Caravan

[JimmyJames 12,271]

23 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

There’s benefits to dirt cheap labor, of course, that’s why people keep hiring them. That doesnt change the fact that they are here illegally. What would you have me say to my neighbors to change their mind? 

Why don’t you tell them the same things you so thoroughly enjoy telling us? 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, CowboyFred said:

But you and your people are so against it, so why do you keep taking advantage of it?  I would have you report them for hiring those unauthorized to work here.  I mean they’re such bad people, right?

I think it's like the Pharoah with the Hebrews. It's good to have (wage) slaves, to build your pyramids and do your grunt work, but you can't have them be too many. Then you risk being overpowered, once the marginalized group grows self aware that they have bred in large numbers.

The same thing with illegal labor. People love cheap illegal labor, but keep the supply at a minimum so you aren't overrun and your way of life (again, goes back to the patriarchal hegemony of the white man, the status quo and wanting to hold on to power) is maintained. 

You don't have to agree and more enlightened minds and better people do in fact disagree. But if you can't at least understand the reasoning (you don't have to full on empathize) then I don't quite trust your aptitude-- the royal 'your', that is.

In summation, this is clip is how some American's view illegals and why it's good to keep them trickling in at a manageable stream instead of opening the flood gates:

 

[bad_teammate 13,215]

14 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Aren't you the guy who constantly spouts off "LIAR!" "Damn LIAR!" and "I DIDNT SAY THAT! SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THAT LIAR!" to people who use analogies or exaggerated absurdisms to  try and point back the things you say, to you? Yet, here we are, with me juggling watermelons at a KA party, in your mind.

The pronunciation of "asking" as "axing" is a common anti-Black reference/trope. The mimicry of black vernacular as a stand-in for stupid people is racist. It could be knowingly or unknowingly racist, but it's still racist.

You keep finding yourself in the same, "Oh my good golly gosh I didn't know what I just said was bigoted/misogynist/racist!" position. Either you're a conscious troll or an oblivious dunce. I don't know for sure, but I think it's the latter.

The problem oblivious dunces is that, when they get their feelings hurt enough by being corrected, they turn into angry reactionaries, hence my earlier prediction of RAHOWA in 6 months.

[Chrispy 132]

Just now, CowboyFred said:

But you and your people are so against it, so why do you keep taking advantage of it?  I would have you report them for hiring those unauthorized to work here.  I mean they’re such bad people, right?

I’m certainly against it, but we both know why they continue to hire these individuals; they can pay them next to nothing. I’d turn them in if it would do any good, but it would only serve to sour our relationship. Some of these illegal aliens have been deported more than once and come right back, so there’s no point until our broken border is corrected. 

[Chrispy 132]

15 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Why don’t you tell them the same things you so thoroughly enjoy telling us? 

If they ask my opinion, I’ll give it. 

[immortal13 4,059]

30 minutes ago, CowboyFred said:

But you and your people are so against it, so why do you keep taking advantage of it?  I would have you report them for hiring those unauthorized to work here.  I mean they’re such bad people, right?

I took advantage of your mom last night. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The pronunciation of "asking" as "axing" is a common anti-Black reference/trope. The mimicry of black vernacular as a stand-in for stupid people is racist. It could be knowingly or unknowingly racist, but it's still racist.

You keep finding yourself in the same, "Oh my good golly gosh I didn't know what I just said was bigoted/misogynist/racist!" position. Either you're a conscious troll or an oblivious dunce. I don't know for sure, but I think it's the latter.

The problem oblivious dunces is that, when they get their feelings hurt enough by being corrected, they turn into angry reactionaries, hence my earlier prediction of RAHOWA in 6 months.

I'm not fine with being an unknowing racist, but I will admit that there are times that my ignorance does betray some learned heuristics, prejudices, and biases that I might hold. I don't particularly like being called an oblivious dunce, but that's fair too I suppose from your perspective, as are the characterizations I've made of you from my perspective (and the characterizations made of you by others with theirs).

Ultimately the problem we have is one of perspectives. There is no "national" or "American" perspective anymore. We aren't aligned with one message under God and we are a fractured, value-balkanized nation. And it seems the fracture is pretty sizable at around 40% on each side, so it's harder to indoctrinate people back to a central message than it was during Andrew Johnson's tenure when over 70% of the Senate opposed him.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Guest

[TexLonghorn 5,671]

3 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

We aren't aligned with one message under God and we are a fractured, value-balkanized nation.

And the betting line shifts back toward "conscious troll"...

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

21 hours ago, burntorangebongos said:

Because they all knew it was a fake manufactured crisis like the rest of us.

You're a fake manufactured crisis ?

[bad_teammate 13,215]

1 minute ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

There is no "national" or "American" perspective anymore. We aren't aligned with one message under God and we are a fractured, value-balkanized nation. And it seems the fracture is pretty sizable at around 40% on each side, so it's harder to indoctrinate people back to a central message than it was during Andrew Johnson's tenure when over 70% of the Senate opposed him.

There never was.

Andrew Jackson served from 1829-1837. Neither blacks nor women had the right to vote. Southern blacks were literally enslaved. The first black senator wouldn't be on the scene for 40 years and the first female senator for nearly 100.

~*~*~ simpler times ~*~*~

[David Dennison 18,922]

8 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I'm not fine with being an unknowing racist, but I will admit that there are times that my ignorance does betray some learned heuristics, prejudices, and biases that I might hold. I don't particularly like being called an oblivious dunce, but that's fair too I suppose from your perspective, as are the characterizations I've made of you from my perspective (and the characterizations made of you by others with theirs).

Ultimately the problem we have is one of perspectives. There is no "national" or "American" perspective anymore. We aren't aligned with one message under God and we are a fractured, value-balkanized nation. And it seems the fracture is pretty sizable at around 40% on each side, so it's harder to indoctrinate people back to a central message than it was during Andrew Johnson's tenure when over 70% of the Senate opposed him.

You mean balticized.

Idoit.

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

There never was.

Andrew Jackson served from 1829-1837. Neither blacks nor women had the right to vote. Southern blacks were literally enslaved. The first black senator wouldn't be on the scene for 40 years and the first female senator for nearly 100.

~*~*~ simpler times ~*~*~

Why do people read Andrew Johnson yet respond with Andrew Jackson crap? You people...

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, TexLonghorn said:

And the betting line shifts back toward "conscious troll"...

ah yes, the old "I don't agree with him so he must be fake" defense.

[bad_teammate 13,215]

Just now, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Why do people read Andrew Johnson yet respond with Andrew Jackson crap? You people...

B/C no one cares about Andrew Johnson.

The point is completely unchanged, however. Care to address it?

Quote

ah yes, the old "I don't agree with him so he must be fake" defense.

Trolls aren't fake people. What?

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

B/C no one cares about Andrew Johnson.

The point is completely unchanged, however. Care to address it?

Trolls aren't fake people. What?

lol.

The problem you have is fleshed out by your typical hormonal response to a fictional point nobody made about Andrew Jackson. Namely, you don't care to listen or read, you (oh boy, *especially* you) have your mind made up about everything and know it all. If only we would just ask you, why, you would you certainly tell us how to be politically unfailing and what the universal formula is for utopia and happiness, for everyone.

You are the internet version of not listening to someone to hear them, but waiting for them to stop talking so that you can resume talking and being a blowhard. By all means, tell me all about that American Lion Andrew Jackson tho...

[wildcat09 29,355]

12 hours ago, Chrispy said:

Wrong, an illegal alien slammed into my wife’s SUV last year and attempted to take off due to lack of insurance (shocking, I know), but was followed by a good hearted citizen. They’re all over the place here and you don’t have to look very hard. 

Your wife should learn to drive.

[Chrispy 132]

13 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Your wife should learn to drive.

Sigh, isn’t that the truth. 

[bad_teammate 13,215]

21 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

The problem you have is fleshed out by your typical hormonal response to a fictional point nobody made about Andrew Jackson. Namely, you don't care to listen or read, you (oh boy, *especially* you) have your mind made up about everything and know it all. If only we would just ask you, why, you would you certainly tell us how to be politically unfailing and what the universal formula is for utopia and happiness, for everyone.

You are the internet version of not listening to someone to hear them, but waiting for them to stop talking so that you can resume talking and being a blowhard. By all means, tell me all about that American Lion Andrew Jackson tho...

Nice meltdown.

In Ben Sasse fashion, you continually hearken back to a past that never existed. You lament the loss of a time of civility and spiritual civic unity which never existed. What you actually  pine for is government-enforced white supremacist patriarchy, not because you're an avowed white supremacist/misogynist (yet), but because it is simply less messy in your white male eyes. It's not that you want minorities and women to suffer, per se, you just want the world to be simpler and easier for you to understand.

[SaucyJack 3,488]

Gee,  Wally, when you put it like that, it makes a lot of sense. 

Edited November 13, 2018 by SaucyJack

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Nice meltdown.

In Ben Sasse fashion, you continually hearken back to a past that never existed. You lament the loss of a time of civility and spiritual civic unity which never existed. What you actually  pine for is government-enforced white supremacist patriarchy, not because you're an avowed white supremacist/misogynist (yet), but because it is simply less messy in your white male eyes. It's not that you want minorities and women to suffer, per se, you just want the world to be simpler and easier for you to understand.

I have no idea who Ben Sasse is.

You either cannot read, do not care to take the time to read what I write, or I have given you way too much intellectual credit in the past (humor/snark can be a tricky veneer and substitute for actual aptitude, after all).

Perhaps read my post here if you are confused why I've mentioned Andrew Johnson twice now (https://www.surlyhorns.com/board/index.php?/topic/149-donald-trump-2018/&page=732&tab=comments#comment-740897). 

What you call pining for a simpler times when the white man could wear white bow ties and drink iced tea and watch big bulls fight each other and enjoy Django Unchained-like days is fictional. Lies. You are lying.

I was merely calling back to the state of how things were in Andrew Johnson's day, when the Senate was comprised of people who could unite together at a 70% clip to overcome the racism/ineptitude/stupidity of the commander-in-chief (they overrode like 15 of his vetos to pass civil rights laws and scale back black laws or whatever). Unlike today where we have two groups of people, at about 40% blocs, who will be entrenched on either side of the aisle no matter how racist/inept/stupid the CIC might be.

That being said, do I have white-male-hetero-normative-hegemony biases? Absolutely I do-- we all have subtle biases and prejudices informed by our environments and realities-- but in the aforementioned respects I don't see how that is worth mentioning?

 

 

Edited November 13, 2018 by Guest

[bad_teammate 13,215]

23 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I was merely calling back to the state of how things were in Andrew Johnson's day, when the Senate was comprised of people who could unite together at a 70% clip to overcome the racism/ineptitude/stupidity of the commander-in-chief (they overrode like 15 of his vetos to pass civil rights laws and scale back black laws or whatever). Unlike today where we have two groups of people, at about 40% blocs, who will be entrenched on either side of the aisle no matter how racist/inept/stupid the CIC might be.

And what changed that made this the case? Why did people in the Senate who were ideologically different unite against Johnson in such a clear way?

What changed, Ben Sasse?

[Horn21 168]

2 hours ago, Chrispy said:

I’m certainly against it, but we both know why they continue to hire these individuals; they can pay them next to nothing. I’d turn them in if it would do any good, but it would only serve to sour our relationship. Some of these illegal aliens have been deported more than once and come right back, so there’s no point until our broken border is corrected. 

So the strength of your conviction behind the nonsense that you spout on Surly is strong enough to maintain anonymity on a message board,  but not strong enough to stand up to your friends when they go counter against those convictions due to it making things uncomfortable for you.  And you've accused me of being weak-willed.

Pretty telling admission about how much you actually believe the shit you peddle around here.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

And what changed that made this the case? Why did people in the Senate who were ideologically different unite against Johnson in such a clear way?

What changed, Ben Sasse?

The flaw in your assumption (in my opinion) is bolded in the second sentence. People in the Senate were not ideologically different. They were more or less unified under the same ideas and motivated by keeping the union intact. Whether R or D or BullMoose or Whig or whatever, they weren't ideologically as Mars and Venus as we as American's are today. I, again, don't know or care who Ben Sasse is. You will have to deign to expound via a message to educate me on who he is because I'm not going to waste the time to google it as it seems you are trying to troll me.

To your first sentence-- you agree to the fundamental issue and want to know what changed that made this the case. Yet when I posted why that was the case-- literally already posted this-- I get called a troll by some of our less able (differently abled, let's call him) posters:

Go back to my initial point, that back then there was a national (defined by at least a 70% majority, it seems) consensus and centralizing and unifying message/values/beliefs that united the states (pun intended). Which again goes back to my point that these days we do not have that, we are a nation of conflicting perspectives and a balkanized-values country. We don't believe in the same general things anymore. Right and Wrong and Good and Evil are too subjective of ideas for us as a group of 300mm+ people of different cultures and religions (or lack thereof) and beliefs etc.

.............

 

But tell me Ben Sassy Pants Rainbow Randall Troll Liar, tell me more about Andrew Jackson and the Indian wars and New Orleans and stuff lol. No need to acknowledge you don't read my posts and have foregone conclusions and were wrong about my intentions because of your anti-wypipo bias, though.

 

Edited November 13, 2018 by Guest

[TexLonghorn 5,671]

I, too, miss those halcyon days of yore that I was not alive during (and indeed my parents or grandparents weren't alive during), but to which I attribute unassailable ideals and infallible altruistic actions based on my understanding and assumptions of how things and people were then, particularly in contrast to this modern hell of a society where I insist on focusing only on the worst parts of it and then expand that to characterize the entire society.

[hpslugga 4,062]

14 hours ago, Chrispy said:

Wrong, an illegal alien slammed into my wife’s SUV last year and attempted to take off due to lack of insurance (shocking, I know), but was followed by a good hearted citizen. 

Ok so last year, a citizen rear-ended me on 121 near Forth Worth. I was going 70 mph, and he was going so much faster than I was that he actually fucking totaled my 2014 Nissan Altima with his little piece of shit Toyota. He took off and we since learned that not only was he driving with a thrice-suspended license, not only did he flee the scene, not only did he hit someone else just seconds before he hit me (and he also checked into a bridge when he was trying to get back onto the highway), not only was he high and drunk at 7 a.m. when all this falderal happened, not only did he have no insurance on this particular car, he was 34 years old at the time, driving his mother's (who was severely under-insured) car, drunk as a skunk, high as a kite, and destroyed my fucking vehicle and endangered around a dozen lives in the process (3 of us, the other guy he hit, and 5-6 other cars who were in between when he was swerving all over the goddamned 5 lane highway).

Why am I telling this extremely isolated, anecdotal story? Because the fact that he was a citizen is completely irrelevant, just like the fact that your wife's victimizer being illegal is completely irrelevant. Illegals aren't the only ones who have asshole drivers, and they're not the only ones who have uninsured asshole drivers either. You can waste our time making the Bill O'Reilly case if you want by blaming illegal immigration for what occurred, but just understand that most of us can see an issue for what it is. If your wife was hit by an uninsured motorist who attempted to flee the scene for that reason, then the fact that he's illegal is as useful as an asshole on an elbow.

[Chrispy 132]

36 minutes ago, Horn21 said:

So the strength of your conviction behind the nonsense that you spout on Surly is strong enough to maintain anonymity on a message board,  but not strong enough to stand up to your friends when they go counter against those convictions due to it making things uncomfortable for you.  And you've accused me of being weak-willed.

Pretty telling admission about how much you actually believe the shit you peddle around here.

First, I don’t think I spout nonsense. Second, my point was that turning them in wouldn’t change anything. 

[Chrispy 132]

2 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Ok so last year, a citizen rear-ended me on 121 near Forth Worth. I was going 70 mph, and he was going so much faster than I was that he actually fucking totaled my 2014 Nissan Altima with his little piece of shit Toyota. He took off and we since learned that not only was he driving with a thrice-suspended license, not only did he flee the scene, not only did he hit someone else just seconds before he hit me (and he also checked into a bridge when he was trying to get back onto the highway), not only was he high and drunk at 7 a.m. when all this falderal happened, not only did he have no insurance on this particular car, he was 34 years old at the time, driving his mother's (who was severely under-insured) car, drunk as a skunk, high as a kite, and destroyed my fucking vehicle and endangered around a dozen lives in the process (3 of us, the other guy he hit, and 5-6 other cars who were in between when he was swerving all over the goddamned 5 lane highway).

Why am I telling this extremely isolated, anecdotal story? Because the fact that he was a citizen is completely irrelevant, just like the fact that your wife's victimizer being illegal is completely irrelevant. Illegals aren't the only ones who have asshole drivers, and they're not the only ones who have uninsured asshole drivers either. You can waste our time making the Bill O'Reilly case if you want by blaming illegal immigration for what occurred, but just understand that most of us can see an issue for what it is. If your wife was hit by an uninsured motorist who attempted to flee the scene for that reason, then the fact that he's illegal is as useful as an asshole on an elbow.

My anecdotal story was a response, and I’ve stated this a number of times, to a post that asserted there are no illegal aliens in The Woodland and it doesn’t affect me. The assertion was wrong. 

[hpslugga 4,062]

2 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

My anecdotal story was a response, and I’ve stated this a number of times, to a post that asserted there are no illegal aliens in The Woodland and it doesn’t affect me. The assertion was wrong. 

And what I'm telling you is that the person in question's legal status as a citizen or not is completely besides the point. Illegal immigration did not affect you in that instance. Irresponsible driving and vehicle ownership, however, did, and that's what you should be concerned about. You're too focussed on the wrong thing. Again, this Bill O'Reilly line of reasoning that you're using is specious.

Edited November 13, 2018 by hpslugga

[4th&Five 41,558]

Just now, Chrispy said:

First, I don’t think I spout nonsense. Second, my point was that turning them in wouldn’t change anything. 

That's the problem.

[hayden_horn 11,362]

Just now, hpslugga said:

And what I'm telling you is that the person in question's legal status as a citizen or not is completely or not. Illegal immigration did not affect you in that instance. Irresponsible driving and vehicle ownership, however, did, and that's what you should be concerned about. You're too focussed on the wrong thing.

he's not focused on the wrong thing if you consider he's using the anecdote as a dog whistle to evoke the specter of millions of uninsured illegals just waiting to crash into your wife's SUV

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, TexLonghorn said:

I, too, miss those halcyon days of yore that I was not alive during (and indeed my parents or grandparents weren't alive during), but to which I attribute unassailable ideals and infallible altruistic actions based on my understanding and assumptions of how things and people were then, particularly in contrast to this modern hell of a society where I insist on focusing only on the worst parts of it and then expand that to characterize the entire society.

Despite your lazy run-on sentence here, you might have had a point if there wasn't historical record to indicate what happened. You can extrapolate whatever reasoning you want to the causes, I guess, and I by no means claim to the definitive expert on the 1866 zeitgeist, but the attributions I made don't seem to fall outside of the generally accepted (much less be something to parody which, as if sometimes this place can't be depressing enough with the brainpower exhibited, at least one poster found amusing).

lol but can you tell me about Andrew Jackson and the TEARS of Trailz?

[hpslugga 4,062]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

he's not focused on the wrong thing if you consider he's using the anecdote as a dog whistle to evoke the specter of millions of uninsured illegals just waiting to crash into your wife's SUV

Well yeah I mean if that's where someone is, that's the path they'll follow.

[Chrispy 132]

Just now, hpslugga said:

And what I'm telling you is that the person in question's legal status as a citizen or not is completely besides the point. Illegal immigration did not affect you in that instance. Irresponsible driving and vehicle ownership, however, did, and that's what you should be concerned about. You're too focussed on the wrong thing.

Not really, when you consider there’s a process for obtaining a drivers license and he illegally skipped the proper training required to operate a motor vehicle. 

[hpslugga 4,062]

5 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Not really, when you consider there’s a process for obtaining a drivers license and he illegally skipped the proper training required to operate a motor vehicle. 

Again, citizens do that too. And in case you missed what I had said earlier, the dickwad in my case had a thrice-suspended license, and it was precisely because he's a drug addict and alcoholic that has never been to rehab. He has as much of a mental capacity to operate a vehicle as an untrained driver does, and the state has told him precisely that 3 times...and yet his mother still lets him drive her car the way that he does. You're trying to argue that the only path to being a shit driver is to be illegal and to skip training, and you couldn't be more wrong because even licensed drivers make those types of fuck ups every single day. 

Edited November 13, 2018 by hpslugga

[Chrispy 132]

1 minute ago, hpslugga said:

Again, citizens do that too. And in case you missed what I had said earlier, the dickwad in my case had a thrice-suspended license, and it was precisely because he's a drug addict and alcoholic that has never been to rehab. He has as much of a mental capacity to operate a vehicle as an untrained driver does, and the state has told him precisely that 3 times...and yet his mother still lets him drive her car the way that he does. You're trying to argue that the only path to being a shit driver is to be illegal and to skip training, and you couldn't be more wrong.

I’m not saying it’s the only path to being a shitty driver, but it’s certainly a path, and one that’s entirely avoidable. 

[hpslugga 4,062]

2 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I’m not saying it’s the only path to being a shitty driver, but it’s certainly a path, and one that’s entirely avoidable. 

Yeah, so is drinking alcohol and taking drugs shortly before operating a vehicle at speeds of nearly 100 mph. You're trying to use special pleading and it's not terribly convincing in the slightest.

Edited November 13, 2018 by hpslugga

[Stilicho 1,397]

1 minute ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Despite your lazy run-on sentence here, you might have had a point if there wasn't historical record to indicate what happened. You can extrapolate whatever reasoning you want to the causes, I guess, and I by no means claim to the definitive expert on the 1866 zeitgeist, but the attributions I made don't seem to fall outside of the generally accepted (much less be something to parody which, as if sometimes this place can't be depressing enough with the brainpower exhibited, at least one poster found amusing).

lol but can you tell me about Andrew Jackson and the TEARS of Trailz?

For fucks sake. The 40th United States Congress held together to override Presidential vetoes for the following reasons:

1) It was an overwhelmingly Republican and/or Union-centric body adamant about preserving the political gains from the Civil War, including maintaining the establishment of the Freedmen’s Bureau, the establishment of Reconstruction in the southern states, and the passage of what would eventually become the 14th Amendment  

2) Andrew Johnson was a Southern politician with southern sympathies that Lincoln incorrectly tabbed as a means to show his desire for unity among the states. He was despised by Republicans and Northerners alike and went out of his way to stoke the flames of that animosity, in the hopes of appealing to Southern Democrats. Which failed miserably.

There has never been an over-arching theme of national unity in this country, and even if we came close, it certainly wouldn’t be found in the years immediately following the American Civil War.

 

 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Stilicho said:

For fucks sake. The 40th United States Congress held together to override Presidential vetoes for the following reasons:

1) It was an overwhelmingly Republican and/or Union-centric body adamant about preserving the political gains from the Civil War, including maintaining the establishment of the Freedmen’s Bureau, the establishment of Reconstruction in the southern states, and the passage of what would eventually become the 14th Amendment. Sounds like a unified message/values

2) Andrew Johnson was a Southern politician with southern sympathies that Lincoln incorrectly tabbed as a means to show his desire for unity among the states. He was despised by Republicans and Northerners alike and went out of his way to stoke the flames of that animosity, in the hopes of appealing to Southern Democrats. Which failed miserably. Trump is AJ 2.0.

There has never been an over-arching theme of national unity in this country, and even if we came close, it certainly wouldn’t be found in the years immediately following the American Civil War. Or, it would be found in the years immediately after because all the alt-right loons of 1861 were either killed (quite literally) or forced into a hushed existence because the majority of adults left over weren't going to tolerate their dissenting values and beliefs and opinions.

 

 

I appreciate your response, but you must be dumb because you left out about how Andrew Jackson actually survived a real life duel.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Guest

[TexLonghorn 5,671]

9 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Despite your lazy run-on sentence here, you might have had a point if there wasn't historical record to indicate what happened.

Despite your lazy grammar police nonsense and lack of recognizing my mocking you, I have a question for you:

You seem energized by a once 70% unity in the Senate.  You contrast that to today's "pretty sizable" fracture "at around 40% on each side".  Now, obviously, "around 40% on each side" implies only two sides exist - a third 40% side would be too much - so that leaves an unaccounted for 'around 20%'.  Now, if that 20% were evenly divided between the two already established sides, then you probably would have typed "at around 50% on each side" or some other number, but you didn't.  This assumes, then, that the 20% might flip between agreeing with either 40% side.  That, of course, leads to a very possible 60%/40% split.  

So the question, then, is how dramatically different is a 70/30 split from a 60/40 split to you?  The first you paint as the glory days and the second you portray as how bad the country has become.  This isn't even getting into the fallacy that just because the Senate was 70/30 on this issue in the past means that they worked together 70/30 all of their time, or that just  because the Senate of today is 40/40/20 means they are incapable of achieving 70/30 or greater on any issue.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, TexLonghorn said:

Despite your lazy grammar police nonsense and lack of recognizing my mocking you, I have a question for you:

You seem energized by a once 70% unity in the Senate.  You contrast that to today's "pretty sizable" fracture "at around 40% on each side".  Now, obviously, "around 40% on each side" implies only two sides exist - a third 40% side would be too much - so that leaves an unaccounted for 'around 20%'.  Now, if that 20% were evenly divided between the two already established sides, then you probably would have typed "at around 50% on each side" or some other number, but you didn't.  This assumes, then, that the 20% might flip between agreeing with either 40% side.  That, of course, leads to a very possible 60%/40% split.  

So the question, then, is how dramatically different is a 70/30 split from a 60/40 split to you?  The first you paint as the glory days and the second you portray as how bad the country has become.  This isn't even getting into the fallacy that just because the Senate was 70/30 on this issue in the past means that they worked together 70/30 all of their time, or that just  because the Senate of today is 40/40/20 means they are incapable of achieving 70/30 or greater on any issue.

My point in saying 40% on each side was representing the portion of human beings who, no matter what happens (e.g. "shoot someone on 5th ave." or whatever) will vote/support their "team". I extrapolated that from what we know are general approval ratings (at or near a bottom) plus a % for "bradley effect", and admittedly it felt right (and easy math). Your mileage can vary. Not yours, because you are not smart, but yours as in people who have the data at hand and can formulate the statistical case.

I don't care if the past Senate worked together 70/30 most of the time, half the time, or just against Andrew "History Trump" Johnson. My point is that they were at least unified to do so, whereas in 2018 (or 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020) you can't really picture a US Senate coming together to work against a racist, misogynist, populist weirdo who is arguably just as bad if not worse than AJ.

It's funny you decry those as halycon days because I imagine if you ask a lot of liberals or democrats or centrists, they would love to have a Senate who could unite against such as I've described and would probably call it such.

But let's just cut to the chase and you lecture me about the Indian Removal Act and tell me how smart you fancy you are (which is unintentionally funny, always).

Edited November 13, 2018 by Guest

[atomheartbevo 89,727]

3 hours ago, Chrispy said:

I’m certainly against it, but we both know why they continue to hire these individuals; they can pay them next to nothing. I’d turn them in if it would do any good, but it would only serve to sour our relationship. Some of these illegal aliens have been deported more than once and come right back, so there’s no point until our broken border is corrected. 

Chrispy, I actually appreciate that you’re willing to admit that you don’t care enough about illegals to cause problems with your dipshit neighbors. I really do appreciate it.  You care, but not that much, and you’ve quantified it for us.

And we get it.  If you turn in Bob and Janice’s nanny to ICE, you create two problems for yourself.  The first problem, is that Janice will have to take care of her kids rather than taking long brunches, hanging out in the spa, fucking the pool boy or lawn guy (or both).  Janice will take her anger out on Bob, who will take it out on you.   Perhaps rumors start about you.  Perhaps dogshit starts appearing in your yard in large quantities. Perhaps your vehicle gets keyed.   All kinds of things can happen.

Second, when you turn in their nanny, word will get out, and a whole lot of nannies and lawn guys will mysteriously stop showing up for work in the neighborhood.   Now you have the neighborhood pissed off at you.  Lots more rumors   Your kids are ostracized.  Perhaps the folks who check for HOA-type of stuff (lawn growth, the color of your house paint, etc.) start to examine your property much more closely.

Our border is “broken” partly because of your dipshit neighbors hiring illegal immigrants.  It will always be “broken” as long as people like your dipshit neighbors hire illegals and people like you look the other way and don’t call them out on it.

Personally, I’m more worried about Saudis coming in through air travel with legitimate passports looking to kill Americans, or loner schizo white guys who are angry at their schools, than I am about somebody willing to walk hundreds of miles to cut my neighbor’s lawn or fuck his wife or raise his kids. 

But if you truly care, then man up and say something, if you see something.  Otherwise you really don’t give much of a shit about our border. 

[Chrispy 132]

9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Chrispy, I actually appreciate that you’re willing to admit that you don’t care enough about illegals to cause problems with your dipshit neighbors. I really do appreciate it.  You care, but not that much, and you’ve quantified it for us.

And we get it.  If you turn in Bob and Janice’s nanny to ICE, you create two problems for yourself.  The first problem, is that Janice will have to take care of her kids rather than taking long brunches, hanging out in the spa, fucking the pool boy or lawn guy (or both).  Janice will take her anger out on Bob, who will take it out on you.   Perhaps rumors start about you.  Perhaps dogshit starts appearing in your yard in large quantities. Perhaps your vehicle gets keyed.   All kinds of things can happen.

Second, when you turn in their nanny, word will get out, and a whole lot of nannies and lawn guys will mysteriously stop showing up for work in the neighborhood.   Now you have the neighborhood pissed off at you.  Lots more rumors   Your kids are ostracized.  Perhaps the folks who check for HOA-type of stuff (lawn growth, the color of your house paint, etc.) start to examine your property much more closely.

Our border is “broken” partly because of your dipshit neighbors hiring illegal immigrants.  It will always be “broken” as long as people like your dipshit neighbors hire illegals and people like you look the other way and don’t call them out on it.

Personally, I’m more worried about Saudis coming in through air travel with legitimate passports looking to kill Americans, or loner schizo white guys who are angry at their schools, than I am about somebody willing to walk hundreds of miles to cut my neighbor’s lawn or fuck his wife or raise his kids. 

But if you truly care, then man up and say something, if you see something.  Otherwise you really don’t give much of a shit about our border. 

I’ve explained that I would take such a risk if them being deported meant they couldn’t come back illegally, that’s just not the case. I can march around and play hall monitor of the neighborhood, but it would ultimately be a waste of my time. 

[immortal13 4,059]

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

Ok so last year, a citizen rear-ended me on 121 near Forth Worth. I was going 70 mph, and he was going so much faster than I was that he actually fucking totaled my 2014 Nissan Altima with his little piece of shit Toyota. He took off and we since learned that not only was he driving with a thrice-suspended license, not only did he flee the scene, not only did he hit someone else just seconds before he hit me (and he also checked into a bridge when he was trying to get back onto the highway), not only was he high and drunk at 7 a.m. when all this falderal happened, not only did he have no insurance on this particular car, he was 34 years old at the time, driving his mother's (who was severely under-insured) car, drunk as a skunk, high as a kite, and destroyed my fucking vehicle and endangered around a dozen lives in the process (3 of us, the other guy he hit, and 5-6 other cars who were in between when he was swerving all over the goddamned 5 lane highway).

Why am I telling this extremely isolated, anecdotal story? Because the fact that he was a citizen is completely irrelevant, just like the fact that your wife's victimizer being illegal is completely irrelevant. Illegals aren't the only ones who have asshole drivers, and they're not the only ones who have uninsured asshole drivers either. You can waste our time making the Bill O'Reilly case if you want by blaming illegal immigration for what occurred, but just understand that most of us can see an issue for what it is. If your wife was hit by an uninsured motorist who attempted to flee the scene for that reason, then the fact that he's illegal is as useful as an asshole on an elbow.

Sorry for partying, bro

[Guest]

pos rep for "Falderal( sic")

Edited November 13, 2018 by slorch

[bad_teammate 13,215]

2 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I don't care if the past Senate worked together 70/30 most of the time, half the time, or just against Andrew "History Trump" Johnson. My point is that they were at least unified to do so, whereas in 2018 (or 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020) you can't really picture a US Senate coming together to work against a racist, misogynist, populist weirdo who is arguably just as bad if not worse than AJ.

A nation coming out of the Civil War and attempting to remain a nation is not the same as a nation coming out of the Obama administration in a time of international and domestic peace and economic prosperity (relatively).

But let's look at something...

Civil Rights Act of 1866
House: 111-38 (75%)
Senate: 33-12 (73%)

Your argument is that you can't see Congress passing a bill at 75/73% then overriding a presidential veto of that bill?

Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017

House: 368-55 (86%)
Senate: voice vote (essentially unanimous)

If Trump vetoed this bill, for whatever reason, you do not think Congress would override the veto?

[Pig Bellmont 8,719]

Y’all trolls posting in a troll thread 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

 

Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017

House: 368-55 (86%)
Senate: voice vote (essentially unanimous)

If Trump vetoed this bill, for whatever reason, you do not think Congress would override the veto?

That is correct, that is what I think.

If Donald J. Trump the king of the white trash and useful idiot nation were to veto this bill, under whatever auspicious reasoning he wants to blather, there will be incredibly massive influence and failure demand from the 40% of Trumpkins that trawl the South and Midwest and Texas and etc. to have their politicians STAND WITH DJT and you would not get an overriding veto vote.

"Fight me." - Andrew Jackson

Edited November 13, 2018 by Guest

[TexLonghorn 5,671]

11 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

But let's just cut to the chase and you lecture me about the Indian Removal Act and tell me how smart you fancy you are (which is unintentionally funny, always).

Um, what?  What does my knowledge of the Indian Removal Act have to do with, like, anything we've been talking about?  You're the one making inferences that a Senate vote from over a century ago somehow indicates that the American society at that time as a whole was some mythical particular way.  That somehow that portrayed a "national" or  "American" perspective that you argue we no longer have.  Are you saying that that "national" or "American" perspective was tied just to the Indian Removal Act?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, TexLonghorn said:

Um, what?  What does my knowledge of the Indian Removal Act have to do with, like, anything we've been talking about?  You're the one making inferences that a Senate vote from over a century ago somehow indicates that the American society at that time as a whole was some mythical particular way.  That somehow that portrayed a "national" or  "American" perspective that you argue we no longer have.  Are you saying that that "national" or "American" perspective was tied just to the Indian Removal Act?

I read the first sentence and am all like "lol go back to sleep".

Edited November 13, 2018 by Guest

[bad_teammate 13,215]

20 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

That is correct, that is what I think.

OK you're just dumb then.

If Trump vetoed a "FOR OUR TROOPS!" bill passed by Republicans 231-1 in the House (Dems 137-54), they would override that veto in a heartbeat. You grossly misread why GOP reps are loyal to Trump (it's because Trump holds the party line, not just because he commands a base of motivated freaks).