DACA, immigration reform whatever

[Spankytoes 1748]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

When you -- with near perfect consistency -- fail to EVER call out the evil that you (supposedly) DO think should be called out...well, forgive the rest of us for doubting your sincerity.

You are 1000X more concerned about folks complaining about Trump than you are about ANYTHING his admin has done.  So, yeah.  It rings really fucking hollow.

Brisket:

Even though I disagree with you politically on a lot, and feel you go off the reservation from time to time, I respect your viewpoint. What I can’t understand is this: “Why the hypocrisy”? When it comes to enacting policies that will separate illegal immigrant families for breaking the law, your position is “Think of the children!” When it comes to eliminating guns used by people to murder teens for simply going to school, well, you’re just not willing to give that up becaus it infringes on your right as a responsible gun owner. Your heart aches for the children, and their families, but not enough to do what needs to be done to protect their lives.

Help me understand this dichotomy.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 minute ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

If they all self-deport simultaneously, good luck on finding somewhere to eat in Houston. Or California, Florida, or Texas produce on store shelves. Or houses, offices and apartment buildings getting completed. Or your grass getting cut, or your house getting cleaned. 

I’m willing to pay more. Or mow my own yard, cook my own meals and clean my house. It will just be temporary until guest worker program takes off.  

Or maybe some Americans who are not working or on “disability” can do the jobs?

[Spankytoes 1748]

10 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

So you’re saying that you made a claim without evidence? One might say you lied? Is that what you’re telling us?

And let’s not forget that neither of those things have anything to do with open borders but youu knew that. Or maybe not in which case I’ll say again, you’re a fucking moron.

The dude straight up admitted that he said it. You acknowledged it and backtracked. I presented other examples that are directly attributed to countering your claim that no one is advocating for open borders. If “moron” is what you’ve got, perhaps it’s best to just let it go and take the “L” on this one.

[Anastasis 23723]

 

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

When you -- with near perfect consistency -- fail to EVER call out the evil that you (supposedly) DO think should be called out...well, forgive the rest of us for doubting your sincerity.

You are 1000X more concerned about folks complaining about Trump than you are about ANYTHING his admin has done.  So, yeah.  It rings really fucking hollow.

OK. I mean I've agreed 100% and posted such with statements on this thread that the approach of the Trump admin on this issue is cowardly and politically manipulative and the result of Trump's personality disorder, but OK I am deplorable animal. Whatever, let's go back facilitating information chaos by posting time travelling stories about separated children promulgated via FB/twatter.  That's the real shit that proves you are on the right side of history. 

[Celery Man 21098]

There's a massive gulf between fully open boarders and let's not separate children from their parents even if they're here illegally. I don't know why that former keeps getting thrown around. 

Further, “HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO THIS IF WE DON’T TAKE THE CHILDREN AWAY FROM THEIR PARENTS” shit man, maybe any way where we don’t fucking do that? I mean, I don’t trust you without a set of specifics anymore but y’all were lickety fucking split turning the Wal Mart into the gulag para los ninos.

[JukeJointJunkie 43]

7 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Why would they do that when it's not their problem?

Why should we do it when it's not our problem?

[Anastasis 23723]

5 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

legit lol, tho, amirite?

Weak shit hayden. You know exactly what I am referring to, and choose to misrepresent. But I am the one who is disingenuous.  

[JimmyJames 12271]

6 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

Guest worker program along with penalties for any company hiring an illegal immigrant. 

Makes sense. Here’s the problem though. The trumpkins hate a guest worker program, and the establishment GOP hates the penalties for hiring illegals. So 100 percent of the GOP is against a reasonable solution.

thanks Obama 

[Celery Man 21098]

I’m willing to pay more. Or mow my own yard, cook my own meals and clean my house. It will just be temporary until guest worker program takes off.  
Or maybe some Americans who are not working or on “disability” can do the jobs?

Actually am moderately curious if you check immigration status for your trailer parks.

[Spankytoes 1748]

2 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

 

Further, “HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO THIS IF WE DON’T TAKE THE CHILDREN AWAY FROM THEIR PARENTS” shit man, maybe any way where we don’t fucking do that? I mean, I don’t trust you without a set of specifics anymore but y’all were lickety fucking split turning the Wal Mart into the gulag para los ninos.

 

I’m playing a drinking game with this assertion now: Taking kids away from their parents is a deplorable tactic being used by the current administration.

-Spanky; 8th time

[JukeJointJunkie 43]

6 hours ago, David Dennison said:

It was a memo from Jeff Sessions.

Trump should fire Jeff Sessions! Perfect.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

 

Actually am moderately curious if you check immigration status for your trailer parks.

 

Just employees. Hispanics are the best tenants for rentals.  Most of mine work in plants. I think those companies are pretty strict on immigration. I target properties near industrial facilities on the gulf coast.  

[Celery Man 21098]

2 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

I’m playing a drinking game with this assertion now: Taking kids away from their parents is a deplorable tactic being used by the current administration.

-Spanky; 8th time

just whenever someone says it, or the whole time it's true?

[Spankytoes 1748]

37 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Then you’re a fucking moron lol 

 

35 minutes ago, mdmost said:

And it's why nothing meaningful will happen on immigration reform. A reasonable option, IMO, is a guest worker program where you bring illegals into the fold, get them paying taxes, and into the system. They don't get a vote. They don't get citizenship for a while. But there's a contingent of people who just can't get over that initial illegal act that stops anything meaningful from getting off the ground. 

What if we do that for America’s homeless instead? Give them a job, provide them for a place to live, provide free public transport and get them back on their feet. Do you feel what you are suggesting makes more sense to provide on the taxpayer’s dime than what I am suggesting for American citizens? (Especially for veterans) It would seem to me that being an illegal immigrant would be more advantageous from a benefit standpoint under your plan.

Not saying that you’re wrong. Just interested on your thoughts.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Spankytoes

[F250 29202]

1 hour ago, Message Board User said:

For the MAGA crowd, it's always about white genocide.  In fact, that should be the campaign slogan in 2020.

Tucker Carlson just doesn't seem convincing playing the Sean Hannity role. I get the feeling he is full of self-loathing.

Tucker after each show.

[Spankytoes 1748]

8 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

just whenever someone says it, or the whole time it's true?

What, drinking or the sentiment? The answer is “both” either way. But, I’ve also said that I understand why it’s being implemented and people that violate the law, knowing the consequences, don’t get much empathy from me. It’s the latter portion that puts me at odds with the groupthink as a heartless bastard.

[Skyline 325]

11 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Makes sense. Here’s the problem though. The trumpkins hate a guest worker program, and the establishment GOP hates the penalties for hiring illegals. So 100 percent of the GOP is against a reasonable solution.

thanks Obama 

More and more of them dislike any kind of immigrants. That's the danger I see short term, and long term. 

[mdmost 44073]

I'd be fine with both as I don't see it as an either or choice. Though with homelessness, there's a massive mental health issue involved that would also have to be addressed. There are plenty of existing places, such as local charities and government outreach programs (mostly city or municipal) that do exactly what you are suggesting. There are a lot more factors that go into homeless than just not having a job or a place to live. 

Edited June 19, 2018 by mdmost

[Brisketexan 106943]

17 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

Brisket:

Even though I disagree with you politically on a lot, and feel you go off the reservation from time to time, I respect your viewpoint. What I can’t understand is this: “Why the hypocrisy”? When it comes to enacting policies that will separate illegal immigrant families for breaking the law, your position is “Think of the children!” When it comes to eliminating guns used by people to murder teens for simply going to school, well, you’re just not willing to give that up becaus it infringes on your right as a responsible gun owner. Your heart aches for the children, and their families, but not enough to do what needs to be done to protect their lives.

Help me understand this dichotomy.

So....I'm not sure who you've been reading on gun control issues and think it's me.

For example, with respect to the platform of multiple measures proposed by folks in the wake of Parkland, I agree with almost all of them.  The only one I oppose is an "assault weapons ban," because it's effectively meaningless.  But I'm for mag cap restrictions, increased registration and vetting of purchasers, implementing a red flag program, and several other measures.

Oh, and with respect to THIS specific policy -- separation of children from families seeking asylum, a measure just implemented two months ago -- we're not debating a "pollicy."  We're debating a TACTIC that the administration has openly admitted is just for purposes of negotiation leverage.  I'm happy to discuss immigration policy, always have been.  I've agreed with much of what, for example, Johnny Sack has proposed.  And I do so knowing that families who would surely have better lives here in the US will end up being deported to their home countries.  I have no problem with a reasoned, measured, immigration program.

I will never, ever, be in favor of or forgive a tactic of using innocent human lives as negotiation leverage.  That's the distinction here.  And if someone held a gun to kids' heads to negotiate their position in the gun control debate (pro or con, I don't care), I would find that repugnant as well.

Maybe tax reform is a good idea.  Taking kids away from their parents to get the political opposition to vote your way would be repugnant.

Maybe gun control is a good idea.  Taking kids away from their parents to get the political opposition to vote your way would be repugnant.

Maybe immigration reform is a good idea.  Taking kids away from their parents to get the political opposition to vote your way would be repugnant.

That's what I'm getting at.  Full stop.  And that's where I'll stand.  When political negotiation in this country descends into effectively hostage-taking for leverage, I'm out.  We've crossed the Rubicon.

[hayden_horn 11402]

15 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Weak shit hayden. You know exactly what I am referring to, and choose to misrepresent. But I am the one who is disingenuous.  

yeah, but this isn't the time to call out the shrill bullshit. this is one of the real deals. call out the shrill bullshit like the fish food pour out, and reference this kind of issue. what you do when you bring the fish food shrill bullshit to a real issue, you legitimize the #bothsides people. assuming you are not really one of those, which i really think you are not. this is an issue about which to get shrill, imo. not the one to go to whatabout when you all (really, not all, but whatever) got mad about this fish food issue? 

[Dahobbs 18333]

16 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

The dude straight up admitted that he said it. You acknowledged it and backtracked. I presented other examples that are directly attributed to countering your claim that no one is advocating for open borders. If “moron” is what you’ve got, perhaps it’s best to just let it go and take the “L” on this one.

It would be an exaggeration to say I was advocating for it in this thread in response to this situation. I was advocating for any number of solutions that dont separate children from families in mass, including some very moderate positions. 

[mdmost 44073]

It's just so hard to counter the need to hate the shrill lib prone to hyperbole against the actual horrible, inhumane actions this administration is doing. But I can see what Anastasis is having such problems. This is definitely a time to rail agains the shrill lib. 

[hobbes2702 13490]

19 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

The dude straight up admitted that he said it. You acknowledged it and backtracked. I presented other examples that are directly attributed to countering your claim that no one is advocating for open borders. If “moron” is what you’ve got, perhaps it’s best to just let it go and take the “L” on this one.

I agree he said it. He also doesn’t represent “the left”. You seem to struggle with the idea that not everyone on one side of the political spectrum has exactly the same ideals. Try this on, the right loves pedophiles.I know that the right loves pedophiles because they had one run for office and supported him.

So an immigration plan for a limited group of people is open borders? Does that sound like it makes sense?

[Brisketexan 106943]

2 minutes ago, Skyline said:

More and more of them dislike any kind of immigrants. That's the danger I see short term, and long term. 

Remember when they all said they only had a problem with ILLEGAL immigration, and they were fine with legal immigration?  But now, they want to sharply restrict legal immigration too?

I 'member.

[Spankytoes 1748]

1 minute ago, mdmost said:

I'd be fine with both as I don't see it as an either or choice. Though with homelessness, there's a massive mental health issue involved that would also have to be addressed. There are plenty of existing places, such as local charities and government outreach programs (mostly city or municipal) that do exactly what you are suggesting. There are a lot more factors that go into homeless than just not having a job or a place to live. 

Understood. I don’t completely disagree with you as you’ve suggested a viable solution. It’s wrapping your brain around how to lessen the burden for people that break the law that’s hard to digest. I think a father’s Justice is completely understandable if you harm his child. It won’t make a good defense though.

[Aqua Buddha 14807]

27 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I’m willing to pay more. Or mow my own yard, cook my own meals and clean my house. It will just be temporary until guest worker program takes off.  

Or maybe some Americans who are not working or on “disability” can do the jobs?

You are not.  Even if you are, Americans simply won't do some of those jobs.  It's not about price.

If you believe in this so strongly, you should boycott any golf course in Texas that employs illegal immigrants.  Why not done?  Sad!

[Skyline 325]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Remember when they all said they only had a problem with ILLEGAL immigration, and they were fine with legal immigration?  But now, they want to sharply restrict legal immigration too?

I 'member.

That's exactly the danger with normalization of these abhorrent behaviors. It's only a small leap, and hell several surly members here have made statements about wanting to reduce immigration.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Skyline

[Anastasis 23723]

4 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

yeah, but this isn't the time to call out the shrill bullshit. this is one of the real deals. call out the shrill bullshit like the fish food pour out, and reference this kind of issue. what you do when you bring the fish food shrill bullshit to a real issue, you legitimize the #bothsides people. assuming you are not really one of those, which i really think you are not. this is an issue about which to get shrill, imo. not the one to go to whatabout when you all (really, not all, but whatever) got mad about this fish food issue? 

No.  This and all times previously were precisely the moment to call out the shrill bullshit. Because the shrill bullshit is overloading the information capacity and undermines the ability to rally to the real issues. Jesus Christ, you don't see the play being run, but I am the disingenuous asshole. 

[Guest]

The thing about melting pots is that you can’t dump too big a chunk of something in it at once, you need to keep some ratios for the melting to efficiently happen.

[Francisco 2.0 32603]

Yeah.  Totally the same.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/392922-laura-ingraham-describes-child-detention-centers-as-essentially-summer-camps

Quote

Fox News host Laura Ingraham on Monday described the child detention facilities housing immigrant youth as “essentially summer camps.”

Ingraham’s comments come amid growing outcry over the Trump administration’s policy to prosecute migrants crossing the border illegally, leading to thousands of children being separated from their parents and housed in what the government is calling "tent cities."

“As more illegal immigrants are rushing the border, more kids are being separated from their parents,” Ingraham said. “And temporarily housed at what are, essentially, summer camps.”

 

[Spankytoes 1748]

I agree he said it. He also doesn’t represent “the left”. You seem to struggle with the idea that not everyone on one side of the political spectrum has exactly the same ideals. Try this on, the right loves pedophiles.I know that the right loves pedophiles because they had one run for office and supported him.
So an immigration plan for a limited group of people is open borders? Does that sound like it makes sense?

You tell me if I get it...

[HtownHorn 15235]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

The law wasn't broken dip-shit.  No matter how much Fox tells you it is so, showing up and asking for asylum is not "breaking the law"   Jesus, listen to some outside sources.

Yes it is dipshit. You enter the country illegally you are breaking the law. There are proper ways to ask for asylum.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

17 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

You are not.  Even if you are, Americans simply won't do some of those jobs.  It's not about price.

If you believe in this so strongly, you should boycott any golf course in Texas that employs illegal immigrants.  Why not done?  Sad!

Americans won’t because we pay them not to work.  A little hunger and those jobs start looking okay.  

[HtownHorn 15235]

22 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I agree he said it. He also doesn’t represent “the left”. You seem to struggle with the idea that not everyone on one side of the political spectrum has exactly the same ideals. Try this on, the right loves pedophiles.I know that the right loves pedophiles because they had one run for office and supported him.

So an immigration plan for a limited group of people is open borders? Does that sound like it makes sense?

No one believes this bullshit.

Edited June 19, 2018 by HtownHorn

[hayden_horn 11402]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

No.  This and all times previously were precisely the moment to call out the shrill bullshit. Because the shrill bullshit is overloading the information capacity and undermines the ability to rally to the real issues. Jesus Christ, you don't see the play being run, but I am the disingenuous asshole. 

i simply disagree with you, and judging from the reactions to my post, i'm not the only one. but you do you. you like to decry brisket for him eeyore-like posting, but you basically do the same thing, only with a slightly different angle. was hoping to make you aware of how you are coming across to the rest of the board, but i can see you aren't interested, so i'll stop trying and go back to ignoring your #bothsides.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

 

You tell me if I get it...

 

As if being a registered Democrat in NY means anything. It's like being a registered Republican in Texas. The primary is more important than the general election. You have to vote in it if you want to get a moderate instead of the rent is too damn high guy. My congressional district has 0 Republicans even running. 

Edited June 19, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Pancho 46340]

 

[JukeJointJunkie 43]

I never noticed Sessions has a fucked up ear like Stephen Colbert.

[RandomIdoit 739]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Americans won’t because we pay them not to work.  A little hunger and those jobs start looking okay.  

Able-bodied, mentally fit people who are on government assistance should be offered these jobs. 

[Anastasis 23723]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

i simply disagree with you, and judging from the reactions to my post, i'm not the only one. but you do you. you like to decry brisket for him eeyore-like posting, but you basically do the same thing, only with a slightly different angle. was hoping to make you aware of how you are coming across to the rest of the board, but i can see you aren't interested, so i'll stop trying and go back to ignoring your #bothsides.

OK, I mean, you are free to disagree with the following:

"This has been my issue from election day + 1.  The hysterical reaction to everything Trump does (OMG he dumped out the fish food! da tweets!) washes out the real deplorable shit that needs to be confronted head on. When an environment of constant information chaos is created, shit don't get processed by the average American. Trump thrives on exactly that, and the media has played right along from day one. This board can't even track the real outrages vs the manufactured ones, but you people realize that every poster here, even the total fucking retards, are operating at the right end of the intelligence bell curve. Whatever. Pour another one and watch a rudderless political party commit suicide, hoping something better comes out the other side."

And for the record, even though he will loathe to agree, brisket and I share a very similar world view and assessment of our societal predicament.  I would suggest however that I staked that position on the board in advance of brisket, and he is simply coming around to my perspective. 

 

[Spankytoes 1748]

10 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

As if being a registered Democrat in NY means anything. It's like being a registered Republican in Texas. The primary is more important than the general election. 

OK...

I voted for Bernie in the primary. I would have voted for Bernie over Trump and I disagree with 50% of Bernie’s idealistic policies. I voted for Obama in Texas as a registered Democrat. But, I voted for Bush twice too. Where does that leave us? It only truly matters in a handful of states.

The point I’m trying to make is that yes, identifying with a political affiliation or ideology doesn’t mean that you have to follow every issue lockstep. I’m for equal rights for gays but not special rights for other parts of the LGTBQ equation. I wouldn’t trust someone that conforms their thinking to fit into a specific category simply because it’s popular. My position here contradicts the overwhelming Dem majority of thinking. I don’t think I’ll get kicked out of the club though.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Spankytoes

[XR4ticlone 122]

26 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

You are not.  Even if you are, Americans simply won't do some of those jobs.  It's not about price.

If you believe in this so strongly, you should boycott any golf course in Texas that employs illegal immigrants.  Why not done?  Sad! 

That's a problem for Americans...and America.  Where did we get the idea that we're above any job?   I really don't know...but that shit has to stop...TODAY.

And yea, it would be much easier if we weren't giving people the financial option to stay home watching Oprah & Dr. Phil...or get high, or whatever the fuck all these deadbeats do now days.  

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

OK...

I voted for Bernie in the primary. I would have voted for Bernie over Trump and I disagree with 50% of Bernie’s idealistic policies. I voted for Obama in Texas as a registered Democrat. But, I voted for Bush twice too. Where does that leave us? It only truly matters in a handful of states.

The point I’m trying to make is that yes, identifying with a political affiliation or ideology doesn’t mean that you have to follow every issue lockstep. I’m for equal rights for gays but not special rights for other parts of the LGTBQ equation. I wouldn’t trust someone that confirms their thinking to fit into a category.

It means you were a moderate but the stink of Trump will never wash off of you. No amount of But Hillarys in confession are going to save your soul. 

Your Congresswoman reflects who you used to be.  Middle of the road and has switched parties multiple times, but is Dem now cuz she has to be. She didn't vote for Trump though. 

[Spankytoes 1748]

54 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

So....I'm not sure who you've been reading on gun control issues and think it's me.

For example, with respect to the platform of multiple measures proposed by folks in the wake of Parkland, I agree with almost all of them.  The only one I oppose is an "assault weapons ban," because it's effectively meaningless.  But I'm for mag cap restrictions, increased registration and vetting of purchasers, implementing a red flag program, and several other measures.

Oh, and with respect to THIS specific policy -- separation of children from families seeking asylum, a measure just implemented two months ago -- we're not debating a "pollicy."  We're debating a TACTIC that the administration has openly admitted is just for purposes of negotiation leverage.  I'm happy to discuss immigration policy, always have been.  I've agreed with much of what, for example, Johnny Sack has proposed.  And I do so knowing that families who would surely have better lives here in the US will end up being deported to their home countries.  I have no problem with a reasoned, measured, immigration program.

I will never, ever, be in favor of or forgive a tactic of using innocent human lives as negotiation leverage.  That's the distinction here.  And if someone held a gun to kids' heads to negotiate their position in the gun control debate (pro or con, I don't care), I would find that repugnant as well.

Maybe tax reform is a good idea.  Taking kids away from their parents to get the political opposition to vote your way would be repugnant.

Maybe gun control is a good idea.  Taking kids away from their parents to get the political opposition to vote your way would be repugnant.

Maybe immigration reform is a good idea.  Taking kids away from their parents to get the political opposition to vote your way would be repugnant.

That's what I'm getting at.  Full stop.  And that's where I'll stand.  When political negotiation in this country descends into effectively hostage-taking for leverage, I'm out.  We've crossed the Rubicon.

If it would be proven to you that getting rid of legalized guns would cut down on 98% of violence against children, would you support a Constitutional repeal to hand in your weapons? Not just autos or the issue du jour on the table. Guns would now be illegal to own, or, alternatively, ammunition prices would skyrocket as a deterrent. I don’t think it’s up for debate on whether or not reducing the amount of guns in circulation would reduce, but not eliminate, gun violence. We haven’t even touched on the run of the mill drive-by shootings or anything of that ilk. Is it worth trading your Right for another life?

Second Part: Would you classify current gun restrictions as tactics as well?

These people are ignoring the law. Where do we bend but don’t break? The fact that life goes on while more school shooting happen is pretty repugnant to me too. I don’t think banning guns outright is a viable solution. But it doesn’t mean that we sit around and wait until a solution that please everyone presents itself either.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Spankytoes

[Js1 87201]

3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

It means you were a moderate but the stink of Trump will never wash off of you. No amount of But Hillarys in confession are going to save your soul. 

Your Congresswoman reflects who you used to be.  Middle of the road and has switched parties multiple times, but is Dem now cuz she has to be. She didn't vote for Trump though. 

The classic “I voted for Bernie” as if that erases the Trump stink. (It never will)

[Mojo Hand 4580]

14 minutes ago, Pancho Negro said:

 

That's not even true.  Hitler encouraged Jews to leave throughout the 1930s.  The Holocaust didn't happen overnight. 

[hayden_horn 11402]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

OK, I mean, you are free to disagree with the following:

"This has been my issue from election day + 1.  The hysterical reaction to everything Trump does (OMG he dumped out the fish food! da tweets!) washes out the real deplorable shit that needs to be confronted head on. When an environment of constant information chaos is created, shit don't get processed by the average American. Trump thrives on exactly that, and the media has played right along from day one. This board can't even track the real outrages vs the manufactured ones, but you people realize that every poster here, even the total fucking retards, are operating at the right end of the intelligence bell curve. Whatever. Pour another one and watch a rudderless political party commit suicide, hoping something better comes out the other side."

And for the record, even though he will loathe to agree, brisket and I share a very similar world view and assessment of our societal predicament.  I would suggest however that I staked that position on the board in advance of brisket, and he is simply coming around to my perspective. 

 

you see, i wasn't disagreeing with any of that, and you are smart enough to know that. i was disagreeing with this:

Quote

No.  This and all times previously were precisely the moment to call out the shrill bullshit. Because the shrill bullshit is overloading the information capacity and undermines the ability to rally to the real issues. Jesus Christ, you don't see the play being run, but I am the disingenuous asshole. 

i think the time to call out the shrill bullshit is not in a thread like this, where children are literally sobbing. 

and yes, the post which you authored and posted is actually correct.  i simply happen to think this thread and this particular portion of the thread where we are discussing tyhe policy of separating families is the wrong context for that discussion. i happen to think you are right, but wrong place wrong time.

[Spankytoes 1748]

7 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

It means you were a moderate but the stink of Trump will never wash off of you. No amount of But Hillarys in confession are going to save your soul. 

Your Congresswoman reflects who you used to be.  Middle of the road and has switched parties multiple times, but is Dem now cuz she has to be. She didn't vote for Trump though. 

I see. I don’t share your ignorance or willingness to overlook Hillary’s deep flaws simply to claim myself as a more pious Dem. Especially voting 3X in a State where my vote amounted to jack shit. Good luck with that.

[Brian Fantana 6869]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

Just employees. Hispanics are the best tenants for rentals.  Most of mine work in plants. I think those companies are pretty strict on immigration. I target properties near industrial facilities on the gulf coast.  

Interesting. I think someone should look into how much money Johnny Trustfund is making off illegals. Not saying I'm going to do it, but someone should and maybe report it to someone who might be interested.

[Anastasis 23723]

23 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i simply disagree with you, and judging from the reactions to my post, i'm not the only one.

Just now, hayden_horn said:

you see, i wasn't disagreeing with any of that, and you are smart enough to know that. i was disagreeing with this: