Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 17 of 41 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 255 of 611
  1. #241
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    san josYAY
    Posts
    18,926
    Quote Originally Posted by kevin13697 View Post
    For anyone to say this has anything to do with hating minorities, I think that's foolish.

    Illegal immigration is affecting low-skilled/educated areas the most, particularly black/Spanish communities.
    This is why labor unions have supported the Republicans efforts to change our immigration system to be more like Canada's.

  2. #242
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    san josYAY
    Posts
    18,926
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    It's a fairly hollow argument to say Congress needs to pass legislation codifying DACA or else someone might come and end it when you're the person ending it.
    If you can get past the fact that it wasn't a legal executive order to begin with, and the fact that it was going to die in the courts, oddly enough this is probably the best thing possible if it ends up ratiffying a Dreamers Act legally, otherwise the only way this thing could continue to exist is if every president from now until forever continued to extend Obama's excutive order, and no one challenged it. Neither are likely.

  3. #243
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    77,292
    I think that Paul Ryan and Orrin Hatch would have to resign (I don't like playing into die part of this nonsense) before Tillerson would become president. Always been surprised that Mitch or the Senate Majority Leader isn't the one in that spot over President pro of the Senate.

  4. #244
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    san josYAY
    Posts
    18,926
    Quote Originally Posted by Sick Of It All View Post
    Internal WH memos sure do make it sound like they wanted end. Trump is just making a push to blame congress if they can't pass a law.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Well he's right, he's said he'd sign a Dreamers act if it's brought to him and there won't be any deportations of any kind for 6 months.
    This has bipartisan support in both chambers, at this point the balls in their court.

  5. #245
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    77,292
    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban View Post
    Yeah, your right, it would be Paul Ryan then Oren Hatch.
    I knew he was in there somewhere. But I had to Google it.

  6. #246
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    san josYAY
    Posts
    18,926
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    I think that Paul Ryan and Orrin Hatch would have to resign (I don't like playing into die part of this nonsense) before Tillerson would become president. Always been surprised that Mitch or the Senate Majority Leader isn't the one in that spot over President pro of the Senate.
    Yeah, your right, it would be Paul Ryan then Oren Hatch.

  7. #247
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    17,517
    Quote Originally Posted by browski234 View Post
    Oh boy. This went south for you in a hurry.

    First of all, I "spun it back to you" because you were trying to have some cool "gotcha hypocrite!" moment when you have already openly said it is ok to be racist in law enforcement.

    Secondly, the only one doing spinning is you--you are framing a strawman argument here (poorly) that the "black community" is saying...what exactly? That some blacks are arrested or targeted by law unfairly? Well, yeah, that's true. The argument isn't that all blacks are arrested unfairly or targeted by law unfairly, no matter how badly you want and need it to be for your bizarre argument to work. But then again, you have already opened up about living on a very distinct pocket of Twitter that is your only exposure to black people in America, so a misrepresentation of information for you is understandable, if not sad.

    Why would they have no say in arguing that Arpaio, who was already proven to have broken the law, be wrong? Do you honestly think the nuance of the "black community" knowing that many black people are arrested and treated fairly by law enforcement doesn't exist or something? Nothing you are struggling to bring up dismisses what Arpaio did and was proven to have done.
    I never said it's okay to be racist in law enforcement. your interpretation of what would be considered racist in this case with Arpaio is not the same as mine.

    Arpaio has said him and his officers did not specifically target people for stops based on their race. it was only after a valid stop that people were checked.


    Quote Originally Posted by browski234 View Post
    Your weird wording also suggests that those discriminated against are criminals.

    Like, do you honestly think black people all just sit back and commit crimes and then call for Arpaio's head or something? That's what you are suggesting. Outside of it being pretty grotesque an assumption, it's laughably wrong.
    that is not what I said or think.

    Quote Originally Posted by browski234 View Post
    You should also use that handy-dandy dictionary you use to get through all your obstacles in life, because the only deflection here is you trying to shoehorn in your beloved black vs. white rhetoric in a discussion where it doesn't really fit. You're just making up this random boogeyman of black criminals hypocritically condemning another criminal (Arpaio, whose racism you totally condoned, btw) in order to not address Arpaio being wrong, and a criminal, because Trump pardoned him and not only can Trump not be wrong, but you don't find anything wrong with racism in law enforcement.
    you tried to use a comparison to Arpaio as in he was convicted for breaking the law and then should not have been pardoned. I threw out a similar comparison on how people that happen to be black are convicted for breaking the law, yet will have people argue that it wasn't fair/wasn't right and they they should not have been convicted. why would it be okay to say Arpaio should have been convicted for breaking the law (which is what your saying), but others (in this case black people) should not have been convicted for breaking the law. if the argument is people are deserving to be convicted for breaking the law, then that should go for everyone that is breaking the law. the comparison that gets used is how blacks are convicted for drug laws. if there are drugs that are illegal and people are caught then they broke the law and are deserving of being arrested/charged/convicted. I don't even think that is a black issue, I would think the same thing for anyone black/white/other. there's no reason to argue how anyone breaking this type of law was wrongly arrested/charged/convicted.
    that was my intention of throwing out this comparison, because I don't believe you would agree that everyone convicted of breaking the law (in this case drug laws) is always going to be deserving of being convicted.







    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Hey man. Use the #IgnoreList. I'm telling you the forum looks so much better since I went back to using it. I just see guys like Hawkeye, Dbroncs, and Scoots; who make logical and cogent arguments. None of he hogwash arguments were someone contradicts themselves within the same few sentences. None of us have time for that.
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    I only see him when you all respond now. I'm telling you the grass is greener my friend.
    yeah life is so much better when you can secure yourself in a bubble self protected safe space and completely ignore anyone that disagrees with you.






    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    ... So there are children correct? So absolutely nothing they said was wrong. They said something that was factually true and you are upset about it.

    They may have exaggerated how many were children, but so what? Exaggeration is OK so long as there are some children. That's what we should be talking about. Not who said what, but the children.

    FACT: Children comprise some of the DACA pool
    FACT: Trump wants to kick out children in 6 months

    So other than those statements being factually true, what are you complaining about?
    technically no, because technically Trump has not said that he wants to kick out anyone in 6 months.

    those on the left want to manipulate people into believing that DACA is all children.






    Quote Originally Posted by browski234 View Post
    Exaggeration is only ok when talking about Muslims celebrating terrorism, followed by lying about seeing it in the first place.
    get your facts straight, I never said that.

    http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sho...6#post31834226
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    I never said it was okay. Trump should not have exaggerated because all that has done is make people question whether there were people cheering at all. instead of focusing on that fact people focus on the exaggeration.






    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    There is a fundamental problem with your analogy. The assumption we'd be even more flooded.

    Even before Trump, illegal immigration was dropping. Not only were we not getting flooded, the number coming over was slowing...
    slowing.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...port-says.html

    The number of people illegally crossing the U.S. southern border has dropped 40 percent in President Trump’s first full month in office, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said Wednesday.

    U.S. Customs and Border Patrol reported that the number of illegal border crossings dropped from 31,578 to 18,762 persons. Kelly said border agents usually see a 10 to 20 percent increase in illegal immigrant apprehensions from January to February.
    18,762 is still a lot of people.



  8. #248
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    10,695
    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban View Post


    That's awfully simplistic and one sided, he's pushing us towards war? None of the blame for what's going on lies in North Korea? They're activly shooting missiles over Japan.
    If Clinton had won, do you think she'd really do something different?

    Because Rex Tillerson or Mike Pence would be so much better?


    I guess that's the one thing I've never understood from the Impeach Trump crowd, what makes you guys think that Mike Pence would be that much better? Or he wouldn't be pushing many of these same policies?
    Like you guys do know that if Trump gets impeached Hillary doesn't just get to become president right?
    Yes because what I said is Trump is solely responsible. Thanks for helping clarify my position.

    Yes you are right clinton would be saying the exact same stupid **** the president in brief is saying and so would tillerson, I mean he already is.

    Yes I talked about being in the impeach trump crowd. It's totally correct that you lump me in with them.

    I have run out of sarcasm. I need to rest.
    Last edited by flips333; 09-08-2017 at 10:22 AM.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  9. #249
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    20,779
    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban View Post
    If you can get past the fact that it wasn't a legal executive order to begin with, and the fact that it was going to die in the courts, oddly enough this is probably the best thing possible if it ends up ratiffying a Dreamers Act legally, otherwise the only way this thing could continue to exist is if every president from now until forever continued to extend Obama's excutive order, and no one challenged it. Neither are likely.
    Difficult to get past that fact when it's not a fact at all. Maybe it will die in the courts, we don't know. It hasn't and it is legal as of this very moment so saying "the fact it is illegal" is factually incorrect.

    But to your broader point, it was entirely possible to create a DACA law with bipartisan support (if indeed there is bipartisan support to do so) without threatening and stopping the executive order.

    We all know what happened, Trump listened to his far right base and decided to end DACA and then announced it and faced so much backlash he softened on his position. That is something we've seen happen repeatedly.


    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    technically no, because technically Trump has not said that he wants to kick out anyone in 6 months.

    those on the left want to manipulate people into believing that DACA is all children.
    Who from the left said DACA is all children? They are saying children are in DACA and will be deported. Those are factually true.

    You've already established so long as a statement is true, there's no problem with it. So you should have no problem with them stating the factual truth, which is what they're doing.

  10. #250
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    14,638
    Quote Originally Posted by ManRam View Post
    First, I would like to say that I don't at all agree with how most of the Libs have been framing their defense.

    Second, I absolutely believe that people citing crimes rates of 0.26% and trying as hard to come up with idiotic arguments and spreading false narratives, images and stats are doing so to feel better about the reality of the fact: they just don't want Latinos in this country. I don't at all think everyone on the right feels that way, and never said that. I think the ones grasping for those stupid straws do feel that way. There are more reasonable arguments from more moderate conservatives (that I don't agree with), but read my first sentence: I'm talking far-right here. I don't give Breitbart and their ilk any benefit of the doubt. If there were coming from a perspective that you claim is the reality, they'd be arguing that. But they aren't. They're going the "these people aren't worthy of America". And **** that and **** them
    how big do you think the far right is? seriously?

    Again, this issue has little to do with race for the vast majority of Americans that want greater border security.

    The problem is this has become a classic wedge issue like Abortion, Social Security Reform, Health Care which the parties don't really want to resolve because it takes a political issue away that they use to fire up their base...

    The 2 party system is a joke and nothing more than a money making machine for the news media, corporations, and the parties...

    These issue aren't hard to resolve if people are reasonable and politicians negotiate honestly... the problem is that can't happen with a two party system because to much power is at stake.

  11. #251
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    10,695
    Quote Originally Posted by Vinylman View Post
    how big do you think the far right is? seriously?

    Again, this issue has little to do with race for the vast majority of Americans that want greater border security.

    The problem is this has become a classic wedge issue like Abortion, Social Security Reform, Health Care which the parties don't really want to resolve because it takes a political issue away that they use to fire up their base...

    The 2 party system is a joke and nothing more than a money making machine for the news media, corporations, and the parties...

    These issue aren't hard to resolve if people are reasonable and politicians negotiate honestly... the problem is that can't happen with a two party system because to much power is at stake.
    Again... you can say that again and again, but it won't make it true.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  12. #252
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    20,779
    I actually believe that many of those that want to be tough on the border don't believe it's a racial issue. They are in ignorance of the racial component.

    It's sort of like the crack/cocaine laws where the author admitted they were to lock up black people. But that doesn't mean everyone who supported the law was racist, they simply didn't know about it's racial intent.

  13. #253
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    9,574
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    There is a fundamental problem with your analogy. The assumption we'd be even more flooded.

    Even before Trump, illegal immigration was dropping. Not only were we not getting flooded, the number coming over was slowing...
    What's your analogy? since less are coming in justifies awarding them amnesty?

    47% of Mexicans surveyed that life in their native country is as good or better than what would await them if they crossed into the U.S., according to findings by the Washington-based Pew Research Center.
    They've basically looted the low-skill/educated job market, while bringing down wages and raising taxes on everyone.
    Corporate America has greatly benefited from this immoderate labor pool so they've neglected the issue for so long & have no desire to stop it.
    Last edited by kevin13697; 09-08-2017 at 04:06 PM.

  14. #254
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    9,574
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I actually believe that many of those that want to be tough on the border don't believe it's a racial issue. They are in ignorance of the racial component.

    It's sort of like the crack/cocaine laws where the author admitted they were to lock up black people. But that doesn't mean everyone who supported the law was racist, they simply didn't know about it's racial intent.
    Kinda seems like your saying we can't have laws because your afraid they could offend someone, no offense but this fits the stereotype.

    Also, how you think crack/cocaine gets into the US? it's not black people bringing it in
    Last edited by kevin13697; 09-08-2017 at 03:58 PM.

  15. #255
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    20,779
    Quote Originally Posted by kevin13697 View Post
    What's your analogy? since less are coming in justifies awarding them amnesty?

    47% of Mexicans surveyed that life in their native country is as good or better than what would await them if they crossed into the U.S., according to findings by the Washington-based Pew Research Center.
    They've basically looted the low-skill/educated job market, while bringing down wages and raising taxes on everyone.
    Corporate America has greatly benefited from this immoderate labor pool so they've neglected the issue for so long & have no desire to stop it.
    It wasn't my analogy. Their analogy was that programs like DACA would encourage more to come in and would increase illegal immigration. That is statistically false. Since DACA there's actually been a decrease in illegal immigration (and no, I'm not suggesting causation or correlation between those two events).

    Quote Originally Posted by kevin13697 View Post
    Kinda seems like your saying we can't have laws because your afraid they could offend someone, no offense but this fits the stereotype.

    Also, how you think crack/cocaine gets into the US? it's not black people bringing it in
    Well that's not what I'm saying. There's a difference between offending someone and the law being made for a legitimately racist purpose. The difference in severity of punishment for crack vs. cocaine was made specifically with racist intent. We know this because the author was caught on audio recording saying so.

    Given that, we have to be wary not of offending people with laws, but that the laws aren't being made with racist intent.

    I'm not even sure what stereotype it is I fit. It seems there are two pervading schools of thought right now. Those that do see color and those that don't. Which do you think lives in reality?

Page 17 of 41 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •