How long before Hegseth uses the military against American citizens?

[User]

7 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Indeed if one is concerned about illegal immigration, then making legal immigration easier seems to be an obvious solution.

If one is concerned with bank robbery, then making it easier for people to come in and just take whatever money they want out would be an obvious solution... 

 

2 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Yes drunks tend not to get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their drinking.

 

 

What do you base that on?

[herbie]

Mental instabilities are qualifications.

Blind loyalty and skeletons in the closet are GOP White House requirements.

[Black Dog]

2 minutes ago, User said:

If one is concerned with bank robbery, then making it easier for people to come in and just take whatever money they want out would be an obvious solution... 

A retarded comparison of course. As mentioned there are significant benefits to legal immigration.

Quote

What do you base that on?

Have you not met any drunks? 

 

 

[Dougie93]

On 11/24/2024 at 3:42 PM, Radiorum said:

It’s a real war to Hegseth. He’s one paranoid dude. How long before he uses the military against the Left? According to him, they are all Marxists, and should be treated like enemy combatants.

the Secretary of Defense is not in the chain of command

in the United States military, the Combatant Commanders report directly to the President

 

[User]

8 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

A retarded comparison of course. As mentioned there are significant benefits to legal immigration.

Its the retarded logic you are using. 

9 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Have you not met any drunks? 

This is a question to my question, not an answer. You don't have shit to base your assertions on. 

[Black Dog]

34 minutes ago, User said:

Its the retarded logic you are using. 

The logic is fine, your comparison still sucks shit though.

Quote

This is a question to my question, not an answer. You don't have shit to base your assertions on. 

I'm sorry you just fell off the f*cking turnip truck and don't know that alcoholics (especially ones who drink to the point of blacking out, or get drunk and sexually harass people, or who show up to work still drunk) have a tendency to be unreliable people. 

But I'm sure the guy who says he started drinking because of the pressures and trauma of combat will have no problem  staying sober at a low-stress, low-stakes job like being Secretary of Defence.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Radiorum said:

After reading that, I am more sold than ever on providing a legal channel for illegal immigrants, and get them out of “a life in the shadows.” The economic and humanitarian benefits are huge.

Then you are reversing your previous position and are indeed supporting illegal immigrants

Which is fine, you're free to have an opinion. But let's have no more of this nonsense about how nobody supports illegal immigration

1 hour ago, Radiorum said:

I am interested in your comments on the following quotes from the link:

However, granting permanent legal status would also likely raise tax revenues, increase productivity, and have additional benefits for the children of these immigrants, generating substantial economic value for the country.  

For example, around one-half of workers in the U.S. dairy industry—which in 2018 paid between $11 and $13 an hour for general labor—are immigrants, most of whom are thought to be unauthorized.[4] Without legal status, unauthorized immigrants have limited opportunities for job mobility, a key channel by which other workers find better, more productive employment matches over their careers.

evidence from prior legalizations in the United States and in other countries suggests that legalization also encourages immigrants to improve their language skills, induces them to complete additional education and training, and improves their health outcomes, all of which make them more productive members of society

It's a poorly thought out argument. Releasing criminals from jail so that they could work but also raise tax revenues, theoretically increase productivity depending on how you're defining it and have additional benefits for their children. But everyone can see that while those things may be true releasing murderers and drug dealers into our society after they commit a crime is a poor policy. 

Having a discussion about changing immigration policy to allow people LIKE These people to enter the country legally and be productive members is perfectly acceptable and it's a conversation the US can have. No one is saying that they can't possibly be beneficial to the country. But these people specifically who are illegally in the country have already demonstrated that they are criminal. Rewarding criminal Behavior or allowing known criminals to benefit from their crime cannot be good policy. 

 

[User]

2 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

The logic is fine, your comparison still sucks shit though.

No, that is what the comparison points out, that your logic sucks. 

3 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

I'm sorry you just fell off the f*cking turnip truck and don't know that alcoholics (especially ones who drink to the point of blacking out, or get drunk and sexually harass people, or who show up to work still drunk) have a tendency to be unreliable people. 

But I'm sure the guy who says he started drinking because of the pressures and trauma of combat will have no problem  staying sober at a low-stress, low-stakes job like being Secretary of Defence.

What do you base this on?

[Black Dog]

8 minutes ago, User said:

No, that is what the comparison points out, that your logic sucks. 

no the comparison hinges upon the two crimes being comparable. They are not.

Quote

What do you base this on?

LOL you gotta be shitting me with this sealioning crap.

 

[Black Dog]

22 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Having a discussion about changing immigration policy to allow people LIKE These people to enter the country legally and be productive members is perfectly acceptable and it's a conversation the US can have. No one is saying that they can't possibly be beneficial to the country. But these people specifically who are illegally in the country have already demonstrated that they are criminal. Rewarding criminal Behavior or allowing known criminals to benefit from their crime cannot be good policy. 

They just elected a convicted criminal to the highest office in the land so...

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

They just elected a convicted criminal to the highest office in the land so...

I think most people recognized that trial as being an exercise in lawfare rather than actual criminal activity. Even most democrats polled that they felt that it was political.

And electing him president wasn't reward for that behavior. The behavior was simply discounted. Whereas allowing illegal immigrants to stay in granting them status would be a direct reward for their criminal Behavior.

To put it another way, hiring a Criminal after he's been through the court system to work for you is one thing. Letting a Thief keep the money that he stole from you and never having to face a consequence in court would be something entirely different.

Of course your guy just let Hunter Biden go for no reason other than he's related so perhaps you were side just doesn't see punishment for crimes as being an important thing  

Edited December 5, 2024 by CdnFox

[User]

3 hours ago, Black Dog said:

 

LOL you gotta be shitting me with this sealioning crap.

 

You got nothing but baseless assertions. 

2 hours ago, Black Dog said:

They just elected a convicted criminal to the highest office in the land so...

And?

 

[Nationalist]

15 hours ago, herbie said:

Mental instabilities are qualifications.

Blind loyalty and skeletons in the closet are GOP White House requirements.

Interesting.

Are a lifetime supply of Depends and Kleenex Democrat requirements?

[gatomontes99]

16 hours ago, Deluge said:

Then what a great opportunity to step in and shed some light on that link.  

He's not going to do that, especially after my response that destroyed his attempt at discrediting the data.

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

He's not going to do that, especially after my response that destroyed his attempt at discrediting the data.

I think radioactive is quickly learning that his vacuous bullshit flies only on the left. 

[User]

15 minutes ago, Deluge said:

I think radioactive is quickly learning that his vacuous bullshit flies only on the left. 

Yep. Like many others on the left here, I am losing track of how many comments and threads he has run away from when called out. 

[Deluge]

8 minutes ago, User said:

Yep. Like many others on the left here, I am losing track of how many comments and threads he has run away from when called out. 

And he hasn't even been here a month. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Deluge said:

And he hasn't even been here a month. 

This is not a great place for people who are used to an echo chamber who will not challenge them.

The usual left-wing debate tricks don't work here because many of the people here are too smart for that crap and it's an unmoderated forum so they can call bullshit when they see it.

Which is why the vast majority of Lefty's here simply but everyone who isn't left wing on ignore and stick their heads in the sand so they don't have to deal with nasty words they don't like and can't refute

[Deluge]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

This is not a great place for people who are used to an echo chamber who will not challenge them.

The usual left-wing debate tricks don't work here because many of the people here are too smart for that crap and it's an unmoderated forum so they can call bullshit when they see it.

Which is why the vast majority of Lefty's here simply but everyone who isn't left wing on ignore and stick their heads in the sand so they don't have to deal with nasty words they don't like and can't refute

Which is a huge reason why I like this forum so much. 

[NAME REMOVED]

 

Fred Trump III, nephew of Donald Trump, speaks about his fathers battles with alcohol, and makes it clear that Pete Hegseth should not be leading the military. 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

 

Fred Trump III, nephew of Donald Trump, speaks about his fathers battles with alcohol, and makes it clear that Pete Hegseth should not be leading the military. 

Who the hell cares what this guy has to say? Seriously dude, couldn't you find a quote from someone more relevant like his second cousins former college roommate or something?

Again and this has been told to you a million times is kind of nonsense drives people into Trump's Camp not out of it

[User]

17 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Fred Trump III, nephew of Donald Trump, speaks about his fathers battles with alcohol, and makes it clear that Pete Hegseth should not be leading the military. 

And?

[NAME REMOVED]

14 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Who the hell cares what this guy has to say? Seriously dude, couldn't you find a quote from someone more relevant like his second cousins former college roommate or something?

We should be listening to people who have direct experiences with alcoholism. Hegseth has said that he will quit drinking if appointed to the position. That is what all alcoholics say. They are not reliable. I should know I was once one. 

14 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Again and this has been told to you a million times is kind of nonsense drives people into Trump's Camp not out of it

It's been nearly a decade since Trump decided to run for office. We all know who he is. The MAGA loons will not change their mind, until his horrible policies affect their lives personally, and on occasion even that will not be enough. 

You, OTOH, are driving moderates away from Trump, with your pro-Russian propaganda, and simping for Billionaires. How does it feel to be shameless? 

[User]

2 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

We should be listening to people who have direct experiences with alcoholism. Hegseth has said that he will quit drinking if appointed to the position. That is what all alcoholics say. They are not reliable. I should know I was once one. 

What does alcoholism have to do with anything here?

What do you base claiming he is an alcoholic on?

 

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

We should be listening to people who have direct experiences with alcoholism. Hegseth has said that he will quit drinking if appointed to the position. That is what all alcoholics say. They are not reliable. I should know I was once one. 

That guy wasn't an expert on alcoholism.

And as to how the guy performs on the job that is his boss's worry, not ours. Either he gets the job done and what do I care about his private life or he's not getting the job done in which case fire and whether he's sober or not.

You can't go through your entire life trying to make arguments that we should take action based on future crimes. And that's what the left is doing, they try and convince everybody that everybody who isn't on the left are terrible horrible evil people and guaranteed if they get a chance they will destroy us.

You remind me of that Simpsons episode where Troy McClure is talking about cows and he looks at the camera and says "Don't kid yourself Jimmy, if a cow ever got the chance he'd kill you and everyone you care about:  

I'm sorry but even if what you are saying is accurate nobody's listening anymore. It is every single republican, it is every single republican supporter, it is 100% of the time 24 hours a day. Every single person that you did not personally approve of is a terrible horrible evil person who will destroy us if they get a chance. Nobody believes you anymore.

Quote

It's been nearly a decade since Trump decided to run for office. We all know who he is. 

Sure but only a handful of us tell the truth about it it seems. Trump had a good first term, Shame about covid, and we all know that the nonsense about January 6th being an attempt to overthrow the government is patently 1diotic. He's no saint and he certainly is not what I call a great leader but he's a hell of a lot better than Kamy. 

But no, he's Hitler. There won't be any more elections if he wins. United states is over and we will all be sold into slavery if trump becomes president again.

Yawn. 

 

Quote

You, OTOH, are driving moderates away from Trump, with your pro-Russian propaganda, and simping for Billionaires. How does it feel to be shameless? 

And there you go again, why would anyone take what you say seriously or put even a scrap of faith into any of your opinions when all you offer are such blatant lies? You're obviously not fit to comment on Trump or Kamala or his pick for any of the positions he chooses or even alcoholism because you can't tell the truth to save your life.

You're just a garbage person. And the fact you side with the left doesn't improve anyone's opinion of them either