Sign into an existing account

Don't say anything, identify target, point, and shoot.

Funny comic though

Rebuttal: 100 percent of break-ins involve break-ins.

Even if he never would've used violence against the man or his family, he did trespass their property, vandalize their home, did so with the intent of depriving them of their property, and woke them from their slumber during the night, all of which is good enough for an immediate death sentence.

I mean, just using fighting words is enough of an offense to get killed for, my real comment is this:

Imagine if we gave the same treatment to those who trespass into our country's lands, as we do to those who break into out homes.

I think the world would be a much better place for it. Most of them come in and just take from us, by the bare fact that they don't pay taxes, they steal from us.

They can undercut our workers for their jobs because not paying taxes means less wages go further, and not having a citizenship means their employers can get away with not observing the government mandated hiring practices with them that they'd have to observe with hiring an actual citizen, and businesses that employ illegal immigrants can easily outperform those which do not, essentially forcing companies to do so, thus cutting out citizens out of the labor market for that job.

It's a job people want to do, not necessarily because it's fun, but more because its a good way to break into that labor field, jobs of that sort are an opportunity, perhaps for jobs which the citizen WOULD want to do.

Not that it matters, "wanting to do the job" is a meaningless triviality, people largely don't do their jobs because it's what they want to do, they do their jobs because its what gets them paid.

Also, when it comes to agriculture, it's a very unfair thing for an urbanite to say, seeing as these aren't jobs the urbanite is ever going to do for their first jobs, for a rural sort, this is the chance for their youth to enter the world of working, you feel al smug knowing that you aren't denying the first rung of a career to some young city folk like yourself, it's those country types whose children are going to have to struggle to find their first employment.

When it comes to urban labor, it's the smug middle to upper class types who are the ones making things harder for the urbanites who aren't as well off, making it harder for their young to ascend the ladder of classes, they know it's those poorer types whose ids will have trouble finding work, because for a lot of those at the bottom, it's stuff like cleaning hotel rooms that serves as the first rung of the ladder to getting a job that would get them out of were they were born into.

Liberal democrats are marxists, they have bullshit theories that are obviously untrue, so they introduce issues that force things to be a better fit to their insane cult's dogma.

First, the fact that these guys aren't truly post-modernists, as they do repeatedly demonstrate that they believe in an objectively superior set of beliefs regarding good and evil, right and wrong, and even a perfect system of politics and economics.

But they are wrong in this, there's not a linear pattern to socio-political or cultural-moral perspectives where there's some perfect set of values that everything converges upon.

Instead it's much more darwinian (or should I say "dawkinsian"): moral values tend to go back and forth, often getting towards some extreme, then reacting to the previous moral consensus's perceived faults by moving towards the other extreme.

This is why I say that the claim that stuff like overt "anti-semitism", "racism", "homophobia" and "misogyny" might make a return at levels that make the most based historical examples of these things seem downright progressive by comparison (because if that happens we'd have good historical evidence why an explicit hatred of the inferior groupings of people is not just justified but also necessary) is a solid claim that could make libdems tremble in fear at it's possibility (not just because it refutes the ideas of historical progression of values, but also because they'd not be seen as the good guys by future generations, rather, they'd be seen as regressive holdouts of a demonstrably failed ideology).

The evolutionary component to this is that it's about the natural selection of memes, and of memetic domination, not about some absolute better concept of good or evil being discovered over time, but about which ideas are better able to dominate their competitors. Again, this means that any "-anti", "-ism", or "-phobia" could rise to prominence as the general moral rule of the prevalent culture just as easy as being against those things, the post-modernists fail at taking the post-modern observation of winners writing victories and might making right to their full extent conclusions.

Sure, you could also argue that history is written by the observers, or that right could make might, but the fact is that the observers are so heavily influenced by the winners that it's just an extra step (also you can argue over what conditions count for "winning"), and that it's indistinguishable between whether might could emerge from right, or whether it's the other way around (and it's far more likely that when someone points to might coming from right, it's actually coming from zeal, one can be fanatically self-righteous and still be wrong, morally and otherwise).

One could go to the religious definition of "good" with regards to God, God's moral character is often questioned, even in the Bible by it's own characters, even by those in there who follow him there is occasional expression of doubts as to his goodness, but one thing that's not questioned is his power comparative to humanity, even if he's not fitting any definition of "omnipotent", he can still be "merely" almighty, as in, the most powerful being we know of, and being so much more strong than anyone or anything else, whatever he likes or dislikes is heavily favored to be interpreted as some objective measure of "good" and "evil", because even if that's not the case objectively, it is in a practical sense, the best way to regard the personal preferences of God (divine command theory, because God made everything and can easily fuck you up, what he says goes, and you'd be wise to at least pretend to agree).

I don't really think these retards actually think about the full implications of the ideas they claim to support, the liberals are more for parroting some intellectual than actually using their intellects to explore the ideas they are presented with. I think in many cases that their education has actually stunted their ability to grapple with challenging concepts.

Anyways, read "the selfish gene" I think the parts talking about memes are very important to review and think about.

BTW, I said we COULD go back to a point where every form of "bigotry" or "supremacy" is then considered morally acceptable or even good, most likely that wont happen, since the 1920s or earlier, most of the world has been going back and forth between two forms of what a certain misunderstood philosopher referred to as "slave moralities", effeminate ideologies of women and conquered men, on one hand we got "progressive" marxism, on the other we have "conservative" christianity, we see this cycle go back and forth, right boot, left boot.

Americans who live under one half of the cycle seem to forget that they are only in that half of the cycle because the other half was so shitty that everyone decided to give the previous poison a try. We went with Obama because things were so horrible under Bush, we went with his christian conservative ilk because the marxist guys before were so terrible, every time the other boot replaces the current one, we have an upswing in hope, but both political philosophies are always used to justify the same conclusions, jews are experts at using any ideological theory to justify any sort of conclusion, you can justify forced ideological conformity with individualism, or twist capitalist theory to justify government interference in the markets.

Whatever differences they pretend exist between them, don't really matter, but we fight tooth and claw over them, the real differences are arguable as to whether they exist at all, heck, one could also argue that it's all kayfabe, the two slave moralities aren't really in opposition, they all actually play for the same team, and the fights are just theatre to give us the illusion tat there is two choices instead of just one.

That's what I think will happen, we will take of this left boot, and put on the right one, until we realize what the people to take of the right boot had, that it sucks, then we will put on the left boot again, because by then we'd forgotten how bad it is now.

A constant back and forth between getting stomped by two boots, because we live in a democratic system, which is best at sustaining the reign of slave morality, we get two slave moralities being used to stomp us into servitude, each presenting the other as the official alternative.

Reminds me of Dimebag's killer's fate. Cop shot him with a shotgun. I was reading some article for more details and the shooter actually got shot in the face and one of the bystanders said his head was gone after that.

Maybe the illustrator should have looked up the statistics of what race commits break-ins.

You fags are all talk

Youd run like a bitch

Dangus especially