discussion, I think it is a ridiculous one to have.  I also don't believe that this is a problem that the Federal government needs a voice in.  Unfortunately, like a Mexican soap opera, the Republican party, spurned on by their radio and cable news entertainers, want to build this into some national issue.  Frankly, many Democrats are dumb enough to allow them to do so.

As for immigration, the Biden administration has already announced that those taken into custody at the border would be deported in keeping with current immigration laws.  As for those identified as "Dreamers", we do need to find a path to citizenship.  This is the only country they have ever known.  That shouldn't be a controversial thing to get done.

As for your faux concern over terminology and hurting the feelings of those labeled as infrastructure, I won't even engage in that silliness.

In order to address immigration in this country, we need a complete overhaul of our laws.  It may even take a constitutional amendment.  Our problem is that for the past 200 years we have grown in large part due to immigration.  We needed immigrants in order to flex our industrial might.  That being the case, our laws dictate that we give all asylum seekers hearings, as well as any other immigrant seeking to stay in the country.  There are numerous way to attain legal residency. The problem is complex, but it does need to be addressed.

Edited September 20, 2021 by AU9377

[I_M4_AU 7,768]

15 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Do you really see who the MMA is allowing to fight who as a national issue?  It isn't.  I simply do not care.

As for the gender discussion, I think it is a ridiculous one to have.  I also don't believe that this is a problem that the Federal government needs a voice in.

This is a typical leftist view.  “Why do you care, its not affecting you”?  Then, by magic, we have states and the NCAA dictating policy for states regarding trans “women”.  If you disagree you’re labeled some phobia type and shouted down, even though you may have a legitimate concern.  Do you have daughters that are athletes?  Would it be OK to allow a trans “women” to take her spot on a team and have your daughter denied a scholarship?

This is policy creep from the bottom up and it has happened over and over again.  This is why you finally see resistance in school board meetings for some of the policies they have implemented.  You also see it in here being touted as a made up issue that affects no one.  Well done.

15 hours ago, AU9377 said:

As for immigration, the Biden administration has already announced that those taken into custody at the border would be deported in keeping with current immigration laws.  As for those identified as "Dreamers", we do need to find a path to citizenship.  This is the only country they have ever known.  That shouldn't be a controversial thing to get done.

As for your faux concern over terminology and hurting the feelings of those labeled as infrastructure, I won't even engage in that silliness.

This is a joke right?  Biden announce SUNDAY he will deport illegals, SUNDAY!!!  Where has he been for 8 months?  Border crossing were up over 300% from a year ago.  Over 200,000 illegal crossings in August alone.  Biden repealed all of Trump’s measures to restrict illegal crossings and just NOW is he reimplementing those policies, albeit under a different name as he can’t say Trump was right.  The only reason he is acting now is because Governor Abbot sent his own troop to the border to secure the onslaught of illegal immigration.

As for the hurt feeling over terminology; the only reason Jerry Nadler used the term *Human Infrastructure* was to try to cram immigration policy into the $3.5 trillion budget bill.  Thank God the Senate Parliamentarian had enough sense to disallow the use of the budget reconciliation if that was in the bill.

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/19/1038776731/in-a-blow-to-democrats-senate-official-blocks-immigration-reform-in-budget-bill

15 hours ago, AU9377 said:

The problem is complex, but it does need to be addressed.

We can agree here, but I would think our solutions are different.

Edited September 20, 2021 by I_M4_AU

[homersapien 11,353]

Human infrastructure is exactly that.  It's the reason we have a publicly funded educational system - to develop that resource.  Educated people are more valuable that uneducated people.

That's why many - if not most - personnel systems in companies are now called "human resource" dept.

Humans are a resource regardless if you like the terminology or not. (War is perhaps an obvious example you might understand?)

Human infrastructure is a perfectly appropriate way to express it. There's nothing "leftist" about it.

Edited September 20, 2021 by homersapien

[AU9377 4,914]

6 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

This is a typical leftist view.  “Why do you care, its not affecting you”?  Then, by magic, we have states and the NCAA dictating policy for states regarding trans “women”.  If you disagree you’re labeled some phobia type and shouted down, even though you may have a legitimate concern.  Do you have daughters that are athletes?  Would it be OK to allow a trans “women” to take her spot on a team and have your daughter denied a scholarship?

This is policy creep from the bottom up and it has happened over and over again.  This is why you finally see resistance in school board meetings for some of the policies they have implemented.  You also see it in here being touted as a made up issue that affects no one.  Well done.

This is a joke right?  Biden announce SUNDAY he will deport illegals, SUNDAY!!!  Where has he been for 8 months?  Border crossing were up over 300% from a year ago.  Over 200,000 illegal crossings in August alone.  Biden repealed all of Trump’s measures to restrict illegal crossings and just NOW is he reimplementing those policies, albeit under a different name as he can’t say Trump was right.  The only reason he is acting now is because Governor Abbot sent his own troop to the border to secure the onslaught of illegal immigration.

As for the hurt feeling over terminology; the only reason Jerry Nadler used the term *Human Infrastructure* was to try to cram immigration policy into the $3.5 trillion budget bill.  Thank God the Senate Parliamentarian had enough sense to disallow the use of the budget reconciliation if that was in the bill.

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/19/1038776731/in-a-blow-to-democrats-senate-official-blocks-immigration-reform-in-budget-bill

We can agree here, but I would think our solutions are different.

I could have been clearer.  I do not support trans athletes playing NCAA sports based on any gender other than the gender they were born.  I honestly believe that when that happens, it is detrimental to women's sports and all the opportunities they provide.  I have supported women's basketball for decades.    I do think the issue is being overblown due to the eagerness of the far right to make everything a "they are coming to get you" type of argument.  I don't believe that the trans discussion belongs in the same discussion as Gay rights, marriage etc.  People should be free to care about who they care about and sexual attraction should not be confused with sexual identity.

The Biden administration has been deporting illegals for much longer than a few days.

[I_M4_AU 7,768]

Well, they have cleaned up the chant.  “Let’s go Brandon”.

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

On 9/17/2021 at 11:47 AM, AU9377 said:

 

Joe Biden - nobody can question that he is a man of faith. 

I would think that just about anyone who doesn't know him could question that.  Just like someone who doesn't know anyone else could question just about anything about them.  

I have no idea whether Joe Biden is a "man of faith" or not.  Neither do you.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

I'm just being mildly sarcastic here, mostly serious. 

So any time anyone uses the F word when publicly protesting politics they are classless?

I just want to make sure I understand the rule.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

I want to understand the rule because apparently there are a lot of people who don't understand that @#$! Joe Biden is a response to people chanting @#$! Donald Trump in 2019 and 2020.  Just Google search it.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

I'm just waiting to see if That's Different© is going to be a part of this thread too.

[AU9377 4,914]

1 hour ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I would think that just about anyone who doesn't know him could question that.  Just like someone who doesn't know anyone else could question just about anything about them.  

I have no idea whether Joe Biden is a "man of faith" or not.  Neither do you.

We know that he has been a practicing Catholic his entire life, that he regularly attends mass (he seldom misses Sunday mass) and that before and during his time as VP he attended Holy Trinity Church in Washington, D.C.  He also carries a rosary at all times. 

A cynical person can always claim that it is all an act, but realistically, that act is carried out with determined commitment if that is what drives the man.  Common sense alone would lead most people to agree that he is a man of faith.  You can believe that the Sun is made of water if you want.

[jj3jordan 2,040]

2 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I would think that just about anyone who doesn't know him could question that.  Just like someone who doesn't know anyone else could question just about anything about them.  

I have no idea whether Joe Biden is a "man of faith" or not.  Neither do you.

Well at the signing ceremony for Obamacare, into an open mike and audible Joe Biden man of faith stated "this is a big f***ing deal".  So is this chanting f*** Joe Biden out of bounds?  He uses this language regularly. Probably one the few words he can actually understand at his current mental capacity.  Coupled with his unabashed support for abortion at any stage in defiance of his lifelong devotion to the Catholic church, I think we can safely say we have our answer.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

17 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

We know that he has been a practicing Catholic his entire life, that he regularly attends mass (he seldom misses Sunday mass) and that before and during his time as VP he attended Holy Trinity Church in Washington, D.C.  He also carries a rosary at all times. 

A cynical person can always claim that it is all an act, but realistically, that act is carried out with determined commitment if that is what drives the man.  Common sense alone would lead most people to agree that he is a man of faith.  You can believe that the Sun is made of water if you want.

Do you go to church?

I do.

I see people every Sunday who I wouldn't say have strong faith.  I would opine this because of what I know they do Mon-Sat.  These are people I know personally and even so I would say that's just my opinion and I could be wrong about them.

Joe Biden is a Catholic who ignores at least one hardline, recently affirmed papal edict for political reasons.  I'm not saying he does or doesn't have faith.  I'm saying only God really knows.

[AU9377 4,914]

13 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Do you go to church?

I do.

I see people every Sunday who I wouldn't say have strong faith.  I would opine this because of what I know they do Mon-Sat.  These are people I know personally and even so I would say that's just my opinion and I could be wrong about them.

Joe Biden is a Catholic who ignores at least one hardline, recently affirmed papal edict for political reasons.  I'm not saying he does or doesn't have faith.  I'm saying only God really knows.

Why is it so difficult for some to understand the concept of Church and State without one dictating the policies of the other?  Someone can be completely opposed to abortion personally, while also understanding that their personal beliefs should not dictate the rights someone has pursuant to the U.S. Constitution.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

2 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Why is it so difficult for some to understand the concept of Church and State without one dictating the policies of the other?  Someone can be completely opposed to abortion personally, while also understanding that their personal beliefs should not dictate the rights someone has pursuant to the U.S. Constitution.

LOL.

You're the one making a big deal about him being a devout Catholic.  Catholics are supposed to follow the Pope's edicts.  The Pope just got through saying that abortion is murder.  Not even a month ago.

No one is saying anything about politics dictating the policies of the Catholic church.  I'm saying he's not allowing the Pope to dictate to him.  As a devout Catholic.

[AU9377 4,914]

6 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

LOL.

You're the one making a big deal about him being a devout Catholic.  Catholics are supposed to follow the Pope's edicts.  The Pope just got through saying that abortion is murder.  Not even a month ago.

No one is saying anything about politics dictating the policies of the Catholic church.  I'm saying he's not allowing the Pope to dictate to him.  As a devout Catholic.

Has he aborted a child?  Not that I know of.  For crying out loud man.... think.

 

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

27 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Has he aborted a child?  Not that I know of.  For crying out loud man.... think.

 

 

So if I've never raped someone but I argue for rape to be legal from the highest position of power in the world, I'm morally innocent?

Think yourself.

See, that's the thing.  The Pope used the word murder.  That has a specific legal as well as moral connotation.  

Now I don't have to think the two are equivalent, because I'm not Catholic.  But good devout Catholics are supposed to regard that as the word of God.

Edited October 7, 2021 by Shoney'sPonyBoy

[AU9377 4,914]

50 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

So if I've never raped someone but I argue for rape to be legal from the highest position of power in the world, I'm morally innocent?

Think yourself.

See, that's the thing.  The Pope used the word murder.  That has a specific legal as well as moral connotation.  

Now I don't have to think the two are equivalent, because I'm not Catholic.  But good devout Catholics are supposed to regard that as the word of God.

Whatever man.........   Your fake concern over this topic is so transparent.

[aubaseball 2,583]

2 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Why is it so difficult for some to understand the concept of Church and State without one dictating the policies of the other?  Someone can be completely opposed to abortion personally, while also understanding that their personal beliefs should not dictate the rights someone has pursuant to the U.S. Constitution.

What part in the constitution does it say about abortion?

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

Whatever man.........   Your fake concern over this topic is so transparent.

That might be the strangest non-sequitur response I have ever seen.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

29 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

What part in the constitution does it say about abortion?

Here's the text of the 14th amendment which supposedly grants the "right" to have an abortion.  I think if you just read it it will be completely obvious to you:

 

Fourteenth Amendment

Fourteenth Amendment Annotated

 

Section 1

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

Section 2

 

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

 

Section 3

 

No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

Section 4

 

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

 

Section 5

 

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[homersapien 11,353]

9 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I'm just being mildly sarcastic here, mostly serious. 

So any time anyone uses the F word when publicly protesting politics they are classless?

I just want to make sure I understand the rule.

How do you feel about it. 

Say you're having a picnic with your extended family and a group of college kids in an adjacent picnic table are loudly yelling **** (for whatever reason)? 

Would you consider them classless?

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,353]

5 hours ago, aubaseball said:

What part in the constitution does it say about abortion?

First Amendment (of course)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

How do you feel about it. 

Say you're having a picnic with your extended family and a group of college kids in an adjacent picnic table are loudly yelling **** (for whatever reason)? 

Would you consider them classless?

 

 

 

I would consider them typical in 2021.

Surely you all who are clutching your pearls about this understand that the culture has been coarsening in terms of these types of social graces for around 55 years or more, right?

Starting with the leftist hippies who deliberately chose obscene language in order to shock the square establishment, continuing through the leftist entertainment industry who made a point of pushing the envelope farther and farther in terms of not only obscene language, but in every other immodest way possible, colleges who have done the same.  For decades deliberately trending in this direction has been a hallmark of the left specifically because it opposes traditional American Judaeo-Christian values.  If you are bothered by it you do not have an open mind.  That's been the message since at least the mid-60s.  We all know this.

Surely the fact that every bit of the cultural migration in this direction has ben a deliberate agenda of the left cannot be lost on y'all, right?  What did you think the logical conclusion of all of this (deliberate) coarsening was going to be?

Again, even the @#$! Joe Biden thing isn't original.  It started as @#$! Donald Trump.  If it is so egregious now to chant that about the POTUS, why wasn't it egregious two years ago?  I get the feeling that not many of you even knew about it then.  One way or the other, either you did and thought it was o.k. to say that as long as it was directed toward the other team or you didn't, which is a concrete example of media bias.

So sure, I think it's classless.  But I think our entire culture is classless these days.  It's been trending in that direction now for longer than I have been alive, deliberately, consistently, and relentlessly pushed that way by the left and I don't know why anyone would be surprised by it at this point nor do I see any reason to think this is an example of less class than a dozen or more other examples someone could give, from Kathy Griffin tweeting a video holding Trump's severed head to Meagan Rapinoe telling a reporter in front of millions of viewers that she wouldn't go visit the @#$!*&^ White House to Maxine Waters holding a press conference and trying to incite people to accost Republicans in public when they are trying to live their private lives to wearing vagina hats while marching on Washington...I mean, how many examples do you want?

I was accused above of having "fake concern" for this topic and I said it was a non-sequitur.  I said that because I haven't posted anything in this entire thread about being concerned about anything in it.  In fact, I even announced that I was being slightly sarcastic about it and was obviously amused by it, waiting for the That's Different© excuses to fly once the realization that this started with your team dawned on you.

But I was wrong, it's relevant after all.  Because instead of being the strangest non-sequitur response I have ever seen, it's actually the most spectacularly egregious, massive, unbelievable example I have ever seen of totally oblivious psychological projection.

A guy starts a thread like some kind of internet Karen totally scandalized by people doing what people do in 2021, completely ignoring everything else happening and that has happened in American culture for decades, including people chanting exactly the same thing in exactly the same context just 1-2 years ago.

But I'm the one expressing transparent fake concern.

LOL. 

O.k.

If you guys are so troubled about this, the next time an issue arises in which there is a choice between supporting the preservation of traditional American cultural values vs "being open minded and progressive," maybe you should side with preserving traditional American cultural values.  You know, being conservative, by definition.  Then you'd be part of the solution rather than part of the problem you are so concerned about here.

Edited October 8, 2021 by Shoney'sPonyBoy

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

First Amendment (of course)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Yet that is not the section of the constitution cited in the Roe v Wade decision.  Wonder why?

I'm betting it's because Congress not being permitted to make a law regarding establishing a religion has nothing to do with this.

If we're going to say that religions lead people to conclude that it's wrong to kill unborn human beings, therefore we can't codify that action, if we use that logic we wouldn't be able to make a law prohibiting people from killing born human beings.  Or doing just about anything else, either.  Some religions doubtless teach that it's wrong to steal and rape and perpetuate fraud and do all sorts of things.  If we can't codify those things because some religion teaches that it's wrong, I think the inevitable destination is anarchy.

Edited October 8, 2021 by Shoney'sPonyBoy