There's a lot of people with whom I do not agree yet I like them.
There are no people promoting ideas that are destroying this country that I like. Period. I see those people as enemies of the Constitution.
I doubt you would like me at all. I see things pretty much as good vs evil. I won't compromise that to go along with the crowd seeking acceptance.
There's a lot of people with whom I do not agree yet I like them.
There are no people promoting ideas that are destroying this country that I like. Period. I see those people as enemies of the Constitution.
I doubt you would like me at all. I see things pretty much as good vs evil. I won't compromise that to go along with the crowd seeking acceptance.
Like Trump.
Like Trump.
How is Trump bad? In your words.
Wayne always uses his own words. Very intelligent, kind man.
Wayne - now tell me how cute I am again!
I'm sorry, I don't understand your comment. You like Trump? I like Trump? Who likes Trump? Trump is like me?
You'll have to be more specific to get a meaningful response.
There's a lot of people with whom I do not agree yet I like them.
There are no people promoting ideas that are destroying this country that I like. Period. I see those people as enemies of the Constitution.
I doubt you would like me at all. I see things pretty much as good vs evil. I won't compromise that to go along with the crowd seeking acceptance.
Although Toad is 'ignoring' me ... I would so like to know ... (perhaps he would be willing to have this conversation with another):
1. What ideas are being promoted that supposedly are destroying the country he likes? (Presuming he means the U.S. and wondering if its merely the promoted ideas that he refuses to debate or consider that he sees as destructive. The system of government created by our national forefathers relied on discussion of ideas between responsible representatives that either supported them or not with the potential of compromise driving progress.)
2. If it is the U.S. he means then I took and still uphold an oath to protect the U.S. Constitution and, if he means me, regarding said ideas, perhaps he could explain ... to someone ... how the ideas I supposedly promote makes me an 'enemy' of it.
I've seen a lot of people, on and offline, that see themselves as champions of 'good' versus 'evil' that use a lot of presumption and unusual leaps of rationale to invent a black and white world that is, unfortunately, skewed to fit their personal version of what they think the Constitution means and who or what is the 'enemy' of it (more accurately, who've they determined is their political or even personal 'enemy'). That is the true nature of what drives division in this nation and I suspect, by either their unwillingness or inability to give more detail about their 'position', that even they suspect a potential flaw in their viewpoint yet are stubbornly committed to maintain their aggressive stance that they've apparently developed an unhealthy addiction to.
Arlo, I'll take the challenge
One idea that Democrats promote is illegal immigration. They allow them to come in and even ship them around the country. They appose any kind of border security that might actually work.
Another is that Democrats do not want any form of voter ID, yet they want to have ID for every other thing.
Let's see.
Democrats also are the ones that are allowing non -citizens to vote in local elections in various states.
Commence the tap dancing obfuscation.
You might as well discuss the state of the Union with a potato beetle. You'd get a more cogent response.
Display MoreArlo, I'll take the challenge
One idea that Democrats promote is illegal immigration. They allow them to come in and even ship them around the country. They appose any kind of border security that might actually work.
Another is that Democrats do not want any form of voter ID, yet they want to have ID for every other thing.
Let's see.
Democrats also are the ones that are allowing non -citizens to vote in local elections in various states.
1. Promoting illegal immigration? That's an extreme viewpoint based on a difference in how to address undocumented immigration. There is no 'promotion' of such.
2. They don't want voter suppression. Regarding 'ID for every other thing', how many IDs do you currently possess that were required for operation of equipment, access to specific areas or receipt of certain benefits, goods or services (civil or not) prior to the known existence of Covid and how many of them do you think were all the fault of just the Democrat party?
3. There's a part of HR1 that came under misleading scrutiny. In reality, the House bill known as H.R. 1 would not legally allow non-citizens to vote in the United States. The legislation included a raft of measures intended to prevent foreign interference in elections, reform campaign finance and enhance the protection of voting rights, among other measures. So it is false to claim that the Democrat House majority, in passing H.R. 1, had voted in favor of electoral rights for immigrants, whether documented or undocumented.
The vote was actually on a motion associated with H.R. 1, not a vote on the full bill itself, known as the “For the People Act.” What follows is a discussion of that motion.
Shortly before H.R. 1 was to be put to a final vote on 8 March, Rep. Dan Crenshaw, a Republican from Texas, put forward a “motion to recommit,” a type of measure that typically allows the minority party in the House a final opportunity to debate or amend the legislation. He included as part of his motion:
"The city of San Francisco, California, is allowing non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, to register to vote in school board elections."
He further clarified:
"Federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in elections for Federal office."
Crenshaw’s motion to recommit was put to a vote, and the House rejected it by 228 votes to 197, with 227 Democrats and one Republican voting against, and 191 Republicans and six Democrats voting for it.
227 Democrats did not vote in favor of voting rights for non-citizens. They voted to oppose Crenshaw’s motion.
Arlo, there are many cities that allow non-citizens to vote.
Do you regard voter identification as a form of voter discrimination?
Now that I've responded to your post ( a 'challenge' that was not my actual intent ) ... I would still like Toad the explain:
"There are no people promoting ideas that are destroying this country that I like. Period. I see those people as enemies of the Constitution."
It's not like I want or need him to like me. That's beside the point. But his rationale behind it all doesn't really hold water. Seems he's projecting a false characterization. I must admit that I don't really expect him to further explain himself. It would be a surprise to see him try (or succeed, even). I could resort to similar histrionics, in turn, and do so brilliantly (opinions differ) ... but that gets tiring, eventually. I suspect it would certainly tire you (and probably many others). 
Display More1. Promoting illegal immigration? That's an extreme viewpoint based on a difference in how to address undocumented immigration. There is no 'promotion' of such.
2. They don't want voter suppression. Regarding 'ID for every other thing', how many IDs do you currently possess that were required for operation of equipment, access to specific areas or receipt of certain benefits, goods or services (civil or not) prior to the known existence of Covid and how many of them do you think were all the fault of just the Democrat party?
3. There's a part of HR1 that came under misleading scrutiny. In reality, the House bill known as H.R. 1 would not legally allow non-citizens to vote in the United States. The legislation included a raft of measures intended to prevent foreign interference in elections, reform campaign finance and enhance the protection of voting rights, among other measures. So it is false to claim that the Democrat House majority, in passing H.R. 1, had voted in favor of electoral rights for immigrants, whether documented or undocumented.
The vote was actually on a motion associated with H.R. 1, not a vote on the full bill itself, known as the “For the People Act.” What follows is a discussion of that motion.
Shortly before H.R. 1 was to be put to a final vote on 8 March, Rep. Dan Crenshaw, a Republican from Texas, put forward a “motion to recommit,” a type of measure that typically allows the minority party in the House a final opportunity to debate or amend the legislation. He included as part of his motion:
"The city of San Francisco, California, is allowing non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, to register to vote in school board elections."
He further clarified:
"Federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in elections for Federal office."
Crenshaw’s motion to recommit was put to a vote, and the House rejected it by 228 votes to 197, with 227 Democrats and one Republican voting against, and 191 Republicans and six Democrats voting for it.
227 Democrats did not vote in favor of voting rights for non-citizens. They voted to oppose Crenshaw’s motion.
1. when you accept illegals into the country, put then bus and fly them to drop them off around the country, that's promoting it. We promote it by allowing it.
2. Voter ID is not suppression. I'm not even going to argue about it, so we can move on and save some virtual ink.
3. there are several states that allow non citizens to vote in local elections.
Arlo, there are many cities that allow non-citizens to vote.
Do you regard voter identification as a form of voter discrimination?
The way it is employed can indeed suppress the vote. As do measures to limit or deny voting by mail and other measures that might make it easier for citizens that require methods that help them vote.
Arlo, give me a few examples of how requiring an identification to vote would be voter suppression.
Is requiring a real ID to fly domestically suppressing people's ability to fly?
Why do we have identification at all for anything? If identification is suppression, why do we allow it for anything?
1. when you accept illegals into the country, put then bus and fly them to drop them off around the country, that's promoting it. We promote it by allowing it.
2. Voter ID is not suppression. I'm not even going to argue about it, so we can move on and save some virtual ink.
3. there are several states that allow non citizens to vote in local elections.
Not argue it? But you claimed to want discussion at one point?
There was a time in our not too distant history that all immigrants would have been considered 'illegal' (undocumented) by today's standards. This nation was essentially built on their backs. The fear of immigrants, in general, has been exaggerated out of proportion (based on envisioning terrorists or south of the border criminal gangs managing to overtake the land or destroy stuff). We already have quite effective measures to address that threat even if exaggerated in viewpoint. The wall thing and posting an army on the southern border is not only ineffective but demoralizing (reports from Texas National Guardsmen illustrate). Besides, it reflects prejudice that doesn't require a northern wall, as such.
Yes, there are states that allow undocumented immigrants to participate in local elections. Not many. And there are reasons behind their guidelines that give rational cause.(as mentioned in previous posts). That doesn't reflect a true danger to the nation. It merely reflects a difference in viewpoint that can be reasonably discussed without the histrionics and hyperbole. I may not even agree with all the stated reasons but that doesn't lead me to think the reasons given were 'evil' or the end of the world. Does that really make this old cold war navy vet an 'enemy' of 'Toad's country?'
Thanks for trying to explain Arlo, but I'm not going to argue with you.
There's no point to it because you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe.
As far as voter ID goes, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Israel, just about any other civilized country requires voter identification.
A lot of countries have mandatory voting requirements.
But it's an exercise in frustration to argue with somebody over these things because you believe what you believe.
What I believe is that it's common sense to require voter identification. I will never understand anyone who thinks otherwise.
Arlo, give me a few examples of how requiring an identification to vote would be voter suppression.
Is requiring a real ID to fly domestically suppressing people's ability to fly?
Why do we have identification at all for anything? If identification is suppression, why do we allow it for anything?
But we're not talking about flying and other things. We're talking about a citizen's right to vote. Yes, there are indeed some citizens that live so impoverished that they can't even make it to the DMV to get a license or ID. And the charge for 'papers' (as some refer to vaccine documentation in another argument) is essentially equivalent to a 'poll tax' (which is contrary to the 24th amendment of the U.S. Constitution).
Display MoreThanks for trying to explain Arlo, but I'm not going to argue with you.
There's no point to it because you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe.
As far as voter ID goes, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Israel, just about any other civilized country requires voter identification.
A lot of countries have mandatory voting requirements.
But it's an exercise in frustration to argue with somebody over these things because you believe what you believe.
What I believe is that it's common sense to require voter identification. I will never understand anyone who thinks otherwise.
So, does this make me an enemy of the Constitution I swore to protect and uphold in your eyes? Am I now a domestic enemy? Or are we allowed to civilly disagree and vote for the representatives we feel best serves this nation and the needs of its citizens?
Maybe it's a good thing that you've decided that rational discourse is a waste of your time. The hour is late here and I've got (another) doctor's appointment in the A.M. 
g'night you.
