Sound of Freedom

[BuckSwope 654]

2 hours ago, JustinCharge said:

you are either moving towards big government or not.  thats the only true dividing line. if you want to draw a distinction between liberals and leftists, there really is none as both move towards big government.

Again proving my point.  You frame this as L vs R- one good, one bad.  I 100 % agree that there are several examples we could give of the left doing this. However,  you fail to acknowledge any instance of the right moving to big government or overstepping and not letting people largely do their thing. 

I view politics and our country as the 1% largely ruling the rest of us.  Follow the money and you see they don't give 2 craps about LvR, they care about profits and power.  The L v R sh1t is for distracting us rubes from that first point.  

 

[BuckSwope 654]

19 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

If you care about child sex trafficking, you can start by voting for candidates that will tighten up the border.  If you don’t, then just keep voting for democrats. Pretty simple. 

If only it were that simple.   Most of the righties on these boards were all for Remain in Mexico.  It was shown to increase the trafficking because they were easier prey in the camps on the other side of the border, and the increased risk of crossing meant they could charge more- again giving power and $ to the traffickers. 

I've also posted an interesting study that ran numbers and suggested the clamp down on the border in the 70s caused a rise in the illegals you all hate.  

But you don't want to hear or talk about that, so it's Pedos vs Patriots!!

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,964]

8 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

If only it were that simple.   Most of the righties on these boards were all for Remain in Mexico.  It was shown to increase the trafficking because they were easier prey in the camps on the other side of the border, and the increased risk of crossing meant they could charge more- again giving power and $ to the traffickers. 

I've also posted an interesting study that ran numbers and suggested the clamp down on the border in the 70s caused a rise in the illegals you all hate.  

But you don't want to hear or talk about that, so it's Pedos vs Patriots!!

Lemme guess: A studied commissioned by the DNC? 

What left group commissioned the study that you seem to think proves your point? Also, they already were on the other side of the border before they even got here, so how is "keeping them over there" any different than where they had previously come from?

[Hardcore troubadour 13,327]

10 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

If only it were that simple.   Most of the righties on these boards were all for Remain in Mexico.  It was shown to increase the trafficking because they were easier prey in the camps on the other side of the border, and the increased risk of crossing meant they could charge more- again giving power and $ to the traffickers. 

I've also posted an interesting study that ran numbers and suggested the clamp down on the border in the 70s caused a rise in the illegals you all hate.  

But you don't want to hear or talk about that, so it's Pedos vs Patriots!!

Yeah.  Nothing has changed since the 70’s. No new technology, nothing. Great study Buck 

[Hardcore troubadour 13,327]

4 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Lemme guess: A studied commissioned by the DNC? 

What left group commissioned the study that you seem to think proves your point? Also, they already were on the other side of the border before they even got here, so how is "keeping them over there" any different than where they had previously come from?

Also, I don’t hate the illegals. Why did you say that? I haven’t. Typical. 

[Reality 2,791]

31 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

If only it were that simple.   Most of the righties on these boards were all for Remain in Mexico.  It was shown to increase the trafficking because they were easier prey in the camps on the other side of the border, and the increased risk of crossing meant they could charge more- again giving power and $ to the traffickers. 

I've also posted an interesting study that ran numbers and suggested the clamp down on the border in the 70s caused a rise in the illegals you all hate.  

But you don't want to hear or talk about that, so it's Pedos vs Patriots!!

How many times have you posted in this thread? You clearly don't want to see it for whatever silly reason, what's your goal in this thread?

[BuckSwope 654]

51 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yeah.  Nothing has changed since the 70’s. No new technology, nothing. Great study Buck 

It wasn't a study from the 70s, dipsh1t.  It was looking at the border and how numbers reacted from policies from the 70s on.  

[Hardcore troubadour 13,327]

1 minute ago, BuckSwope said:

It wasn't a study from the 70s, dipsh1t.  It was looking at the border and how numbers reacted from policies from the 70s on.  

A study about policies in the 70’s. Nice work Buck.  

[BuckSwope 654]

1 hour ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Lemme guess: A studied commissioned by the DNC? 

What left group commissioned the study that you seem to think proves your point? Also, they already were on the other side of the border before they even got here, so how is "keeping them over there" any different than where they had previously come from?

Your DNC shtick is so tired, gb.  Yes, if it disagrees with something you might think it only must come from the DNC glory hole.  

To answer your question, it's because they are at risk 2x in that scenario.  They are coming- and largely use traffickers and cartels to get here, right?  At our border, we offer protections from those people when they get here.  Make them live in makeshift communities on the other side of the border as they wait to get in, and guess who kidnaps them and preys on them? Correct- cartel and traffickers.   

 

 

[BuckSwope 654]

11 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

A study about policies in the 70’s. Nice work Buck.  

Polices that started in the 70s and continued on.  You truly are an idiot. 

[Hardcore troubadour 13,327]

3 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Polices that started in the 70s and continued on.  You truly are an idiot. 

Yeah, nothing has changed. It’s all the same. Thanks Buck Dope. 

[BuckSwope 654]

59 minutes ago, Reality said:

How many times have you posted in this thread? You clearly don't want to see it for whatever silly reason, what's your goal in this thread?

I'm going to watch the movie, but not in the theater.  Now I am talking about the border and trafficking in general as the conversation morphed to that. Is that OK? 

[BuckSwope 654]

5 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yeah, nothing has changed. It’s all the same. Thanks Buck Dope. 

You are welcome. I always enjoy our interactions.  

[Reality 2,791]

Well well well, I get it now. Sorry if this was already covered...

Carry on fellas.

https://www.newsweek.com/disney-sound-freedom-shelved-jim-caviezel-1812179

 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,964]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Also, I don’t hate the illegals. Why did you say that? I haven’t. Typical. 

I think you quoted the wrong poster? 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,964]

47 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Your DNC shtick is so tired, gb.  Yes, if it disagrees with something you might think it only must come from the DNC glory hole.  

To answer your question, it's because they are at risk 2x in that scenario.  They are coming- and largely use traffickers and cartels to get here, right?  At our border, we offer protections from those people when they get here.  Make them live in makeshift communities on the other side of the border as they wait to get in, and guess who kidnaps them and preys on them? Correct- cartel and traffickers.   

So, no different than where they are originating from. Got it - thanks! 

I think the takeaway is if you don't want to be a victim then don't f@cking come here illegally in the first place.  We shouldn't be accomodating them  - they're literally skipping people in line who are doing it the proper way who have been waiting for years to get in.

[Hardcore troubadour 13,327]

35 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I think you quoted the wrong poster? 

Yes.  That was meant for Buck Dope. Sorry. 

[Hardcore troubadour 13,327]

1 hour ago, Reality said:

Well well well, I get it now. Sorry if this was already covered...

Carry on fellas.

https://www.newsweek.com/disney-sound-freedom-shelved-jim-caviezel-1812179

 

But but Q anon! Didn’t even exist when this screenplay was written.  Another great job out of the resident libtards. 

[League Champion 1,621]

 

[BuckSwope 654]

49 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

So, no different than where they are originating from. Got it - thanks! 

I think the takeaway is if you don't want to be a victim then don't f@cking come here illegally in the first place.  We shouldn't be accomodating them  - they're literally skipping people in line who are doing it the proper way who have been waiting for years to get in.

"F0ck em, they shouldnt be at the border" is a stance to take to be ok with a policy that hands them back to the cartels and traffickers.  I will continue to laugh at you guys puffing up your chests on the topic of trafficking then.   

[League Champion 1,621]

Rent Free

 

 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,964]

42 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

"F0ck em, they shouldnt be at the border" is a stance to take to be ok with a policy that hands them back to the cartels and traffickers.  I will continue to laugh at you guys puffing up your chests on the topic of trafficking then.   

Hands them back?  Or they could just go back to the country they came from. 

How many of these people are YOU taking in personally?  Sharing your home?  Clothe them, feeding  them and otherwise taking care of them?   None, you say?  Okay, so we now know you like to talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.

In fact, do you even live by the border at all? Or are you supporting all of this from a nice, safe distance because - in reality - it's no skin off of your back?

[dogcows 1,030]

11 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Hands them back?  Or they could just go back to the country they came from. 

How many of these people are YOU taking in personally?  Sharing your home?  Clothe them, feeding  them and otherwise taking care of them?   None, you say?  Okay, so we now know you like to talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.

In fact, do you even live by the border at all? Or are you supporting all of this from a nice, safe distance because - in reality - it's no skin off of your back?

This argument doesn’t make sense to me.

If I support having public roads, does that mean I have to personally go out and fix potholes?

If I support public K-12 education, do I need to invite kids to my house and teach them myself?

The answer to every question about public policy cannot be “well if you really believed it you’d personally do it.”

[Hardcore troubadour 13,327]

47 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Hands them back?  Or they could just go back to the country they came from. 

How many of these people are YOU taking in personally?  Sharing your home?  Clothe them, feeding  them and otherwise taking care of them?   None, you say?  Okay, so we now know you like to talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.

In fact, do you even live by the border at all? Or are you supporting all of this from a nice, safe distance because - in reality - it's no skin off of your back?

Yup

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,964]

1 hour ago, dogcows said:

This argument doesn’t make sense to me.

If I support having public roads, does that mean I have to personally go out and fix potholes?

If I support public K-12 education, do I need to invite kids to my house and teach them myself?

The answer to every question about public policy cannot be “well if you really believed it you’d personally do it.”

Did you just compare human beings to potholes you dumb m'fer?

You're the idiot because you f'n hypocrites don't have to deal with it.  Instead, you sit in your white ivory tower decreeing what everyone else should be doing.  No skin of your back, amiright?

GFY, you f'n hypocrite.

[BuckSwope 654]

1 hour ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Hands them back?  Or they could just go back to the country they came from. 

How many of these people are YOU taking in personally?  Sharing your home?  Clothe them, feeding  them and otherwise taking care of them?   None, you say?  Okay, so we now know you like to talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.

In fact, do you even live by the border at all? Or are you supporting all of this from a nice, safe distance because - in reality - it's no skin off of your back?

Yes, in a way.  I am being a tad hyperbolic for effect, but IMO we do have that choice as a country setting the policies.  So we chose to make them wait on the other side of the border and as a result - made them more susceptible to the cartels and traffickers.  

OMG - no, I am not housing them, and I live in WI - just like you.   We are in the exact same position on that front.   What are you doing to combat this issue that is evidently so important to you that you felt the need to call me out like I am not doing anything compared to you?  My guess is chatting about it online, voting R to save the kids!!, and maybe going to see Sound of Freedom?   

 

[BuckSwope 654]

1 hour ago, dogcows said:

This argument doesn’t make sense to me.

If I support having public roads, does that mean I have to personally go out and fix potholes?

If I support public K-12 education, do I need to invite kids to my house and teach them myself?

The answer to every question about public policy cannot be “well if you really believed it you’d personally do it.”

It's such a dumb position.   Like I said to Eternal - I'd bet a decent amount of money they aren't doing anything more about it than the rest of us - voting, maybe donating some money, calling libs pedos online, probably more likely just talking about it online (while accusing others of being high and mighty).  

The hypcrocites tag was the funniest of all - while admitting he didn't care about THOSE people being subjected to more harm from traffickers in the thread trying to pimp how much the right cares about child trafficking.  I guess it only applies to the small % of children on our side of the border.  

[lickin_starfish 1,598]

https://media.greatawakening.win/post/wHpHAa0rHp4a.jpeg

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,964]

47 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Yes, in a way.  I am being a tad hyperbolic for effect, but IMO we do have that choice as a country setting the policies.  So we chose to make them wait on the other side of the border and as a result - made them more susceptible to the cartels and traffickers.  

OMG - no, I am not housing them, and I live in WI - just like you.   We are in the exact same position on that front.   What are you doing to combat this issue that is evidently so important to you that you felt the need to call me out like I am not doing anything compared to you?  My guess is chatting about it online, voting R to save the kids!!, and maybe going to see Sound of Freedom?   

 

I'm not the one advocating for letting them in willy nilly and overrunning the border and the towns all around the border like you are. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,964]

39 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

It's such a dumb position.   Like I said to Eternal - I'd bet a decent amount of money they aren't doing anything more about it than the rest of us - voting, maybe donating some money, calling libs pedos online, probably more likely just talking about it online (while accusing others of being high and mighty).  

The hypcrocites tag was the funniest of all - while admitting he didn't care about THOSE people being subjected to more harm from traffickers in the thread trying to pimp how much the right cares about child trafficking.  I guess it only applies to the small % of children on our side of the border.  

Hypocrites always think it's dumb when they're called out on their, y'know, hypocrisy.  You want to advocate but want someone else to deal with it.

[BuckSwope 654]

35 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I'm not the one advocating for letting them in willy nilly and overrunning the border and the towns all around the border like you are. 

No, that's not what I am advocating, but keep trying.  I am just truthful enough to admit that some of these policies have consequences like that, and they might be at odds with other goals.  You don't seem to like that for some reason.    I don't want open borders, so nothing I've said has been hypocritical.  Just pointing out there were negative consequence of Remain in Mexico that were in direct odds with being anti-trafficking.  I didn't like Remain in Mexico for that reason, said as much, but now I'm pro- child trafficking?  

[Dizkneelande 930]

 

[GutterBoy 2,893]

This dude gets it.  At the bottom of this tweet is Tim ballard talking about the trans kids, pedos, and how the woke left is enabling and promoting it.

This is all politics.  Ballard has lied, stolen, and hoodwinked the right.

 

[GutterBoy 2,893]

More cavizel talking about how people torture kids to steal their adrenochrome.

This is the guy starring in this movie.

 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,964]

GutterPedo in here doing his best to inundate us with his propaganda-as-fact nonsense again.

"Hey! I found this tweet that supports my views and I'm going to show everyone because it must be true because I believe it!"

Not surprised a pedo supporter would be doing his best to take down a movie against child trafficking.  

[JustinCharge 2,397]

11 hours ago, BuckSwope said:

Yes, in a way.  I am being a tad hyperbolic for effect, but IMO we do have that choice as a country setting the policies.  So we chose to make them wait on the other side of the border and as a result - made them more susceptible to the cartels and traffickers.  

OMG - no, I am not housing them, and I live in WI - just like you.   We are in the exact same position on that front.   What are you doing to combat this issue that is evidently so important to you that you felt the need to call me out like I am not doing anything compared to you?  My guess is chatting about it online, voting R to save the kids!!, and maybe going to see Sound of Freedom?   

Trump has already said on his 2024 campaign tour that when he gets back in, we are declaring war on Mexico and invading to put an end to the trafficking and illegals.  Trump's wall was always a compromise with the left where instead of invading we just work on better security.  Now that its clear the democrats wont even accept the compromise, we are going in and taking over Mexico.  I imagine the liberals will go berzerk so I think its obvious we will ally with Russia to not only help get it done but quell the insane lefts response.  but its unlikely the world makes it that far.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/donald-trump-mexico-military-cartels-war-on-drugs-1234705804/

Trump Asks Advisers for ‘Battle Plans’ to ‘Attack Mexico’ if Reelected

Trump and his MAGAfied Republican Party are pushing plans for military action against drug cartels in Mexico — with or without the Mexican government's consent

BY 

ASAWIN SUEBSAENG, ADAM RAWNSLEY

MARCH 29, 2023

DONALD TRUMP IS asking for a plan to wage war in Mexico, and the Republican Party is eager to give it to him.

As he campaigns for a second White House term, Trump has been asking policy advisers for a range of military options aimed at taking on Mexican drug cartels, including strikes that are not sanctioned by Mexico’s government, according to two sources familiar with the situation.

“‘Attacking Mexico,’ or whatever you’d like to call it, is something that President Trump has said he wants ‘battle plans’ drawn for,” says one of the sources. “He’s complained about missed opportunities of his first term, and there are a lot of people around him who want fewer missed opportunities in a second Trump presidency.”

Trump lieutenants have briefed him on several options that include unilateral military strikes and troop deployments on a sovereign U.S. partner and neighbor, the sources say. One such proposal that Trump has been briefed on this year is an October white paper from the Center for Renewing America, an increasingly influential think tank staffed largely by Trumpist wonks, MAGA loyalists, and veterans of his administration.

The policy paper — titled “It’s Time to Wage War on Transnational Drug Cartels” — outlines possible justifications and procedures for the next Republican commander-in-chief to “formally” declare “war against the cartels,” in response to “the mounting bodies of dead Americans from fentanyl poisonings.”

In a nod to Mexico’s status as a sovereign nation, the paper calls on the U.S. to “conduct specific military operations to destroy the cartels and enlist the Mexican government in joint operations to target cartel-networked infrastructure, including affiliated factions and enablers with direct action.”

However, that “enlistment” of the Mexican government comes with a massive caveat: “It is vital that Mexico not be led to believe that they have veto power to prevent the US from taking the actions necessary to secure its borders and people,” the paper reads.

[dogcows 1,030]

5 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

Trump has already said on his 2024 campaign tour that when he gets back in, we are declaring war on Mexico and invading to put an end to the trafficking and illegals.  Trump's wall was always a compromise with the left where instead of invading we just work on better security.  Now that it’s clear the democrats wont even accept the compromise, we are going in and taking over Mexico.  I imagine the liberals will go berzerk so I think its obvious we will ally with Russia to not only help get it done but quell the insane lefts response.  but its unlikely the world makes it that far.

America is going to ally with Russia in a war to annex Mexico? Welcome 129 million new American citizens!

[TimHauck 1,998]

5 minutes ago, dogcows said:

America is going to ally with Russia in a war to annex Mexico? Welcome 129 million new American citizens!

Wow now that’s a complete 180.  I thought Putin was going to nuke us any day now according to that crazy person

[Dizkneelande 930]

We’re now at the point in America where the left is against anything the right is for. Doesn’t matter the issue there is no common ground even when it comes to pedophilia. The level of insanity promoted by the left has me deeply concerned for our republic.