Topic: How cold do you like your ice?
Anonymous A started this discussion 8 years ago #68,117
I like mine ICE COLDMAGA
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 6 minutes later[^] [v] #830,958
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #830,961
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 13 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #830,964
OP isn’t an American
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 55 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #830,971
Anonymous D replied with this 8 years ago, 34 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #830,983
DasSheeple !XPQqN0U9Ew joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #830,989
> live 30 years illegally in USA
> act surprised when you get deported
I don't get this logic... yeah, she paid taxes, raised kids bla bla but that doesn't change the fact that she was there illegal.
Mafia bosses usually build hospitals/schools in their villages, but they have the decency to not act like completely surprised retards once they get arrested and jailed.
> act surprised when you get deported
I don't get this logic... yeah, she paid taxes, raised kids bla bla but that doesn't change the fact that she was there illegal.
Mafia bosses usually build hospitals/schools in their villages, but they have the decency to not act like completely surprised retards once they get arrested and jailed.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #830,990
@previous (DasSheeple !XPQqN0U9Ew)
Do you think the people in ops article are comparable to mafia bosses?
Do you think the people in ops article are comparable to mafia bosses?
Anonymous D replied with this 8 years ago, 31 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #830,997
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 42 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #831,002
litterbugs should be shot in the head
I am so fucking tired of walking around garbage everywhere
I am so fucking tired of walking around garbage everywhere
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #831,004
@previous (Sheila LaBoof)
> litterbugs should be shot in the head
>
> I am so fucking tired of walking around garbage everywhere
this..
> litterbugs should be shot in the head
>
> I am so fucking tired of walking around garbage everywhere
this..
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 15 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #831,007
Anonymous E replied with this 8 years ago, 4 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #831,010
@830,990 (G)
He has a point. Someone breaks the law for over 30 years and suddenly we're meant to feel bad for them when justice is served?
Okay yeah, the family is in pain and we as humans feel for them but that's the law and we don't know the full story. Could she have not does something sooner about her status within 30 years? I'm willing to bet my right nut their is some catch to this we don't know.
He has a point. Someone breaks the law for over 30 years and suddenly we're meant to feel bad for them when justice is served?
Okay yeah, the family is in pain and we as humans feel for them but that's the law and we don't know the full story. Could she have not does something sooner about her status within 30 years? I'm willing to bet my right nut their is some catch to this we don't know.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 37 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #831,020
Anonymous G replied with this 8 years ago, 3 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #831,093
@831,010 (E)
he's right in that she did indeed break a law. she also has no criminal record or involvement with gangs.
she was a productive member of society.
he's right in that she did indeed break a law. she also has no criminal record or involvement with gangs.
she was a productive member of society.
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #831,105
@831,010 (E)
Every driver in the US has been breaking the law since they got their license. Doesn't mean we revoke everyone's license.
Every driver in the US has been breaking the law since they got their license. Doesn't mean we revoke everyone's license.
Anonymous D replied with this 8 years ago, 10 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #831,109
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 57 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #831,138
Good. That's what Trump promised to do, it's what most Americans want to happen. It's pretty shit for that lady, and it'll be pretty shit for thousands more illegal immigrants too.
Anonymous D replied with this 8 years ago, 4 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #831,216
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 7 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #831,226
@831,138 (M)
Most americans are not in favor of mass deportations.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx
Please do a modicum of research before acting like your opinions are reflective of the majority. Because they're not.
Please tell me whether you strongly favor, favor, oppose or strongly oppose each of the following proposals. Allowing immigrants living in the U.S. illegally the chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time.
Strongly favor: 40%
Favor: 44%
Oppose: 8%
Strongly oppose: 7%
Which comes closest to your view about what government policy should be toward illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States? Should the government -- [ROTATED: deport all illegal immigrants back to their home country, allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States in order to work, but only for a limited amount of time, or allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens, but only if they meet certain requirements over a period of time]?
Deport all: 19%
Remain in U.S. in order to work: 14%
Remain in U.S. to become citizen: 65%
Most americans are not in favor of mass deportations.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx
Please do a modicum of research before acting like your opinions are reflective of the majority. Because they're not.
Please tell me whether you strongly favor, favor, oppose or strongly oppose each of the following proposals. Allowing immigrants living in the U.S. illegally the chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time.
Strongly favor: 40%
Favor: 44%
Oppose: 8%
Strongly oppose: 7%
Which comes closest to your view about what government policy should be toward illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States? Should the government -- [ROTATED: deport all illegal immigrants back to their home country, allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States in order to work, but only for a limited amount of time, or allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens, but only if they meet certain requirements over a period of time]?
Deport all: 19%
Remain in U.S. in order to work: 14%
Remain in U.S. to become citizen: 65%
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Meta joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #831,227
Under 32 degrees. It's difficult to keep water a solid above that.
Anonymous E replied with this 8 years ago, 3 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #831,228
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 8 years ago, 43 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #831,229
DasSheeple !XPQqN0U9Ew replied with this 8 years ago, 37 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #831,238
@831,105 (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
But you do give out fines and revoke if you catch those drivers breaking the law.
I drive 140 km/h every time I go home from a company I work as a consultant, most of the highway is 130 km/h limit, but there's a stretch of 5km with 100 km/h limit. I wouldn't act like a wanker if they caught me now speeding there, after I've been doing it for the past 9 months.
@831,226 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> research pulled out of my anus
> 1% chance of winning
> 0% chance of being true
@831,216 (D)
@831,020 (K)
@830,997 (D)
Nice arguments, faggots.
@830,990 (G)
Where did I compare them? I just argued how some people are surprised when they get caught after breaking the law for years, and some aren't.
@831,007 (J)
Isn't it by definition that if you break the law, you are doing something objectively harmful to either you or others?
Or is the law wrong in that regard and we should rewrite it to fit your moral standards?
But you do give out fines and revoke if you catch those drivers breaking the law.
I drive 140 km/h every time I go home from a company I work as a consultant, most of the highway is 130 km/h limit, but there's a stretch of 5km with 100 km/h limit. I wouldn't act like a wanker if they caught me now speeding there, after I've been doing it for the past 9 months.
@831,226 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> research pulled out of my anus
> 1% chance of winning
> 0% chance of being true
@831,216 (D)
@831,020 (K)
@830,997 (D)
Nice arguments, faggots.
@830,990 (G)
Where did I compare them? I just argued how some people are surprised when they get caught after breaking the law for years, and some aren't.
@831,007 (J)
Isn't it by definition that if you break the law, you are doing something objectively harmful to either you or others?
Or is the law wrong in that regard and we should rewrite it to fit your moral standards?
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 8 years ago, 6 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #831,242
@previous (DasSheeple !XPQqN0U9Ew)
> research pulled out of my anus
> 1% chance of winning
> 0% chance of being true
Why do you feel that the stats he linked to were invalid? Do you have alternate, more credible statistics that suggest that most Americans favour mass deportation?
> research pulled out of my anus
> 1% chance of winning
> 0% chance of being true
Why do you feel that the stats he linked to were invalid? Do you have alternate, more credible statistics that suggest that most Americans favour mass deportation?
Anonymous M replied with this 8 years ago, 9 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #831,245
@previous (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Who the fuck answers polls? Because that demographic is retarded, as proven by every poll ever.
Who the fuck answers polls? Because that demographic is retarded, as proven by every poll ever.
Anonymous D replied with this 8 years ago, 7 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #831,311
Anonymous G replied with this 8 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #831,312
Anonymous G double-posted this 8 years ago, 42 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #831,313
@831,238 (DasSheeple !XPQqN0U9Ew)
> Isn't it by definition that if you break the law, you are doing something objectively harmful to either you or others?
no
> Or is the law wrong in that regard and we should rewrite it to fit your moral standards?
yes
> Isn't it by definition that if you break the law, you are doing something objectively harmful to either you or others?
no
> Or is the law wrong in that regard and we should rewrite it to fit your moral standards?
yes
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #831,315
These polls are a fucking joke.
They only ask maybe 1000 people questions, then decide what the entire country thinks.
They don't know what my answer would be.
They only ask maybe 1000 people questions, then decide what the entire country thinks.
They don't know what my answer would be.
Anonymous J replied with this 8 years ago, 42 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #831,316
@831,238 (DasSheeple !XPQqN0U9Ew)
> Isn't it by definition that if you break the law, you are doing something objectively harmful to either you or others?
I don't agree with that, I think it's possible for a law to be unjust and I think there are many examples in history throughout the world of unjust laws.
> Or is the law wrong in that regard and we should rewrite it to fit your moral standards?
I think the American law should reflect their founding ideals of liberty, equality and justice for all and that any law contrary to those ideals is unjust and it is the duty of all Americans to challenge that law.
> Isn't it by definition that if you break the law, you are doing something objectively harmful to either you or others?
I don't agree with that, I think it's possible for a law to be unjust and I think there are many examples in history throughout the world of unjust laws.
> Or is the law wrong in that regard and we should rewrite it to fit your moral standards?
I think the American law should reflect their founding ideals of liberty, equality and justice for all and that any law contrary to those ideals is unjust and it is the duty of all Americans to challenge that law.
Anonymous D replied with this 8 years ago, 52 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #831,320
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #831,335
DasSheeple !XPQqN0U9Ew replied with this 8 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #831,391
@831,316 (J)
Wow, a coherent well argued post, neat.
> I don't agree with that, I think it's possible for a law to be unjust and I think there are many examples in history throughout the world of unjust laws.
I agree with that as well actually, but the shitty system isn't like that, sadly. But the saddest thing are people who are ok with it as it is. I assume it's something along the lines "better a comfortable evil, than happiness that could kill me..."
Just think about all that was needed for the woman to be deported. Someone had to call it in, case got processed, judge signed off, offices carried out the arrest. Any link of that chain could have said "fuck off I'm not participating", but they didn't. Why not, perhaps they agree with the law, perhaps they don't but it's comfy? Huh...
> I think the American law should reflect their founding ideals of liberty, equality and justice for all and that any law contrary to those ideals is unjust and it is the duty of all Americans to challenge that law.
That's a noble idea, but I hate when all of a sudden there are double standards. If you'd keep this woman in because of your moral standards, don't judge me when I deport immigrants who got caught stealing, raping etc.
Wow, a coherent well argued post, neat.
> I don't agree with that, I think it's possible for a law to be unjust and I think there are many examples in history throughout the world of unjust laws.
I agree with that as well actually, but the shitty system isn't like that, sadly. But the saddest thing are people who are ok with it as it is. I assume it's something along the lines "better a comfortable evil, than happiness that could kill me..."
Just think about all that was needed for the woman to be deported. Someone had to call it in, case got processed, judge signed off, offices carried out the arrest. Any link of that chain could have said "fuck off I'm not participating", but they didn't. Why not, perhaps they agree with the law, perhaps they don't but it's comfy? Huh...
> I think the American law should reflect their founding ideals of liberty, equality and justice for all and that any law contrary to those ideals is unjust and it is the duty of all Americans to challenge that law.
That's a noble idea, but I hate when all of a sudden there are double standards. If you'd keep this woman in because of your moral standards, don't judge me when I deport immigrants who got caught stealing, raping etc.