Border patrol morale & outrage...

Aries

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Feb 1, 2019
Messages
4,560
Reaction score
6,293
Location
Sapulpa
Here is what I'm getting from some of the above posts, within the context of what is generally stated on OSA regarding "rights". PLEASE correct me if I have misunderstood.

Certain rights are inalienable (like 2A). They are neither granted by, nor can they be taken away by government or anyone else. They just "are".

But any rights women have are granted to them by men.

Am I understanding that right?
 

Chuckie

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 23, 2017
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
997
Location
Midwest City, Oklahoma, 73110
Yes. For sure. I wanted kids for awhile until I saw so many guys I know get their lives, finances and spirits ruined by divorce that they never saw coming. Also the number of single women that I have met that left their husbands because he was “too nice” or they just wanted to “explore their sexuality”. Their words.

Now that things are changing so quickly, I see many people choosing not to have kids for financial and other reasons.
Agreed. I know of at least half-dozen other men that were divorced raped, losing homes, cars, businesses, bank accounts, and full access to their kids as a parent . . . all supported by our court system.
 
Last edited:

sh00ter

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
527
Location
Twilight Zone
Here is what I'm getting from some of the above posts, within the context of what is generally stated on OSA regarding "rights". PLEASE correct me if I have misunderstood.

Certain rights are inalienable (like 2A). They are neither granted by, nor can they be taken away by government or anyone else. They just "are".

But any rights women have are granted to them by men.

Am I understanding that right?
I'm not sure if voting existed back at the dawn of time...but certainly in nature, if males didn't want females to have something, they had the ability control it at a primal level. That's just nature.

Fast forward to today...a piece of paper says women have something, but ultimately men allow it or it wouldn't matter. When they didn't have it, it was because men were not allowing it. Women petitioned and hearts & minds were changed and it was ultimately allowed. Women did not raise a powerful army and take it by force. Even today, men with guns protect women's rights. If you try to infringe on them, men with guns will force you into submission. That's the plainest way to put it I guess.

Now as an individual person, I believe humans are born with certain rights jut like the founders have acknowledged. Even people in North Korea have the same rights at birth, but they are being DENIED those rights by men. Groups of organized, armed men decide what the rules are...has always been that way...I personally believe women should have the same rights, but they should not take it for granted and attack the people that allow and protect them to have it. The first thing a feminist would do if she needs help is to call for men with guns to help her. It's a fact.

Men stormed the beaches of Normandy and the women supported them. We each play and equally important role, that's nature...if we'd lost the war, then our women would have been made concubines of German and Japanese men. Yet today, women take this for granted and are not self-aware that their empowerment is fragile and artificial. Just look at how in one week, women are going back to the stone ages in Afghanistan...all that despite the gender studies departments America had setup in their universities. The men with guns (American troops) who were protecting them left and other men came in to fill the void who had different ideas of what women's role in society should be.

Here is the REALITY of things:


EDIT: These truths I stated above aren't limited to just women...we are basically talking about humanity n general...a group of men with weapons get together and decide what the rules will be and then they enforce it including on other men who may not agree (going back beyond the ancient Roman Empire). So rest assured, the members in this thread are not saying they are against women's rights...they are saying rights are very fragile for everyone and should not be taken for granted. And it hurts when people use those rights to hurt others...like in a nasty divorce, etc.
 
Last edited:

Chuckie

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 23, 2017
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
997
Location
Midwest City, Oklahoma, 73110
No doubt! But the influence of America used to be baseball and apple pie and freedom, rugged individualism, etc. Now it is obesity, drugs, militant feminism, etc. You can debate whether exporting American values to other contires is the right thing to do or not (I prefer lead by example mostly), but you can't debate that what we are exporting is now totally different. The bureaucrats were setting up all sorts of gender studies and socialist pop culture stuff over there. Honestly, I think exporting wokeism is a good weapon...That's why china funds and promotes it here and doens't allow it in their country...they know it will destroy a nation...maybe wokeism is a good weapon against Islam...maybe that is why they fight so hard to prevent it?
The problem as I see it is that we've spent so much time, money, and energy in exporting our American values to other countries around the World . . . that we seem to have forgotten to keep any for ourselves.

We really need to stop trying to 'fix' the problems of every other country on this planet and start trying to fix our own problems before they become un-fixable.
 

Aries

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Feb 1, 2019
Messages
4,560
Reaction score
6,293
Location
Sapulpa
I'm not sure if voting existed back at the dawn of time...but certainly in nature, if males didn't want females to have something, they had the ability control it at a primal level. That's just nature.

Fast forward to today...a piece of paper says women have something, but ultimately men allow it or it wouldn't matter. When they didn't have it, it was because men were not allowing it. Women petitioned and hearts & minds were changed and it was ultimately allowed. Women did not raise a powerful army and take it by force. Even today, men with guns protect women's rights. If you try to infringe on them, men with guns will force you into submission. That's the plainest way to put it I guess.

Now as an individual person, I believe humans are born with certain rights jut like the founders have acknowledged. Even people in North Korea have the same rights at birth, but they are being DENIED those rights by men. Groups of organized, armed men decide what the rules are...has always been that way...I personally believe women should have the same rights, but they should not take it for granted and attack the people that allow and protect them to have it. The first thing a feminist would do if she needs help is to call for men with guns to help her. It's a fact.

Men stormed the beaches of Normandy and the women supported them. We each play and equally important role, that's nature...if we'd lost the war, then our women would have been made concubines of German and Japanese men. Yet today, women take this for granted and are not self-aware that their empowerment is fragile and artificial. Just look at how in one week, women are going back to the stone ages in Afghanistan...all that despite the gender studies departments America had setup in their universities. The men with guns (American troops) who were protecting them left and other men came in to fill the void who had different ideas of what their role in society should be.

Here is the REALITY of things:

I guess I don't understand why you differentiate between men and women.

Are you saying women only have rights because men, who have the ability to over power them, do not overpower them and take their rights away?

Then is it true that men only have rights because the government, who has the ability to overpower them, do not (at this point) over power them and take them away?

If the first statement is true, why isn't the second statement true? And if both statements are true, then there are no inalienable rights, there are only those rights that the more powerful decide to give you. No?
 

montesa

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
3,126
Reaction score
2,119
Location
OKC
I'm not sure if voting existed back at the dawn of time...but certainly in nature, if males didn't want females to have something, they had the ability control it at a primal level. That's just nature.

Fast forward to today...a piece of paper says women have something, but ultimately men allow it or it wouldn't matter. When they didn't have it, it was because men were not allowing it. Women petitioned and hearts & minds were changed and it was ultimately allowed. Women did not raise a powerful army and take it by force. Even today, men with guns protect women's rights. If you try to infringe on them, men with guns will force you into submission. That's the plainest way to put it I guess.

Now as an individual person, I believe humans are born with certain rights jut like the founders have acknowledged. Even people in North Korea have the same rights at birth, but they are being DENIED those rights by men. Groups of organized, armed men decide what the rules are...has always been that way...I personally believe women should have the same rights, but they should not take it for granted and attack the people that allow and protect them to have it. The first thing a feminist would do if she needs help is to call for men with guns to help her. It's a fact.

Men stormed the beaches of Normandy and the women supported them. We each play and equally important role, that's nature...if we'd lost the war, then our women would have been made concubines of German and Japanese men. Yet today, women take this for granted and are not self-aware that their empowerment is fragile and artificial. Just look at how in one week, women are going back to the stone ages in Afghanistan...all that despite the gender studies departments America had setup in their universities. The men with guns (American troops) who were protecting them left and other men came in to fill the void who had different ideas of what women's role in society should be.

Here is the REALITY of things:


EDIT: These truths I stated above aren't limited to just women...we are basically talking about humanity n general...a group of men with weapons get together and decide what the rules will be and then they enforce it including on other men who may not agree (going back beyond the ancient Roman Empire). So rest assured, the members in this thread are not saying they are against women's rights...they are saying rights are very fragile for everyone and should not be taken for granted. And it hurts when people use those rights to hurt others...like in a nasty divorce, etc.
To further your point, men have always been ruled over and controlled by stronger and more powerful men as well. There is no one to appeal to based on gender at that point.
 

sh00ter

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
527
Location
Twilight Zone
I guess I don't understand why you differentiate between men and women.

Are you saying women only have rights because men, who have the ability to over power them, do not overpower them and take their rights away?

Then is it true that men only have rights because the government, who has the ability to overpower them, do not (at this point) over power them and take them away?

If the first statement is true, why isn't the second statement true? And if both statements are true, then there are no inalienable rights, there are only those rights that the more powerful decide to give you. No?

To further your point, men have always been ruled over and controlled by stronger and more powerful men as well. There is no one to appeal to based on gender at that point.

Yes to both...that is my point. EXCEPT to take it further, in the prehistoric times, it was Darwinism...the strong survived and dominated before there were organized governments or armies.

In modern times, governments decide what rights (you were born with given by God) that people get to actually enjoy.

To take it even further, the weak now control the strong in many countries, because the weak make the policies that they themselves could never enforce, and then they hire mercenaries with weapons (paid for by the people they rule) to make sure their political and cultural will is carried out...sort of like the mafia. This is fine if the people making the rules are actually representing the people who put them in the position to make rules. But what we have now is they do what they want anyway and count on the mercenaries to enforce their will regardless. These enforcers also keep the peace and do things we like...but they serve the system whatever it is as long as they are paid.

Even that map shows that women are who are voting for the policies to be imposed that maybe some of us more traditional folks do not prefer. So it could be said that women are using soft power to completely dominate men in the US, and this ironically being enforced by people who mostly don't agree with those policies, but do it anyway as long as they get a paycheck. There is no good solution, we are just along for the ride I guess...As people who respect the rule of law, most of us will continue to feel that way until either another leader emerges that turns the tide, OR things deteriorate to the point our our children can't eat.

It is really weird...western liberal democracies essentially become too liberal and that leads to their demise (which could mean various fates, one of which is authoritarianism). I'm not an expert, I'm just thinking about it deeply LOL.
 
Last edited:

Aries

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Feb 1, 2019
Messages
4,560
Reaction score
6,293
Location
Sapulpa
Okay, that makes some sense, but again it leaves me with why some of the posts above seem to differentiate between men and women's rights.

And... I don't think you are talking so much about rights, as you are talking about the suppression of rights. That would be consistent with the often stated idea that the bill of rights describes God-given, inalienable rights that the government is (supposedly) prohibited from infringing upon. Those rights exist REGARDLESS, although they may be oppressed by those in power. That is pretty much the definition of "inalienable".
 

joegrizzy

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 19, 2020
Messages
1,793
Reaction score
2,005
Location
nw okc
I guess I don't understand why you differentiate between men and women.

Are you saying women only have rights because men, who have the ability to over power them, do not overpower them and take their rights away?

Then is it true that men only have rights because the government, who has the ability to overpower them, do not (at this point) over power them and take them away?

If the first statement is true, why isn't the second statement true? And if both statements are true, then there are no inalienable rights, there are only those rights that the more powerful decide to give you. No?
yes?
joe stack had it right. how many people does the state kill, injure, maim? how many *of the state* are killed, injured, maimed? it's not even close.
they use it to control us; we think we have rights.
but people think a lot of stuff that isn't real.
there is only one authority.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom