Tiberius Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 2 hours ago, keepthefaith said: How about the one that hit and runned my car causing almost $10K in damage? Too bad for him I caught him. Ya, bad apple ?
row_33 Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said: Sure, his SCOTUS nominees, economic policies and military support make him a flaming liberal. What HE THINKS personally, not his actions as held by his voting constituency. For when he really has to make an important decision, such as on immigration. I've given up on the SC being a conservative tool, the GOP keeps sending up enough judges to keep it muddled, a few times sending up totally flaming liberals.
DC Tom Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said: Dreamers are here illegally and are temporarily being protected by an illegal Executive Order Illegal DHS MEMO. Not even an EO. It was issued by Napolitano. That's how stupid that argument is.
3rdnlng Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 3 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Illegal DHS MEMO. Not even an EO. It was issued by Napolitano. That's how stupid that argument is. You're right, I forgot that.
Numark3 Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said: The problem on the southern border isn't simply "illegal immigration", and the wall isn't intended to address that portion of the problem. The wall is, very specifically, intended to address human slavery and child sex trafficking. I’m aware, but thank you. Quote Human beings being covertly smuggled into the country happens overwhelmingly on unprotected and remote stretches of our border which are difficult to patrol for logistical reasons. This is different than regular illegal passage, as those simply seeking to immigrate here can try again and again as often as they like if apprehended. Slavers make use of these unpatrolled regions almost exclusively. The walls are being placed there in order to forcibly reroute the slavers away from these corridors, and into areas more easily patrolled. Im aware that’s the theory, thank you. Quote No, what's immature is putting you fingers in your ears, and pretending as if the policies the President is pursuing are somehow unrelated to the list I ticked off. The President supports the policies he does because they address the issues in question, the wall, as I mention above, specifically implemented to curb slavery. I didn’t say anything to the contrary. My immature comment was about how you started this discussion. Quote You believe in a human right to safety? That's an absurd rejection of reality. Life is not safe, because it is so fragile. Since you cant tease out meaning of basic sentences, I’ll spell it out more for you: I believe in the right to pursue safety. I’m aware that there isn’t a right to avoid harm... Quote And "the right to live in another country"? Another absurdity. You have the natural right to travel, but not into places which will not have you, and only as you meet their criteria for traveling into areas they own. You have the right to travel (as relates to you and your own confinement), but only the privilege to traverse that which belongs to someone else, and that privilege must be earned, and can be revoked. Is this a lesson on what rights actually exist in this country. I’m willing to bet you aren’t qualified to teach that lesson, nor do I need it. I said that’s my belief, not that it’s an actual right. It’s not complicated. Quote This is absurd. The entire purpose of the nation state is to protect property and culture by cordoning off territory and establishing law representative of the values and culture of the people therein. What? Quote It is the peak of dictatorial immorality to insist a people live under law which disservices them and their culture. Uh huh, I think I said in my opinion it services them and their culture. But ok. Quote Explain, in detail, how new cultures, often incompatible with American culture, and diversity of immutable characteristics which don't matter, are a benefit to Americans. You want me to explain how exposure to diverse views, even those that are incompatible, is beneficial? uh google it? But seeing as how you want to argue like a five year old with me, merely because I have different views, I doubt you will. Quote This is a non-sequitur, and also an absurdity. First, the views you are espousing do not equate with better outcomes for "people". Conversely, immigration from third world countries to America does immense harm to those individual's countries or origin, creating worse outcomes for those who remain there. Yes, and my opinion is the opposite. I see that you failed to grasp that! Quote Second, it implies that Americans are not people. What kind of goofy logic supports that implication? If I said I support the nfl as a whole first, and the bills second, does that mean the bills aren’t part of the nfl....never mind lol. I don’t think I need to teach you logic. Edited January 22, 2019 by Crayola64
row_33 Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 11 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: What kind of goofy logic supports that implication? what the rest of the world thinks?
Numark3 Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, row_33 said: what the rest of the world thinks? Sorry, but me saying I support humans more than Americans does not imply Americans aren’t humans. That is goofy logic. Saying you support a whole more than a subpart, does not imply the subpart is not part of the whole. Edited January 22, 2019 by Crayola64
row_33 Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Sorry, but me saying I support humans more than Americans does not imply Americans aren’t humans. That is goofy logic. Saying you support a whole more than a subpart, does not imply the subpart is not part of the whole. we know.... just taking some of the gilt off the gingerbread, by gum Edited January 22, 2019 by row_33
Koko78 Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: If I said I support the nfl as a whole first, and the bills second, does that mean the bills aren’t part of the nfl... I think that makes you a heathen who must be burned at the stake. Bills uber alles, mother *****! Of course, that's only were you to say such blasphemy. Edited January 22, 2019 by Koko78 1
Numark3 Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 Just now, row_33 said: we know.... just taking some of the gilt off the gingerbread, by gym Ha. Well I never heard that gilt phrase so I’m passing time by googling it.
row_33 Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 10 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Ha. Well I never heard that gilt phrase so I’m passing time by googling it. probably picked it up in PG Wodehouse novels? 1
Tiberius Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 Dreamers are safe for now. Courts are fine with the move. How are they a threat? Rapists? Drug dealers? No and no. All the scapegoating can't smear them. It's only the haters that want to kick them out. Perhaps those Catholic boys that marched against women's reproductive rights can march to save the Dreamers lives. Nah.
Numark3 Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 7 minutes ago, Koko78 said: I think that makes you a heathen who must be burned at the stake. Bills uber alles, mother *****! Of course, that's only were you to say such blasphemy. Is it bad I rooted for the patriots to win against the chiefs because I (1) would rather see them lose in the super bowl again (it felt so good last year) and (2) I want the chiefs to have no success so they stay like us?
Koko78 Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, Crayola64 said: Is it bad I rooted for the patriots to win against the chiefs because I (1) would rather see them lose in the super bowl again (it felt so good last year) and (2) I want the chiefs to have no success so they stay like us? Yes, and you should be ashamed of yourself. For penance, my son, you must say 15 Our Kelly's and 20 Hail Levy's on your Bills rosary. Edited January 22, 2019 by Koko78 1
Numark3 Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 Yea but it’ll feel great when the rams win...which they should have done 18 years ago.
row_33 Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 45 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Is it bad I rooted for the patriots to win against the chiefs because I (1) would rather see them lose in the super bowl again (it felt so good last year) and (2) I want the chiefs to have no success so they stay like us? you are free to do what you want, you might tone it down on TSW though lots of people raging about OT rules and missed calls there... 1
Numark3 Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 1 minute ago, row_33 said: you are free to do what you want, you might tone it down on TSW though lots of people raging about OT rules and missed calls there... Im not disputing any of that. I hate the patriots as much as the next person!
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 3 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: I’m aware, but thank you. Im aware that’s the theory, thank you. You've already undone yourself. You do, in fact, support human slavery and child sex trafficking. You may not like it, but you do. Your Pollyanna vision of the world does not align with reality. The United State's southern border is a global hub of human trafficking, and they are trafficked in exactly the way I've described. No one, save apparently you, even debates this. First, two articles, one from a left leaning site, one from a right leaning site: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ana-davila/drug-cartels-where-human-trafficking-and-human-smuggling-meet-today_b_7588408.html https://us.blastingnews.com/news/2017/02/the-trafficking-of-children-at-the-mexican-border-001504697.html Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Mexico Various government and international organizations: https://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/library/2011/human-trafficking-sex-tourism-and-child-exploitation-southern-border https://www.unicefusa.org/mission/protect/trafficking http://www.ecpat.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy/Factsheet_Mexico.pdf https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/human-trafficking I didn’t say anything to the contrary. My immature comment was about how you started this discussion. You are, with every post you make, demonstrating that my engagement with you was apt and informed. Since you cant tease out meaning of basic sentences, I’ll spell it out more for you: I believe in the right to pursue safety. I’m aware that there isn’t a right to avoid harm... It is not my fault, nor that of anyone else but yourself, that you aren't precise enough in your use of language to convey what you actually mean when engaging about complex subject matter. The words you chose to use have a specific meaning. If you meant something other than what you said, that's your own damn fault. Do better, and don't blame others for your compromised literacy. Is this a lesson on what rights actually exist in this country. I’m willing to bet you aren’t qualified to teach that lesson, nor do I need it. I said that’s my belief, not that it’s an actual right. It’s not complicated. Actually, the subject matter is incredibly complex; and I doubt there is anyone here more qualified to teach it. I'll start with the notion that, once again, you've betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of what rights actually are; though I'll certainly make way for the possibility that you're a prisoner of your language, and don't understand how to properly convey the ideas you wish to express. With that said, I'm happy to hash this out with you, as I'm trying to understand your belief structure. Your beliefs must be structured in some logically consistent way in order to validate them, and that logical structure must have some foundational tenant on which your belief system is structured. What moral priori do you appeal to at the base of your belief structure? Wh at? /sigh... It's very straight forward. Reread the sentence: "The entire purpose of the nation state is to protect property and culture by cordoning off territory and establishing law representative of the values and culture of the people therein." That is a fact, not an opinion, and is clearly articulated. Uh huh, I think I said in my opinion it services them and their culture. But ok. You've posed an argument which runs counter to the entire purpose and history of the nation state. People are tribal, and different tribes have different and competing values. National borders protect heritage, culture, language, history, etc. Mass migration water those things down, and changes them in ways which creates internal instability and a loss of national identity (again, this is not an opinion, this is an historically observable fact). If you want to take this tact, please explain how I am wrong. You want me to explain how exposure to diverse views, even those that are incompatible, is beneficial? uh google it? But seeing as how you want to argue like a five year old with me, merely because I have different views, I doubt you will Expose to /= saturation in. We can learn about other cultures, especially those that are incompatible with our own, in ways that do not sabotage our national heritage or violate our sovereignty. Simply because something else exists does not merit making it part of ourselves, and the fact of their existence does not make them desirable. There are better cultures and worse cultures, and our culture is the one which has driven the world to prosperity undreamed of because of it's foundational principals of self-ownership and the protection of property rights. To the rest, if you don't want your views challenged, then don't offer them. This place is an excellent resource for vetting political views and moral philosophies; and that's exactly what you should expect when you make an offering. You aren't being treated any differently than anyone else. You offered a view, I challenged it. Now it's incumbent on you to defend it. Yes , and my opinion is the opposite. I see that you failed to grasp that! No, I grasp, quite clearly, that you have a very poor opinion, once again not grounded in reality. What I offered is not an opinion, it is a fact. The best illustration of this I have ever seen can be found here: What kind of goofy logic supports that implication? If I said I support the nfl as a whole first, and the bills second, does that mean the bills aren’t part of the nfl....never mind lol. I don’t think I need to teach you logic. Learn to be precise in your language. Stop communicating ideas which to do not intend to express.
Foxx Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 i am a big proponent of words having meaning. especially in the media that is the present du jour. that is all we have to gain understanding of what is trying to be conveyed. if you are not conveying what you mean, the onus is upon you to do better. feigning indignity because you were misunderstood is a bad look.
Numark3 Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 21 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: You've already undone yourself. You do, in fact, support human slavery and child sex trafficking. You may not like it, but you do. Your Pollyanna vision of the world does not align with reality. The United State's southern border is a global hub of human trafficking, and they are trafficked in exactly the way I've described. No one, save apparently you, even debates this. First, two articles, one from a left leaning site, one from a right leaning site: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ana-davila/drug-cartels-where-human-trafficking-and-human-smuggling-meet-today_b_7588408.html https://us.blastingnews.com/news/2017/02/the-trafficking-of-children-at-the-mexican-border-001504697.html Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Mexico Various government and international organizations: https://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/library/2011/human-trafficking-sex-tourism-and-child-exploitation-southern-border https://www.unicefusa.org/mission/protect/trafficking http://www.ecpat.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy/Factsheet_Mexico.pdf https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/human-trafficking You are, with every post you make, demonstrating that my engagement with you was apt and informed. It is not my fault, nor that of anyone else but yourself, that you aren't precise enough in your use of language to convey what you actually mean when engaging about complex subject matter. The words you chose to use have a specific meaning. If you meant something other than what you said, that's your own damn fault. Do better, and don't blame others for your compromised literacy. Actually, the subject matter is incredibly complex; and I doubt there is anyone here more qualified to teach it. I'll start with the notion that, once again, you've betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of what rights actually are; though I'll certainly make way for the possibility that you're a prisoner of your language, and don't understand how to properly convey the ideas you wish to express. With that said, I'm happy to hash this out with you, as I'm trying to understand your belief structure. Your beliefs must be structured in some logically consistent way in order to validate them, and that logical structure must have some foundational tenant on which your belief system is structured. What moral priori do you appeal to at the base of your belief structure? /sigh... It's very straight forward. Reread the sentence: "The entire purpose of the nation state is to protect property and culture by cordoning off territory and establishing law representative of the values and culture of the people therein." That is a fact, not an opinion, and is clearly articulated. You've posed an argument which runs counter to the entire purpose and history of the nation state. People are tribal, and different tribes have different and competing values. National borders protect heritage, culture, language, history, etc. Mass migration water those things down, and changes them in ways which creates internal instability and a loss of national identity (again, this is not an opinion, this is an historically observable fact). If you want to take this tact, please explain how I am wrong. Expose to /= saturation in. We can learn about other cultures, especially those that are incompatible with our own, in ways that do not sabotage our national heritage or violate our sovereignty. Simply because something else exists does not merit making it part of ourselves, and the fact of their existence does not make them desirable. There are better cultures and worse cultures, and our culture is the one which has driven the world to prosperity undreamed of because of it's foundational principals of self-ownership and the protection of property rights. To the rest, if you don't want your views challenged, then don't offer them. This place is an excellent resource for vetting political views and moral philosophies; and that's exactly what you should expect when you make an offering. You aren't being treated any differently than anyone else. You offered a view, I challenged it. Now it's incumbent on you to defend it. No, I grasp, quite clearly, that you have a very poor opinion, once again not grounded in reality. What I offered is not an opinion, it is a fact. The best illustration of this I have ever seen can be found here: Learn to be precise in your language. Stop communicating ideas which to do not intend to express. I don’t think you are even remotely aware of what my point was, or what you think you are arguing. I’m pretty comfortable with the precision of my words, though I also have the awareness that I am posting on a message board, not writing to a court. Edited January 22, 2019 by Crayola64 1
Recommended Posts