« First « Previous Comments 118 - 132 of 132 Search these comments
I think that the most common argument against the wall is that it is not going to work (on it's own), and it will cost a lot up front and in maintenance. Personally, I don't think the cost is that great, but I have doubts that it will work well.
The idea that a 2000 miles wall could stop determined human beings is, of course, preposterous.
But the way it works is you add obstacles everywhere on the way, and continue by deporting those you catch everywhere in the country.
More proof.
http://www.weaselzippers.us/254844-border-patrol-agents-to-stand-down/
A verbal order to 21,000 agents?
> bob2356 says
> You are more responsible than people following what was a legal order. .Because you elected the people that condoned it. Because you failed to make a stand. Because you can't be a principled person and use the I didn't want to know about it excuse.
Let me count: non-sequitur, lame attempt at high-ground maneuver, and a logical mistake. In only 3 lines.
1. Non-sequitur: attempt to make Joe the voter responsible for waterboarding, as if it's a response to my statement. It's not. Here is my original statement, expanded: You do pay taxes, don't you? By YOUR own logic (implied responsibility via financial support), YOUR taxes support waterboarding, YOU personally are responsible.
To that, you conveniently replaced yourself with some other abstraction, and moved on to high ground maneuver.
2. Talking about principled people - that high-ground maneuver which is founded on a lie. Your original statement - "you use products made by illegals, therefore you are just as guilty" - screams of it, and so does this follow-up. You are using the same brush to paint those who corrupted the system and those who are forced to live in the corrupted system. Thus you hide the true perpetrators.
3. "You are more responsible" BS. Those people who followed a legal order, guess what? they are at the very least voters as well! We are at least equal, in terms of responsibility. But wait... in addition to that, they actually went ahead with that order (and didn't make a stand, like you are suggesting) Do you somehow consider it а mitigating circumstance for them and claim that Joe the voter is guilty-er?
You can't make this up.
Let me count: non-sequitur, lame attempt at high-ground maneuver, and a logical mistake. In only 3 lines.
Yea sure, whatever you say. Let me know how much time and effort you have put into trying to reach the high ground. I've put in plenty. Not successfully, there are far more like you than like me. But I have made the effort.
1. Joe the voter is responsible. Politicians make the call to waterboard or to ignore corporations exploiting illegals. Taxes are irrelevant. Buying and being taxed are not comparable.
2. Principled people make the effort. Voting, calling out your congressman/senator, speaking out, trying very hard not to enable to exploitation of illegals as much as possible. People saying we should get rid of these illegals without looking at what part of the problem they are and what they can do about it are hypocrites.
3. Can't follow your mumble jumble. Soldiers have a legal duty to carry out lawful orders, there is no guilt involved. Voting is a voluntary choice. Voters carry the responsibility for the actions of their choices.
I'm all for getting the illegals to go home. Get rid of the jobs they will. Building a wall is political theatre. I am very curious who will profit from building the wall and the increased enforcement though.
The wall is meat for his base, pure and simple. It's good political rhetoric. But horrible actual policy.
Left doesn't want their cheap indentured servants deported. They fight for replacing Americans with cheap labor harder than for anything else.
Left doesn't want their cheap indentured servants deported. They fight for replacing Americans with cheap labor harder than for anything else.
Actually that's capitalists, not the left. Capitalists want, in the following order
1. Slavery
2. Indentured servitude
3. Child labor
4. Economic slavery in the form of outsourced third world powerless labor
5. Illegal immigrants that have no bargaining power because of their illegal status
6. Legal temporary workers that are routinely kicked out of the country and replaced by others before they can establish bargaining power.
Numbers 1 to 3 have been outlaw thanks to progressives. 4 is used whenever it can be. When it can't 5 is used. 6 is the fallback position, but it's harder to implement.
Illegal immigration is utterly a failure of capitalism and Reaganomics and deregulation. Put simply, Fort Wayne, YOU are the cause of the problem. Your economic positions are the direct, central, and sole cause of illegal immigration.
Illegal immigration has been fostered by both the Right and the Left. The Right wants cheap labor, and the Left wants their votes. It's corruption on both sides.
We can't make healthcare for everyone work unless we have strong immigration policies and enforcement.
Illegal immigration has been fostered by both the Right and the Left. The Right wants cheap labor, and the Left wants their votes. It's corruption on both sides.
We can't make healthcare for everyone work unless we have strong immigration policies and enforcement.
I agree with both statements.
First step, we jail the employers of illegal aliens
That's because the limosine libbys would be forced to indenture their jobless worthless kids for those tasks, and suffer the peer group shameing that would entail...
FortWayne says
Left doesn't want their cheap indentured servants deported.
> bob2356
You are dodging the argument and moving to irrelevancies AGAIN.
1. Whether voter is responsible or not doesn't address the point. Your insistence on voter's responsibility (an irrelevancy used as a step towards the high ground maneuver) shows that you don't have an argument that actually does.
2. For the point at hand, there is something in common between buying products made using illegal labor and paying taxes: you can't really avoid either one in a practical way. With buying, you simply don't know if a product wasn't made using illegal labor (at least in CA); with taxes, there is the almighty IRS. One may support illegal employment, the other one Guantanamo, but as an individual you simply don't have the right to refuse. At the very least, it would mean extreme hardship (legal problems in one case, hunting and gathering and never shopping in the other - for hunting, make your own bow and arrows first). When you wrote that Patrick, as a consumer, is just as much part of the problem - it smelled like BS from miles away, because for all practical (and legal) reasons responsibility stops at the employer.
3. "Can't follow your mumble jumble." - I'm not surprised. The problem is at your end.
Patrick,
It pleases me to see you not ripping into President Trump, and giving him a chance, ðŸ‘
It appears we have many views we agree on. ðŸ˜
@LarryPatrickMaloney I think Trump has a lot of good policies and I am totally for giving him a chance.
The press has abandoned even a pretense of neutral reporting on Trump. It's depressing.
I hope Trump keeps right on steamrolling with his agenda. If he can bring back even part of US manufacturing he will have been a success.
The press has abandoned even a pretense of neutral reporting on Trump. It's depressing.
Was reporting on the Obama administration ever neutral?
The press has abandoned even a pretense of neutral reporting on Trump. It's depressing.
Was reporting on the Obama administration ever neutral?
It was equally partisan but supportive instead of oppositional. The tsunami of misleading "fake news" on behalf of Obamneycare echoed the fake news about Iraqi WMD and advocating war in Iraq. It's an often observed axiom of press coverage: the more you know about an event, the more clearly you see the inaccuracies of the press coverage; conversely, the less you know about the event, the more likely you are to believe the press coverage. As justme observed in a different thread, "The most dangerous form of fake news is the kind that seems believable, but is actually wrong and/or very misleading." After reading Obamneycare and thinking through the consequences, I predicted it would result in Americans dying sooner and poorer than they would have otherwise. Today, we see rising mortality rates, shorter life expectancy, and rising medical costs. People who believed the press endorsements of Obamneycare feel surprised, and look for other explanations. I don't feel surprised at all, because I based my opinion on what the policy actually says, and what that would do.
Same with Islam. When you read what it says, you're not surprised by what it does. If you don't read it, but rely instead on the misleading "fake news", you can be fooled and then surprised by the recurring manifestations of the doctrine.
« First « Previous Comments 118 - 132 of 132 Search these comments
http://tomnichols.net/blog/2012/06/16/immigration-euphemisms-reuters-ups-ante/
Technically I suppose that the virtue-signalling phrase that "No people are illegal" is correct. So should we admit that's right and be even more accurate, calling them what they really are: criminal immigrants?
#criminal #immigrants