PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on December 19, 2018, 09:40:39 PM
-
https://www.gofundme.com/TheTrumpWall
-
About to hit $2 million
-
Almost $3 mil now.
-
Great. Only another 14.997 billion to go.
-
It shows ingenuity and American spirit. Will it get to the ultimate goal? Who knows.
But it does show that Americans are concerned, concerned enough to actually dig into their own pockets if necessary.
This should send a message to the inept's of congress. No doubt the progressives are searching for an obscure law to say this funding is illegal, or even better, the Russians are behind it.
-
Maybe some large contractors like Bechtel, and Halliburton should volunteer to build the wall for free, or at least at cost? They've made billions from government, and the American taxpayer. Step up!
-
Maybe some large contractors like Bechtel, and Halliburton should volunteer to build the wall for free, or at least at cost? They've made billions from government, and the American taxpayer. Step up!
They are tied at the hip with the establishment class, and they are no friend of the President.
The votes should have been there in congress and the senate, but once again the RINO's prevailed.
-
They are tied at the hip with the establishment class, and they are no friend of the President.
The votes should have been there in congress and the senate, but once again the RINO's prevailed.
Agreed. Big establishment types, and supporters, but just think of the PR?
-
Agreed. Big establishment types, and supporters, but just think of the PR?
They thrive on big government contracts, and they need the support of the dims as well as the republicans. If they supported such an effort, the establishment (d&r) would thrash them and look for another contractor.
The grass roots effort is beautiful. It's approaching $4 million right now, after only 3 days. Just think where it will go if it gets more media coverage.
-
That is damn straight!
We’re sending $100. Just sent the link to all the conservatives I know.
Let’s roll!
-
This is damn straight, too.
https://moonbattery.com/gallup-top-problems-are-government-immigration/
-
I think it is a great idea. I will probably contribute if I see a chance of it making a difference.
And maybe it will inspire liberals to donate to a fund of their own to pay for things like Obama Phones and health care for those that decide not to pay for their own
But if I contribute and then Congress just puts the money in the general treasury and doesn't build the wall, then it might be time to exercise my second amendment rights.
-
I believe the organizers of this would have enough sense not to just hand over the proceeds to congress.
-
I believe the organizers of this would have enough sense not to just hand over the proceeds to congress.
Wouldn’t that be like trusting the California state government to do something right?
-
About to hit $5 million
-
About to hit $5 million
And only $995 million to go, to meet the $1Billion dollar goal, which will raise only 20% of expected costs. And I am sure that cost over-runs will greatly inflate that final cost too.
But it's a start and you can't ever get there if you don't start. Kudo's to whoever started this.
-
And only $995 million to go, to meet the $1Billion dollar goal, which will raise only 20% of expected costs. And I am sure that cost over-runs will greatly inflate that final cost too.
But it's a start and you can't ever get there if you don't start. Kudo's to whoever started this.
Maybe the government will end up matching the donations? Yeah right.
-
Now over $5million. I see that Hillary Clinton donated $5. :)
-
Maybe the government will end up matching the donations? Yeah right.
If nothing else, it sends a clear message to congress.
-
If nothing else, it sends a clear message to congress.
I think they should raise the goal to $5 Billion and send an extended finger to Congress.
-
I like it because it is a private entity. It essentially says We Don't NEED Government to do stuff for us, and we are not going to wait for government to get off their asses, make good decisions, and do what the PEOPLE, or at least most of the people want.
This attitude needs to spread. We shouldn't be looking to government for everything. Government is too big, too powerful, too controlling, and TOO CORRUPT.
-
Now over $5million. I see that Hillary Clinton donated $5. :)
IF hilary Actually donatEd to the cause would only be because she thinks their there is a way to divert those funds to her.
-
IF hilary Actually donatEd to the cause would only be because she thinks their there is a way to divert those funds to her.
Hillary is saving up $$$ to buy a winery. Her Chardonnay consumption warrants her own vineyard/winery. It's like us. If you fly a certain amount of hours you can justify buying your own plane. lol!
-
$6 million
-
As an aside, Trump has told Republicans he will not sign the CR unless it includes money for the wall. He may have found his balls again.
-
As an aside, Trump has told Republicans he will not sign the CR unless it includes money for the wall. He may have found his balls again.
There's some intricate stuff going on here. Stand by and watch.
-
I think that the President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, is playing a game only he understands and that the RINOs and democrats (communists) will get kicked in the balls in the end.
I hope seeing the President's name and title triggered our resident communists.
-
$7 million
-
This should send a clear message. Watch the Mainstream Media either not report it, under report it, and criticize the initiative. CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, NYT, Washpo, etc probably won't talk about it much.
-
I'm curious. Does anyone know the ratio of mass murderers to gun owners
and the ratio of violent criminals to illegal aliens (if you remove the criminal act of illegally entering the country)?
Liberals are willing to assume all gun owners are potential mass murderers, but don't seem to care that a portion of illegal aliens are violent criminals.
-
My husband is donating to it right now. I want to send a clear message to DC and to Trump although I agree I think Trump has got something up his sleeve.
-
I'm curious. Does anyone know the ratio of mass murderers to gun owners
and the ratio of violent criminals to illegal aliens (if you remove the criminal act of illegally entering the country)?
Liberals are willing to assume all gun owners are potential mass murderers, but don't seem to care that a portion of illegal aliens are violent criminals.
The ratio of mass murderers to gun owners: A conservative estimate of gun owners in the U.S. is 100,000,000 people. There have been 152 mass shootings in the United States between 1967 and May 2018, so assuming every one of those shooters is still alive, the ratio of mass shooters to gun owners is 152/100,000,000 or 0.00000152 or 0.000152% of gun owners are mass shooters. Or 1 out of every 657,895 gun owner is a mass murderer.
So gun control nuts want to take guns away from 657,894 good guys so the 1 bad guy won't have a gun.
The ratio of violent criminals to illegal aliens: 1.8 homicide convictions per 100,000 illegal aliens is the supposed number, and that is supposedly below the native born rate of 3.2 per 100,000 but I question those numbers. Anyway if you want to use them, 1.8 per 100,000 or 1 out of every 55,556 people.
So 1 out of every 55,556 illegal aliens is a murderer vs 1 out of 657,895 gun owners is a mass murderer. Not exactly a fair comparison but if your argument to take away guns is because of mass shootings and your argument to allow illegals in because illegal murderers aren't a problem then your logic is flawed because you are putting more fight into a smaller problem.
-
So gun control nuts want to take guns away from 657,894 good guys so the 1 bad guy won't have a gun.
Which won't work anyway, cause the bad guy will still get a gun. Or a bomb or a machete or a truck.
-
Which won't work anyway, cause the bad guy will still get a gun. Or a bomb or a machete or a truck.
And it will make it even worse because the victim (law abiding) will not be able to defend themselves.
-
The President, about an hour ago:
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1075870519046610945
This GoFundMe idea could turn politics as usual on its head!
-
As an aside, Trump has told Republicans he will not sign the CR unless it includes money for the wall. He may have found his balls again.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-throws-government-funding-deal-into-doubt-says-trump-does-not-want-to-go-further-without-border-security.amp?__twitter_impression=true
-
This is fun!
> $8M now.
-
Over 9.
-
Has anyone ever seen anything like this before?
-
Has anyone ever seen anything like this before?
I was just wondering the same thing. Has there ever been a gofundme that did this?
It's closing in on $10 million after only three days. That's 1/100th of the goal. Did I do that math right? Do you think it could actually raise a billion? If so I think that would be historic.
-
$9,562,974 at 2143 EST
-
Has anyone ever seen anything like this before?
No, and I hope this is one thing the liberals can’t ruin.
Bet they’ll say all those little contributions came from Russian bots, just like those several hundred thousand WalkAway testimonials on Facebook.
They just can’t imagine that anyone, or even 53 million anyones, could disagree with them.
-
The campaign promise was that Mexico was going to pay for the wall, which was silly since they aren't going to do that. That aside, Congress is supposed to appropriate the money, which comes from taxpayers. So now taxpayers are donating money to a wall that Congress should be funding? No, sorry, this is silly. The messaging piece is fine in that it's showing American's concern for border security, but Americans shouldn't be giving more of their money to this; we already pay taxes. Congress needs to fund it.
-
I like it because it is a private entity. It essentially says We Don't NEED Government to do stuff for us, and we are not going to wait for government to get off their asses, make good decisions, and do what the PEOPLE, or at least most of the people want.
This attitude needs to spread. We shouldn't be looking to government for everything. Government is too big, too powerful, too controlling, and TOO CORRUPT.
Except this is one area where government should be involved. It's the protection of a national border.
-
The campaign promise was that Mexico was going to pay for the wall, which was silly since they aren't going to do that. That aside, Congress is supposed to appropriate the money, which comes from taxpayers. So now taxpayers are donating money to a wall that Congress should be funding? No, sorry, this is silly. The messaging piece is fine in that it's showing American's concern for border security, but Americans shouldn't be giving more of their money to this; we already pay taxes. Congress needs to fund it.
I for one never thought the idea of "Mexico is going to pay for the wall" meant that Mexico was going to willingly write a check. It is similar to when one kid hits another on the playground, and the kid that got hit says "you are going to pay for that".
Yeah, political promises are usually childish. But Trump has kept more of his than any politician I can remember, except for maybe Reagan and possibly Kennedy. Kennedy gets credit for one big promise).
-
The campaign promise was that Mexico was going to pay for the wall, which was silly since they aren't going to do that. That aside, Congress is supposed to appropriate the money, which comes from taxpayers. So now taxpayers are donating money to a wall that Congress should be funding? No, sorry, this is silly. The messaging piece is fine in that it's showing American's concern for border security, but Americans shouldn't be giving more of their money to this; we already pay taxes. Congress needs to fund it.
And what happened to all those R's that ran on it, and promised it? 2 years of holding both the house and senate, and they just couldn't seem to do anything about it. Now that is silly, and pathetic.
As for how private citizens wish to spend their money? Why is that any of your concern? If you don't agree, move on. But it's condescending to belittle others in how they spend their own money for whatever they want, even if it's something the pathetic politicians won't do.
Just imagine back in the 1700's if we had people who were saying "Ya know, we shouldn't have to buy our own ammunition, or even use our own guns to serve in this militia, the government needs to pay for it!"
-
No, and I hope this is one thing the liberals can’t ruin.
Bet they’ll say all those little contributions came from Russian bots, just like those several hundred thousand WalkAway testimonials on Facebook.
They just can’t imagine that anyone, or even 53 million anyones, could disagree with them.
It's already started.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6518823/Triple-amputee-veteran-founded-GoFundMe-Trumps-border-wall-comes-scrutiny.html
-
It's already started.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6518823/Triple-amputee-veteran-founded-GoFundMe-Trumps-border-wall-comes-scrutiny.html
All the accusations fall apart; so flimsy. I’ve learned that if you read to the bottom of an article you get a much different picture than the headlines imply.
The mega message is that American citizens care enough about border security to pay for it themselves.
-
And what happened to all those R's that ran on it, and promised it? 2 years of holding both the house and senate, and they just couldn't seem to do anything about it. Now that is silly, and pathetic.
Yep, that's a fair point and legitimate concern. I haven't said otherwise. They could have also repealed Obamacare and didn't. There are reasons why Republicans lost the House. But to completely absolve Trump of this when he's had the House and Senate for the last two years isn't right. There's enough blame to go around.
As for how private citizens wish to spend their money? Why is that any of your concern? If you don't agree, move on. But it's condescending to belittle others in how they spend their own money for whatever they want, even if it's something the pathetic politicians won't do.
Private citizens are welcome to spend their money however they see fit. I'm telling you how I view this, and that it's silly because it's something that Congress should be doing.
Just imagine back in the 1700's if we had people who were saying "Ya know, we shouldn't have to buy our own ammunition, or even use our own guns to serve in this militia, the government needs to pay for it!"
I don't understand where you're going with this. We don't require our service members to purchase their own weapons or ammunition. Likewise, for those citizens who own private property along the border, they're free to put whatever barrier they want up at their own expense, unless there's a law that prohibits it (I don't know if there is or not).
-
All the accusations fall apart; so flimsy. I’ve learned that if you read to the bottom of an article you get a much different picture than the headlines imply.
The mega message is that American citizens care enough about border security to pay for it themselves.
They're already paying for it with their tax dollars. They shouldn't have to pay more out of their own pockets for this. Of course, as I mentioned above, they're welcome to spend their money however they want. I just hope this money actually does something useful.
-
They're already paying for it with their tax dollars. They shouldn't have to pay more out of their own pockets for this. Of course, as I mentioned above, they're welcome to spend their money however they want. I just hope this money actually does something useful.
Obviously they are not already paying for it with their tax dollars because congress won't let go of the money for that purpose. That they should is moot. This gofundme money does not need congressional blessing.
It will go toward the wall or it will be refunded.
-
They're already paying for it with their tax dollars. They shouldn't have to pay more out of their own pockets for this. Of course, as I mentioned above, they're welcome to spend their money however they want. I just hope this money actually does something useful.
Certainly there is an aspect of frustration driving this. When one's only option to punish an R is to vote for a D, one does start looking for a workaround.
-
Certainly there is an aspect of frustration driving this. When one's only option to punish an R is to vote for a D, one does start looking for a workaround.
So frustrating. I will never punish an R by voting for a D. But even withholding a vote for an R is giving the D a break. No win.
-
Yep, that's a fair point and legitimate concern. I haven't said otherwise. They could have also repealed Obamacare and didn't. There are reasons why Republicans lost the House. But to completely absolve Trump of this when he's had the House and Senate for the last two years isn't right. There's enough blame to go around.
Who said "completely absolve Trump"?? And why are you throwing this in? The discussion is the failure of the Republican controlled house and senate, and their failures. The President doesn't control the legislative branch, so he hasn't had, in your words, the house and senate for the last two years. He has said, over and over, to put these bills on his desk (immigration, border protection and repeal of ACA) and he would sign them.
Private citizens are welcome to spend their money however they see fit. I'm telling you how I view this, and that it's silly because it's something that Congress should be doing.
A congress full of professional politicians that usurp the will of the people that put them in office. The GoFundMe is, if nothing else, a protest and a show of unity.
I don't understand where you're going with this. We don't require our service members to purchase their own weapons or ammunition.
Don't understand sarcasm do you?
-
Who said "completely absolve Trump"?? And why are you throwing this in? The discussion is the failure of the Republican controlled house and senate, and their failures. The President doesn't control the legislative branch, so he hasn't had, in your words, the house and senate for the last two years. He has said, over and over, to put these bills on his desk (immigration, border protection and repeal of ACA) and he would sign them.
I'm throwing it in because if the president wanted this over the last two years, when Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress, he could've worked harder on it than he has. It's now the 11th hour, a "shut down" (such as it is) looms, Republicans lose the House in January and along with it any shot at a border wall, and he said earlier this week that he wouldn't sign the budget, then he would, now he won't again. He's meeting with Senate Republicans this morning. This is something he should've done well before now.
-
We don't require our service members to purchase their own weapons or ammunition.
But we do require the Unorganized Militia to buy their own weapons, and ammunition, and to be proficient with them. By U.S. Code, the Unorganized Militia are all able bodied Men 17 - 45.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
-
They're already paying for it with their tax dollars. They shouldn't have to pay more out of their own pockets for this. Of course, as I mentioned above, they're welcome to spend their money however they want. I just hope this money actually does something useful.
You are right. The people should not be allowed to decide how to spend their own money. The government is the only entity that should be allowed to decide that. Government knows more than all the rest of us peons.
Jeez.
-
You are right. The people should not be allowed to decide how to spend their own money. The government is the only entity that should be allowed to decide that. Government knows more than all the rest of us peons.
Jeez.
How in the world did you get that out of what I said, especially given what you quoted?
-
I'm throwing it in because if the president wanted this over the last two years, when Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress, he could've worked harder on it than he has. It's now the 11th hour, a "shut down" (such as it is) looms, Republicans lose the House in January and along with it any shot at a border wall, and he said earlier this week that he wouldn't sign the budget, then he would, now he won't again. He's meeting with Senate Republicans this morning. This is something he should've done well before now.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/IK5ow103xRzNe/giphy.gif)
Where have you been for the past two years?? And how many times has your hero, your "pure conservative" Paul Ryan kicked the can down the road? And how many times has McConnell pulled the wall budget back and told us "now is not the time"?
And Trump has pounded on them to get this done, over and over.
You can't accept that your icons led by Ryan and McConnell had a golden opportunity and fucked it all up. Put the fuckin' blame on those who actually own it.
-
How in the world did you get that out of what I said, especially given what you quoted?
I got the same message. Your condescending bullshit on how private citizens wish to spend their money, and your fuckin' "silly" remarks.
-
(https://media.giphy.com/media/IK5ow103xRzNe/giphy.gif)
Where have you been for the past two years?? And how many times has your hero, your "pure conservative" Paul Ryan kicked the can down the road? And how many times has McConnell pulled the wall budget back and told us "now is not the time"?
And Trump has pounded on them to get this done, over and over.
You can't accept that your icons led by Ryan and McConnell had a golden opportunity and fucked it all up. Put the fuckin' blame on those who actually own it.
You can keep on your theme that they're my heroes all you want, but I've never once claimed that they are. I've also already acknowledged that Congress is also to blame for this, but you conveniently skipped over that part. I just don't accept that Trump is completely blameless in this. If you don't agree, just move on. Right?
-
You can keep on your theme that they're my heroes all you want, but I've never once claimed that they are. I've also already acknowledged that Congress is also to blame for this, but you conveniently skipped over that part. I just don't accept that Trump is completely blameless in this. If you don't agree, just move on. Right?
You're trying to place blame on something that, in your words, is "silly". That, or you seriously don't understand how bills are created and passed.
-
You're trying to place blame on something that, in your words, is "silly". That, or you seriously don't understand how bills are created and passed.
That's your opinion. I disagree.
-
How in the world did you get that out of what I said, especially given what you quoted?
Ok, you DID say people should be allowed to spend their money however they want and that the wall should be paid for by the government.
The problem is that the government ISN'T paying for it, and I want it paid for and am happy and willing to pay for what I want.
Contrast that with liberals that want the government to pay for everything, and they want to tax OTHER people (ie, "the rich" and "business") to pay for it.
If liberals want liberal shit, they should pay for it. I am willing to pay for what I want.
-
A congress full of professional politicians that usurp the will of the people that put them in office. The GoFundMe is, if nothing else, a protest and a show of unity.
THIS. Whether the money actually ends up making the wall a reality is second - an important second - but a second nonetheless for no small reason that it's unlikely to come near the total amount needed.
It's a loud message of unity and protest against the swamp. I just hope they're listening and get the message but I won't hold my breath that they'll give a fuck. Those politicians have their money and power and are set and really don't give a flying fig about what we the people want. With some exceptions.
-
You can keep on your theme that they're my heroes all you want, but I've never once claimed that they are. I've also already acknowledged that Congress is also to blame for this, but you conveniently skipped over that part. I just don't accept that Trump is completely blameless in this. If you don't agree, just move on. Right?
Right. This board is not immune to leaps of misinterpretation and confirmation bias. Some people do it more often and more spectacularly off base than others. I think of PilotSpin like a buffet. Move right past the unappetizing stuff and end up with a balanced, delicious plate.
-
THIS. Whether the money actually ends up making the wall a reality is second - an important second - but a second nonetheless for no small reason that it's unlikely to come near the total amount needed.
It's a loud message of unity and protest against the swamp. I just hope they're listening and get the message but I won't hold my breath that they'll give a fuck. Those politicians have their money and power and are set and really don't give a flying fig about what we the people want. With some exceptions.
Agreed. Perhaps the key, most critical sections can be built first. And perhaps enough noise is being made to start shifting opinions on the matter. One has to believe that at some point Mexicans swarming over the wall and taking taxpayer and employer dollars away from legal citizens will cease to be a heartwarming sight for Democrats.
-
Oh look, those silly people have now raised over $12 million for their silly project.
-
Why aren't Democrats starting a GoFundMe page for Man Made Climate Change relief? Why do they always look to Government, and OPM?
-
Oh look. We made Snopes:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gofundme-border-wall/
-
Oh look. We made Snopes:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gofundme-border-wall/
snopes equals Lies R Us
-
Oh look. We made Snopes:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gofundme-border-wall/
If you ever had any doubts of snopes bias read this article. Reading that alone should make people want to donate.
-
If you ever had any doubts of snopes bias read this article. Reading that alone should make people want to donate.
snopes is hilary's best friend.
Always has been, always will be.
-
snopes equals Lies R Us
It must have really galled them to have to say it's true
-
Looks like those silly people are up over $14million now.
-
I’m seeing more and more articles about illegals killing citizens. Half the country will not see those, but many of the articles I see are linked to the victims’ hometown newspapers. Perhaps some Dems are seeing those.
Brian Kolfage, who started the GoFundMe for the wall (see Fox interview with him on the GoFundMe site) says he is receiving messages and emails from Democrats who are donating.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/12/murder-by-sanctuary-state.php
-
I’m seeing more and more articles about illegals killing citizens. Half the country will not see those, but many of the articles I see are linked to the victims’ hometown newspapers. Perhaps some Dems are seeing those.
Brian Kolfage, who started the GoFundMe for the wall (see Fox interview with him on the GoFundMe site) says he is receiving messages and emails from Democrats who are donating.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/12/murder-by-sanctuary-state.php
Before this is over, he will be drug through the mud and destroyed. Truth is the enemy of the alt left progressive.
-
Before this is over, he will be drug through the mud and destroyed. Truth is the enemy of the alt left progressive.
They’re sure attacking Brandon Straka of WalkAway. Interviews being truncated, clipped, spun ... wow.
Conservatives think they can go on leftie media and get a fair hearing. Nope.
-
The Democrats who are now controlled by Far Left Progressives are OK with American citizens being killed by Illegal Aliens. To them it is worth putting law abiding citizens AT MORE RISK so they can get a super majority Democrat voting block, and One Party Rule in the U.S. just like CALIFORNIA. Look how f*cked up California has become. That is what they want for the entire U.S. and they are getting it.
I am amazed that the Dems have been able to fool half the country, but I shouldn't be as they have the Media, Education, most of government and most of Corporate America to repeat their lies.
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/12/exclusive-read-the-vile-hate-mail-sent-to-triple-amputee-veteran-behind-gofundthewall-encouraged-by-liberal-media-and-celebrities/
-
Stay classy Democrats.
-
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/7332
-
Stay classy Democrats.
You are asking the impossible.
Modern democrats are a bunch of fucking communists in every sense of the word. Those fuckers hate with such passion that they haven't experienced a joyful moment since election night 2016.
Their hatred has become the central fiber of their very being.
-
https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1077085828742955008/photo/1
-
McConnell can end this right now, but he won't.
McConnell only uses the "nuclear option" for what he wants. Like everyone else in the senate and house, they are only interested in themselves.
-
I suspect McConnell is looking to the future when Democrats are in control of the Senate. He does not want to set the precedent that the minority party in the Senate has no sway at all.
Of course, there is always the good old-fashioned sort of filibuster. Just stand up and start talking, Senators cannot be interrupted unless they yield the floor.
-
McConnell is protecting his base, the establishment. He is actually ceding control to Schumer.
-
If so, it is with the intent of retaining power later.
-
(https://comicallyincorrect.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/deporting-illegals-a-good-start.jpg)
-
Unintentionally highlights inconsistency of a group not mentioned:
Liberals say, "If confiscating all guns saves just one life, it will be worth it."
Conservatives say, "If deporting all illegal aliens saves just one life, wouldn't that be worth it?"
Libertarians say, "Right to own guns and engage in harmless travel is worth dying for."
(https://comicallyincorrect.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/deporting-illegals-a-good-start.jpg)
-
ILLEGAL Aliens = ILLEGAL (not a right, in fact just the opposite)
Gun Ownership = LEGAL, and protected specifically by the U.S. Constitution (recognized right)
BIG DIFFERENCE.
-
We restrict travel of American citizens? Or someone has proposed this?
-
We restrict travel of American citizens? Or someone has proposed this?
Yes, but only law abiding gun owners with concealed carry permits in their home state, but without reciprocity in many other states. So if they have to go there, they have to go unarmed. I know some people that just won't travel to those states because they can not defend themselves there. They instantly become Felons if the cross the border into a state that doesn't recognize their legal, concealed carry permit.
-
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/df/df65b7b1dbbf42fa44415ac7c46098506501a5e0a01cdca9a636001316d6fb5d.jpg)
(https://i.chzbgr.com/full/8279052544/hC1517ADC/)
-
ILLEGAL Aliens = ILLEGAL (not a right, in fact just the opposite)
Gun Ownership = LEGAL, and protected specifically by the U.S. Constitution (recognized right)
BIG DIFFERENCE.
The issue of whether undocumented travel of aliens should or should not be illegal, or the extent to which it should be regulated, is the question under debate. Pointing out that it is currently illegal rejects the existence of any debate on the subject. It is a circular argument.
With respect to gun rights, consider history. Suppose it is January 17, 1920 and now "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited." It says so, right there in the U.S. Constitution - something previously legal now a crime! When you discover friends or family or neighbors violating the law, would you turn them in? Look the other way? Violate the law yourself?
-
The issue of whether undocumented travel of aliens should or should not be illegal, or the extent to which it should be regulated, is the question under debate. Pointing out that it is currently illegal rejects the existence of any debate on the subject. It is a circular argument.
With respect to gun rights, consider history. Suppose it is January 17, 1920 and now "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited." It says so, right there in the U.S. Constitution - something previously legal now a crime! When you discover friends or family or neighbors violating the law, would you turn them in? Look the other way? Violate the law yourself?
What an inane diatribe.
-
We restrict travel of American citizens? Or someone has proposed this?
Border patrol road and rail checkpoints are allowed within 100 miles of the U.S. border (including all coasts;) you will be asked if you are a citizen and generally not allowed to proceed until you answer. Even if the answer is yes you may be further detained.
https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1084/~/legal-authority-for-the-border-patrol (https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1084/~/legal-authority-for-the-border-patrol)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception)
A couple of examples:
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-police-officer-lumb-border-patrol-lawsuit-2015dec02-story.html (https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-police-officer-lumb-border-patrol-lawsuit-2015dec02-story.html)
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/20/649187775/federal-agents-board-buses-100-miles-from-border-to-ask-are-you-a-u-s-citizen (https://www.npr.org/2018/09/20/649187775/federal-agents-board-buses-100-miles-from-border-to-ask-are-you-a-u-s-citizen)
-
Those do a fine job of communicating your opinion of libertarians and libertarian principles. They just aren't counter-arguments for the subject under debate. You could use them in any debate on any subject with libertarians, that's how vague and useless they are.
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/df/df65b7b1dbbf42fa44415ac7c46098506501a5e0a01cdca9a636001316d6fb5d.jpg)
(https://i.chzbgr.com/full/8279052544/hC1517ADC/)
-
What an inane diatribe.
Argumentum ad hominem.
-
Border patrol road and rail checkpoints are allowed within 100 miles of the U.S. border (including all coasts;) you will be asked if you are a citizen and generally not allowed to proceed until you answer. Even if the answer is yes you may be further detained.
https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1084/~/legal-authority-for-the-border-patrol (https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1084/~/legal-authority-for-the-border-patrol)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception)
A couple of examples:
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-police-officer-lumb-border-patrol-lawsuit-2015dec02-story.html (https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-police-officer-lumb-border-patrol-lawsuit-2015dec02-story.html)
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/20/649187775/federal-agents-board-buses-100-miles-from-border-to-ask-are-you-a-u-s-citizen (https://www.npr.org/2018/09/20/649187775/federal-agents-board-buses-100-miles-from-border-to-ask-are-you-a-u-s-citizen)
Yes, I've gone through those checkpoints. "Are you a citizen?"......"Yes"..."Have a nice day".
The horror!
And this is being done because our establishment class refuses to enforce border and immigration laws. Enforce the laws, as written, and the need for checkpoints goes away.
-
Argumentum ad hominem.
Doofus fulla bullshit.
-
Those do a fine job of communicating your opinion of libertarians and libertarian principles. They just aren't counter-arguments for the subject under debate. You could use them in any debate on any subject with libertarians, that's how vague and useless they are.
You're attempting to use your "libertarian" mindset in debating the subject at hand. That's how vague and useless your arguments are.
-
Yes, I've gone through those checkpoints. "Are you a citizen?"......"Yes"..."Have a nice day".
The horror!
And this is being done because our establishment class refuses to enforce border and immigration laws. Enforce the laws, as written, and the need for checkpoints goes away.
Some cities also allow "Stop and Frisk" in high crime sections of the cities. I don't like that either, but if cities enforced laws, and actually put Felons in jail long term instead of a plead deal, then that would go away also. However, I also I agree. Secure the border, and the citizen check points go away.
-
Some cities also allow "Stop and Frisk" in high crime sections of the cities. I don't like that either, but if cities enforced laws, and actually put Felons in jail long term instead of a plead deal, then that would go away also. However, I also I agree. Secure the border, and the citizen check points go away.
High crime sections of the cities wouldn't be a problem if you eliminate gun laws and provide civilian self defense firearms training for the residents.
-
What an inane diatribe.
You miss opportunity for great discussion by reverting to toddler-esque debate tactics.
-
You miss opportunity for great discussion by reverting to toddler-esque debate tactics.
Great discussion? He responds with gibberish. There is a good discussion ongoing with the other posters, Jim is just up to his usual tactics.
-
High crime sections of the cities wouldn't be a problem if you eliminate gun laws and provide civilian self defense firearms training for the residents.
Exactly.
Chicago is the perfect example. Toughest and most restrictive gun laws in the country, yet has one of the highest gun crime rates (which the MSM and progressives ignore).
-
Exactly.
Chicago is the perfect example. Toughest and most restrictive gun laws in the country, yet has one of the highest gun crime rates (which the MSM and progressives ignore).
I've said this before. It is not the true intent of Democrats to reduce, nor stop violent crime with more gun control laws. They know criminals don't follow laws. Therefore, the purpose of more gun control is specifically targeted at removing guns, and ammunition from LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. Period.
The userful idiots that support this crap have been brainwashed into thinking it is about security, and safety, and guns kill all by themselves. They've successfully created an environment of irrational fear of guns through the Media, Entertainment, and Education.
-
Great discussion? He responds with gibberish. There is a good discussion ongoing with the other posters, Jim is just up to his usual tactics.
There is not a thing about his responses that is gibberish, though I know you wish it were so.
There is a Libertarian case for free movement of people and open borders, and, therefore, an opportunity for you to understand their case and then destroy it point-by-point. This will require posting more than a single-frame cartoon or meme, though.
-
There is not a thing about his responses that is gibberish, though I know you wish it were so.
There is a Libertarian case for free movement of people and open borders, and, therefore, an opportunity for you to understand their case and then destroy it point-by-point. This will require posting more than a single-frame cartoon or meme, though.
So why are you not addressing Jim?
-
So why are you not addressing Jim?
Because I am addressing you.
-
Great discussion? He responds with gibberish. There is a good discussion ongoing with the other posters, Jim is just up to his usual tactics.
No, he makes a fair point. I think it deserves some consideration:
The issue of whether undocumented travel of aliens should or should not be illegal, or the extent to which it should be regulated, is the question under debate. Pointing out that it is currently illegal rejects the existence of any debate on the subject. It is a circular argument.
With respect to gun rights, consider history. Suppose it is January 17, 1920 and now "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited." It says so, right there in the U.S. Constitution - something previously legal now a crime! When you discover friends or family or neighbors violating the law, would you turn them in? Look the other way? Violate the law yourself?
And I have considered.
Prohibition was a change to the Constitution railroaded through by a one-sided grassroots cult of mostly females who managed to impose their self righteous moralism on everyone else. It was a shameful abuse of the provision for amendments to the Constitution. It was in fact an attempt to codify a religious practice (Protestant teetotalism) into the nation's highest law AND it was racist (in large part aimed at German and Irish immigrants).
Border searches, including areas within a certain distance specifically to catch illegal aliens sneaking in, has nothing to do with the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. If you are attempting to draw a parallel here, you are wrong. Illegals have no Constitutional right to travel within the U.S. and no fourth amendment right to privacy. In the interest of national security, U.S. citizens would be prudent to carry ID if they travel in that zone.
However, to the extent border searches are used as an excuse to search, without probable cause or warrant, U.S. citizens, for illegal contraband, this is a clear violation of the fourth amendment. There is a difference between protecting the nation from illegal entry, and using the fact that you happen to be within 100 miles of the border as cover for conducting fishing expeditions.
-
I suspect McConnell is looking to the future when Democrats are in control of the Senate. He does not want to set the precedent that the minority party in the Senate has no sway at all.
Of course, there is always the good old-fashioned sort of filibuster. Just stand up and start talking, Senators cannot be interrupted unless they yield the floor.
Do you seriously think that the democrats won’t get rid of the filibuster if it suits them? They literally announced they they were going to do that if they took power in 2016. McConnell is an idiot if he thinks by not dropping the filibuster that the democrats would follow suit.
He should get rid of cloture, which would implement the old filibuster. As it is now, just the threat of one kills a bill, and they move on to the next bill. It’s just not right.
-
Because I am addressing you.
Rush just gave an excellent response to Jim, and she is more articulate about it.
Jim post gibberish which doesn't take the laws we currently live under into consideration and tries to sprinkle his libertarian fairy dust on it to have us consider his fantasy world instead.
-
Rush is RIGHT.
-
Rush is RIGHT.
As always.
-
I've been gone for a few days.
-
You are asking the impossible.
Modern democrats are a bunch of fucking communists in every sense of the word. Those fuckers hate with such passion that they haven't experienced a joyful moment since election night 2016.
heir hatred has become the central fiber of their very being.
They aren't the only ones filled with hatred.
Also, I'm not sure you understand what communism actually is. Unless you actually think Democrats believe in communal property and "each according to his abilities, each according to his needs." If that's the case, they'd have to give up their multiple houses, airplanes, private security, etc.
-
Yes, I've gone through those checkpoints. "Are you a citizen?"......"Yes"..."Have a nice day".
The horror!
And this is being done because our establishment class refuses to enforce border and immigration laws. Enforce the laws, as written, and the need for checkpoints goes away.
Even if the current laws on the books were enforced I don't think that would negate the need for checkpoints. Also, there's an argument to be made that having certain law enforcement powers within 100 miles of a port of entry (or border), may not be constitutional under the 4th amendment. I believe the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise, but that doesn't mean there isn't a legal argument to be made.
-
Rush is RIGHT.
Well, the debate is settled, everyone!
-
Well, the debate is settled, everyone!
I don’t see a little lock symbol on this thread and I’m still able to post. I challenge your statement. :)
Saying you agree with someone doesn’t put chocks on the discussion.
-
I wish the President would tweet something about the $17 million currently raised so we could know what’s actually going on with the likely use of the money raised.
-
I don’t see a little lock symbol on this thread and I’m still able to post. I challenge your statement. :)
Saying you agree with someone doesn’t put chocks on the discussion.
Point of order, he said Rush is right. :)
I'm just kidding, of course.
-
Well, the debate is settled, everyone!
Yep! Just like with Man Made Global Warming, errrrrr, Climate Change. The debate is over! The science is settled! The world IS flat! Yep. Please don't post anymore LevelWing, or Aeschrest will have to Moderate it. Oh wait.........
-
Yep! Just like with Man Made Global Warming, errrrrr, Climate Change. The debate is over! The science is settled! The world IS flat! Yep. Please don't post anymore LevelWing, or Aeschrest will have to Moderate it. Oh wait.........
I'm sure that would be welcomed by some. That way the echo chamber can be uninterrupted.
-
I'm sure that would be welcomed by some. That way the echo chamber can be uninterrupted.
“Waah! Waah! The mean man hurt my feelings!
Quick, get me to a safe space!!”
-
No, he makes a fair point. I think it deserves some consideration:
And I have considered.
Prohibition was a change to the Constitution railroaded through by a one-sided grassroots cult of mostly females who managed to impose their self righteous moralism on everyone else. It was a shameful abuse of the provision for amendments to the Constitution. It was in fact an attempt to codify a religious practice (Protestant teetotalism) into the nation's highest law AND it was racist (in large part aimed at German and Irish immigrants).
Border searches, including areas within a certain distance specifically to catch illegal aliens sneaking in, has nothing to do with the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. If you are attempting to draw a parallel here, you are wrong. Illegals have no Constitutional right to travel within the U.S. and no fourth amendment right to privacy. In the interest of national security, U.S. citizens would be prudent to carry ID if they travel in that zone.
However, to the extent border searches are used as an excuse to search, without probable cause or warrant, U.S. citizens, for illegal contraband, this is a clear violation of the fourth amendment. There is a difference between protecting the nation from illegal entry, and using the fact that you happen to be within 100 miles of the border as cover for conducting fishing expeditions.
I think we have two fundamental issues, here; rights, and a Libertarian principle.
With respect to rights, I believe all of us here recognize that the Constitution does not grant us or create our rights. The rights of The People existed before the United States was born, because they are unalienable and given to us by our Creator. Jim's point, if I'm not mistaken, is that the existence of language in the US Constitution pertaining to a certain subject does not make something a Right or not a Right. There is great discussion to be had on illegal aliens and rights, including Fourth Amendment rights. We talk a lot here, especially with respect to the Second Amendment, about how these are God-given rights that we innately have as humans -- that the Constitution does not and cannot grant or deny these rights. So it's a bit jarring to see you discuss the Rights of illegal aliens vs. the rights of U.S. citizens. I recognize there is some case law in your favor, but I think the fundamentals can still be discussed. And if we're going to talk about restricting God-given rights, we at least ought to flesh out why it's appropriate.
Contrary to the sentiment expressed a few posts ago that one opinion on this subject is "right" or "wrong", there are great reasons why we might want to restrict even unalienable rights to humans, and great reasons why we shouldn't. Hell, we infringe upon the right to life of our own citizens in some states. But because we do so, and because it's been written somewhere that it's legal, doesn't necessarily make it the right or the best thing to do, and certainly doesn't eliminate our need to discuss it.
Finally - the Libertarian principle that people should be left to their own accord unless they infringe upon the rights of others is a corollary to the "right to migrate" as I've seen it written. Lots to discuss there, if we want.
-
Rush just gave an excellent response to Jim, and she is more articulate about it.
Jim post gibberish which doesn't take the laws we currently live under into consideration and tries to sprinkle his libertarian fairy dust on it to have us consider his fantasy world instead.
Granted, you need high school-level reading comprehension to see that Jim directly addressed written law (whether current or former is no matter).
-
They aren't the only ones filled with hatred.
Also, I'm not sure you understand what communism actually is. Unless you actually think Democrats believe in communal property and "each according to his abilities, each according to his needs." If that's the case, they'd have to give up their multiple houses, airplanes, private security, etc.
That is what they believe in. Only they phrase it like this: "Rich people have more than they deserve and we need to make them give their wealth to poor people." That is exactly the same thing.
They will protest and argue that a little wealth redistribution doesn't equal the government taking ownership of all industry and property, but "a little wealth redistribution" is exactly taking people's private property, labor and wealth. Where Democrats cannot be specific is exactly where the line is drawn between "compassionate socialism" and communism. Communism is virtually 100%. Today we are at around 60% or more, when you total all the taxes imposed on us, at all levels, and all regulatory mandates which result in diverting private money into government programs. That's the portion of the economy the government owns and controls, right now, at least 60%.
I have asked Democrats many times to tell me when is it too much, 70%? 80%? 90%.... and they never give an answer. 60% is not enough apparently, because they are pushing for more, but 100% is "communism" which they pretend to abhor. Their inability to provide a number betrays that their philosophy is based on emotionalism and utopian fantasies, not facts and reality.
Of course they believe in the principle of communal property, just not for themselves. ALL communists exempt themselves from their own policies. If the average Democrat doesn't think of himself as a communist, it's because he's too stupid to realize that wealth redistribution, because it kills economies, will eventually make his life worse instead of better, unless he can manage to get himself into the corrupt elite.
-
That is what they believe in. Only they phrase it like this: "Rich people have more than they deserve and we need to make them give their wealth to poor people." That is exactly the same thing.
They will protest and argue that a little wealth redistribution doesn't equal the government taking ownership of all industry and property, but "a little wealth redistribution" is exactly taking people's private property, labor and wealth. Where Democrats cannot be specific is exactly where the line is drawn between "compassionate socialism" and communism. Communism is virtually 100%. Today we are at around 60% or more, when you total all the taxes imposed on us, at all levels, and all regulatory mandates which result in diverting private money into government programs. That's the portion of the economy the government owns and controls, right now, at least 60%.
I have asked Democrats many times to tell me when is it too much, 70%? 80%? 90%.... and they never give an answer. 60% is not enough apparently, because they are pushing for more, but 100% is "communism" which they pretend to abhor. Their inability to provide a number betrays that their philosophy is based on emotionalism and utopian fantasies, not facts and reality.
Of course they believe in the principle of communal property, just not for themselves. ALL communists exempt themselves from their own policies. If the average Democrat doesn't think of himself as a communist, it's because he's too stupid to realize that wealth redistribution, because it kills economies, will eventually make his life worse instead of better, unless he can manage to get himself into the corrupt elite.
You can't have communism unless everyone participates. The Democrats want to be the "haves", claiming to fight for the "have nots", but the "have nots" are never the recipients of the wealth of the "haves". Look at Venezuela, for example. Chavez instituted a lot of social programs that he paid for by nationalizing the oil industry. Even now, despite oil prices having fallen and the Venezuelan government being forced to cut back on some of the social welfare spending, Maduro isn't living in the same conditions as his citizens. He isn't struggling to eat on a daily basis. His citizens are. That's not communism. Communism makes for a great bumper sticker, but in reality it's socialism.
The wealth isn't actually redistributed to the poor, either. What is that money doing in New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles? You're right that you won't get an answer to the question of where the line is. That's because if the money is going to the progressives, then there is no line. The line is only when it comes to the opposition getting in on the action.
The ironic part is that under a Marxist-Leninist structure, the idea is that capitalist countries will exploit the poor and the working class until they have what they want and then move on, yet that's exactly what the progressives who want mass wealth redistribution are doing.
There is a big difference between actual communism and what we have here. Even the Chinese aren't actually communist; they're autocratic.
-
I think we have two fundamental issues, here; rights, and a Libertarian principle.
With respect to rights, I believe all of us here recognize that the Constitution does not grant us or create our rights. The rights of The People existed before the United States was born, because they are unalienable and given to us by our Creator. Jim's point, if I'm not mistaken, is that the existence of language in the US Constitution pertaining to a certain subject does not make something a Right or not a Right. There is great discussion to be had on illegal aliens and rights, including Fourth Amendment rights. We talk a lot here, especially with respect to the Second Amendment, about how these are God-given rights that we innately have as humans -- that the Constitution does not and cannot grant or deny these rights. So it's a bit jarring to see you discuss the Rights of illegal aliens vs. the rights of U.S. citizens. I recognize there is some case law in your favor, but I think the fundamentals can still be discussed. And if we're going to talk about restricting God-given rights, we at least ought to flesh out why it's appropriate.
Contrary to the sentiment expressed a few posts ago that one opinion on this subject is "right" or "wrong", there are great reasons why we might want to restrict even unalienable rights to humans, and great reasons why we shouldn't. Hell, we infringe upon the right to life of our own citizens in some states. But because we do so, and because it's been written somewhere that it's legal, doesn't necessarily make it the right or the best thing to do, and certainly doesn't eliminate our need to discuss it.
Finally - the Libertarian principle that people should be left to their own accord unless they infringe upon the rights of others is a corollary to the "right to migrate" as I've seen it written. Lots to discuss there, if we want.
The rights of The People, I would think, refer only to those particular people whom the document is pertaining to ... American citizens. It would seem inappropriate for our country to encompass all other humans, as if our laws apply to them, in documents specific to the governance of our country’s citizens.
I can see why liberals like to sport bumper stickers and yard signs saying “No human is illegal.” This essentially is true. But the tough fact of the matter is that laws are broken to enter and to stay. The acts of persons are illegal. And even Jesus admonished us to obey the laws of the government.
-
The rights of The People, I would think, refer only to those particular people whom the document is pertaining to ... American citizens. It would seem inappropriate for our country to encompass all other humans, as if our laws apply to them, in documents specific to the governance of our country’s citizens.
I can see why liberals like to sport bumper stickers and yard signs saying “No human is illegal.” This essentially is true. But the tough fact of the matter is that laws are broken to enter and to stay. The acts of persons are illegal. And even Jesus admonished us to obey the laws of the government.
Ignoring for a moment the much more philosophical arguments, since other areas of the Constitution specifically enumerate citizens, this does not appear to be the case.
-
I think we have two fundamental issues, here; rights, and a Libertarian principle.
With respect to rights, I believe all of us here recognize that the Constitution does not grant us or create our rights. The rights of The People existed before the United States was born, because they are unalienable and given to us by our Creator. Jim's point, if I'm not mistaken, is that the existence of language in the US Constitution pertaining to a certain subject does not make something a Right or not a Right. There is great discussion to be had on illegal aliens and rights, including Fourth Amendment rights. We talk a lot here, especially with respect to the Second Amendment, about how these are God-given rights that we innately have as humans -- that the Constitution does not and cannot grant or deny these rights. So it's a bit jarring to see you discuss the Rights of illegal aliens vs. the rights of U.S. citizens. I recognize there is some case law in your favor, but I think the fundamentals can still be discussed. And if we're going to talk about restricting God-given rights, we at least ought to flesh out why it's appropriate.
Contrary to the sentiment expressed a few posts ago that one opinion on this subject is "right" or "wrong", there are great reasons why we might want to restrict even unalienable rights to humans, and great reasons why we shouldn't. Hell, we infringe upon the right to life of our own citizens in some states. But because we do so, and because it's been written somewhere that it's legal, doesn't necessarily make it the right or the best thing to do, and certainly doesn't eliminate our need to discuss it.
Finally - the Libertarian principle that people should be left to their own accord unless they infringe upon the rights of others is a corollary to the "right to migrate" as I've seen it written. Lots to discuss there, if we want.
To me always being right, I appreciate the compliments but of course it's not true. ;D
You are correct on your points about God given rights to the People. But let's define those People. At the time those words were written, Negroes were not viewed as entirely human. Fetuses certainly were not. There was no intent in the Constitution to expand the definition of "The People" to include unlimited creatures. There is now a real movement to declare apes "people" with basic rights. I'm sure PETA would like to extend that to silk worms. Next we'll be saying trees have "rights" as living things.
No, the Constitution was specifically written for a limited set of humans, right there in the opening statement: We the People of the United States.
The framers understood the most basic fact of our species, that is: We form packs. We group together, claim territory, and defend it against strangers. It is such natural law it shouldn't need to be spelled out, nevertheless it is spelled out: provide for the common defence
What the hell is common defence if we cannot secure our border against strangers, or at least examine and approve anyone (or any thing* for that matter) entering our territory? It's really as simple as that.
The libertarians who believe in open borders are as bad as liberals in their lack of understanding basic human social psychology.
*https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/import-information/permits/regulated-organism-and-soil-permits/insects-and-mites/CT_Insects (https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/import-information/permits/regulated-organism-and-soil-permits/insects-and-mites/CT_Insects)
-
You can't have communism unless everyone participates. The Democrats want to be the "haves", claiming to fight for the "have nots", but the "have nots" are never the recipients of the wealth of the "haves". Look at Venezuela, for example. Chavez instituted a lot of social programs that he paid for by nationalizing the oil industry. Even now, despite oil prices having fallen and the Venezuelan government being forced to cut back on some of the social welfare spending, Maduro isn't living in the same conditions as his citizens. He isn't struggling to eat on a daily basis. His citizens are. That's not communism. Communism makes for a great bumper sticker, but in reality it's socialism.
The wealth isn't actually redistributed to the poor, either. What is that money doing in New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles? You're right that you won't get an answer to the question of where the line is. That's because if the money is going to the progressives, then there is no line. The line is only when it comes to the opposition getting in on the action.
The ironic part is that under a Marxist-Leninist structure, the idea is that capitalist countries will exploit the poor and the working class until they have what they want and then move on, yet that's exactly what the progressives who want mass wealth redistribution are doing.
There is a big difference between actual communism and what we have here. Even the Chinese aren't actually communist; they're autocratic.
This is of course correct. There IS NO actual pure communism, because it cannot exist; it is against all natural law. Humans will not voluntarily participate in such a thing, force is always required, and therefore you need enforcers, who become the defacto elites. It is a utopian fantasy that cannot exist in humans.
-
They aren't the only ones filled with hatred.
Also, I'm not sure you understand what communism actually is. Unless you actually think Democrats believe in communal property and "each according to his abilities, each according to his needs." If that's the case, they'd have to give up their multiple houses, airplanes, private security, etc.
I think you intentionally make up your objections here.
democrats (communists) deeply approve of to each according to his need and from each according to his ability, EXCEPT when it comes to themselves, which is just like every other communist/ socialist regime in history.
-
The rights of The People, I would think, refer only to those particular people whom the document is pertaining to ... American citizens.
Of "The People" as in Americans, yes, but not people in general. The inalienable rights which the signers of the Constitution presumed to exist are not limited to Americans. But with regards to immigration specifically, there is no inalienable right to move across country borders unimpeded. It is the duty of a sovereign nation to maintain and protect it's borders.
Remember that the Constitution is the governing document of how the government runs, not how the people are to behave. No individual citizen (unless representing the US government) should be bound by restrictions in that document. Neither should Congress have authority to expand beyond the document. Both of these things have been messed up and that has created a great amount of evil in the US...and I use the word evil very directly, as in, opposing that which God favors.
-
Finally - the Libertarian principle that people should be left to their own accord unless they infringe upon the rights of others is a corollary to the "right to migrate" as I've seen it written. Lots to discuss there, if we want.
Weak borders and liberal immigration policies already show us what that “right to migrate” could produce if it operated unchecked. Estimates I saw recently show that about 158 million people who don’t currently live in the United States or Canada would like to live there and would if they could.
https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/levy-street-count-proves-refugees-taking-huge-toll-on-shelters
https://gab.ai/TomKawczynski/posts/44268970
I would venture to say that the rights of citizens would be infringed in several ways were such an influx be unrestrained. The costs are already high, as we see in our own country, not just in money to feed and house, but in increased crime and threat to persons.
-
I just read that the U.S. was expecting to spend $15 billion in Syria next year.
Hmmm, wonder what that could be spent on instead ...
-
You can't have communism unless everyone participates.
There is a big difference between actual communism and what we have here. Even the Chinese aren't actually communist; they're autocratic.
Those two quotes are typical of apologistic faux liberalism.
In the old communist russia, you had approximately 2000 communists keeping the hundreds of millions under their thumb, while living in splendor. In the current communist china, you have roughly five thousand communists living in splendor, keeping billions under their thumbs to finance their standard of living.
Modern democrats (communists) love the idea of keeping our citizens under their thumb, while flying about in tax payer funded private jets, spewing evil flouro-carbons, spending billions on pet projects that always seem to end up with millions in their pockets, and telling the rest of us how hard they work.
If you are trying to shoehorn the definition of true, or utter, communism and use it to excuse the fucking democrats, then you lose.
-
Rush is RIGHT.
She does a good job of comprehending what I am trying to say and then articulating counter-arguments.
As a side note, I found a Wikipedia link a while back that lists countries that have "open borders" with their neighbors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_border (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_border)
It's interesting, listing several border agreements I'd never heard of. The down-side of the article is the failure to list several well known arguments against open borders and the inclusion of political theories having an obvious pro-open-border slant (just because I see value and justness in open borders doesn't mean I like to see a needless slant.)
-
She does a good job of comprehending what I am trying to say and then articulating counter-arguments.
As a side note, I found a Wikipedia link a while back that lists countries that have "open borders" with their neighbors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_border (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_border)
It's interesting, listing several border agreements I'd never heard of. The down-side of the article is the failure to list several well known arguments against open borders and the inclusion of political theories having an obvious pro-open-border slant (just because I see value and justness in open borders doesn't mean I like to see a needless slant.)
I should just copy, and paste Rush's posts as she, and I think pretty much alike to the point it is almost scary. Plus she is more articulate than I am. LOL!
My issue with the border is that it seems OK for other countries, developed nations, and our allies like Australia, UK, Canada, etc, to have strict immigration policy, and enforce their border, but many on the Left think we should just let everyone in, no matter who they are, and no matter what risks they pose. I don't understand that at all. I beleive the Democrats, who just wnat more votes, and more power have convinced people we are the world's feeding trough. The Media has been comlicit in this notion.
-
Sorry, but open borders clearly would only work if unicorns are abroad in the land and fairy dust has fallen on all hu-mons and transformed them into completely different creatures than they are at present. No drugs, crime, weapons, terrorism, trafficking, strain on support systems and budgets.
Thought experiments are fun, and seeing the other side of an issue is important, to be sure. But in our present world, I posit that hu-mons and their natures will dictate for a long time to come the need for grouping up and fencing out.
I wish it were not so, but it is.
-
I should just copy, and paste Rush's posts as she, and I think pretty much alike to the point it is almost scary. Plus she is more articulate than I am. LOL!
My issue with the border is that it seems OK for other countries, developed nations, and our allies like Australia, UK, Canada, etc, to have strict immigration policy, and enforce their border, but many on the Left think we should just let everyone in, no matter who they are, and no matter what risks they pose. I don't understand that at all. I beleive the Democrats, who just wnat more votes, and more power have convinced people we are the world's feeding trough. The Media has been comlicit in this notion.
The Dems are vote farming, pure and simple. Their platform isn’t sustainable so they have to recruit dependents. It has been said that liberals are even so busy promoting abortion and tearing down the constructs of marriage and family that they’re reducing their ranks weirdly intentionally of normal people and must find votes elsewhere.
-
As a side note, I found a Wikipedia link a while back that lists countries that have "open borders" with their neighbors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_border (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_border)
It's interesting, listing several border agreements I'd never heard of. The down-side of the article is the failure to list several well known arguments against open borders and the inclusion of political theories having an obvious pro-open-border slant (just because I see value and justness in open borders doesn't mean I like to see a needless slant.)
On the other hand, that same article presents only one side of several arguments. For example, the first argument is that is solves world poverty by allowing anyone to move to more prosperous areas. But that assumes that 1) the reason for poverty is entirely opportunity based, 2) that poor people have the means to move to a more prosperous area, 3) that poor people have something of value to contribute once they arrive, and 4) that the area remains profitable after the arrival of so many poor people.
That last one is probably the biggest fear I have. I have been to areas that are heavily populated with immigrants and they aren’t places I want to go back to. Quite frankly, the immigrants have taken the culture that produced the horrible place they fled from and imported it with them. They live just like before, although now with wide screen TVs. Win for them, huge loss for everyone who used to live there.
-
Those two quotes are typical of apologistic faux liberalism.
In the old communist russia, you had approximately 2000 communists keeping the hundreds of millions under their thumb, while living in splendor. In the current communist china, you have roughly five thousand communists living in splendor, keeping billions under their thumbs to finance their standard of living.
They were actually socialists, not communists. In fact, to illustrate this point more clearly of how they call themselves one thing but act like another, you can look at your schtick of "democrats (communists)" as an example. They call themselves Democrats but, in your opinion, are actually communists (they aren't).
If you are trying to shoehorn the definition of true, or utter, communism and use it to excuse the fucking democrats, then you lose.
I'm not trying to shoehorn or excuse anything, I'm trying to promote correct terms for clarity. They aren't communists, they're progressives, and it is in fact different.
-
That last one is probably the biggest fear I have. I have been to areas that are heavily populated with immigrants and they aren’t places I want to go back to. Quite frankly, the immigrants have taken the culture that produced the horrible place they fled from and imported it with them. They live just like before, although now with wide screen TVs. Win for them, huge loss for everyone who used to live there.
Andrew Wilkow has a saying he uses frequently that sums up your point:
You can't bring all that is there to here without here becoming there.
-
They were actually socialists, not communists. In fact, to illustrate this point more clearly of how they call themselves one thing but act like another, you can look at your schtick of "democrats (communists)" as an example. They call themselves Democrats but, in your opinion, are actually communists (they aren't).
I'm not trying to shoehorn or excuse anything, I'm trying to promote correct terms for clarity. They aren't communists, they're progressives, and it is in fact different.
Bullshit.
You’re trying to pretend that minor differences in interpretation of a word makes a major differn ce and the use that preposterous stupidity to pretend you win an argument you don’t understand.
Faux liberalism... making oneself feel special by pretense, and make believe elevation by use of fake sincerity.
-
Bullshit.
You’re trying to pretend that minor differences in interpretation of a word makes a major differn ce and the use that preposterous stupidity to pretend you win an argument you don’t understand.
If you say so.
Faux liberalism... making oneself feel special by pretense, and make believe elevation by use of fake sincerity.
Wait, am I a liberal or a faux liberal? If I'm a faux liberal, does that make me a conservative?
-
Andrew Wilkow has a saying he uses frequently that sums up your point: You can't bring all that is there to here without here becoming there.
A corollary might be the statement that you don’t have to visit a bad neighborhood, but it will visit you.
To me that means that we all share some responsibility for each other and the quality of the world we live in. Even with walls we can’t keep all the bad out, because the bad arises from our human nature wherever we are.
-
Are Democrats really just Communists? I certainly think they lean that way, but I know they are Totalitarian elitists. They want to use Illegal Aliens to illegally install ONE PARTY RULE like California has. So, will use the population centers around the U.S. to sway states to become Democrat. The people in rural America, and non Metro areas will become unrepresented, and alienated creating even a further divide. They will have NO RECOURSE as their votes will no longer matter, and their guns will be made illegal, and/or confiscated.
-
If you say so.
Wait, am I a liberal or a faux liberal? If I'm a faux liberal, does that make me a conservative?
Your pathetic whining aside, you seem to be an apologist for liberals the world over, which makes you a waste of time.
Your actions would have to match your words, which makes you, like most make believe liberals, just loud mouthed, know-it-alls that really know very little, to nothing at all.
-
Your pathetic whining aside, you seem to be an apologist for liberals the world over, which makes you a waste of time.
No answer, just an insult.
How am I an apologist for the liberals the world over? Because I don't agree in lock step with your drivel?
-
No answer, just an insult.
How am I an apologist for the liberals the world over? Because I don't agree in lock step with your drivel?
Oh you'd like that.
But, did you really think your pathetic asswipe answer deserved a thoughtful response?
You poor deluded snowflake.
-
Oh you'd like that.
But, did you really think your pathetic asswipe answer deserved a thoughtful response?
You poor deluded snowflake.
Another non-answer, just more insults.
-
Are Democrats really just Communists? I certainly think they lean that way, but I know they are Totalitarian elitists.
My point to Number7 was that he keeps using the word "communists" but I don't think that's an accurate reflection of their views. I think progressives lean more towards the autocratic side than the communist side (communist in the actual sense of the word, not what it is in practice, which is basically socialism). Communist slogans used by the right (supposedly Number7) is a way to strike fear into others about the progressive's objectives while communist slogans used by the left are more about trying to make people feel better about a new system, when in reality it's not actually communism. We should label things as they actually are. Progressives lean more socialist and autocratic.
They want to use Illegal Aliens to illegally install ONE PARTY RULE like California has. So, will use the population centers around the U.S. to sway states to become Democrat. The people in rural America, and non Metro areas will become unrepresented, and alienated creating even a further divide. They will have NO RECOURSE as their votes will no longer matter, and their guns will be made illegal, and/or confiscated.
I don't buy into your full line of thought, but I agree with your overarching point that the Democrats would love nothing more than to turn certain states, like Texas, blue so that no Republican would ever be president again. You're right that people in smaller populated states would no longer matter to the left since they would control every branch of government without needing their support.
-
Progressive is just another word for communist, just like socialist and liberal and democrat.
-
I think the Democrats use a lot of the same tactics as Communists, and Fascists. No matter what you call them, their ultimate goal is to consolidate power, and wealth to the fewer, and fewer elites. Whomever runs both parties can not stand that the general populace (middle, and upper middle income earners) can have a say in their own destiny. The goal is some form of thinly veiled Totalitarian state. It is the Fundamental Transformation Obama preached.
-
Updated video on the site. Brian Kolfage was trashed by Jimmy Kimmel and now Kolfage, his wife and kids are receiving death threats. But Kolfage is standing firm and says there will be News this week about the GoFundMe wall project. I think the President is going to weigh in on it.
-
Just a little inspiration from Brian Kolfage ... for these discouraging times. It is important to focus on what we can change in our world, do what we can, and stay positive and loving. I do think the left wants us to cave to their crap. Not doing it.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DHQRrH96PBE#
-
Surprise briefing, putting pressure on Dems for border security.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV71lMoHYxY#action=share
-
I’ve just got a fit of the giggles here. Trump is talking about declaring a national emergency to build the wall. Dems are against a wall but might be okay if it is called a “fence.” The slat/barrier structure is apparently effective.
Trump should announce it will be made of US steel. ;D
I don’t think Dem leadership realizes that many in their party ARE concerned about border security.
https://nypost.com/2019/01/04/trump-i-could-declare-a-national-emergency-to-get-border-wall/
-
I have been asking others and not gotten an answer...so let me throw this out here -
Where does the president derive the power to declare a national emergency and invoke emergency spending? What law or constitutional clause grant the office that power!
-
I believe it's under the War Powers Act since we are under active invasion by a foreign power. The DOD funds the wall.
-
It's just a test to see if he can do it so he can take over the government and become the dictator.
-
I believe it's under the War Powers Act since we are under active invasion by a foreign power. The DOD funds the wall.
We are not under active invasion by a foreign power. Lack of securing the border is not the same as being invaded.
-
We are not under active invasion by a foreign power. Lack of securing the border is not the same as being invaded.
I disagree. The Honduras caravan was aptly called an invasion. It was repelled, but news reports show three more such caravans being mobilized. If they try to enter at the weak spots instead of the high-optics spots, they could succeed.
-
I disagree. The Honduras caravan was aptly called an invasion. It was repelled, but news reports show three more such caravans being mobilized. If they try to enter at the weak spots instead of the high-optics spots, they could succeed.
It does not help the national discourse to improperly frame the problem at hand. We are not being "invaded" by a foreign power. There is not an armed group of people seeking to enter the country and take it over. Yes, the Mexican government isn't helping the situation and is actively encouraging people to illegally cross our borders (while having strict immigration laws themselves) and no doubt there are some people that cross who are armed. But that's not the same as Mexico, or Honduras, invading the United States.
-
Maybe we are not being invaded by a foreign power. But we are most assuredly being invaded.
-
You gotta love the parsing of words. ::)
-
It does not help the national discourse to improperly frame the problem at hand. We are not being "invaded" by a foreign power. There is not an armed group of people seeking to enter the country and take it over. Yes, the Mexican government isn't helping the situation and is actively encouraging people to illegally cross our borders (while having strict immigration laws themselves) and no doubt there are some people that cross who are armed. But that's not the same as Mexico, or Honduras, invading the United States.
By leftist logic, they do not have guns, therefore they are bearing arms.
Define invasion: an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity. It does not only pertain to armies.
-
By leftist logic, they do not have guns, therefore they are bearing arms.
Define invasion: an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity. It does not only pertain to armies.
Merriam-Webster's dictionary has a different definition which includes the use of the word "army".
My point is that when the word "invasion" is used it gets people riled up into thinking that we're actually being invaded by a foreign power, which we aren't. Neither the governments of Mexico or Honduras, or any other government for that matter, is invading the United States. There is a large number of people illegally crossing our borders and we, as a nation, can't figure out how to stop that.
For those that think we're genuinely think we're being invaded, why don't we put tanks along the border? Why aren't we suspending posse comitatus? The military can't actually do much right now except observe and report to Customs and Border Patrol.
-
It does not help the national discourse to improperly frame the problem at hand. We are not being "invaded" by a foreign power. There is not an armed group of people seeking to enter the country and take it over. Yes, the Mexican government isn't helping the situation and is actively encouraging people to illegally cross our borders (while having strict immigration laws themselves) and no doubt there are some people that cross who are armed. But that's not the same as Mexico, or Honduras, invading the United States.
Technically, it's not an invasion, it's an internal coup using illegals as one of many weapons, to eliminate the opposite party. The far left has taken over the Democrat party and most institutions of learning. Now that they realize illegals and children of illegals usually vote Dem, they have changed their tune drastically (because they used to support border security), and this is the real reason they want "open borders".
-
Technically, it's not an invasion, it's an internal coup using illegals as one of many weapons, to eliminate the opposite party. The far left has taken over the Democrat party and most institutions of learning. Now that they realize illegals and children of illegals usually vote Dem, they have changed their tune drastically (because they used to support border security), and this is the real reason they want "open borders".
Let’s take it a step further. Adding thousands upon thousands of new “citizens” increases the congressional districts, therefore increasing more voting power in Congress. Also, get a state like Texas and Florida to flip blue, and that puts an end (theoretically) to ever having a conservative executive branch.
These caravans are being set up and run by alt left progressives.
-
Blah blah semantics blah blah.
Look, if you’re going to promote your country as a haven for all, provide welfare state benefits for all comers, and allow all these people to REMAIN, with the certain implication of their illicitly but in fact voting for said benefits to continue, then you are creating perverse incentive for and tacitly approving of what can only be called an invasion of a sovereign nation. It’s like the Trojan horse ... these people don’t have to jump out in a mob and use weapons on us, our screwed up virtue signalling government idiots are literally welcoming them.
Over and over the simile has been used of an immigrant or asylum seeker coming into personal homes. Do you want him to ask permission at the front door or break in the back door? If he breaks in at your back door, what is that called?
A home invasion.
-
Merriam-Webster's dictionary has a different definition which includes the use of the word "army".
Actually there are many different many definitions of the word. I copied mine verbatium from one of the internet dictionaries. It does not pertain solely to armies.
You want some others?
Dictionary.com
1) an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.
2) the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3) entrance as if to take possession or overrun:
Oxford English dictionary:
1) the act of entering a place by force, often in large numbers:
The list goes on and on.
You know what is not helpful? Is ignoring a situation while playing semantics with the words to score political points.
Nobody is suggesting putting armies on the border or suspending laws to deal with this. What we're suggesting is to build a flipping wall that can be maintained and then monitor the wall with people. When people cross the border or surrender to Border Patrol, place them in a tent city right next to the border. Take their fingerprints and other information, then process them for asylum, but be strict about it. They need to show that they cannot return home and then it needs to be investigated. Meanwhile, there's a nice tent for them to live in. When they run out of tents, we can buy fabric and put them to work making more. 90% of the people should be returned home because they don't have a legitimate need to be in the US.
Meanwhile, that will allow us to raise the limits on legal immigration, to bring in people that we want to have here, rather than just accepting whoever was strong enough to walk through the desert to get here.
Catch and release once. The second time they get caught in the US illegally, they don't go to a tent city, they go to prison. The third time, they don't come out of prison.
Hard line? Yes, but it's apparently what we have to do now to control this because the Left has been so soft in the past. Because of Obama doing things like DACA and then judges upholding it, the world thinks America is weak, has not ability to conduct foreign policy and has no stomach for unpleasantness. Totally different topic, but there was a Chinese admiral who said today that the solution to his problem of the US Navy was to sink a couple of our aircraft carriers because we would scamper away out of fear of more casualties.
We have the ability to control immigration, but we are letting 25% of the population to block implementation.
-
The only thing more electronic sensors and drones does without a wall is make it easier to send the welcome wagon, um I mean border patrol to help them out of any trouble they've gotten themselves and families into, along with transportation to a release site in the US.
Build the wall, make it easier for legal workers to cross the border, charge said workers a "border wall surcharge" in addition to any other fees and declare victory. Mexico paying for the wall in installments, it's the american way. Nobody pays up front for anything these days.
-
Merriam-Webster's dictionary has a different definition which includes the use of the word "army".
My point is that when the word "invasion" is used it gets people riled up into thinking that we're actually being invaded by a foreign power, which we aren't. Neither the governments of Mexico or Honduras, or any other government for that matter, is invading the United States. There is a large number of people illegally crossing our borders and we, as a nation, can't figure out how to stop that.
For those that think we're genuinely think we're being invaded, why don't we put tanks along the border? Why aren't we suspending posse comitatus? The military can't actually do much right now except observe and report to Customs and Border Patrol.
I hope people are getting "riled up", and yes I agree with some others that this IS an INVASION. Foreign sanctioned Army or not makes no difference. The end result are people coming here against our will, and attempting to destroy the sovereignty of the United States by foreign influence on elections, and policy. If that's not an invasion, I don't know what the HELL is.
I also agree with Rush (big surprise) that this is being enabled by an internal coup by the Democrats, and their followers. It is being promoted by most of the Media, Education, Corporate American and many in Government.
If this doesn't stop, I do think we should militarize our border with all the assets in our arsenal, and TROOPS. We have cartels invading with quasi "armies" that are armed, and coming onto U.S. soil. They need to be dealt with by extreme military force to the point they are so scared, they will not come near our border. We have become wusses. The Russians would capture some, and deliver their decapitated heads back to their leaders.
-
Sounds kind of like winning for the people, to me.
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1082032550112047104
-
Any bet Schumer and Pelosi say, no dice
-
My stepdaughter is a med student about to take her Boards in February, then on to rotations. We attended the ceremony last month for her class when they completed their classroom work. Great docs, mentors, professors, invaluable people to our country and our world, were speakers.
So when I saw a long list of Americans killed by illegals, and one of them was this doctor, I started to check it out. Every one I checked linked to a hometown newspaper article about the death.
As with the murderer of Officer Ronil Singh just after Christmas, most of these illegal perps had multiple deportations.
I don’t mind saying, it chaps my hide, and if we can’t get lefties to give up their preference for illegals over American citizens, then we have blood on our hands too for standing by quietly.
https://www.omaha.com/news/crime/saddest-day-of-my-life-at-dui-sentencing-words-of/article_c25db86e-e920-11e4-855e-7fbd45fbe7fc.html
-
Any bet Schumer and Pelosi say, no dice
They will never let Trump get what he wants even if it is good for the country. He could be rolling out a cure for cancer, and they would obstruct it.
He'd have better luck with Schumer's niece Amy, as she is almost as much a whore as her uncle. But, then again, who they hell would want to do that ugly wench.
-
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/trump-owns-schumer-one-tweet-schumer-tantrum
-
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5d643c9fd562d86eeaa4d02cb1be7bf7e3f0819e550866caf5b47ea23374fc15.jpg?w=800&h=819)
-
They will never let Trump get what he wants even if it is good for the country. He could be rolling out a cure for cancer, and they would obstruct it.
Here's a really funny thought I had - what if the president could make a secret deal with Mexico to take 10 billion in extra foreign aid, but only on the condition that they use 5 billion of it to pay for building the wall? Then he caves on the wall, ensures the 10 billion in aid is there and laughs up his sleeve when the spending bill comes to him.
The Lefties would lose their minds....
This was just after wondering whether or not mermaids have permanently wrinkled skin, because they're under water all the time. The grey matter is wandering tonight...
-
When Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall, he didn't mean they would just hand us a check for $5B. He is going to recoup the money through better trade deals, and the savings we experience from having less ILLEGALS draining our public services like welfare, healthcare, and educational resources.
-
When Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall, he didn't mean they would just hand us a check for $5B. He is going to recoup the money through better trade deals, and the savings we experience from having less ILLEGALS draining our public services like welfare, healthcare, and educational resources.
I agree with that completely. I have said so many time on this forum.
BUT WHY THE HELL DIDN'T HE SAY THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE? >:(
-
I agree with that completely. I have said so many time on this forum.
BUT WHY THE HELL DIDN'T HE SAY THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE? >:(
His EGO got in the way. It sounded better to say Mexico would pay for it without any qualifiers.
-
When Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall, he didn't mean they would just hand us a check for $5B. He is going to recoup the money through better trade deals, and the savings we experience from having less ILLEGALS draining our public services like welfare, healthcare, and educational resources.
Those on the left don't seem to be able to comprehend that or just don't want to. Was in an FB debate last night about the wall and one person said something about Mexico paying for the wall. I called her out on it. Don't know if she ever responded to it because the person that started the debate deleted the post soon after. I guess they got butthurt by having any opposition to their post.
-
I agree with that completely. I have said so many time on this forum.
BUT WHY THE HELL DIDN'T HE SAY THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE? >:(
He did, many times over, as is his loquacious style. It also was clearly outlined on his website during the campaign. It’s easy for the mainstream media to run clips over and over of the statement only.
-
Actually there are many different many definitions of the word. I copied mine verbatium from one of the internet dictionaries. It does not pertain solely to armies.
You want some others?
Dictionary.com
1) an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.
2) the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3) entrance as if to take possession or overrun:
Oxford English dictionary:
1) the act of entering a place by force, often in large numbers:
The list goes on and on.
You know what is not helpful? Is ignoring a situation while playing semantics with the words to score political points.
Words have meaning. It's not semantics when you're intentionally trying to stoke fear in people by saying that we're being invaded. This isn't toe-may-toe toe-mah-toe. It's fine to say that we have a real problem in this country, but let's be clear and honest with what it is and what it isn't.
Nobody is suggesting putting armies on the border or suspending laws to deal with this.
Really? Because Trump put the military on the border. He put the army on the border. No laws were suspended, but there are certainly troops on the border providing assistance to Border Patrol.
What we're suggesting is to build a flipping wall that can be maintained and then monitor the wall with people. When people cross the border or surrender to Border Patrol, place them in a tent city right next to the border. Take their fingerprints and other information, then process them for asylum, but be strict about it. They need to show that they cannot return home and then it needs to be investigated. Meanwhile, there's a nice tent for them to live in. When they run out of tents, we can buy fabric and put them to work making more. 90% of the people should be returned home because they don't have a legitimate need to be in the US.
Meanwhile, that will allow us to raise the limits on legal immigration, to bring in people that we want to have here, rather than just accepting whoever was strong enough to walk through the desert to get here.
If you've read my previous posts, you'll note that I am in complete agreement with the wall.
-
The only thing more electronic sensors and drones does without a wall is make it easier to send the welcome wagon, um I mean border patrol to help them out of any trouble they've gotten themselves and families into, along with transportation to a release site in the US.
Build the wall, make it easier for legal workers to cross the border, charge said workers a "border wall surcharge" in addition to any other fees and declare victory. Mexico paying for the wall in installments, it's the american way. Nobody pays up front for anything these days.
I think these two are the key points. Build the wall and then set the policy to make it easier for people to legally enter to work and provide them an incentive to go back home at night. If done correctly, border towns could actually increase economically on both sides of the border. That would require Mexico doing its part, which we can certainly influence.
-
I hope people are getting "riled up", and yes I agree with some others that this IS an INVASION. Foreign sanctioned Army or not makes no difference. The end result are people coming here against our will, and attempting to destroy the sovereignty of the United States by foreign influence on elections, and policy. If that's not an invasion, I don't know what the HELL is.
Please show me the news reports, statistics, or just any facts in general that support your argument that the people crossing the southern border are doing so with the intent of influencing elections. If you want to make an argument that the Democrats are doing that then that's fine, but each party doing what they can to influence an election (within the bounds of the law, of course) is the normal course. I disagree that this is an invasion, but I've already made that part clear.
I'm not discounting that there is a possibility of some people crossing with that intent because of how porous the border is, but I hardly think that's the majority of who's crossing. If any at all.
I also agree with Rush (big surprise) that this is being enabled by an internal coup by the Democrats, and their followers. It is being promoted by most of the Media, Education, Corporate American and many in Government.
I don't think this is a coup either, but I'm sure I'll just be told how wrong I am here shortly.
If this doesn't stop, I do think we should militarize our border with all the assets in our arsenal, and TROOPS. We have cartels invading with quasi "armies" that are armed, and coming onto U.S. soil. They need to be dealt with by extreme military force to the point they are so scared, they will not come near our border. We have become wusses. The Russians would capture some, and deliver their decapitated heads back to their leaders.
Are you suggesting that our law enforcement is so incompetent and incapable of dealing with these massive amounts of drug cartels crossing the border and destroying everything that we need the military? So much so that you're in favor of suspending laws and using lethal force by the military on U.S. soil? I guess since you think it's an invasion and a coup, that would make sense.
Also, we aren't the Russians. We're better than that.
-
Sounds kind of like winning for the people, to me.
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1082032550112047104
Winning sounds like the Vice President meeting with Congressional aides? We're moving from a wall to a steel slatted fence. This sounds like a compromise from the president, which is fine if it actually works and achieves the goal.
-
Please show me the news reports, statistics, or just any facts in general that support your argument that the people crossing the southern border are doing so with the intent of influencing elections. If you want to make an argument that the Democrats are doing that then that's fine, but each party doing what they can to influence an election (within the bounds of the law, of course) is the normal course. I disagree that this is an invasion, but I've already made that part clear.
I don't think this is a coup either, but I'm sure I'll just be told how wrong I am here shortly.
Are you suggesting that our law enforcement is so incompetent and incapable of dealing with these massive amounts of drug cartels crossing the border and destroying everything that we need the military? So much so that you're in favor of suspending laws and using lethal force by the military on U.S. soil? I guess since you think it's an invasion and a coup, that would make sense.
Also, we aren't the Russians. We're better than that.
This mostly sounds like pablum and capitulation.
A Border is a THING.
Crossing the border illegally is a CRIME.
There is an actual cost to supporting illegal aliens and as in cal-i-mex-i-fornication, they are used to overwhelm the system and sway elections, whether your poor, suffering ego likes it, or not.
-
This mostly sounds like pablum and capitulation.
A Border is a THING.
Crossing the border illegally is a CRIME.
There is an actual cost to supporting illegal aliens and as in cal-i-mex-i-fornication, they are used to overwhelm the system and sway elections, whether your poor, suffering ego likes it, or not.
I'll wait for Anthony to provide the facts and statistics, because I know you won't (or can't). Thanks for clarifying that the border is a noun, though.
His argument is that people crossing the border are doing so with the intent to sway elections and I asked for him to support his argument. All you did was try and dismiss me without actually refuting it.
-
Winning sounds like the Vice President meeting with Congressional aides? We're moving from a wall to a steel slatted fence. This sounds like a compromise from the president, which is fine if it actually works and achieves the goal.
To me, that is winning. The alternative is to cave to Dems as has been the SOP of Repubs for decades, which gives Dems their open borders and vast numbers of dependent illegals.
-
To me, that is winning. The alternative is to cave to Dems as has been the SOP of Repubs for decades, which gives Dems their open borders and vast numbers of dependent illegals.
You don't see winning as the president holding his ground and forcing the Democrats to look even worse on border security than they already do? They control the House, not the entire government. I think this is a win for Republicans if they hold their position. I'm not opposed to compromises as that's usually the best way to get things done, so this may be a suitable compromise. I also think this is a winning issue for Republicans and they have the leverage here.
-
Why do the Democrats, Media, Education, and most of Corporate America want Amnesty which is essentially Open Borders as it incentivizes illegal entry into the U.S.? Why are they so hell bent on this happening if they didn't think the demographic shift couldn't help them win more elections, and install FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMATION? Hillary was supposed to continue what Obama started along the lines of what their foreign, and domestic string pullers want.
-
I'll wait for Anthony to provide the facts and statistics, because I know you won't (or can't). Thanks for clarifying that the border is a noun, though.
His argument is that people crossing the border are doing so with the intent to sway elections and I asked for him to support his argument. All you did was try and dismiss me without actually refuting it.
Maybe.... that is because your argument is bullshit and designed to turn away from the problem by pretending semantics is more important than reality.
Really, fella, you're not all that good at hijacking the topic to avoid dealing with the truth. You just think you are.
-
I'll wait for Anthony to provide the facts and statistics, because I know you won't (or can't). Thanks for clarifying that the border is a noun, though.
His argument is that people crossing the border are doing so with the intent to sway elections and I asked for him to support his argument. All you did was try and dismiss me without actually refuting it.
Do you recall the well funded and highly publicized caravan, equipped with cell phones and expensive travel gear, from Honduras? Their intent was to breach the border and flood into the United States to take up residency, expecting from historical experience that to do so is entirely possible. Undoubtedly their backers spread the word all along the line that their long journey would be fruitful. But Trump has changed the narrative. Remember when the caravan “demanded” that President Trump pay each of them $50k to return to Honduras?
You are correct that Dems approve of illegal entry, and certainly it can be no great leap from there to the understanding that exists among those coming and already here illegally who wish to stay, that voting Democrat will keep them fed, housed, and HERE.
People say, “But they can’t vote.” But they do. A number of articles have been linked here about that very thing. And my governor, who wants to be the Dem nominee in 2020, decreed that illegals be registered to vote at the time they receive a drivers license. Why are illegals getting EITHER of those things?
Because they know, and we know, and the daily news bears out, that Dems are the sanctuary party. Hence, people come here illegally, undoubtedly many of the more savvy with direct intent to keep that train of $150 billion in aid to illegals a-rolling along.
-
You don't see winning as the president holding his ground and forcing the Democrats to look even worse on border security than they already do? They control the House, not the entire government. I think this is a win for Republicans if they hold their position. I'm not opposed to compromises as that's usually the best way to get things done, so this may be a suitable compromise. I also think this is a winning issue for Republicans and they have the leverage here.
The goal is an effective barrier. I’m all for letting the Dems look like they care more about illegals than citizens, but for President Trump to refuse an effective barrier would make him seem worse than them.
-
You don't see winning as the president holding his ground and forcing the Democrats to look even worse on border security than they already do? They control the House, not the entire government. I think this is a win for Republicans if they hold their position. I'm not opposed to compromises as that's usually the best way to get things done, so this may be a suitable compromise. I also think this is a winning issue for Republicans and they have the leverage here.
“Winning issue for the republicans”??? Seriously???
Are we talking the republicans that sat on their asses for two years under the leadership of Ryan and McConnell and did........nothing.
They had the house, the senate, and the WH. They could have easily taken care of this. But Ryan and McConnell kept kicking the can down the road, and then, in the waning days of 2018 decided a half hearted attempt to do something.
“Winning for the republicans” my ass!
-
“Winning issue for the republicans”??? Seriously???
Are we talking the republicans that sat on their asses for two years under the leadership of Ryan and McConnell and did........nothing.
They had the house, the senate, and the WH. They could have easily taken care of this. But Ryan and McConnell kept kicking the can down the road, and then, in the waning days of 2018 decided a half hearted attempt to do something.
“Winning for the republicans” my ass!
Trump is here to demolish the Uniparty. I hope he can do it.
-
Merriam-Webster's dictionary has a different definition which includes the use of the word "army".
My point is that when the word "invasion" is used it gets people riled up into thinking that we're actually being invaded by a foreign power, which we aren't. Neither the governments of Mexico or Honduras, or any other government for that matter, is invading the United States. There is a large number of people illegally crossing our borders and we, as a nation, can't figure out how to stop that.
For those that think we're genuinely think we're being invaded, why don't we put tanks along the border? Why aren't we suspending posse comitatus? The military can't actually do much right now except observe and report to Customs and Border Patrol.
Do you make it a habit to exclude exculpatory information?
Here’s a dictionary definition.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/invasion
We most certainly are being invaded in 2 out of those 3 definitions. “Foreign power” is YOUR argument, and completely irrelevant.
-
If a dictionary lists multiple definitions for a word, you don't have to meet all the definitions to claim legitimacy. You can meet any one of the definitions.
-
I'll wait for Anthony to provide the facts and statistics, because I know you won't (or can't). Thanks for clarifying that the border is a noun, though.
His argument is that people crossing the border are doing so with the intent to sway elections and I asked for him to support his argument. All you did was try and dismiss me without actually refuting it.
Neither Anthony nor I have said the illegals are crossing the border with the intent of voting Democrat and swaying elections. I'm sure the typical illegal has the intent of simply trying to improve their life. It's the Dems in the U.S. who have the intent to sway elections by encouraging illegals to cross the border.
-
I'll wait for Anthony to provide the facts and statistics, because I know you won't (or can't). Thanks for clarifying that the border is a noun, though.
His argument is that people crossing the border are doing so with the intent to sway elections and I asked for him to support his argument. All you did was try and dismiss me without actually refuting it.
Well fortunately, it is easy to surmise that if people come here ILLEGALLY, are poor, and need assistance they are coming here to siphon off benefits like healthcare, welfare, and education. Of course they will be Democrat voters as the popular perception is that the Democrats promote all that, and they actually do. As they are ILLEGAL, and steal INDENTITIES, also illegally, it is difficult to track what they actually do.
The Democrats are promoting Open Borders/Amnesty because they know these illegal aliens can, and will vote illegally, and will always vote Democrat for MORE FREE STUFF, and promote their illegal entry, and their friends, and relatives illegal entry, and illegal use of BENEFITS. The Democrats view ILLEGALS as a huge voting block with the intent of swaying elections for eventual ONE PARTY DEMOCRAT RULE.
-
The goal is an effective barrier. I’m all for letting the Dems look like they care more about illegals than citizens, but for President Trump to refuse an effective barrier would make him seem worse than them.
Democrats aren't offering a barrier, a wall, or anything of the sort that I've seen thus far. If Trump gives in to generic "border security" and doesn't get specific funding for the wall (his term), or a barrier, then he loses on this issue.
-
Do you make it a habit to exclude exculpatory information?
Here’s a dictionary definition.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/invasion
We most certainly are being invaded in 2 out of those 3 definitions. “Foreign power” is YOUR argument, and completely irrelevant.
It's disconcerting that instead of discussing how we can fix the problem, we're squabbling over the definition of the problem. I stand by my argument that using the word "invasion" is meant to rally the base and strike fear that we must do something to stop "them" and then we throw all kinds of stuff into the mix to heighten the crisis.
I would be curious if there's some sort of regulation that Trump direct be changed that make it easier for work visas that wouldn't require Congressional approval. That wouldn't substitute the need for a wall by any means, but it's certainly something he could do to start making an impact in other ways.
-
If a dictionary lists multiple definitions for a word, you don't have to meet all the definitions to claim legitimacy. You can meet any one of the definitions.
I guess we're all correct then.
-
Neither Anthony nor I have said the illegals are crossing the border with the intent of voting Democrat and swaying elections.
Anthony did:
I hope people are getting "riled up", and yes I agree with some others that this IS an INVASION. Foreign sanctioned Army or not makes no difference. The end result are people coming here against our will, and attempting to destroy the sovereignty of the United States by foreign influence on elections, and policy. If that's not an invasion, I don't know what the HELL is.
Emphasis mine.
I'm sure the typical illegal has the intent of simply trying to improve their life. It's the Dems in the U.S. who have the intent to sway elections by encouraging illegals to cross the border.
This is essentially what I said in an earlier post, but most people here are too busy attacking me to realize I'm actually on the same side.
-
I guess we're all correct then.
No, you're wrong. It IS an invasion as it meets the definition. You're assertion that any invasion has to be about a foreign Armed force is ridiculous. We have millions of people who have come here illegally including criminals, potential terrorists, drug dealers, Cartel members, and other undesirables. To try to make it seem less of a critical emergency by denying it is an "invasion" is irresponsible, and just inaccurate.
-
Well fortunately, it is easy to surmise that if people come here ILLEGALLY, are poor, and need assistance they are coming here to siphon off benefits like healthcare, welfare, and education. Of course they will be Democrat voters as the popular perception is that the Democrats promote all that, and they actually do. As they are ILLEGAL, and steal INDENTITIES, also illegally, it is difficult to track what they actually do.
You're indicting an entire group of people with statements like this, thereby discounting the possibility that some or any of them are coming here to find work and find a better life.
I don't dispute that there are some, many (I don't know the number) that come here because they can get the benefits and essentially act with impunity. Actually, I think that would be an interesting statistic to know. What percentage of the illegals that come here are committing crimes, receiving benefits, or are just here to work and provide for their families? Information like that could be turned into useful policy decisions.
The Democrats are promoting Open Borders/Amnesty because they know these illegal aliens can, and will vote illegally, and will always vote Democrat for MORE FREE STUFF, and promote their illegal entry, and their friends, and relatives illegal entry, and illegal use of BENEFITS. The Democrats view ILLEGALS as a huge voting block with the intent of swaying elections for eventual ONE PARTY DEMOCRAT RULE.
You really like capitalizing a lot of words. :)
-
^^^^You like making excuses.
-
No, you're wrong. It IS an invasion as it meets the definition. You're assertion that any invasion has to be about a foreign Armed force is ridiculous. We have millions of people who have come here illegally including criminals, potential terrorists, drug dealers, Cartel members, and other undesirables. To try to make it seem less of a critical emergency by denying it is an "invasion" is irresponsible, and just inaccurate.
Then I guess Little Joe is wrong, too:
If a dictionary lists multiple definitions for a word, you don't have to meet all the definitions to claim legitimacy. You can meet any one of the definitions.
How many of those that come here are criminals, potential terrorists, drug dealers, cartel members, and other undesirables? To try and make it seem like more of a critical emergency by injecting potentially incorrect facts to support your position means you're playing politics.
In a serious question, however, what changed and when? In other words, why is it now reached critical mass? What trigger was met that put it into the "national emergency" category, as opposed to when it was Bush or Obama?
-
^^^^You like making excuses.
Excuses for what? Because all you did was throw something out there to dismiss me.
-
It's disconcerting that instead of discussing how we can fix the problem, we're squabbling over the definition of the problem. I stand by my argument that using the word "invasion" is meant to rally the base and strike fear that we must do something to stop "them" and then we throw all kinds of stuff into the mix to heighten the crisis.
I would be curious if there's some sort of regulation that Trump direct be changed that make it easier for work visas that wouldn't require Congressional approval. That wouldn't substitute the need for a wall by any means, but it's certainly something he could do to start making an impact in other ways.
Oh for the love of God. YOU are the one challenging what Trump and many of us are calling it. Now it’s disconcerting to you that we’re squabbling over the definition, or challenging your narrow definition of what is and what is not an invasion?
Had you not wanted to play semantics, we actually would be talking about how we can fix the problem.
Smh.
-
You're indicting an entire group of people with statements like this, thereby discounting the possibility that some or any of them are coming here to find work and find a better life.
I don't dispute that there are some, many (I don't know the number) that come here because they can get the benefits and essentially act with impunity. Actually, I think that would be an interesting statistic to know. What percentage of the illegals that come here are committing crimes, receiving benefits, or are just here to work and provide for their families? Information like that could be turned into useful policy decisions.
You really like capitalizing a lot of words. :)
So let’s presume for this argument that 100% of the invaders are just here to find work and a better life, and in doing so are foregoing the legal ways to get into the country and are instead choosing the illegal route. Does that actually change the fact that we should be denying these people illegal entry into the US?
-
Oh for the love of God. YOU are the one challenging what Trump and many of us are calling it. Now it’s disconcerting to you that we’re squabbling over the definition, or challenging your narrow definition of what is and what is not an invasion?
Had you not wanted to play semantics, we actually would be talking about how we can fix the problem.
Smh.
I am challenging the notion that it's an invasion because of the explicit emotions that word is intended to tap into. I am disconcerted that despite the fact that I am actually in agreement with the wall, but happen to disagree on the characterization of the problem, that I am somehow the one playing semantics, preventing a discussion on how to fix the problem.
I'd like someone to quote my post where I've said I'm against the wall, I'm against the president's immigration policy positions, or against the idea of securing the border and putting into place economic reforms that will, in conjunction with the wall, enhance our economy and secure our borders.
-
So let’s presume for this argument that 100% of the invaders are just here to find work and a better life, and in doing so are foregoing the legal ways to get into the country and are instead choosing the illegal route. Does that actually change the fact that we should be denying these people illegal entry into the US?
I would think it would shape the policies we put into place. Of course we should still deny them entry unless they do it the correct way. Once again, please quote my post where I've said otherwise.
If it were proven that 100% of the people were just trying to find work (and we all know that's not true, it's just your example), then that would, I think, lead us to want to implement a better system for obtaining work visas. Make it easier for them to enter for work and return at the end of whatever their work visa period is. It's not that simple, though. Mexico has to play a role in this. We also need to enforce the laws on the books, or change them appropriately, to make it painful if you overstay your visa. It should be clear that we welcome those who want to work and contribute to our society, but taxes will be paid, and if you take advantage of our hospitality and generosity, you aren't welcome back. Throw in some sort of work credit system that earns them points towards getting a green card or citizenship to sweeten the deal once they demonstrate they can follow the rules and have done so for a certain time period.
-
How many decades have we sat back and accepted people coming here illegally, draining our resources to the tune of potentially trillions of dollars, and also accepted the additional safety and security risks?
It is time to become motivated to do something about illegal aliens, and if the word "invasion" helps to motivate people to support more border security, I am all for it. The word accurately describes what is happening, and instead of semantics we should be talking about strategy.
-
Then I guess Little Joe is wrong, too:
How many of those that come here are criminals, potential terrorists, drug dealers, cartel members, and other undesirables? To try and make it seem like more of a critical emergency by injecting potentially incorrect facts to support your position means you're playing politics.
In a serious question, however, what changed and when? In other words, why is it now reached critical mass? What trigger was met that put it into the "national emergency" category, as opposed to when it was Bush or Obama?
I’m sure the President will have some stats tonight. This is coming to head now for several reasons. Borders are very inconvenient for globalists. Trump is a threat to globalists because he is leveling trade playing fields and focusing on Americans, which boosts growth of the middle class. A strong middle class pushes upward and becomes a threat to elites. Dems have vote farmed illegals for decades and don’t want to stop doing so despite giving border control lip service for appearances.
People are waking up to the fact that people in their local communities are being killed by illegals. They’re putting two and two together ... if policies were enforced, that American citizen would still be alive. All these reasons are easily verified. I posted earlier about a doctor killed by a drunk illegal, Officer Ronil Singh was killed by an illegal, Sabine Durden is a mom whose son was killed by an illegal, and on and on. A fire chief’s son was recently killed by an illegal. Thanks to the internet and a number of still-honest local newspapers, people are catching on. They don’t really care what you call this situation, but they know it should not exist.
-
I would think it would shape the policies we put into place. Of course we should still deny them entry unless they do it the correct way. Once again, please quote my post where I've said otherwise.
If it were proven that 100% of the people were just trying to find work (and we all know that's not true, it's just your example), then that would, I think, lead us to want to implement a better system for obtaining work visas. Make it easier for them to enter for work and return at the end of whatever their work visa period is. It's not that simple, though. Mexico has to play a role in this. We also need to enforce the laws on the books, or change them appropriately, to make it painful if you overstay your visa. It should be clear that we welcome those who want to work and contribute to our society, but taxes will be paid, and if you take advantage of our hospitality and generosity, you aren't welcome back. Throw in some sort of work credit system that earns them points towards getting a green card or citizenship to sweeten the deal once they demonstrate they can follow the rules and have done so for a certain time period.
Of course. President Trump has tried many things over the past two years to achieve this. He even offered amnesty at one point (angering much of his base) to get future controls in place that are more robust. All rejected by Dems.
-
Then I guess Little Joe is wrong, too:
No. You were right when you said that one definition of an invasion specifies a foreign power.
But we were right when we said that an invasion can be absent a foreign power.
You were wrong when you said we were wrong.
-
Even if Trump caved on the wall in lieu of more conventional border security and enforcement, I would still consider it a win. But a wall would be a more cost efficient method, or at least it would make the traditional border security more efficient.
The problem with loosening up the work visa program is that we don't even enforce that. Someone comes in on a work visa; overstays their permit, and we generally do nothing.
On the other hand, we allow foreigners to come in on a student visa; gain a good US education, then we don't allow them to stay. Those college graduates are the ones we should be begging to stay.
I don't care how many foreign immigrants we allow in. But every damn one of them should be registered, tracked, pay all legal taxes and obey all laws. And go home when their visa expires unless they take the steps to gain permanent legal status.
-
I would think it would shape the policies we put into place. Of course we should still deny them entry unless they do it the correct way. Once again, please quote my post where I've said otherwise.
If it were proven that 100% of the people were just trying to find work (and we all know that's not true, it's just your example), then that would, I think, lead us to want to implement a better system for obtaining work visas. Make it easier for them to enter for work and return at the end of whatever their work visa period is. It's not that simple, though. Mexico has to play a role in this. We also need to enforce the laws on the books, or change them appropriately, to make it painful if you overstay your visa. It should be clear that we welcome those who want to work and contribute to our society, but taxes will be paid, and if you take advantage of our hospitality and generosity, you aren't welcome back. Throw in some sort of work credit system that earns them points towards getting a green card or citizenship to sweeten the deal once they demonstrate they can follow the rules and have done so for a certain time period.
In post #213, you chided Anthony for indicting a whole group of people, and questioned what percentage of them are criminals or just want to get benefits. So clearly it seems to me that the intention of the invaders matters to you.
I’m saying it should NOT matter, when the question of the day is the wall.
All of the things you mentioned have been available to Congress for decades, and Congress R+D has completely and utterly failed the American people to fix this mess.
So Donald Trump comes into town, sees the dysfunction, and decides to follow the will of the people to build a wall (or fence or whatever.) it is completely and utterly irrelevant what semantics Trump uses to describe it. An invasion is not false. A crisis is not false. An emergency is not false.
In another post you asked what changed to make this become a crisis. The difference is instead of small groups of people being led by coyotes, bands of 15,000 or more (think capacity of Madison Square Garden for a Rangers game) at a crack have been traversing Central America with the express and blatant intention of bypassing our laws in order to force their way into this country.
That is unprecedented, and that must stop.
-
I am challenging the notion that it's an invasion because of the explicit emotions that word is intended to tap into. I am disconcerted that despite the fact that I am actually in agreement with the wall, but happen to disagree on the characterization of the problem, that I am somehow the one playing semantics, preventing a discussion on how to fix the problem.
I'd like someone to quote my post where I've said I'm against the wall, I'm against the president's immigration policy positions, or against the idea of securing the border and putting into place economic reforms that will, in conjunction with the wall, enhance our economy and secure our borders.
Apparently we now need to evoke those emotions because we've not been able to secure the border otherwise. If you are for a wall and securing the border, how do you propose it get done without somehow getting support for it?
-
A few years ago the Mexican government did print fliers to tell their citizens how to cross our border. If a foreign government is complicit in allowing it's citizens to break our laws, we need to close the border with that country.
-
I'd like someone to quote my post where I've said I'm against the wall, I'm against the president's immigration policy positions, or against the idea of securing the border and putting into place economic reforms that will, in conjunction with the wall, enhance our economy and secure our borders.
It was probably implied when you wanted to argue about the definition of the word invasion rather than figure out a solution to the problem. The intention of the caravan is to overrun border patrol and show that the United State border is not secure. Thankfully they chose to do it in Tijuana where there is a wall and that wall stopped them. Proof that walls work, that caravan is camped in Tijuana, not San Diego.
I don't know how I can get done anything on this problem. But I know what the solution should look like. Democrats don't want a solution, they want to perpetuate the problem because they think it gives them political power. Maybe that's the answer, remove their political power?
-
I am challenging the notion that it's an invasion because of the explicit emotions that word is intended to tap into.
Very well. Invasion is a loaded word. How about we need a wall to prevent foreign incursion?
-
Once the wall is complete and assuming it is 100% effective, it will only reduce the flow of illegal aliens by about 33%. That is because about 67% of all illegals arrived legally and overstayed their visas.
-
Once the wall is complete and assuming it is 100% effective, it will only reduce the flow of illegal aliens by about 33%. That is because about 67% of all illegals arrived legally and overstayed their visas.
Whatever Jim.
To fix this problem has to start somewhere. Right now we have a huge problem on the southern border, and it's a bit more than illegal immigration.
-
All the democrat (communists) apologists are doing their level best to hijack the debate to ignore the problem by making it about the difference between invasion and incursion.
That type of bullshit is the liberal mindset through and through.
-
For my liberal friends, how many illegals should be allowed to slip into the country every year?
-
All the democrat (communists) apologists are doing their level best to hijack the debate to ignore the problem by making it about the difference between invasion and incursion.
Not at all. Semantics are an important part of the debate. The issue at hand is that all illegal entry into this country should be stopped. Everyone in the country illegally should be removed. Whether invasion or incursion or happy silly bunny tripping across the border, if it's not legal it should be prevented. By any means.
That type of bullshit is the liberal mindset through and through.
Agreed. Words are important to frame the context of the debate. But avoiding the true debate by arguing about the words is bullshit. But the context determines the means of enforcement. Invasion is met by military means. As is incursion. Less than that by law enforcement. There can be no doubt that it must be stopped.
-
Yet refusing to debate (as certain posters love to do) and using semantics as the excuse, is nothing but cowardice and proof that the leftist position is without sufficient depth to stand up to the facts.
-
Once the wall is complete and assuming it is 100% effective, it will only reduce the flow of illegal aliens by about 33%. That is because about 67% of all illegals arrived legally and overstayed their visas.
So, they are criminals and should be punished.
How is it that Democrats think it is impossible to track 40 million illegal aliens, but somehow think they'll be able track 320 million guns?
-
So, they are criminals and should be punished.
How is it that Democrats think it is impossible to track 40 million illegal aliens, but somehow think they'll be able track 320 million guns?
Because the vast majority of guns are in the possession of law abiding citizens. Willing sheep are much easier to herd.
-
How is it that Democrats think it is impossible to track 40 million illegal aliens, but somehow think they'll be able track 320 million guns?
I've seen estimates from government sources for number of illegal aliens at around 11 million while a Yale/MIT study said it was more likely around 22 million due to alleged problems with government methodology. Whence comes the 40 million number?
As to what Democrats think - there doesn't appear to be much deep thinking going on among them, to put it kindly.
-
Once the wall is complete and assuming it is 100% effective, it will only reduce the flow of illegal aliens by about 33%. That is because about 67% of all illegals arrived legally and overstayed their visas.
even if it was as you claim (which I doubt very seriously) that would cut expense to the taxpayers (People who actually work and pay taxes, as opposed to government employees, professional parasites and other forms of vermin) by billions of dollars a year.
-
Whence comes the 40 million number?
40 million comes from a democrat study about 5 years ago. I was being sarcastic with it.
DHS says about 12 million and the number is higher than it has ever been.
-
even if it was as you claim (which I doubt very seriously) that would cut expense to the taxpayers (People who actually work and pay taxes, as opposed to government employees, professional parasites and other forms of vermin) by billions of dollars a year.
It would also help save the lives of border patrol agents, and the lives and property of the border property owners, many of whom’s property has been rendered uninhabitable because of the waste, violence, and property damage at the hands of these illegal aliens.
-
Did you catch when the President said we’re running out of room? Three hots and a cot in a federal detention center is paradise compared to where many of these people are coming from. The question arises again, how many people coming in do Dems think is enough?
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1083099784012091396
-
Did you catch when the President said we’re running out of room? Three hots and a cot in a federal detention center is paradise compared to where many of these people are coming from. The question arises again, how many people coming in do Dems think is enough?
Easy to solve - buys some fabric and sewing machines and they can build more tents. Good, simple solution.
I vote for putting these tent cities on the border, with a view of free Mexico on the other side of the fence. Install a one way door, the people can leave any time they want. If they ever come back, they go to prison.
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1083099784012091396 (https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1083099784012091396)
s
It should be obvious, at this point, that is just hatred of Trump.
Another thought is, they voted for money in the past because they knew it would never be spent on a wall because they were all politicians, Trump is not a politician and will actually see that it gets built.
It would be one more Trump win.
-
Sounds like he’s in for the long haul.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1083152683760906240
-
In post #213, you chided Anthony for indicting a whole group of people, and questioned what percentage of them are criminals or just want to get benefits. So clearly it seems to me that the intention of the invaders matters to you.
Not at all. My wanting to know the reasons for them coming here is to help focus policy decisions and legal frameworks to more accurately target the problem. That doesn't mean that A.) they should come here illegally, B.) that we should let them, or C.) that we shouldn't build a wall.
So Donald Trump comes into town, sees the dysfunction, and decides to follow the will of the people to build a wall (or fence or whatever.) it is completely and utterly irrelevant what semantics Trump uses to describe it. An invasion is not false. A crisis is not false. An emergency is not false.
I disagree that the words used don't matter. I agree, however, that there is clearly a problem and a wall is an appropriate solution.
In another post you asked what changed to make this become a crisis. The difference is instead of small groups of people being led by coyotes, bands of 15,000 or more (think capacity of Madison Square Garden for a Rangers game) at a crack have been traversing Central America with the express and blatant intention of bypassing our laws in order to force their way into this country.
That is unprecedented, and that must stop.
How many caravans have there been, and out of the caravans, how many of those people have gotten into the country? I ask because, while I agree that the caravans are certainly a problem and pose a security, safety, and health risk, I also think that they're largely political with how well organized they've been. Reporters embedding with them as they make their way, funding being sent to them, it all sounds very organized.
Since I have to start being explicitly clear lest I'm accused of being anti-wall, whatever the reasons or the intentions of the caravan, they shouldn't be allowed in.
-
It was probably implied when you wanted to argue about the definition of the word invasion rather than figure out a solution to the problem.
Please quote my post where I've said that I'm against it. I'm waiting. I've been very clear that I support the wall and border security, but I've taken issue with how the problem has been framed. I think it's important, but clearly others disagree, and that's fine.
-
All the democrat (communists) apologists are doing their level best to hijack the debate to ignore the problem by making it about the difference between invasion and incursion.
That type of bullshit is the liberal mindset through and through.
I'm a Democratic apologist who is hijacking the debate and have a liberal mindset. Right.
-
For my liberal friends, how many illegals should be allowed to slip into the country every year?
We don't have many liberals on here anymore. Most have been run off. Except me. I'm apparently a liberal now, at least according to Number7. ;D
-
We don't have many liberals on here anymore. Most have been run off. Except me. I'm apparently a liberal now, at least according to Number7. ;D
I don't think the Liberals (Progressives) have been "run off". I think they just can't defend their positions, don't have a bunch of other liberals parroting their emotional based lies, so feel outnumbered. Nobody forced them to leave.
-
Not at all. Semantics are an important part of the debate. The issue at hand is that all illegal entry into this country should be stopped. Everyone in the country illegally should be removed. Whether invasion or incursion or happy silly bunny tripping across the border, if it's not legal it should be prevented. By any means.
I'm in complete agreement with most of this (not so much the "by any means" part without clarification).
Agreed. Words are important to frame the context of the debate. But avoiding the true debate by arguing about the words is bullshit. But the context determines the means of enforcement. Invasion is met by military means. As is incursion. Less than that by law enforcement. There can be no doubt that it must be stopped.
I'm not sure if the part about avoiding true debate is directed at me, but I'm not avoiding debate. I'm singling out one part I have an issue with while continuing on with the rest of the issues.
-
Yet refusing to debate (as certain posters love to do) and using semantics as the excuse, is nothing but cowardice and proof that the leftist position is without sufficient depth to stand up to the facts.
Who is refusing to debate? If you say it's me, please quote my post where I'm refusing to debate. While you're at it, please quote my posts where I'm taking a leftist position.
-
Easy to solve - buys some fabric and sewing machines and they can build more tents. Good, simple solution.
I vote for putting these tent cities on the border, with a view of free Mexico on the other side of the fence. Install a one way door, the people can leave any time they want. If they ever come back, they go to prison.
I don't disagree with prison in general, but one issue I have is that one of the many reasons illegals are a problem is because of the strain on public resources that taxpayers are paying for that illegals are not. We don't want them here using our resources which costs money, yet you're suggesting (as are others) that we imprison them, which costs money. Prisons will fill up quickly if we start putting every illegal who is a repeat offender in prison for whatever period of time it is, and the costs will continue to rise because we have to house, feed, and care for them. Is there a better way to solve this?
-
I don't think the Liberals (Progressives) have been "run off". I think they just can't defend their positions, don't have a bunch of other liberals parroting their emotional based lies, so feel outnumbered. Nobody forced them to leave.
True, nobody forced them to leave. But they way they're treated around here by some isn't exactly welcoming. Look at some of the posts directed towards me, and I'm a conservative.
-
True, nobody forced them to leave. But they way they're treated around here by some isn't exactly welcoming. Look at some of the posts directed towards me, and I'm a conservative.
We've even had folks clearly NOT liberal run off this board. The suggestion that they all leave because they're unable to defend their positions is ludicrous.
-
I don't disagree with prison in general, but one issue I have is that one of the many reasons illegals are a problem is because of the strain on public resources that taxpayers are paying for that illegals are not. We don't want them here using our resources which costs money, yet you're suggesting (as are others) that we imprison them, which costs money. Prisons will fill up quickly if we start putting every illegal who is a repeat offender in prison for whatever period of time it is, and the costs will continue to rise because we have to house, feed, and care for them. Is there a better way to solve this?
Much of the curiosity you have about the caravans and solutions to the United States’ immigration problems can be satisfied by searching articles about Pueblos sin Fronteras, the Homeland Security Facebook page and website, and other sites easily found online. I would also point you to the President’s speech Tuesday night; transcripts and video are online. ICE has a very thorough website.
Here’s an article of possible interest.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/world-2018-12-23-group-that-escorts-migrant-caravans-draws-more-scrutiny-html
Borders are very inconvenient for globalists, and it should be a giant red flag that so much video and written affirmation of leftist (and some rightist) political leaders statements that we need strong borders is widely available, yet there are strangely few to no actual efforts by them to make it so. Trump is the first powerful person in decades to actually approach the issue with clear intent to act robustly on it. He stated many times to the American people during his campaign, “I have no special interests but you.”
Closing the border entirely is certainly an option, until the problem can become manageable, and has been proposed by the President. Rather than imprisoning, sending offenders back to their own country should definitely be the first step.
This horrible situation is a classic case of the maxim that it’s better to maintain than salvage. Generations of illegals are entrenched here now and are probably among your friends, neighbors and coworkers. We ALL did them no service whatsoever in grinning, winking and feeling all virtuous because we didn’t call them on it or report them. You certainly wouldn’t look the other way if you saw one of your kids shoplifting. I know, it hurts, and we’re supposed to be kind and Christian. But even Christ admonished us to obey the laws of the government.
-
We don't have many liberals on here anymore. Most hjave been run off. Except me. I'm apparently a liberal now, at least according to Number7. ;D
I defy you to copy and paste a post from any of the contributors here that have been “run off” by posting their views. Yes, they have been challenged, but it is the liberals who only want everyone to tow their line and not debate them.
-
We've even had folks clearly NOT liberal run off this board. The suggestion that they all leave because they're unable to defend their positions is ludicrous.
Same for you. Show the post where anyone has been told to leave the board.
-
I'm apparently a liberal now, at least according to Number7. ;D
Yes, well consider the source. Ronald Reagan would be a lefty pinko commie for him given some of Reagan's views.
Don't worry about anyone complaining about what you have to say. The debate is healthy.
-
Same for you. Show the post where anyone has been told to leave the board.
I guess the butt hurt, feelings brigade is feeling unappreciated today...
Man up for crying out loud. If you need cuddled and comforted, go to Harvard. They have puppies and kittens, crayons and play-doh, as well as hug rooms for whining wimps.
-
I guess the butt hurt, feelings brigade is feeling unappreciated today...
No one has ever been told to leave this board. We’ve had our share of “drive by” posters who throw out some inane posting then flee when confronted. We’ve had others that left because they couldn’t accept others had differing opinions.
-
I don't disagree with prison in general, but one issue I have is that one of the many reasons illegals are a problem is because of the strain on public resources that taxpayers are paying for that illegals are not. We don't want them here using our resources which costs money, yet you're suggesting (as are others) that we imprison them, which costs money. Prisons will fill up quickly if we start putting every illegal who is a repeat offender in prison for whatever period of time it is, and the costs will continue to rise because we have to house, feed, and care for them. Is there a better way to solve this?
Yes, put them in prison and count on the word getting out that you don't want to mess with US immigration. It's an investment in the future. Ok, maybe don't keep them there forever, but keep them there long enough that they regret coming into the US.
It's one part. Like the wall, it isn't a single source panacea. We need the wall plus monitoring plus enforcement plus punishment plus complete non-support of illegal aliens while they're here. Ultimately you control immigration by making the illegal immigrants police themselves and want to go home. Make the US more unpleasant for an illegal alien than their home country is.
That looks like tent cities. That looks like punishment when someone hires them, so nobody will hire illegal aliens.
Meanwhile, open the front door wider.
-
No one has ever been told to leave this board. We’ve had our share of “drive by” posters who throw out some inane posting then flee when confronted. We’ve had others that left because they couldn’t accept others had differing opinions.
It is so modern liberal for grown men to whine like four year old, spoiled brats, because they didn't have their opinions lauded and celebrated. God forbid someone actually challenge a left leaning twit. They behave like violent criminals sometimes because people actually refuse to hold opinions given by communists (they call themselves democrats these days).
Other than the few who disappeared RIGHT AFTER Donald Trump won the Presidency in a landslide, who ran off because their whittle feewings were hurted???
-
Once the wall is complete and assuming it is 100% effective, it will only reduce the flow of illegal aliens by about 33%. That is because about 67% of all illegals arrived legally and overstayed their visas.
At least the visa overstay folks were vetted prior to entry and entered the US thru a port of entry.
-
We've even had folks clearly NOT liberal run off this board. The suggestion that they all leave because they're unable to defend their positions is ludicrous.
So, how do you "run off" someone? I have experienced extremely rude comments here, and elsewhere, yet I didn't feel the need to leave anyplace for those reasons. Nobody forces someone to read a post, or take one seriously, nor personally. It is a choice to be "offended".
-
So, how do you "run off" someone? I have experienced extremely rude comments here, and elsewhere, yet I didn't feel the need to leave anyplace for those reasons. Nobody forces someone to read a post, or take one seriously, nor personally. It is a choice to be "offended".
Same way you do it at POA and with illegal aliens. you make it very unpleasant for them to be around and they'll choose to get up and leave.
-
Same way you do it at POA and with illegal aliens. you make it very unpleasant for them to be around and they'll choose to get up and leave.
Sometimes self-inflicted wounds are unpleasant. It’s not always external factors.
-
Same way you do it at POA and with illegal aliens. you make it very unpleasant for them to be around and they'll choose to get up and leave.
It is still a personal choice. They CHOSE to be uncomfortable. I guess some of us have thicker skins than others, and take this whole internet thing super seriously.
-
Closing the border entirely is certainly an option, until the problem can become manageable, and has been proposed by the President. Rather than imprisoning, sending offenders back to their own country should definitely be the first step.
When you say close the border, do you mean shut the border down and do not allow anybody, or anything, to enter or exit? Or are you referring to immigration?
-
I defy you to copy and paste a post from any of the contributors here that have been “run off” by posting their views. Yes, they have been challenged, but it is the liberals who only want everyone to tow their line and not debate them.
There comes a point when a decision has to be made whether to just close that tab and move on, when there's so little meaningful dialog on a forum that it's simply not worth one's tine.
And I'm at that point with this forum. The tab's getting closed.
Have fun in my absence. Keep me in mind if you're ever in or around Copperhill, TN and want to get together.
-
Yes, put them in prison and count on the word getting out that you don't want to mess with US immigration. It's an investment in the future. Ok, maybe don't keep them there forever, but keep them there long enough that they regret coming into the US.
It's one part. Like the wall, it isn't a single source panacea. We need the wall plus monitoring plus enforcement plus punishment plus complete non-support of illegal aliens while they're here. Ultimately you control immigration by making the illegal immigrants police themselves and want to go home. Make the US more unpleasant for an illegal alien than their home country is.
That looks like tent cities. That looks like punishment when someone hires them, so nobody will hire illegal aliens.
Meanwhile, open the front door wider.
The counterpoint to that is if there are that many illegals fleeing persecution and the conditions are really that bad where they're at, then prison might be acceptable to them. They get free room and board, free meals, free healthcare, a job, and recreational activities. I understand your point, though. I'm old enough to remember when Romney got beat up for saying that illegals would self-deport under a similar concept.
-
The counterpoint to that is if there are that many illegals fleeing persecution and the conditions are really that bad where they're at, then prison might be acceptable to them. They get free room and board, free meals, free healthcare, a job, and recreational activities. I understand your point, though. I'm old enough to remember when Romney got beat up for saying that illegals would self-deport under a similar concept.
People seeking asylum don't go to prison unless they've already tried to get in illegally. Asylum seekers are coming in through the front door. We need to investigate their cases very carefully and we probably ought to be denying 90% of those who ask for it, not 45% like we do now. Regardless, asylum seekers are not illegal aliens. By definition, if you're illegal, you aren't in the asylum program.
BTW, asylum is probably the most overused excuse. The caravan bypassed Mexico to seek asylum in the US because they just wanted to get into the US. That isn't asylum. It also isn't asylum when you ask for 50k a person to go back home.
-
Fail.
He left on his own accord. Again, please show a post where a contributor told someone to leave, or demanded someone not to post here.
-
Fail.
He left on his own accord. Again, please show a post where a contributor told someone to leave, or demanded someone not to post here.
You're free to move the goal posts until you make it to where no matter what you're correct, but you didn't ask me to quote a post where someone was told to leave. This was your quote:
I defy you to copy and paste a post from any of the contributors here that have been “run off” by posting their views. Yes, they have been challenged, but it is the liberals who only want everyone to tow their line and not debate them.
I did that. I'm not sure who is arguing that someone has been told to leave, but I said that we don't have many liberals here because they've all been run off.
-
Other than a couple of trolls, we have had serious liberals here who don't feel the need to be congratulated for having liberal opinions. Obviously there are posters here who think their opinions are so special that everybody is supposed to respect their brilliance and articulation.
Those are most often their underpants in a twist when challenged, and start demanding respect or they are going to go post their tripe elsewhere.
Lefties ALWAYS think their opinions deserve respect, but rarely offer respect to conservatives, except in certain circumstances and then only rarely. Just like the worst racists are so very often the ones calling other people racist. I stopped offering respect to disrespectful posts a long time ago and anyone with a shred of self respect woul understand that I have no obligation to respect the free speech of anyone that chooses to try and shut mine down. That is the agenda of the communist party (they call themselves democrats). Shut down any disagreement and poison the life of anyone who dares speak a different opinion.
For those in that category, here, or elsewhere, you can go suck my shoelaces. I seriously don't care how deserving you think you are.
The fact that you think you deserve special treatment is proof that you don't.
-
You're free to move the goal posts until you make it to where no matter what you're correct, but you didn't ask me to quote a post where someone was told to leave. This was your quote:
Ok Capt Pedantic.
I did that. I'm not sure who is arguing that someone has been told to leave, but I said that we don't have many liberals here because they've all been run off.
Again, no one has been “run off”.
-
When you say close the border, do you mean shut the border down and do not allow anybody, or anything, to enter or exit? Or are you referring to immigration?
Perhaps, just perhaps, she was referring to ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION! ::)
-
That is the agenda of the communist party (they call themselves democrats). Shut down any disagreement and poison the life of anyone who dares speak a different opinion.
Sorry to read that someone is attempting to censor you. Name names, along with more specific details on how they are poisoning your life.
-
Sorry to read that someone is attempting to censor you. Name names, along with more specific details on how they are poisoning your life.
I know you are looking for a single nit to use to ignore the truth of my words. Liberal trolls do that.
If you are too dense to understand something as simple as my earlier post, then you wouldn't be capable of intelligent reasoning either.
Maybe you never noticed the rank censorship at AOPA and the purple board, not to mention POA. But that's mild compared to what the communists (They still call themselves democrats) do to people like those that belong to Proud Boys, conservative college professors, and others in government and education, not to mention the media and entertainment that are outed as conservative.
I get that you deperately want to feel special and think a pathetic question as you posted makes you feel superior, but that's all in your mind. It doesn't exist in the real world.
-
When you say close the border, do you mean shut the border down and do not allow anybody, or anything, to enter or exit? Or are you referring to immigration?
The President has expressed on occasion, as he has a habit of thinking out loud, which annoys me but also is quite useful in distracting his detractors, that closing the border entirely until we can get a better handle on the immigration problem is a possibility. I don’t know enough about how that would work to comment further.
-
The President has expressed on occasion, as he has a habit of thinking out loud, which annoys me but also is quite useful in distracting his detractors, that closing the border entirely until we can get a better handle on the immigration problem is a possibility. I don’t know enough about how that would work to comment further.
Maybe Jim was right and I was wrong.
But personally, I am all for solidly closing the borders to all illegal immigrants. That would include tightening the controls on who gets in legally. That said, I would loosen the rules as to who can legally enter. If they have a skill we need, or can demonstrate they will not need public assistance, and they are not terrorist sympathizers, then we should be *liberal about who may enter.
*By "liberal" I mean it in the generic sense, not the political sense.
-
Maybe Jim was right and I was wrong.
But personally, I am all for solidly closing the borders to all illegal immigrants. That would include tightening the controls on who gets in legally. That said, I would loosen the rules as to who can legally enter. If they have a skill we need, or can demonstrate they will not need public assistance, and they are not terrorist sympathizers, then we should be *liberal about who may enter.
*By "liberal" I mean it in the generic sense, not the political sense.
Sounds reasonable to me.
We were chatting with some Canadians once and were quite surprised to learn that to become a citizen there you had to have a job lined up and $300k in assets. Whoa. Might be different now.
-
Just FYI, this board was created so we could say anything we wanted to about anything at all.
As long as there’s even one person here who’ll thoughtfully dialogue, I’ll engage. Even if I have to wade through some harangues and unfounded accusations of my idiocy.
Some people aren’t willing to overlook the harangues, and I miss those people. I suppose you could say they were too delicate to overlook some pixels on a screen, but they chose what they needed to do to stay sane in this life, and I respect that. But I still miss them.
-
(https://thelibertydaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Open-Borders-Democrats-1024x1024.jpeg)
-
I like creative solutions. :)
https://gab.ai/EducatingLiberals/posts/45695421
-
I like creative solutions. :)
https://gab.ai/EducatingLiberals/posts/45695421
"We should handle the wall like Pelosi handled Obamacare. Build it, so we can see what it does."
Ba hahahaha! So true!!
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/01/the-democrat-wall-of-insanity-is-cracking-top-democrats-announce-border-barrier-support-video/
-
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/10/democrats-crack-on-the-wall/
-
Same for you. Show the post where anyone has been told to leave the board.
No interest in doing the work to prove your straw men.
Let's not be stupid, folks. This place isn't a bastion of classic debate and it's not a mostly one-sided board because all our views are the best and true and righteous. We have some folks here who are crass. We have some with a toolbox full of hammers and the world's a nail. We have some who hide behind their anonymity while exposing others. Nearly everyone here uses Liberal as a pejorative. We're certainly not open to opposing views. And a few folks here are happy to mow down the allies if they have the audacity to explore a view that SMELLS slightly liberal; see responses to LevelWing above.
Not everyone cares to put up with that. In fact I'd say most don't care to put up with it.
PS - Can you think of a formerly-frequent poster that we haven't seen lately?
-
No interest in doing the work to prove your straw men.
Let's not be stupid, folks. This place isn't a bastion of classic debate and it's not a mostly one-sided board because all our views are the best and true and righteous. We have some folks here who are crass. We have some with a toolbox full of hammers and the world's a nail. We have some who hide behind their anonymity while exposing others. Nearly everyone here uses Liberal as a pejorative. We're certainly not open to opposing views. And a few folks here are happy to mow down the allies if they have the audacity to explore a view that SMELLS slightly liberal; see responses to LevelWing above.
Not everyone cares to put up with that. In fact I'd say most don't care to put up with it.
PS - Can you think of a formerly-frequent poster that we haven't seen lately?
It’s not a straw man. Again, NO ONE has ever been asked to leave the board. Period.
And it’s amusing that people wanted a board free of moderation, where anyone can join and participate. But like any freedoms, you take the good with the bad. And those same few now want some sort of moderation cloaked as “classic debate”.
As far as participation, that’s a personal choice.
-
No interest in doing the work to prove your straw men.
Let's not be stupid, folks. This place isn't a bastion of classic debate and it's not a mostly one-sided board because all our views are the best and true and righteous. We have some folks here who are crass. We have some with a toolbox full of hammers and the world's a nail. We have some who hide behind their anonymity while exposing others. Nearly everyone here uses Liberal as a pejorative. We're certainly not open to opposing views. And a few folks here are happy to mow down the allies if they have the audacity to explore a view that SMELLS slightly liberal; see responses to LevelWing above.
Not everyone cares to put up with that. In fact I'd say most don't care to put up with it.
PS - Can you think of a formerly-frequent poster that we haven't seen lately?
Last time I checked you could still put people on ignore if you don't like their posts, or you could CHOOSE not to read them, or get offended by them. It is pretty easy actually.
Yes, I've noticed the abscence of Invflatspn or whatever his name is. People come and go on all boards. What's your point? Was he "chased off"?
I enjoy debate and opposing views but I have RARELY seen any "Progressive/Democrat" views expressed here with logic or reason. Most is based on emotion, and against fundamental American values, and also against freedoms like flying and burning LEADED gasoline.
-
No interest in doing the work to prove your straw men.
Let's not be stupid, folks. This place isn't a bastion of classic debate and it's not a mostly one-sided board because all our views are the best and true and righteous. We have some folks here who are crass. We have some with a toolbox full of hammers and the world's a nail. We have some who hide behind their anonymity while exposing others. Nearly everyone here uses Liberal as a pejorative. We're certainly not open to opposing views. And a few folks here are happy to mow down the allies if they have the audacity to explore a view that SMELLS slightly liberal; see responses to LevelWing above.
Not everyone cares to put up with that. In fact I'd say most don't care to put up with it.
PS - Can you think of a formerly-frequent poster that we haven't seen lately?
It is unfortunate that we are really hampered in discussion about political issues by the need to use labels like “left,” “right” and “center.” And of course, “liberal” and “conservative.” I managed in the old Spin Zone to avoid all those labels on the entire gay marriage/florist thread there, and it took heroic effort.
But it can be done.
I have attempted several times to understand “the other side” by asking please, please, make me want to be a liberal. Neither you (you didn’t have time) nor Michael (I’m probably not worth his time, either) responded with points to help me see through the forest of contradictions, hypocrisy, flying unicorns, and vitriol coming from even the highest liberal officials in the land.
I would say that I am open to opposing views. I’m willing to have my views criticized but I do therefore expect others to let me criticize theirs. The shutting down of discussion all across our land grieves me terribly.
I miss invflatspin sorely. He falls, I believe, in your “mowed down allies” category. Still, his choice. It is my personal belief that unless we can create places where people do interact and think deeply and broadly about issues, we can’t thrive.
-
It is unfortunate that we are really hampered in discussion about political issues by the need to use labels like “left,” “right” and “center.” And of course, “liberal” and “conservative.” I managed in the old Spin Zone to avoid all those labels on the entire gay marriage/florist thread there, and it took heroic effort.
But it can be done.
I have attempted several times to understand “the other side” by asking please, please, make me want to be a liberal. Neither you (you didn’t have time) nor Michael (I’m probably not worth his time, either) responded with points to help me see through the forest of contradictions, hypocrisy, flying unicorns, and vitriol coming from even the highest liberal officials in the land.
I would say that I am open to opposing views. I’m willing to have my views criticized but I do therefore expect others to let me criticize theirs. The shutting down of discussion all across our land grieves me terribly.
I miss invflatspin sorely. He falls, I believe, in your “mowed down allies” category. Still, his choice. It is my personal belief that unless we can create places where people do interact and think deeply and broadly about issues, we can’t thrive.
I’ve tried several times to engage liberals here by asking them to explain positions. And, as usual, most were only interested in drive by type postings. And when a few were pressed on their positions, which they had nothing other than talking points. And some of those left.
Adam will give an honest debate, but he’s in the minority. Personally I would like to see more participation, but again, when you have people only interested in spewing talking points, the discussion dies quickly.
-
Asechrest,
I"m not going to argue any of your points. I mostly agree with most of them.
Let's not be stupid, folks.
But ^^^^^ (Let's not be stupid) I especially agree with.
Yes. This is a right leaning bastion.
Liberals likely don't feel comfortable here. That is their problem. Nobody forces them out. I got my feelings hurt a few times here too.
But "stupid" seems to depend on one's point of view. And I see stupid on both sides of this issue.
How stupid is it to argue whether a steel slatted obstruction is actually a wall. What is the real difference between a concrete wall and a steel "fence'? I wanted to puke when Trump said Obama had a wall around his house and the press "fact checked" him and found out he did not have a wall. He had a steel and brick fence (complete with guard house by the gate), but it wasn't a wall? Really?
I like and respect LevelWing, but arguing that your preferred dictionary definition is the only right one is no way to win an argument. Especially when you actually agree with the main point.
Now, back to the topic:
Does anyone think that Schumer's and Pelosi's stance against the wall is anything other than political posturing? They may not like the wall, but I don't believe they are so strongly against it that they would allow the government to be shut down for a longer period than any other in our history. They are standing firm for one reason only: to defy Trump.
Trump is also posturing, but for a better reason. He promised a wall in his campaign; people voted for him because of that; so now he is trying to fulfill his promise. Do you see the difference?
-
One has to ask if most Progressive, and Democrat views can actually be defended? I think many get frustrated because they can not make logical points for their positions. Often they are the ones resorting to name calling and cries of Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, etc.
-
One has to ask if most Progressive, and Democrat views can actually be defended? I think many get frustrated because they can not make logical points for their positions. Often they are the ones resorting to name calling and cries of Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, etc.
I think that Progressive and Democrat views can be defended for the most part. However, those who hold the views tend to lack the work ethic, knowledge, and intellectual horsepower to form a rational argument. The logical points do exist but they can't produce them. They fall back on, "Oh yeah, well you're a poopyhead" and run away.
-
The idea that conservatives have an obligation to respect liberal viewpoints is the kind of stupid that liberals try and shoehorn into American life to shut out debate.
Painting the exit of any poster because they couldn't stand the heat when their positions are unmasked as pathetically little less than talking points, without serious scholarship to back them up is just another way that liberals hijack debate away from the truth and into the warm, fuzzy land of sensitive and compassionate.
Trying stealth censorship to hijack the board to a more kind and friendly liberal paradise is the kind tactic debate losers indulge in to avoid losing their weak arguments.
I've never yet seen a post by a liberal defending a conservative viewpoint when it was attacked. Never. Not once.
The double standard is alive and well in this argument just as it is in every debate in which a liberal engages. Everything to a liberal is one sided and the other side MUST give ground to remain compassionate, or another poor, pathetic snowflake might cry and leave.
-
As far as proof that liberals are constantly attempting to censor conservatives... We know liberals NEVER accept proof because that endangers their opinions and the ever present agenda.
To put these numbers in perspective, let’s examine two closely contested Senate races.
In Nevada, Democrat Jacky Rosen averaged over 90% placement in inboxes, compared to Dean Heller’s over 90% placement in spam.
In Florida, 100% of Republican Rick Scott’s emails went to spam in Yahoo, while 100% of Bill Nelson’s emails went to our Yahoo inbox.
https://imge.com/news/email-providers-suppress-republicans-2018-election/?utm_source=KenBlackwellFB&fbclid=IwAR0NLo4YyWCjkpED8ET7z5pGYhzIApkQY52LVvf0IBnkdxRTuJQem3nsCMI
-
I have asked Progressives like Michael (Steingar) for years, how they can reconcile burning 100LL for a hobby, while they have a very staunch position that Man's use of fossil fuels is causing climate change. I have NEVER received an answer.
My perspective is that self described Liberals, Progressive, and Democrats, or those that act like them are ALL hypocrites. They have a do as I say, not as I do mentality. Want to use other people's money to reduce their guilt about whatever subject, and are often control freaks of what OTHER people do. Look at more gun control laws, removing Confederate statues, the concept of "Hate Speech", etc. All purely to control others.
-
The idea that conservatives have an obligation to respect liberal viewpoints is the kind of stupid that liberals try and shoehorn into American life to shut out debate.
I believe that we have an obligation to respect liberal viewpoints just as they have the obligation to respect our viewpoints. I believe that most of their viewpoints are stupid and wrong, but I respect their right to hold that viewpoint. I have no right to impose my view on them by force, just as they have no right to force their view on me. I'm open to an honest debate on the issues and I'm willing to be convinced that my view needs to be adjusted. I would hope that they are also willing. But not by force. Unless they are really wrong, and then a slap upside their head may be just the thing.
-
I believe that we have an obligation to respect liberal viewpoints just as they have the obligation to respect our viewpoints. I believe that most of their viewpoints are stupid and wrong, but I respect their right to hold that viewpoint. I have no right to impose my view on them by force, just as they have no right to force their view on me. I'm open to an honest debate on the issues and I'm willing to be convinced that my view needs to be adjusted. I would hope that they are also willing. But not by force. Unless they are really wrong, and then a slap upside their head may be just the thing.
I think you intentionally miss the point.
Liberals deamnd others respect their viewpoints but I never see them returning the favor. Everything a liberal does is one sided and intended to remain that way. I think that is a big part of why liberals have such a higher percentage of divorces.
-
I think you intentionally miss the point.
Liberals deamnd others respect their viewpoints but I never see them returning the favor. Everything a liberal does is one sided and intended to remain that way. I think that is a big part of why liberals have such a higher percentage of divorces.
I missed the point, but it wasn't intentional. I agree with you! I've noticed this, and it's hugely frustrating. How can one side be willing to listen and work with the other side, and the other side is unwilling to give an inch. When their hypocrisy is pointed out they plug their ears and shout insults. I've never seen the conservative side engage in the behavior that I constantly see from the liberal side. I just don't understand it. It may be, as others have pointed out, that liberalism is a mental disease.
-
Utopia, and the quest for utopia is very anti to the Human character. This is why Liberalism fails. It is against human nature to want, or be happy in any type of utopia. Ultimately, liberals think they can actually create a utopia, and even if they could Humans would NOT want it. However, this promise of a utopia sways a lot of people.
-
The President has expressed on occasion, as he has a habit of thinking out loud, which annoys me but also is quite useful in distracting his detractors, that closing the border entirely until we can get a better handle on the immigration problem is a possibility. I don’t know enough about how that would work to comment further.
Closing the border completely, to anybody or anything, entering or exiting would create havoc on our economy. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the U.S. had a total of $615.9 billion dollars in trade with Mexico in 2017. The impacts of closing the border completely would be huge and would only serve to hurt both economies, not help. I think there are better ways to deal with the illegal immigration problem than closing the border.
I should also note that that's just direct trade with Mexico and doesn't account for anything that comes via land through Mexico and into the U.S. via a U.S./Mexican border port of entry.
https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/mexico
-
It’s not a straw man. Again, NO ONE has ever been asked to leave the board. Period.
And it’s amusing that people wanted a board free of moderation, where anyone can join and participate. But like any freedoms, you take the good with the bad. And those same few now want some sort of moderation cloaked as “classic debate”.
As far as participation, that’s a personal choice.
Who is asking for moderation?
-
Adam will give an honest debate, but he’s in the minority. Personally I would like to see more participation, but again, when you have people only interested in spewing talking points, the discussion dies quickly.
You think talking points is the main issue here? Not the vitriol and the immediate dismissal of other's viewpoints?
-
Liberals likely don't feel comfortable here. That is their problem. Nobody forces them out. I got my feelings hurt a few times here too.
Nobody is suggesting that they were forced out. My point was that they're run off because they're demonized for daring to have a viewpoint other than what the MAGA crowd has approved. Ironic since Lucifer just said that spewing talking points is a problem.
I like and respect LevelWing, but arguing that your preferred dictionary definition is the only right one is no way to win an argument. Especially when you actually agree with the main point.
Just to clarify, I think how the issue is framed is hugely important and relevant to how we solve it. I'll post soon to an article that touches on the framing of the issue.
Now, back to the topic:
Does anyone think that Schumer's and Pelosi's stance against the wall is anything other than political posturing? They may not like the wall, but I don't believe they are so strongly against it that they would allow the government to be shut down for a longer period than any other in our history. They are standing firm for one reason only: to defy Trump.
If they truly believed that a wall was immoral, as Pelosi said, they would draft legislation to tear down the wall/fence that currently exists along the border. I think you're correct that this is about not letting Trump have a win at any costs.
Trump is also posturing, but for a better reason. He promised a wall in his campaign; people voted for him because of that; so now he is trying to fulfill his promise. Do you see the difference?
He had two years to put more pressure on Republicans to pass the legislation. Instead, he waited until funding was about to run out and the House was about to change leadership to really start pressing. I know he's made a lot of comments and speeches and tweets before this point, but Republicans in Congress didn't do anything.
-
You think talking points is the main issue here? Not the vitriol and the immediate dismissal of other's viewpoints?
Here’s an example for you and Adam to show your hypocrisy.
A couple of years ago we had a member who was viciously attacking anyone who he perceived to be a “Trumpkin”. It was a tirade of personal attacks. His vitriol was over the top, and he was quick to discount other’s viewpoints.
Yet neither you or Adam said a word. Nothing. Nada.
I’m sure you’ll respond with a clever comeback.
-
The idea that conservatives have an obligation to respect liberal viewpoints is the kind of stupid that liberals try and shoehorn into American life to shut out debate.[/b]
A true conservative would welcome differing viewpoints and encourage debate. Likewise, they absolutely should respect other's viewpoints. At one point does proving that civility and tolerance become important? If our viewpoints and positions are truly the better ones, they'll stand on the merits.
-
Here’s an example for you and Adam to show your hypocrisy.
A couple of years ago we had a member who was viciously attacking anyone who he perceived to be a “Trumpkin”. It was a tirade of personal attacks. His vitriol was over the top, and he was quick to discount other’s viewpoints.
Yet neither you or Adam said a word. Nothing. Nada.
I’m sure you’ll respond with a clever comeback.
There are bad apples on both sides of the aisle. I'm not going to excuse one person's bad behavior because they may or may not hold viewpoints that are more similar to mine. You constantly went after said poster yet say nothing in response to Number7, probably because you two see the issues very similarly, if not identically. Also, I don't know who Adam is.
You've set your post up nicely, though. Pretty much anything I say will fall into your "clever" category all while you (think) you successfully moved the goal posts.
-
Nobody is suggesting that they were forced out. My point was that they're run off because they're demonized for daring to have a viewpoint other than what the MAGA crowd has approved. Ironic since Lucifer just said that spewing talking points is a problem.
Just to clarify, I think how the issue is framed is hugely important and relevant to how we solve it. I'll post soon to an article that touches on the framing of the issue.
If they truly believed that a wall was immoral, as Pelosi said, they would draft legislation to tear down the wall/fence that currently exists along the border. I think you're correct that this is about not letting Trump have a win at any costs.
He had two years to put more pressure on Republicans to pass the legislation. Instead, he waited until funding was about to run out and the House was about to change leadership to really start pressing. I know he's made a lot of comments and speeches and tweets before this point, but Republicans in Congress didn't do anything.
First: I mentioned that our biggest liberal posters, who for the most part do drive by postings using talking points and when pressed, can’t begin to offer a cohesive argument, then they disappear until their next drive by.
Second: The President has tried for two years for the border fence. Both McConnell and Ryan kept reassuring him now was not the time, we’ll do it later. To the President’s credit, he was trying to get congress to do their job rather than using executive orders. Both the house and senate leadership simple didn’t want to address the problem, even with knowing it would pass quickly and without problem. Like their democrat brethren, they like to vote on issues where they know it’s only symbolic ( Obamacare).
-
There are bad apples on both sides of the aisle. I'm not going to excuse one person's bad behavior because they may or may not hold viewpoints that are more similar to mine. You constantly went after said poster yet say nothing in response to Number7, probably because you two see the issues very similarly, if not identically. Also, I don't know who Adam is.
You've set your post up nicely, though. Pretty much anything I say will fall into your "clever" category all while you (think) you successfully moved the goal posts.
Ah, nice. Now you are resorting to implying I agree with something, or someone with no facts in evidence. Nice tactic to deflect. Talk about goal post moving.
I’ve watched your hypocrisy in action over and over, so nothing new there.
-
It’s not a straw man. Again, NO ONE has ever been asked to leave the board. Period.
No one suggested folks had been asked to leave. Therefore, your demand to prove such is a straw man.
-
I have attempted several times to understand “the other side” by asking please, please, make me want to be a liberal. Neither you (you didn’t have time)
That's actually not the entirety of what I said. I said I didn't have the time, but also that some of my positions are evolving.
-
No one suggested folks had been asked to leave. Therefore, your demand to prove such is a straw man.
So how have they been “run off”?
-
There are bad apples on both sides of the aisle. I'm not going to excuse one person's bad behavior because they may or may not hold viewpoints that are more similar to mine. You constantly went after said poster yet say nothing in response to Number7, probably because you two see the issues very similarly, if not identically. Also, I don't know who Adam is.
You've set your post up nicely, though. Pretty much anything I say will fall into your "clever" category all while you (think) you successfully moved the goal posts.
I'm Adam. It's my real name, fairly easily discovered because, for better or worse, I don't hide behind a cloak of internet anonymity. Lucifer seems to enjoy dropping my real name here and there, I imagine because for someone who cared, it would twist their panties that Lucifer knew who they were.
-
So how have they been “run off”?
I've already said. Character attacks, straw men, friendly fire, making it known you've researched them in real life. Etc.
-
Asechrest,
I"m not going to argue any of your points. I mostly agree with most of them.
But ^^^^^ (Let's not be stupid) I especially agree with.
Yes. This is a right leaning bastion.
Liberals likely don't feel comfortable here. That is their problem. Nobody forces them out. I got my feelings hurt a few times here too.
But "stupid" seems to depend on one's point of view. And I see stupid on both sides of this issue.
How stupid is it to argue whether a steel slatted obstruction is actually a wall. What is the real difference between a concrete wall and a steel "fence'? I wanted to puke when Trump said Obama had a wall around his house and the press "fact checked" him and found out he did not have a wall. He had a steel and brick fence (complete with guard house by the gate), but it wasn't a wall? Really?
I like and respect LevelWing, but arguing that your preferred dictionary definition is the only right one is no way to win an argument. Especially when you actually agree with the main point.
Now, back to the topic:
Does anyone think that Schumer's and Pelosi's stance against the wall is anything other than political posturing? They may not like the wall, but I don't believe they are so strongly against it that they would allow the government to be shut down for a longer period than any other in our history. They are standing firm for one reason only: to defy Trump.
Trump is also posturing, but for a better reason. He promised a wall in his campaign; people voted for him because of that; so now he is trying to fulfill his promise. Do you see the difference?
I like you, Joe, especially your low key, dry-humor digs you sometimes get at me. So it's cool.
My suggestion that folks were being stupid was in response to thinking liberals don't come here because none of them can support their views. The implication being that "our" views here are right and true, and theirs are false and unsupportable.
Which is utter bullshit, as any honest man would admit.
-
I've already said. Character attacks, straw men, friendly fire, making it known you've researched them in real life. Etc.
So when I was being viciously attacked, smeared and slandered, you remained quiet. I've also seen that happen with other members here.
You reek of hypocrisy.
-
I like you, Joe, especially your low key, dry-humor digs you sometimes get at me. So it's cool.
My suggestion that folks were being stupid was in response to thinking liberals don't come here because none of them can support their views. The implication being that "our" views here are right and true, and theirs are false and unsupportable.
Which is utter bullshit, as any honest man would admit.
Well I see. So indirectly you are accusing me of being dishonest now. Doing the EXACT thing you are accusing other, conservative posters of doing. You, nor other "liberals" can not support your views. Tell me where you convincingly made a argument for what is a Liberal/Progressie (Democrat) view.
Your over the top response to me removing ONE spam post said all I need to know about you, and another on this board.
-
I'm Adam. It's my real name, fairly easily discovered because, for better or worse, I don't hide behind a cloak of internet anonymity. Lucifer seems to enjoy dropping my real name here and there, I imagine because for someone who cared, it would twist their panties that Lucifer knew who they were.
Many have used your first name, here and other boards, for several years. Somehow when I use it I'm being malicious.
Unreal.
-
My real name is Ishmael.
-
My real name is Ishmael.
Mine is Beelzebub.
-
That's actually not the entirety of what I said. I said I didn't have the time, but also that some of my positions are evolving.
Some of mine are too.
Here's an example. I've always been against foreign aid. (With specific exceptions like rebuilding Germany after WWII). But African countries, gads, lets get out of there. But recently I have learned how much aid and investment China is doing in Africa. Are things moving toward a point where that whole continent will end up a Chinese ally? Chinese culture influencing them more than Western?
That thought makes me uncomfortable indeed. Africa is the last undeveloped continent not counting Antarctica, and it's easy to dismiss them as a threat. But some day it will catch up technologically and militarily. It might be a century from now and the U.S. will still be around, but as what? The world's greatest superpower still? Or second to a China-United Federation of Africa alliance? I don't know how far of a long game we're supposed to be playing.
So I'm reconsidering my opinion on the matter. Not saying I've changed my mind, more going to a state of not having an opinion at all until I learn more.
-
My real name is Ishmael.
If superfluous and defensive blusterings continue, not only will the board become boring, it will go dark. And then Ishmael’s last line will be appropriate: “And I alone am left to tell the tale.”
;)
-
I hate to break it you snowflakes and wanna be snowflakes, but, if you want a milk white, everything is unicorns and rainbows and never is heard a discouraging word... then go to POA and the purple marxist boards. They'll love pussies and pansies their... s long as you only have their opinions and never stray from the approved orthodoxy.
otherwise, pull up your big girl panties and try and get along.
-
Many have used your first name, here and other boards, for several years. Somehow when I use it I'm being malicious.
Unreal.
You are quite literally the only person on this board to use my first name. Go ahead and check. And I can't recall anyone on POA using it, either. Now, I'm happy to be on a first name basis with you. If I intended to hide behind anonymity, I wouldn't use my first initial and last name in my forum handle. But what I'll need before I give you that blessing is to have a beer with me. And I don't mean a virtual beer with your pseudo-name Beelzebub. If you'd like to take me up on that offer, go ahead and reply. I'm happy to split the travel costs with you.
-
You are quite literally the only person on this board to use my first name. Go ahead and check. And I can't recall anyone on POA using it, either. Now, I'm happy to be on a first name basis with you. If I intended to hide behind anonymity, I wouldn't use my first initial and last name in my forum handle. But what I'll need before I give you that blessing is to have a beer with me. And I don't mean a virtual beer with your pseudo-name Beelzebub. If you'd like to take me up on that offer, go ahead and reply. I'm happy to split the travel costs with you.
I don't drink alcohol. And travel this time of year from hell is quit expensive.
And how do you know Beelzebub is not my real name? :o
-
Well I see. So indirectly you are accusing me of being dishonest now. Doing the EXACT thing you are accusing other, conservative posters of doing. You, nor other "liberals" can not support your views. Tell me where you convincingly made a argument for what is a Liberal/Progressie (Democrat) view.
Your over the top response to me removing ONE spam post said all I need to know about you, and another on this board.
No, it's not indirect. If you believe we have no liberals here because they are all unable to support their positions, then you are being dishonest.
I know you're butthurt that I blasted the moderators for moderating on a board that arose out of detest for moderation, but so be it.
-
I don't drink alcohol. And travel this time of year from hell is quit expensive.
And how do you know Beelzebub is not my real name? :o
O'Douls, made just for you. And I'll pay all your travel costs. I eagerly await your acceptance of my offer.
-
O'Douls, made just for you. And I'll pay all your travel costs. I eagerly await your acceptance of my offer.
And I don't drink beer either.
Trust me, you can't afford my travel cost. ::)
-
You are quite literally the only person on this board to use my first name. Go ahead and check. And I can't recall anyone on POA using it, either. Now, I'm happy to be on a first name basis with you. If I intended to hide behind anonymity, I wouldn't use my first initial and last name in my forum handle. But what I'll need before I give you that blessing is to have a beer with me. And I don't mean a virtual beer with your pseudo-name Beelzebub. If you'd like to take me up on that offer, go ahead and reply. I'm happy to split the travel costs with you.
Do you ever travel in the direction of Washington State? I’ve never had a beer with a transitioning liberal before, and it would be fun to meet you! Lots of great brewpubs here.
-
And I don't drink beer either.
Trust me, you can't afford my travel cost. ::)
Don't fret! O'Douls isn't beer. And I'm confident I can afford your travel costs.
-
Do you ever travel in the direction of Washington State? I’ve never had a beer with a transitioning liberal before, and it would be fun to meet you! Lots of great brewpubs here.
The last time I was in Washington State was to visit a girl I met during my college days. Beautiful state, though. I loved the mountains and enjoyed Seattle. In the last decade I haven't been past NC, with the one exception of a visit to DC. If I get up that way at some point, though, I'm happy to meet.
-
No, it's not indirect. If you believe we have no liberals here because they are all unable to support their positions, then you are being dishonest.
I know you're butthurt that I blasted the moderators for moderating on a board that arose out of detest for moderation, but so be it.
You can't support your positions at all. You would love to moderate a board, but you can't and it kills you. There is no moderation here, so maybe try harder to criticize. Again, there is NO substance behind your positions. Point to one that made logical sense.
If you want dishonesty, examine Democrat, Liberal/Progressive ideas, and policy. It can not hold up to scrutiny. It is counter to the human condition, and based on emotion, and fear.
If you want butthurt go back and look at your posts about the removal of ONE spam post here. Look in the mirror for butthurt, and dishonesty pal.
-
You can't support your positions at all. You would love to moderate a board, but you can't and it kills you. There is no moderation here, so maybe try harder to criticize. Again, there is NO substance behind your positions. Point to one that made logical sense.
If you want dishonesty, examine Democrat, Liberal/Progressive ideas, and policy. It can not hold up to scrutiny. It is counter to the human condition, and based on emotion, and fear.
If you want butthurt go back and look at your posts about the removal of ONE spam post here. Look in the mirror for butthurt, and dishonesty pal.
You're starting to sound like Number 7 here. Attributing asechrest with the desire to moderate a board? Huh?
Liberal positions are generally not defensible, but nonliberals don't have to be assholes about it. People usually come further along the thought train when met with remarks like “tell me more about that” or “why do you feel that way?”
And heaven forfend, but if you listen to their responses without judgment, you might actually learn something interesting that will give you great ammo in the continuing discussion.
-
You can't support your positions at all. You would love to moderate a board, but you can't and it kills you. There is no moderation here, so maybe try harder to criticize. Again, there is NO substance behind your positions. Point to one that made logical sense.
If you want dishonesty, examine Democrat, Liberal/Progressive ideas, and policy. It can not hold up to scrutiny. It is counter to the human condition, and based on emotion, and fear.
If you want butthurt go back and look at your posts about the removal of ONE spam post here. Look in the mirror for butthurt, and dishonesty pal.
I manage people for a living. I'd rather shoot myself than moderate a message board in my off time.
-
You're starting to sound like Number 7 here. Attributing asechrest with the desire to moderate a board? Huh?
Liberal positions are generally not defensible, but nonliberals don't have to be assholes about it. People usually come further along the thought train when met with remarks like “tell me more about that” or “why do you feel that way?”
And heaven forfend, but if you listen to their responses without judgment, you might actually learn something interesting that will give you great ammo in the continuing discussion.
Like you, I go out of my way to try to find common ground with Liberal/Progressives. Please, try to convince me! However, I am tired of coddling people that seem to be against the basic principles of our country, and our country's founding.
I do agree with you. I should lighten up a bit.
-
You're starting to sound like Number 7 here. Attributing asechrest with the desire to moderate a board? Huh?
Liberal positions are generally not defensible, but nonliberals don't have to be assholes about it. People usually come further along the thought train when met with remarks like “tell me more about that” or “why do you feel that way?”
And heaven forfend, but if you listen to their responses without judgment, you might actually learn something interesting that will give you great ammo in the continuing discussion.
This and also some liberal positions are defensible, but as a libertarian rather than a conservative you'd expect me to think that.
What's indefensible, and I hope this is what Anthony is mainly talking about, is economic collectivism and identity politics. The idea that taking from the productive to give to the non productive with the goal of equalizing everyone, and affirmative action for certain groups with the goal of retribution for past inequalities, these are the core of progressive liberalism and these are not only indefensible but dangerously evil.
As Anthony says, it's against nature. Attempting to equalize outcome in these two areas is counter to nature, never achieveable, and always results in destruction when attempted.
-
Then why did you make such a fuss when there were moderators named here, and then one I dared remove ONE SPAM post? It seemed like a clear case of projection which Liberals are famous for doing.
So ironic. Liberals are all about moderation so no one gets hurt. I’m a conservative, but when the overmoderation accusation came up, I really didn’t care, because it was SPAM that was deleted.
But lo, asechrest, a liberal, comes forward stridently with arguments against deleting spam, letting the forum decide what is spam, and taking the position that unmoderated means ... unmoderated.
Asechrest is becoming a better conservative than me!
-
This and also some liberal positions are defensible, but as a libertarian rather than a conservative you'd expect me to think that.
What's indefensible, and I hope this is what Anthony is mainly talking about, is economic collectivism and identity politics. The idea that taking from the productive to give to the non productive with the goal of equalizing everyone, and affirmative action for certain groups with the goal of retribution for past inequalities, these are the core of progressive liberalism and these are not only indefensible but dangerously evil.
As Anthony says, it's against nature. Attempting to equalize outcome in these two areas is counter to nature, never achieveable, and always results in destruction when attempted.
As usual, you say what I think in a much more articulate, and clear manner than I do.
-
As usual, you say what I think in a much more articulate, and clear manner than I do.
Thanks but I just reread it and saw a horrible grammar error. :-\
-
My position is that you can't take an entire, sizeable political class (60 to 80 million people) and proclaim all their views indefensible. For one, I doubt you could name all their views. For another, I doubt you've engaged a good debater of their class on every one of their views. And, finally, proclaiming ALL your debate opponents' views as worthless is the antithesis of good, honest debate.
To Becky's point, the only way you can even truly understand an opponent's view is to listen genuinely and begin from a position that it's perfectly valid. And often, it IS perfectly valid. It just might not be the best of two ideas.
-
Asechrest is becoming a better conservative than me!
This I doubt! :)
-
My position is that you can't take an entire, sizeable political class (60 to 80 million people) and proclaim all their views indefensible. For one, I doubt you could name all their views. For another, I doubt you've engaged a good debater of their class on every one of their views. And, finally, proclaiming ALL your debate opponents' views as worthless is the antithesis of good, honest debate.
To Becky's point, the only way you can even truly understand an opponent's view is to listen genuinely and begin from a position that it's perfectly valid. And often, it IS perfectly valid. It just might not be the best of two ideas.
And there are complex nuances, layers of positions, misunderstandings, unintended consequences and so on.
Take the Black Lives Matter movement for example. Start with layer 1: The white man (police) jail or shoot too many black men. On its surface this is ridiculously pat, simplistic and not at all the whole truth. But go in one layer and you see that black communities are incarcerated more than whites. But what are the reasons? There are many and they are very complex. But some of the issues behind the complaint are very valid and defensible. However they apply equally to lilly white hillbilly communities where factories have closed (like inner cities) drugs have taken over (like inner cities) young men have no future and women get pregnant too young (like inner cities). So too many young men end up jailed for burglary or drug offenses. (All supporting a huge prison industry.)
It's a shameful problem in the U.S. That is one extremely valid issue behind the BLM movement. But BLM (and liberals in general) stupidly make it about race. Instead of analyzing it and getting to the core issues causing it, or addressing the TRUE racism (the origin of drug laws for example) they make it all about white cops profiling blacks unfairly. That is a superficial and unhelpful approach.
But instead of bashing liberals about it, why not dialogue and try to find common ground. There were only two candidates in the primaries that I heard address this particular matter, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Sanders correctly identified the failed drug war as part cause and Trump correctly identified the lack of U.S. manufacturing as part cause. They were both correct. Those two things account for probably 80% of the over incarceration in poor communities. (The other 20% is probably related to genetically inherited antisocial disorders imo.)
You couldn't have two more opposite groups than Sanders supporters and Trump supporters. They probably shout each other down and won't listen to each other, but if they would talk and objectively study the facts, they could together identify the main causes of this problem and work together to fix it. But it would require both sides to "evolve" (I like that term asechrest used). Conservative Trump supporters would have to admit drug laws are largely a failure and liberal Sanders supporters would have to admit capitalist factories were actually good for communities. Due to ideological rigidity neither side may be capable of that and we end up at a stalemate.
-
So ironic. Liberals are all about moderation so no one gets hurt. I’m a conservative, but when the overmoderation accusation came up, I really didn’t care, because it was SPAM that was deleted.
But lo, asechrest, a liberal, comes forward stridently with arguments against deleting spam, letting the forum decide what is spam, and taking the position that unmoderated means ... unmoderated.
Asechrest is becoming a better conservative than me!
I understand, but he went WAY overboard with protest, and liberal projection as did another poster here. If the board gets overrun with SPAM, and BOTS so be it. But for some reason you continue to kiss his ass, and compare me to other posters in which you may not agree on their demeanor.
-
My position is that you can't take an entire, sizeable political class (60 to 80 million people) and proclaim all their views indefensible. For one, I doubt you could name all their views. For another, I doubt you've engaged a good debater of their class on every one of their views. And, finally, proclaiming ALL your debate opponents' views as worthless is the antithesis of good, honest debate.
To Becky's point, the only way you can even truly understand an opponent's view is to listen genuinely and begin from a position that it's perfectly valid. And often, it IS perfectly valid. It just might not be the best of two ideas.
Or... you could skip all the feel good bullshit and just sing kum-ba-ya and get it over with.
-
Or... you could skip all the feel good bullshit and just sing kum-ba-ya and get it over with.
I'm happy you feel that way! Let's join hands.
-
My position is that you can't take an entire, sizeable political class (60 to 80 million people) and proclaim all their views indefensible. For one, I doubt you could name all their views. For another, I doubt you've engaged a good debater of their class on every one of their views. And, finally, proclaiming ALL your debate opponents' views as worthless is the antithesis of good, honest debate.
To Becky's point, the only way you can even truly understand an opponent's view is to listen genuinely and begin from a position that it's perfectly valid. And often, it IS perfectly valid. It just might not be the best of two ideas.
This is true sometimes, but the truth is 90% of the the people on both sides don't understand their own positions, so they are incapable of discussing them. They just parrot back the things they've been told and then get indignant when you don't agree with them...we have some of them here.
Since the thread is kinda about the wall, I'll use the it as an example. Nancy Pelosi says the wall is ineffective and the Lefties go right into repeating that without knowing why. Then you ask them "Ineffective? No, a wall is very effective at forcing people to use a door" and they blow up and storm out because you've contradicted what they "know" and they reject you.
In this case, I don't understand Pelosi and nobody can explain to me what she means, so I'm forced to fall back on "she doesn't want Trump to win". But that seems unreasonable to me, so I'm left with the choices that I don't understand or that Pelosi is unreasonable. But which is right...
-
The idea that one can attribute intelligent intentions to the modern communist (they like to call themselves democrats) is a fallacy that leads to destructive government initiatives.
Take DeBlasio, for instance...
NYC’s Bill de Blasio Vows to Wrest Wealth from ‘Wrong Hands’ and Redistribute
“Imagine a city where New Yorkers can live their lives more fully,” de Blasio told the audience at Symphony Space in Manhattan. “That’s the quality of life I want for every New Yorker.”
Later in his remarks, the second-term mayor said millions of Americans are “boxed into lives that just aren’t working” because of Republican policies like tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations. “Brothers and sisters, there’s plenty of money in the world,” de Blasio said. “Plenty of money in this city. It’s just in the wrong hands. You deserve a city that gives you the share of prosperity that you’ve earned.”
-
This is true sometimes, but the truth is 90% of the the people on both sides don't understand their own positions, so they are incapable of discussing them. They just parrot back the things they've been told and then get indignant when you don't agree with them...we have some of them here.
While I have no idea if your 90% statistic is accurate, I agree with your sentiment. That's why I mentioned you want a good debater and not a sheep.
Since the thread is kinda about the wall, I'll use the it as an example. Nancy Pelosi says the wall is ineffective and the Lefties go right into repeating that without knowing why. Then you ask them "Ineffective? No, a wall is very effective at forcing people to use a door" and they blow up and storm out because you've contradicted what they "know" and they reject you.
In this case, I don't understand Pelosi and nobody can explain to me what she means, so I'm forced to fall back on "she doesn't want Trump to win". But that seems unreasonable to me, so I'm left with the choices that I don't understand or that Pelosi is unreasonable. But which is right...
I think we both know why Pelosi says what she says. She is the literal definition of a career politician, and she says what she says because it's good for the perpetuation of her own power, either directly or indirectly.
-
But lo, asechrest, a liberal, comes forward stridently with arguments against deleting spam, letting the forum decide what is spam, and taking the position that unmoderated means ... unmoderated.
Do we want this forum to be a full democracy with everyone voting on what is and what is not spam, or do we want to be a republic with our elected representatives* carrying out our will, deleting spam, and letting the rest of us get on with our work?
I for one do not want to vote on what is or what is not spam. The full democracy means spammers will form caravans and invade our forum, will become a majority, and keep voting that their spam is OK and appropriate. I say NO! Build a spam wall! Have controlled forum citizenship. That's the only reasonable way forward.
*Yeah, I know that right now the moderators are not elected.
-
While I have no idea if your 90% statistic is accurate, I agree with your sentiment. That's why I mentioned you want a good debater and not a sheep.
I think we both know why Pelosi says what she says. She is the literal definition of a career politician, and she says what she says because it's good for the perpetuation of her own power, either directly or indirectly.
90% is not intended to be literal, unless you're a millennial and then it's literally 110%.
As I said, it goes both ways. Righties will also say that illegal immigrants are mostly criminals and setting aside the non-starter argument that they broke a law by crossing the border, that simply isn't true. Nor is the wall a panacea that will fix all immigration problems, but it is one very good first line defense and part of a whole solution, far better than a chain link fence or corrugated steel barrier.
-
Do we want this forum to be a full democracy with everyone voting on what is and what is not spam, or do we want to be a republic with our elected representatives* carrying out our will, deleting spam, and letting the rest of us get on with our work?
I motion that we vote on whether or not we should vote on what is spam.
-
I motion that we vote on whether or not we should vote on what is spam.
I vote that anyone with whom I disagree is SPAM. Anyone who disagrees with me is a BOT. Also, since I am an exalted Moderator, my vote counts as eleventy billion votes.
:)
-
I just proclaimed myself “Moderator for life”.
-
Thirded.
-
90% is not intended to be literal, unless you're a millennial and then it's literally 110%.
As I said, it goes both ways. Righties will also say that illegal immigrants are mostly criminals and setting aside the non-starter argument that they broke a law by crossing the border, that simply isn't true. Nor is the wall a panacea that will fix all immigration problems, but it is one very good first line defense and part of a whole solution, far better than a chain link fence or corrugated steel barrier.
Why intelligent adult would agree to 'set aside' the argument that illegal aliens BROKE the LAW by sneaking in to America?
That's the straight up bullshit babbled by liberals.
Congratulations. Everybody knows that you are a practitioner of assumptive closes to support stupid conclusions.
-
I just proclaimed myself “Moderator for life”.
OK, now we need a special prosecutor to look for crimes that we can use to impeach moderators for life.
-
Love this One:
-
OK, now we need a special prosecutor to look for crimes that we can use to impeach moderators for life.
He's taking the Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg view of things.