patrick.net

Tim Aurora says

He was the one who saved Muslims from slaughter in Bengal

You mean, he prevented Hindus from taking revenge against their Imperialist Muslim Oppressors who committed atrocities against them for centuries.

Islam did not spread to India by missionaries, but with the sword.

Tim Aurora says

Totally wrong. He brought Dalits in the mainstream

Pretty much no Dalit Activist agrees with you. Dalits overwhelmingly identify Ghandi as a "Problematic" figure.

https://medium.com/@dalitdiva/why-it-is-time-to-dump-gandhi-b59c7399fe66

Here at the top results on Google for "Ghandi Dalits"
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ghandi+dalits

It's entirely either "Ghandi sucked for us Dalits" and previously ignorant Leftie Nonviolent Westerns saying "Wow, I didn't know the Dalits hated Ghandi"

Tim Aurora says

Can you give some reference or all you have is some conspiracy theories.

You can read Mountbatten and all the rest. I've read them, and I don't have their quotes handy, but they viewed Ghandi as a useful idiot, because he excluded any violent revolutionaries from his platform, he always stopped his movements whenever the British asked - just when they were being truly effective, he was actually quite dovish on Indian Independence as was willing to settle on Dominion Status.

For starters, how about:
"If somebody calls the police and says they want to be committed or they're going to do some fucked up shit, the police are obligated to mentally hospitalize him."

That would have stopped Cruz, since we know he called 911 at least once begging to be hospitalized. Instead, he got a police interview and they left him at home.

(Posted in Wrong Thread)

Tim Aurora says

And for record, I am just for licensing to own a Assault weapons which should go to check your background.

OK, first, what is a "Assault weapon"? Can you give me a link to a supplier or manufacturer's page where I can buy one? My firearm supplier has no idea what that is.

Second, do you know what a 4473 form is?

Tim Aurora says

Criminal can always get guns, just like in other countries, and so can you if you are a law abiding citizen.

Exactly right about criminals. So, why are the Democrats against law abiding citizen buying them to protect themselves and their families?

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Is she going to cry that her 1st amendment rights are violated when she has to use a clear backpack, and everyone will see what she's carrying?

https://patrick.net/post/1314688/2018-03-24-the-special-snowflakes-get-what-they-wished-for-parkland-school-requiring-clear-backpacks

Goran_K says

Done with Republicans and Democrats, yup. Done.

Another follower leaves the religion of the divisiveness paradigm, finally realizing that while the coin has two sides, it's still the same coin.

Sniper says

when she has to use a clear backpack,

You are assuming that "it" is a "she". A clear microaggression, or misdemeanor according to CA laws.

NuttBoxer says

Goran_K says

Done with Republicans and Democrats, yup. Done.

Another follower leaves the religion of the divisiveness paradigm, finally realizing that while the coin has two sides, it's still the same coin.

Actions speak louder than words

RafiMaas says

Tim Aurora says

I see you as a threat from Putin. Trying to sow discord among Americans or it is pure fluff

Great minds think alike.

I knew there was a connection.

So sad...

Hmmmm....

But the House Armed Services Committee version of the annual Pentagon policy bill included a common-sense provision to make sure the Pentagon isn't tasked with paying for the wall: "Section 1039. Rule of construction regarding use of Department of Defense funding of a border wall. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this act or otherwise made available for the fiscal year 2018 for the Department of Defense may be used to plan, develop or construct any barriers, including walls or fences, along the international border of the United States."
...
An amendment was offered by Republican Reps. Steven Palazzo and Trent Kelly from Mississippi (which has coastline but no land border) to strike Section 1039. That means Pentagon money could be spent to construct a border wall. In the normal process of things, this amendment would have been accepted by the Rules Committee and then debated and voted on by the full House of Representatives. But nothing about this amendment can be called normal.

The Rules Committee took this one amendment and labeled it, "proposed to be adopted." In the arcana of House rules, this means that voting for the rule governing consideration of the bill was also voting for this amendment. This is known as a "self-executing rule." The ranking Democrat on the committee, Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York, offered an amendment to strike the self-executing portion of the rule and was defeated in committee on a party-line vote of 4-8.

On the House floor, the vote on the full rule passed. And at the end of a long and exhausting day (and story), that means Pentagon money can be used to construct a border wall. Talk about governing under the cover of darkness.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/articles/2017-07-19/congress-slyly-diverts-pentagon-money-to-fund-donald-trumps-border-wall

There was no Darkness, if the auto-execution rule passed the committee and the rule passed on the House Floor. The author is the leader of a fake Taxpayer Group that only fights Border Security and Enforcement spending, but loves handouts to refugees and the like.

The new rules went into effect in 2018...

RafiMaas says

Sniper says

Second, do you know what a 4473 form is?

Is there something wrong with beefing up the 4473?

How many more pages and questions does it need?

Last summer, two Republican Reps got that Section 1039 language that prohibited Defense Funds from being used to build the Wall, removed.

This is very interesting though - somebody was so worried about the possibility of building the wall and putting up a barrier to mass illegal immigration they tried to preclude the possibility of Defense money going towards it by writing Section 1039. For 2018, this section was struck.

If it didn't get snuck back into this spending bill, it means the Donald can use Pentagon money to build the Wall, on top of the $1.6B.

Consider this tweet after Trump signed the spending bill:


#10FeetHigher #BuildTheWall

If it ain't possible, why is Upchuck so scared?

Trump’s pursuit of defense dollars to finance the U.S.-Mexico border wall underscores his determination to fulfill a campaign promise and build the barrier despite resistance in the Republican-led Congress. The administration’s last-minute negotiations with lawmakers to secure billions more for the wall failed and Trump grudgingly signed the spending bill last Friday after a short-lived veto threat.

...

"This would be a blatant misuse of military funds and tied up in court for years. Secretary Mattis ought not bother and instead use the money to help our troops, rather than advance the president’s political fantasies,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement to The Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-privately-presses-for-military-to-pay-for-border-wall/2018/03/27/d79907a2-31c9-11e8-9759-56e51591e250_story.html?utm_term=.983d3d433947

I think Trump will try to get funding another way, but if he doesn't get it, he'll spend the Defense Money.

Interesting that Congress is SO DESPERATE not to have the Wall, they try to block every loophole and erect every "barrier" (such as restricting it to chain link fencing) they can think of.

If they truly believe the Wall won't work, why the desperate attempts to obstruct and anticipate loopholes? Because they know it will, and their lobbyist masters don't want their cheap labor restricted. And banks probably want their drug dealing money laundering accounts to stay nice and fat with US Dollars, HSBC Style.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

the Wall

Why not simply enact mandatory E-verify

errc says

We’re not allowed to have simple solutions that would actually work

My thinking is that E-Verify will not rile up voting base, while permanent, protracted Battle for Wall will. Kind of like War of Bathrooms-2.

drB6 says

Why not simply enact mandatory E-verify

That doesn't stop off-the-books employment by contractors, human smuggling, or drugs. Even if the Wall costs $20B and only stops 30% of the illegal crossings, it will more than pay for itself in Social Programs (CAPI,UC Davis "Undocumented" Legal Aid, etc.), Public School Education (US Avg is ~$10k/year per public school student), Crime/Incarceration savings.

Easily about $120B in costs imposed by illegal immigration, that mostly benefits Wealthy contractors, the Education Mafia, and Coastal Elites.

But of course I prefer E-Verify first.

drB6 says

My thinking is that E-Verify will not rile up voting base, while permanent, protracted Battle for Wall will. Kind of like War of Bathrooms-2.

That, and he can't walk away, as he promised it repeatedly.

errc says

We’re not allowed to have simple solutions that would actually work

I guarantee you Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Miss Lindsey, and others would fight it tooth and nail.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

That doesn't stop off-the-books employment by contractors,

100K fine for employing an illegal + perhaps a criminal charge.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

human smuggling

If they can not work/get welfare, no one will be smuggled in.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

he can't walk away, as he promised it repeatedly

Absolutely.

errc says

That’s not how markets work. If the demand is held constant and supply is restricted by 30%, the cost as well as the price and incentives go up, and we’re right back where we started.

Yep, the pay for Americans goes up because there are fewer illegals, and the chances of being successfully smuggled goes down while the prices charged by smugglers goes up.

More Mexicans say "It was $2000 I had to pay the Coyotes and risk getting caught. Now it's even harder and it costs $5,000? Fuck it, I'll stay in Guadalajara".

Drug Prices go up, so fewer poor people can afford them.

Besides, I don't see any Palestinians paying extra to get over the Israeli Wall.

RafiMaas says

And the price for Americans to eat fresh fruit and vegetables goes up.

And the price for real American farmers goes up, improving our national security by reducing our dependence on imports.

Farmers invest in more high tech labor saving devices, thus helping the tech and manufacturing sector.

"I want to work somebody 12 hours a day in the hot sun, but pay less than Ace Hardware pays a security guard to sit on their ass in the air conditioning at night, or what Starbucks pays a blue haired nose ringed man-bun to serve coffee."

And, we have the Club of Guest Workers to hold over Mexico. More leverage for us. We should also tax remittances to Mexico, as Mexico does to Mexicans sending money from the USA.

RafiMaas says

We can thank fucks like Martian Shkreli for drug prices going up and Congress for not letting us import them from Canada. And yes each day the price for life saving drugs go up because apparently we don't want capitalism in our drug markets.

Yup. That's Corey Booker (D-NJ), who worked to defeat Bernie's Drug Importation Bill. Interesting that NAFTA enables the destruction of a lot of blue collar jobs, but protects rich Pharma Executives.

errc says

I see, and that’s the sell? Build the Wall and then that will be the result?

Why not?

If it doesn't work, it only costs $20B pretty much one time which is nothing compared to the Trillions we spend on just the Federal Level.

I find it amusing that the same people who swear it won't do anything, are also the ones trying to close any loophole they can imagine to building one.

Why not let the Wall be built and laugh your ass of?

errc says

I’ve offered much better demand side solutions that would actually produce the desired results. Like ending the War on Drugs

What's that going to do to stop Business from rigging the Labor Market?

Feux Follets says

There will be enhancements, alterations, improvements, - there will never be an end to spending the public's money on this and once the wall is done, then we can go back and build it correctly and make sure all the stuff works cause there will be "stuff" and it won't work first time around or be built quite correctly but the contractor will get paid on time, get a bonus for their work and receive many more lucrative government contracts.

It certainly won't end up costing anything like ACA.

RafiMaas says

We are already $20+ trillion in debt what's another $100 billion? Right?

If a $100 billion investment saves me $500 billion in illegal alien support, I'd take that deal everyday and twice on Sundays.

Even if it was $100B to build the wall, Illegals cost about $120B per year in state and federal costs, from incarceration to the DUI to schooling for their kids to Social Programs.

So over 10 years, a one-time $100B investment would save the USA $1.2T in costs. So even at 500% over projected cost of ~$20B, that's some serious change we can believe in.

BTW, DACA is just the beginning. If the Neoliberals get their way, their next request will be to pay Social Security to aged illegals. There was an article I saw the other day, I think in the NYT or Vox or some other outlet, complaining that over 65 illegals "Who worked in this country" weren't getting Social Security.

errc says

Believe being the operative word. You’re operating on the wild assumption that the wall stems the flow of immigrants a/o drugs. People and drugs cross the border because the United States has large markets with Demand for Drugs and Cheap Labor. A speed bump in the Supply chain doesn’t address the demand side.

People have been building walls for about 6000 years. I think they work.

errc says

White Biker gangs have been moving drugs across our porous northern border for decades. If the Mexican wall somehow stemmed the flow of drugs in from that small section of our national borders, prices will increase, and the drugs will find their way in just the same. I have to assume the same goes for people.

I don't see too many Quebecois Bikers helping to break unions in pea packing plants, or signing up for Food Stamps.

errc says

There are approximately 2100 U.S. Border Patrol agents working the 4,000 mile border with Canada. Along the Mexico border, less than half the length of the border with Canada, there are 18,000 agents.

That's because Mexico is a shithole third world country, and Canada isn't.

errc says

“If Homeland Security is really concerned with security, and the biggest security threat is terrorism, we should be more worried about the Canadian border than the Mexican border," said Cambell.

That's great, but my main issues is wage crushing by Big Business, attempts to swing the electorate Left by importing third worlders who vote themselves benefits, and of course Drug Smuggling.

Most Domestic Terrorist Fatalities are caused by the scumbag children of MENA Rapefugees, as in San Bernadino, Orlando, etc.