DACA, immigration reform whatever

[Chrispy 131]

1 minute ago, hpslugga said:

Why are they economic migrants?

Because they want to improve their standard of living. 

[4th&Five 41250]

 

[Brisketexan 103740]

No we are not being cruel to them on purpose.
They are being used as a political punishment for the current administration.
If we were rounding them up and forcing them into America, you might have a point.

This is what incredible stupidity/lies looks like. Read it, folks.

Your inability to even address the most basic premise of your argument (that they aren’t attempting to enter legally) shows that you are completely full of shit

It isn’t. You’re fucking stupid.
Whats misrepresented?
You are advocating violating our asylum laws. They are following a legal process.
You’re also a gigantic pussy.

it's amazing how many people breathlessly clamoring that the LAW NEEDS TO BE FOLLOWED!!!!!!! don't have any idea of what the law is.

And all of this.

Simple question for Slorch: early in the nazi regime, a ship of Jewish children tried to enter the US (the St Louis). The law did not allow them to enter.

Should we have allowed them in or not?

I remind you, everything the nazis did was 100% legal.

Slavery was legal.

“It’s the law” is a TERRIBLE argument. And I say that as a practicing attorney.

[Brisketexan 103740]

No we are not being cruel to them on purpose.
They are being used as a political punishment for the current administration.
If we were rounding them up and forcing them into America, you might have a point.

This is what incredible stupidity/lies looks like. Read it, folks.

Your inability to even address the most basic premise of your argument (that they aren’t attempting to enter legally) shows that you are completely full of shit

It isn’t. You’re fucking stupid.
Whats misrepresented?
You are advocating violating our asylum laws. They are following a legal process.
You’re also a gigantic pussy.

it's amazing how many people breathlessly clamoring that the LAW NEEDS TO BE FOLLOWED!!!!!!! don't have any idea of what the law is.

And all of this.

Simple question for Slorch: early in the nazi regime, a ship of Jewish children tried to enter the US (the St Louis). The law did not allow them to enter.

Should we have allowed them in or not?

I remind you, everything the nazis did was 100% legal.

Slavery was legal.

“It’s the law” is a TERRIBLE argument. And I say that as a practicing attorney.

[Chrispy 131]

2 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Exactly. Guys like me and my guy Crispy (white American men) are the real victims, not these little brown criminals who abuse our amazing generosity. I mean just look at these people: 

They are the obviously the abusers in this scenario and the victims are me and my main bro Crispy, a white guy in a polo shirt and khakis who lives in Cypress and works at the Verizon store. Crispy and me don't pay barely anything in taxes so that money can be funneled into the pockets of people like this, who are only trying to get into this country to destroy Crispy and his family (ex-wife and 2 kids that he gets to see on alternating federal holiday weekends). When I see pictures of these people I am just terrified because I know they are here to get me: 

Thank Jesus Crispy and I have a big strong man in the White House who will stop these animals from abusing us any more. 

If I were Trump, I would build a series of Trump hotels along the border. It would be great marketing/business opportunity and these migrants would get to live a little before being deported. 

[4th&Five 41250]

Sounds like something he might do. Which is why everything he touches goes tits up. 

[RomaVicta 29595]

I don't think Ford, Reagan, or either Bush would have been good with this. The villain Nixon wouldn't have gone for it, I don't think. 

Your DixieCrats who fought Civil Rights and turned their dogs, hoses, and guns on your nigras would have been fine with this. Your Klan. Your punishing Christian who is kinda glad everybody else is going to hell might find a way to rationalize caging children and adults. Throw in the self-deluding fools that won't actually really look at all this, and you have Trump's constituency.

Today's Republican Party, ladies and gentlemen. Barry Goldwater would cuff Trump all around the White House lawn until Ike or Teddy asked to cut in. Had you got Reagan to visit a camp, he likely would have wept, otherwise he might have slept. The Bushes? They've got brown family members. W would have gone nukular. 

Most of those guys, I either don't like are mostly don't agree with. A few might have captured my vote. I'm a Dem, and I lament the death of Republican values. The Dems can be overly emotionally mushy in their compassion. Republicans would sometime counter balance that inclination, but not out of cruelty: out of sober restraint in view of the impact to what they thought best for the US. 

When you can afford it, lean Dem. When you don't think you can, lean GOP. Not any more. 

Trump's GOP is a cancer. Coughing out the orange tumor won't cure the disease. I hope some of you are right about Trumpism dying out with an older generation, but I'm not sure of it.

Young people grow accustomed to what they hear. If Trumpism holds on for four or five more years, you may well have a younger generation indoctrinated.

TLDR; see Texan, Brisket

[retread 2951]

RushFoxHannity have always told us that the immigrants' whole purpose is to destroy our way of life. The Ds cannot be allowed to win an election, and the immigrants must be punished. Forget the laws. This is for the survival of America.

[hpslugga 3986]

17 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Because they want to improve their standard of living. 

What's wrong with the standard of living in their own countries?

[Chrispy 131]

6 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

What's wrong with the standard of living in their own countries?

It’s not as good as ours unfortunately. I feel bad for them, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

I wonder where the line is for the pro-concentration camp crowd.  If "they are here illegally, they're asking for it!!!" justifies the current conditions, what does it not justify? 

[hpslugga 3986]

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

It’s not as good as ours unfortunately. I feel bad for them, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles. 

Why is it not as good as ours?

[Brisketexan 103740]

It’s not as good as ours unfortunately. I feel bad for them, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles. 

Do you support turning back the St Louis? After all, it was the law.

[Chrispy 131]

2 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Why is it not as good as ours?

Civil wars, communist revolutions, corruption, etc. 

[hpslugga 3986]

4 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Civil wars, communist revolutions, corruption, etc. 

What communist revolutions took place in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, etc?

Edited July 2, 2019 by hpslugga

[Chrispy 131]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Do you support turning back the St Louis? After all, it was the law.

Wait, are you comparing these economic migrants to Jewish refugees escaping the holocaust? Whoa. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Civil wars, communist revolutions, corruption, etc. 

Sorry Chrispy troll. I ran out of negs today to give you. You were really on a roll yesterday though. Blaming the dad for his daughter drowning? That’s pretty low, even for fake you.

I realize you’re playing a bit and all but any human being with any type of conscious should feel like crap posting that nonsense, even if you’re just being paid to troll. 

Maybe zork and your other socks can like it when you post a recipe for a casserole and make up for the negs. 

[Chrispy 131]

5 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

What communist revolutions took place in Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, etc?

The Rebel Armed forces in Guatemala. I’m unsure if the FMLN forces were socialist or communist, but certainly left-wing militias. 

[Chrispy 131]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

Sorry Chrispy troll. I ran out of negs today to give you. You were really on a roll yesterday though. Blaming the dad for his daughter drowning? That’s pretty low, even for fake you.

I realize you’re playing a bit and all but any human being with any type of conscious should feel like crap posting that nonsense, even if you’re just being paid to troll. 

Maybe zork and your other socks can like it when you post a recipe for a casserole and make up for the negs. 

No worries my man. 

[hpslugga 3986]

5 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

The Rebel Armed forces in Guatemala. I’m unsure if the FMLN forces were socialist or communist, but certainly left-wing militias. 

The RAF never seized power in Guatemala, they were defeated by the right wing military dictatorship that we had established via the CIA coup of 1954, the FMLN has similarly never been in a position of power (for the same reason) and that’s only 2 of the 4 countries I asked about. 

Anything to say about Mexico or Honduras?

Edited July 2, 2019 by hpslugga

[Pancho 43213]

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

4 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

No worries my man. 

I’d actually give you one positive rep back for that but alas, I’m out for the day. 

[Chrispy 131]

12 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

The RAF never seized power in Guatemala, they were defeated by the right wing military dictatorship that we had established via the CIA coup of 1954, the FMLN has similarly never been in a position of power, and that’s only 2 of the 4 countries I asked about. 

Anything to say about Mexico or Honduras?

Like I stated, civil wars will tear countries and regions apart. It seems Honduras suffered from stagnating agricultural and de-industrialization. The fear caused by the other civil wars in the region also played a role. 

Mexico has ceded control to the cartel, so that one’s pretty simple. 

Edited July 2, 2019 by Chrispy
I’m regarded

[Pancho 43213]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23251]

Concentration camps 

[retread 2951]

My favorite part is the CBP agents trying to reel the Congressmen/women in and keep them from bringing in their phones, talking to the children, etc. Very cool.

[Brisketexan 103740]

Wait, are you comparing these economic migrants to Jewish refugees escaping the holocaust? Whoa. 

Really? You spend much time in A Honduran neighborhood lately? In terms of risk of life and limb....it’s pretty fucking stout.

Would you let the St Louis in or not? Answer you fucking gutless coward.

[Brisketexan 103740]

Wait, are you comparing these economic migrants to Jewish refugees escaping the holocaust? Whoa. 

Really? You spend much time in A Honduran neighborhood lately? In terms of risk of life and limb....it’s pretty fucking stout.

Would you let the St Louis in or not? Answer you fucking gutless coward.

[achooloco 963]

@slorch you still haven’t answered the questions I asked. And I negged the post that clearly states what the law is; regardless of merit, they can apply and are being illegally denied that application. You again counter with the equivalent of “I know their claims are bullshit” but THAT IS NOT THE POINT. Willful unrelated ignorance in the face of logic and reality is bitch made.  It doesn’t matter if YOU believe in blaming rape victims and a beaten woman had it coming, the law says that the asylum seekers have a right to apply. I tried to only pos rep people’s posts that showed facts against your subjective opinions but when you disregard reality for your irrelevant speculations (based on literally no objective facts), you not only look like a dumb dumb (tech education holla!) but you’ll get negged each time.  You won’t get negged to oblivion but crispy is getting there. Kind of funny that you disappear just as he shows up.

Ultimately trump is breaking the law.  you claim to want the law to be followed but It is pretty clear you don’t care about the law at all when it comes to trump.  So does the law matter or not? The asylum seekers are trying to follow the law so why aren’t you triggered/outraged when trump breaks it? 

 

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

I don't know why y'all continue to engage slorch.  We already know he's a moron, racist, and a coward; he fits all three categories in the deplorable bucket.  Instead, focus on those who might be convinced to change their views because they don't have a hole in their head and a hole in their heart.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23251]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/02/politics/cnn-poll-immigration-border-crisis/index.html

[wildcat09 28627]

17 minutes ago, achooloco said:

@slorch you still haven’t answered the questions I asked. And I negged the post that clearly states what the law is; regardless of merit, they can apply and are being illegally denied that application. You again counter with the equivalent of “I know their claims are bullshit” but THAT IS NOT THE POINT. Willful unrelated ignorance in the face of logic and reality is bitch made.  It doesn’t matter if YOU believe in blaming rape victims and a beaten woman had it coming, the law says that the asylum seekers have a right to apply. I tried to only pos rep people’s posts that showed facts against your subjective opinions but when you disregard reality for your irrelevant speculations (based on literally no objective facts), you not only look like a dumb dumb (tech education holla!) but you’ll get negged each time.  You won’t get negged to oblivion but crispy is getting there. Kind of funny that you disappear just as he shows up.

Ultimately trump is breaking the law.  you claim to want the law to be followed but It is pretty clear you don’t care about the law at all when it comes to trump.  So does the law matter or not? The asylum seekers are trying to follow the law so why aren’t you triggered/outraged when trump breaks it? 

 

Slorch thinks the law is only for brown people to follow.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23251]

 

[Chrispy 131]

17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Really? You spend much time in A Honduran neighborhood lately? In terms of risk of life and limb....it’s pretty fucking stout.

Would you let the St Louis in or not? Answer you fucking gutless coward.

I don’t doubt it, most of the world is a very unforgiving place. It’s not Nazi Germany circa 1939, however. 

Of course I would have, they were refugees. 

[Brisketexan 103740]

I don’t doubt it, most of the world is a very unforgiving place. It’s not Nazi Germany circa 1939, however. 

Of course I would have, they were refugees. 

No you wouldn’t have, you sack of shit.

 

Most importantly, because they had even LESS legal right to claim asylum at the time - modern asylum law didn’t exist then.

 

I thought you were about following the law? So which is it? Follow the law, and send the Jews packing, or break the law, and let them in illegally?

 

You’ve already said that following the law is super essential. Now you’re saying you’d have broken it. Be consistent.

[hpslugga 3986]

1 hour ago, Chrispy said:

Like I stated, civil wars will tear countries and regions apart.

The RAF was started in 1961, stopped being relevant after 1970, and formally disbanded in 1996. Even if I were to concede your implied points 1) that they were some sort of villain, which I never will because those two governments were the closest parallel to Nazi Germany in the western world in the post WWII era, and 2) that they had any meaningful impact on the country’s economy, it’s a little pathetic for you to be crying foul over a marginal organization that disbanded over a quarter of a century ago. That’s like blaming the EPA for the US economic disaster of 2008. Your response to these questions has been so spectacularly partisan that it strains credulity. You should have a little shame, especially given how absolutely wrong you’ve been on absolutely every point.

Quote

It seems Honduras suffered from stagnating agricultural and de-industrialization. The fear caused by the other civil wars in the region also played a role. 

So it wasn’t the fact that the US turned it into a de facto military base in the 1980’s and then 29 years later overthrew a legitimately elected leader for bullshit reasons, which immediately was followed by an economic downturn in an already suffering country? Cool. Didn’t know that.

Quote

Mexico has seized control to the cartel, so that one’s pretty simple. 

The word you’re looking for is “ceded,” and that so misses the point it’s not even worth reviewing. But it wouldn’t be worth reviewing anyways because you’re completely incapable of being fucking honest about anything meaningful. You prefer to live in a world of Make Believe and Pretend, and you bitch that it’s we who believe in fairy tales. That’s a textbook example of what Aronra calls the Pot Calling the Silverware Black.

Edited July 2, 2019 by hpslugga

[Chrispy 131]

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

No you wouldn’t have, you sack of shit.

 

Most importantly, because they had even LESS legal right to claim asylum at the time - modern asylum law didn’t exist then.

 

I thought you were about following the law? So which is it? Follow the law, and send the Jews packing, or break the law, and let them in illegally?

 

You’ve already said that following the law is super essential. Now you’re saying you’d have broken it. Be consistent.

I’ll grant some leeway to actual refugees, but economic migrants? Naw. 

[Brisketexan 103740]

I’ll grant some leeway to actual refugees, but economic migrants? Naw. 

And...here’s the part where someone who is ALL ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW will surely agree with me....how do you make that determination as to a particular individual?

 

Hmmm...it seems the answer to that question is “by due process of law.” Yes, I checked, that is indeed the answer.

 

And what do we do to people who are awaiting due process of law? Say, someone named “Chrispy,” who is accused of a crime? Do we subject Chrispy to human rights abuses? No matter how much I would personally enjoy that, because I know what an absolute shitbag you are, no, we do not.

 

We ARE a nation of laws. The problem is, you and the orange goblin you fellate aren’t interested in following them.

 

Every time you crow about “don’t break the law,” you indict yourself even further. You have zero interest in the law.

[Chrispy 131]

11 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

The RAF was started in 1961, stopped being relevant after 1970, and formally disbanded in 1996. Even if I were to concede your implied points 1) that they were some sort of villain, which I never will because those two governments were the closest parallel to Nazi Germany in the western world in the post WWII era, and 2) that they had any meaningful impact on the country’s economy, it’s a little pathetic for you to be crying foul over a marginal organization that disbanded over a quarter of a century ago. That’s like blaming the EPA for the US economic disaster of 2008. Your response to these questions has been so spectacularly partisan that it strains credulity. You should have a little shame, especially given how absolutely wrong you’ve been on absolutely every point.

So it wasn’t the fact that the US turned it into a de facto military base in the 1980’s and then 29 years later overthrew a legitimately elected leader for bullshit reasons, which immediately was followed by an economic downturn in an already suffering country? Cool. Didn’t know that.

The word you’re looking for is “ceded,” and that so misses the point it’s not even worth reviewing. But it wouldn’t be worth reviewing anyways because you’re completely incapable of being fucking honest about anything meaningful. You prefer to live in a world of Make Believe and Pretend, and you bitch that it’s we who believe in fairy tales. That’s a textbook example of what Aronra calls the Pot Calling the Silverware Black.

The point was that the region never recovered from these civil wars, I wasn’t assigning blame to the lefty militias that you admire so much. 

Ah yes, blame the US, the tried and true tactic of the left. I knew this was the point of you posts, but couldn’t wait for you to finally say it. 

I fixed that an hour ago, which means it took you an hour to write that drivel? Yikes. 

[Chrispy 131]

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And...here’s the part where someone who is ALL ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW will surely agree with me....how do you make that determination as to a particular individual?

 

Hmmm...it seems the answer to that question is “by due process of law.” Yes, I checked, that is indeed the answer.

 

And what do we do to people who are awaiting due process of law? Say, someone named “Chrispy,” who is accused of a crime? Do we subject Chrispy to human rights abuses? No matter how much I would personally enjoy that, because I know what an absolute shitbag you are, no, we do not.

 

We ARE a nation of laws. The problem is, you and the orange goblin you fellate aren’t interested in following them.

 

Every time you crow about “don’t break the law,” you indict yourself even further. You have zero interest in the law.

Thankfully Chrispy is a legal citizen with paperwork and doesn’t commit crimes, so I won’t need to worry about it. 

These migrants will get their due process, but the line is a bit backed up at the moment. 

[Guest]

 

17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And...here’s the part where someone who is ALL ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW will surely agree with me....how do you make that determination as to a particular individual?

 

Hmmm...it seems the answer to that question is “by due process of law.” Yes, I checked, that is indeed the answer.

 

And what do we do to people who are awaiting due process of law? Say, someone named “Chrispy,” who is accused of a crime? Do we subject Chrispy to human rights abuses? No matter how much I would personally enjoy that, because I know what an absolute shitbag you are, no, we do not.

 

We ARE a nation of laws. The problem is, you and the orange goblin you fellate aren’t interested in following them.

 

Every time you crow about “don’t break the law,” you indict yourself even further. You have zero interest in the law.

Chrispy is a citizen.  Not an invader.

 

I know the difference is lost on y'all/

Edited July 2, 2019 by slorch

[Brisketexan 103740]

 
Chrispy is a citizen.  Not an invader.
 
I know the difference is lost on y'all/

An invader...hmmm...how do you determine whether someone is an “invader”...or entitled to asylum? Could it be....due process of law?

You guys are a hoot. Repeatedly pantsing yourselves, and too stupid to get it.

[Dahobbs 17269]

8 minutes ago, slorch said:

 

Chrispy is a citizen.  Not an invader.

 

I know the difference is lost on y'all/

The constitution doesn't say due process for citizens and no process for everyone else. It says due process for everyone in the country. Or do you think visitors to our country can be locked up for crimes with no trial? Frankly, you're a traitor to the constitution and that seems a pretty good reason to lock you up. But, I'd let you have a jury trial since I'm a sporting chap. 

[tantric superman 4667]

1 hour ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

I don't know why y'all continue to engage slorch.  We already know he's a moron, racist, and a coward; he fits all three categories in the deplorable bucket.  Instead, focus on those who might be convinced to change their views because they don't have a hole in their head and a hole in their heart.  

He got big bootstraps and he ain't afraid to pull on them.

[hpslugga 3986]

28 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

The point was that the region never recovered from these civil wars, I wasn’t assigning blame to the lefty militias that you admire so much. 

Do you really think you’re fooling anyone with this? You’re dishonest, but you aren’t nearly as good of a liar as you think you are.

Quote

Ah yes, blame the US, the tried and true tactic of the left. 

The tried and true tactics that have been at play here are your pathetic and dishonest deflections.

You say that as if the US either has never meddled in the region, which would be a lie, or that we did meddle but it didn’t negatively affect them, which would be a spectacular lie, or that we did meddle and it had negative implications but they were minor, which would be an unforgivable lie.

There’s nothing honorable or patriotic about the perpetual deny-and-deflect tactic that you’re using here and this chickenshit posturing routine literally has zero effect on anyone with a functioning grey cell. What you’re exhibiting here isn’t patriotism; it’s apologist bootlicking and it’s absolutwly disgusting.

Edited July 2, 2019 by hpslugga

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

An invader...hmmm...how do you determine whether someone is an “invader”...or entitled to asylum? Could it be....due process of law?

You guys are a hoot. Repeatedly pantsing yourselves, and too stupid to get it.

Fuck you dude.  that's always your play.

 

"your just not enlightened enough to get our fucked up view of how we're gonna change the country"

 

Yeah, I get it bro.  I just full-heartedly disagree.

 

The invader does not live there and is not authorized to be there...  You know the fucking answer.  So do they.  So does everyone in this thread.

 

But you'll ignore it, because there is political capital to be gleaned.

 

carry on...

[Zepol87 9029]

Words like invader are the fucking reason people don't like you. Fuck you with that type of shit

Edited July 2, 2019 by Zepol87

[Hugo Stiglitz 23251]

 

[ChickenSandwich 9770]

2 hours ago, Pancho said:

 

 

"Rev. Samuel Rodriguez was "full of indignation" when he saw the reports and heard from politicians about the deplorable and inhumane conditions for illegal immigrants at an El Paso County, Texas migrant detention center. But what he saw at the same facility toured by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. with a group of pastors was "drastically different."

“I read the reports, saw the news clips. I just wanted to see what was actually happening in order to better enable our efforts to find a fair and a just solution to our broken immigration system," Rodriguez, who has advised President Trump and both Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush on immigration reform, noted. “To my surprise, I saw something drastically different from the stories I’ve been hearing in our national discourse. Even as a veteran of immigration advocacy in the U.S., I was shocked at the misinformation of the crisis at the border."

The group of pastors saw a very different picture described by Ocasio-Cortez and other politicians and media outlets.

“We found no soiled diapers, no deplorable conditions and no lack of basic necessities,” Rodriguez remarked, adding he specifically asked border agents if they staged the facility in response to the negative press. “They unequivocally denied it — we were witnessing the identical conditions the attorneys saw when they toured the facility days earlier."

In fact, some told him the sources from whom the negative coverage originated “never toured the areas of the facility that we toured” and speculated they might have had political motivations.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/immigration-border-facility-aoc-hispanic

[hobbes2702 12537]

2 minutes ago, slorch said:

Fuck you dude.  that's always your play.

 

"your just not enlightened enough to get our fucked up view of how we're gonna change the country"

 

Yeah, I get it bro.  I just full-heartedly disagree.

 

The invader does not live there and is not authorized to be there...  You know the fucking answer.  So do they.  So does everyone in this thread.

 

But you'll ignore it, because there is political capital to be gleaned.

 

carry on...

How about you answer the question you’ve ignored the entire thread? In what way are these people breaking the law?