Author Topic: A Good Question.  (Read 1285 times)

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
A Good Question.
« on: January 05, 2023, 12:23:51 PM »
Did Someone or Something Seize Control of the United States?
By Victor Davis Hanson 12:01 AM on January 05, 2023
(https://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/2023/01/05/did-someone-or-something-seize-control-of-the-united-states-n1658786)

What happened to the U.S. border? Where did it go? Who erased it? Why and how did 5 million people enter our country illegally? Did Congress secretly repeal our immigration laws? Did President Joe Biden issue an executive order allowing foreign nationals to walk across the border and reside in the United States as they pleased?

Since when did money not have to be paid back? Who insisted that the more dollars the federal government printed, the more prosperity would follow? When did America embrace zero interest? Why do we believe $30 trillion in debt is no big deal?

When did clean-burning, cheap, and abundant natural gas become the equivalent to dirty coal? How did prized natural gas that had granted America’s wishes of energy self-sufficiency, reduced pollution, and inexpensive electricity become almost overnight a pariah fuel whose extraction was a war against nature? Which lawmakers, which laws, which votes of the people declared natural gas development and pipelines near criminal?

Was it not against federal law to swarm the homes of Supreme Court justices, to picket and to intimidate their households in efforts to affect their rulings? How then with impunity did bullies surround the homes of Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts, and Clarence Thomas – furious over a court decision on abortion? How could these mobs so easily throng our justices’ homes, with placards declaring “Off with their d–s”?

Since when did Americans create a government Ministry of Truth? And on whose orders did the FBI contract private news organizations to censor stories it did not like and writers whom it feared?

How did we wake up one morning to new customs of impeaching a president over a phone call? Of the speaker of the House tearing up the State of the Union address on national television? Of barring congressional members from serving on their assigned congressional committees?

When did we assume the FBI had the right to subvert the campaign of a candidate it disliked? Was it legal suddenly for one presidential candidate to hire a foreign ex-spy to subvert the campaign of her rival?

Was some state or federal law passed that allowed biological males to compete in female sports? Did Congress enact such a law? Did the Supreme Court guarantee that biological male students could shower in gym locker rooms with biological women? Were women ever asked to redefine the very sports they had championed?

When did the government pass a law depriving Americans of their freedom during a pandemic? In America can health officials simply cancel rental contracts or declare loan payments in suspension? How could it become illegal for mom-and-pop stores to sell flowers or shoes during a quarantine but not so for Walmart or Target?

Since when did the people decide that 70 percent of voters would not cast their ballots on Election Day? Was this revolutionary change the subject of a national debate, a heated congressional session, or the votes of dozens of state legislatures?

What happened to Election Night returns? Did the fact that Americans created more electronic ballots and computerized tallies make it take so much longer to tabulate the votes?

When did the nation abruptly decide that theft is not a crime, assault not a felony? How can thieves walk out with bags of stolen goods, without the wrath of angry shoppers, much less fear of the law?

Was there ever a national debate about the terrified flight from Afghanistan? Who planned it and why?

What happened to the once trusted FBI? Why almost overnight did its directors decide to mislead Congress, to deceive judges with concocted tales from fake dossiers and with doctored writs? Did Congress pass a law that our federal leaders in the FBI or CIA could lie with impunity under oath?

Who redefined our military and with whose consent? Who proclaimed that our chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff could call his Chinese Communist counterpart to warn him that America’s president was supposedly unstable? Was it always true that retired generals routinely libeled their commander-in-chief as a near Nazi, a Mussolini, an adherent of the tools of Auschwitz?

Were Americans ever asked whether their universities could discriminate against their sons and daughters based on their race? How did it become physically dangerous to speak the truth on a campus? Whose idea was it to reboot racial segregation and bias as “theme houses,” “safe spaces,” and “diversity”? How did that happen in America?

How did a virus cancel the Constitution? Did the lockdowns rob of us of our sanity? Or was it the woke hysteria that ignited our collective madness?

We are beginning to wake up from a nightmare to a country we no longer recognize, and from a coup we never knew

__________________________________________________________

(Please excuse my not citing this as a quote. It is so good, I didn't want to shrink it into the small-text quotation process. It is too important to make it easier to ignore. The url is there.

VDH is one of my favorite historians, for good reasons. His question is the root of this historic dysfunction.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2023, 12:29:45 PM »
Which of those questions, specifically, did you think was a good one?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #2 on: January 05, 2023, 12:56:38 PM »
It seems to me the OP question is at best not related to all the questions that follow, to the point where a forum could have it tagged as "misleading title." I think what he actually means is he doesn't like a bunch of stuff. It reminds me of the rhetoric from the 80's.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2023, 03:23:53 PM »
The majority of the 'points' put forward paints everything is either / or  so there is little room for debate or solution.
Its not worth commenting on further . Imagine trying to create usable computer code with only NOT and ORs. Without AND nothing works.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2023, 03:31:09 PM by rightleft22 »

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #4 on: January 05, 2023, 04:02:17 PM »
On the border it looks like Biden is about to become as racist as Trump ever was, and then some.

https://apnews.com/article/politics-mexico-immigration-af0643a4fb8f45388fe247e44c9b2c5e

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden said Thursday the U.S. would immediately begin turning away Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans who cross the border from Mexico illegally, his boldest move yet to confront the arrivals of migrants that have spiraled since he took office two years ago.

The new rules expand on an existing effort to stop Venezuelans attempting to enter the U.S., which began in October and led to a dramatic drop in Venezuelans coming to the southern border. Together, they represent a major change to immigration rules that will stand even if the Supreme Court ends a Trump-era public health law that allows U.S. authorities to turn away asylum-seekers.

“Do not, do not just show up at the border,” Biden said as he announced the changes, even as he acknowledged the hardships that lead many families to make the dangerous journey north.

“Stay where you are and apply legally from there,” he advised.

----------------------------------------------------

I've been seeing numbers of over 2 million border crossers a year. Doing the math on that even Democrats might come to the realization that those levels are not sustainable. Martha's Vineyard couldn't even handle 50. Hanson makes good points about most of the rest too.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #5 on: January 05, 2023, 04:04:51 PM »
So an actual question might be if Biden gets tougher on the border and illegal immigration especially with tightening controls on specific countries like singling out Haitians and a few others, how is that not totally racist but when Trump does something similar it totally is racist?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #6 on: January 05, 2023, 04:13:34 PM »
So an actual question might be if Biden gets tougher on the border and illegal immigration especially with tightening controls on specific countries like singling out Haitians and a few others, how is that not totally racist but when Trump does something similar it totally is racist?

He didn't block all travel and immigration from those country, just made the executive call that most (or all) of the people from those countries don't qualify for asylum. He didn't do it by calling them s-hole countries. Just said that to qualify people need to apply from their home countries and that a 2,000 mile walk through Mexico wouldn't get them anywhere. Isn't this what you wanted? Or is it bitter sweet that you can't hate Democrats for supporting open borders anymore? Probably a good policy. We probably need to take a look at our asylum and immigration laws more whole scale. But given the debacle in the house, I'm not going to hold my breath on any meaningful legislation coming from there in the next 2 years at a minimum.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #7 on: January 05, 2023, 04:18:30 PM »
And why will there be nothing for 2 years? Because it will have to be a compromise solution and the only solution the RINO MAGA Trumpist will accept is a wall (some would prefer to gun the immigrants down since they are all drug dealers, rapist, murderers, etc. Not a singl hard working person in the whole millions, not one.).

And compromise is evil.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #8 on: January 05, 2023, 04:32:46 PM »
It's going to be interesting to watch how all of a sudden the same common sense limits on illegal immigration that have been branded as racist all these years are now deemed to be perfectly reasonable.

And always there's talk about legislation when the legislation we have now is totally ignored so it's meaningless the same way any new legislation will be too. But so far Biden is just talk. Only when we see hard action will we know he's more than the empty suit he's made himself out to be and that hard action will look like bitter tears from the millions of Nancy Pelosi's angels getting turned away and forced back to their failed states when they were only trying to make a better life for themselves and their children until they were blocked by the racist Democrats saying no mas.

I won't be mad at the Democrats for securing the border. But I might have to, according to their own standards, call them racists.

And I don't mind at all if the number of refugees and asylum seekers is raised. Pick any number you want. Just enforce the law and that would be an improvement.

It's not just me though pointing out Biden's new racist approach even if the people doing so won't use that word just yet.

”Instead, the U.S. will accept 30,000 people per month from the four nations for two years and offer the ability to work legally, as long as they come legally, have eligible sponsors and pass vetting and background checks. Border crossings by migrants from those four nations have risen most sharply, with no easy way to quickly return them to their home countries.

“This new process is orderly,” Biden said. “It’s safe and humane, and it works.”

The move, while not unexpected, drew swift criticism from asylum and immigration advocates, who have had a rocky relationship with the president.

“President Biden correctly recognized today that seeking asylum is a legal right and spoke sympathetically about people fleeing persecution,” said Jonathan Blazer, the American Civil Liberties Union’s director of border strategies. “But the plan he announced further ties his administration to the poisonous anti-immigrant policies of the Trump era instead of restoring fair access to asylum protections.”

---------------------------------------

“This new process is orderly...“

That part was rich. It doesn't matter what the process is if it's not enforced. I find it very hard to believe that this process will be enforced either and if it is the asylum and immigration advocates are absolutely correct that it's going to look as ugly and brutal as anything we've ever seen because Biden has already flung the doors wide open and issued a worldwide invitation so trying to take that back when so many millions have already RSVP'd will not be a good look for anyone trying to appear humane.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #9 on: January 05, 2023, 04:34:29 PM »
So no responses to any of the original questions other than handwaving?

I could answer a few, mostly because the path at law they followed is obvious even if it is corrupt.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #10 on: January 05, 2023, 04:37:19 PM »
They were not real questions so why give real answers? To paraphrase Tucker Carlson, just asking a question.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #11 on: January 05, 2023, 04:39:48 PM »
I don't think you'll find that observing that Biden is more right-wing than many Democrats would prefer, particularly when it comes to immigration policy, is necessarily the shocking reveal that you seem to imagine, cherry.

Quote
So no responses to any of the original questions other than handwaving?
I'll be honest: I started typing out some answers and then realized that no one who'd read them might be interested enough in honest discussion to make that worthwhile.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #12 on: January 05, 2023, 04:42:34 PM »
By the way, Biden needs no legislation or compromise from Republicans. If all he does is just a little bit more start to enforce a few more of the laws he lied about intending to enforce in the first place when he took his oath of office he'll be making all the improvement required to get the results he's talking about wanting over the apocalyptic chaos we see now at the border. It looks down there like this is a mass migration of people fleeing a literal apocalypse like a volcano eruption or Atlantis sinking into the ocean instead of people just fleeing their bad countries, some of which these people themselves voted to make that way. But the point is all Biden needs to do is his job a little bit and we'd see all the improvement at the border that he's looking for. I don't know what the analogy is. Maybe he's got the water hose open full throttle or the pedal to the metal. He doesn't need to replace the faucet or hose or car. He doesn't need to even repair it. All he needs to do is ease up a little. He just talked about doing it so now we'll see if he follows through. If he blames not being able to get a repair man out to fix it or replace it i.e. requiring new legislation when we know he's the one in full control then we'll know he was just whistling Dixie and wasn't serious at all.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #13 on: January 05, 2023, 04:45:58 PM »
Everyone is missing the rather important news, previously people had to come to the US to apply for asylum,

Quote
U.S. law says “any alien who is physically present in the United States, or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum.”

So, you can apply for asylum if you are in the United States illegally. But one important requirement you can’t get around is the physical presence requirement. You can only apply for asylum if you are in the United States.

https://www.stilt.com/blog/2020/09/can-you-apply-for-asylum-outside-the-u-s/

apparently as of November 2022, they can do so online from their home country,

Quote
Effective Nov. 15, 2022, affirmative asylum applicants may now file an online Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal. Individuals should review the information about online filing to determine if they are eligible to file Form I-589 via myuscis.gov.

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/asylum

So the new method is because finally some common sense about asylum seeking has been reinstated.  (The Republicans had instituted a law (during Reagan administration?) that applications could only be made from within the US, which is why we had so many immigrants crossing the border to seek asylum).

This is something I've long advocated for politicians that want to actually do something to reduce unlawful immigration was to eliminate asylum seekers having to physically enter the US, and allow them to apply from their home country embassy of the country they wish to seek asylum from, like most (every?) other countries in the world allows.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2023, 04:50:36 PM by LetterRip »

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #14 on: January 05, 2023, 04:49:24 PM »
Quote
It looks down there like this is a mass migration of people fleeing a literal apocalypse...
I have to admit that I find this particular bit of right-wing fearmongering to be particularly tiresome hyperbole.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #15 on: January 05, 2023, 04:54:09 PM »
The majority of the 'points' put forward paints everything is either / or  so there is little room for debate or solution.
Its not worth commenting on further . Imagine trying to create usable computer code with only NOT and ORs. Without AND nothing works.

Actually....

X and y = not x or not y

Computer code would be fine.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #16 on: January 05, 2023, 04:55:55 PM »
Tom

”I don't think you'll find that observing that Biden is more right-wing than many Democrats would prefer, particularly when it comes to immigration policy, is necessarily the shocking reveal that you seem to imagine, cherry.”

I and I believe Harris would certainly agree with you there. Isn't she the one who called him out for being a segregationist during the campaign?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/joe-biden-didn-t-just-compromise-segregationists-he-fought-their-n1021626

But in the end it doesn't matter how racist Biden is personally. He does whatever his puppet masters make him do. Always has and always will. If I had to guess I'd say Abbott and DeSantis bussing and flying immigrants to the front porches of some of the string pullers and promises of much more of the same got their attention and that's why we're going to start seeing some movement on the issue. NIMBY. Literally.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2023, 05:05:32 PM by cherrypoptart »

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #17 on: January 05, 2023, 05:02:07 PM »
Quote
I'd say Abbott and DeSantis bussing and flying immigrants to the front porches of some of things string pullers and promises of much more of the same got their attention
I guarantee you this isn't the case.
This is going to be really hard for conservatives to hear and understand, but: unanimously among liberals, the sentiment is that Martha's Vineyard handled DeSantis' stunt gracefully and effectively, and his continued callous stunting only shames him and his supporters. That, in fact, what he's proving is that illegal immigrants aren't a particular hardship or a whole class of problematically dangerous people, and that even malicious cruelty of the sort he's been displaying can be easily met by a united community.

Biden's immigration policy is flawed, but not for the reasons you think -- and absolutely not because DeSantis has somehow forced his hand.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #18 on: January 05, 2023, 05:04:50 PM »
But if you apply in your home country and you get rejected then what are your options? If you come illegally and apply here then you get to wait here for a couple of years with legal status while your application goes through the system.


"But the requirements for granting asylum are narrow, and only about 30% of applications are granted. That has created a system in which migrants try to cross between ports of entry and are allowed into the U.S. to wait out their cases. But there is a 2 million-case immigration court backlog, so cases often are not heard for years."

There's also the obvious problem of people needing to flee their country because they really aren't safe there not being able to stay there to apply for asylum in the first place. Being able to apply for asylum while you're in your home country seems to indicate that maybe you don't really need asylum after all.

'Fixing' that part of the system doesn't seem like it will do anything. It certainly won't matter the least bit to people coming who never intend to have any interactions with our government agencies.

If they aren't in their home country then they can seek asylum in whatever country they are applying from.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2023, 05:16:06 PM by cherrypoptart »

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #19 on: January 05, 2023, 05:08:34 PM »
If that's true about Martha's Vineyard then they'll be hiring buses to bring hundreds of thousands of immigrants up there to help make it an even better place. Certainly if any place can gracefully handle the situation then it's there better than most of the overwhelmed poverty stricken towns and cities on the border. I'll wait to see that story in the news.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #20 on: January 05, 2023, 05:09:18 PM »
X and y = not x or not y

Computer code would be fine.

Don't you mean "not (not x or not y)"?

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #21 on: January 05, 2023, 05:13:11 PM »
I don't know what sorts of situations qualify for asylum but I can see a number of scenarios where a person might be able to become safe enough to wait 2-3 years but still be in enough danger to qualify. It may even be the case where being known to have applied for asylum makes them safer because it's an easier way of removing them than murder.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #22 on: January 05, 2023, 05:19:39 PM »
I suppose I could see that, like you can apply for asylum from political prison in your home country so that by the time you are released maybe your application has been approved and you can even be released early if you are cleared to leave right away. Like for a guy who gets put in prison for insulting the King. He'll let you go when your asylum petition is granted as your punishment in the form of permanent exile.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #23 on: January 05, 2023, 05:58:17 PM »
But if you apply in your home country and you get rejected then what are your options?

Apply elsewhere, there are other countries than the US.

Quote
If you come illegally and apply here then you get to wait here for a couple of years with legal status while your application goes through the system.

No, other changes were made as well.  There is an immediate 'credible threat' hearing, and if a finding of a lack of credible threat, there is an expedited extradition hearing.

Quote
There's also the obvious problem of people needing to flee their country because they really aren't safe there not being able to stay there to apply for asylum in the first place. Being able to apply for asylum while you're in your home country seems to indicate that maybe you don't really need asylum after all.

It is extremely rare for things to go from zero risk to 100% risk in a short time.  People who need to seek asylum usually have a reasonably long planning horizon.

Quote
'Fixing' that part of the system doesn't seem like it will do anything. It certainly won't matter the least bit to people coming who never intend to have any interactions with our government agencies.

Clearly you have no knowledge of the prior process, nor the changes.

Quote
If they aren't in their home country then they can seek asylum in whatever country they are applying from.

Yes, but they also have a legal right to apply for asylum to the US, as per our treaties and US law.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #24 on: January 05, 2023, 06:48:46 PM »
I have to say, William, that while Victor Davis Hanson may be one of your favorite historians, he is also a bombastic fool who asks leading questions whose answers are known to anyone who pays attention to the news.

What happened to the U.S. border?  Nothing!  We're having trouble keeping illegals out as we've always had.

When did money not have to be paid back?  When didn't we have a deficit?  And why do Republicans always cut taxes instead of trying to pay it off? ;)

When did clean-burning, cheap, and abundant natural gas become the equivalent to dirty coal?  When it became obvious to even the most disinterested observer that it's warming our planet and causing all sorts or weather problems that are threatening our civilization and lives.  ::)

How did we wake up one morning to new customs of impeaching a president over a phone call?  When the damned President used one (and his office) to try to blackmail a foreign country into investigating the President's political opponent.

Need I go on?  ;D

Why are you listening to this pompous ass who ignores whole swatches of facts?

Now that's a good question!  ;D

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #25 on: January 05, 2023, 07:25:09 PM »
I have to say, William, that while Victor Davis Hanson may be one of your favorite historians, he is also a bombastic fool who asks leading questions whose answers are known to anyone who pays attention to the news.

What happened to the U.S. border?  Nothing!  We're having trouble keeping illegals out as we've always had.

When did money not have to be paid back?  When didn't we have a deficit?  And why do Republicans always cut taxes instead of trying to pay it off? ;)

When did clean-burning, cheap, and abundant natural gas become the equivalent to dirty coal?  When it became obvious to even the most disinterested observer that it's warming our planet and causing all sorts or weather problems that are threatening our civilization and lives.  ::)

How did we wake up one morning to new customs of impeaching a president over a phone call?  When the damned President used one (and his office) to try to blackmail a foreign country into investigating the President's political opponent.

Need I go on?  ;D

Why are you listening to this pompous ass who ignores whole swatches of facts?

Now that's a good question!  ;D

Well thanks for responding to more than the single first paragraph.

Of those many questions, they do have the central connection of being driven by the results from bureaucrats and political power usurpers, don't they? VDH is never bombastic, and rises above most historians by his simple common sense. Go back and look at his writings to understand that. He's like Justice Thomas in that of the others on the bench with him, Thomas always has the clearest and best thought-out responses. If you want the gist of legal decisions - look to Thomas' opinion. Hanson doesn't shout at you with capital letters - he just makes sense, and validates his statements with learned facts and established history. You seem to judge him by your own incorrectly believed disinformational opinions rather than with simple truth and facts

Look at your petty response to VDH's statement about clean natural gas. I thought the idea that burning hydrocarbons increased CO2, yet you act like the natural gas, itself, warms the planet. Science doesn't support that, but bureaucrats do. Coal is interesting. There is clean-burning coal, you know. Go look up the Clinton misstep of outlawing the USA's deposits of clean-burning coal so that the world's other supply which was owned by his fundraising buddies became a global monopoly. The Escalante National Monument: This was not just about penalizing a State that voted against him. This was a flat-out political windfall to the Riaddy family. That is the source of the denigration of coal per se. Make all coal bad, and you can ignore the Clinton money grab.

No, VDH is not throwing flames. He just listed dysfunctions.

« Last Edit: January 05, 2023, 07:30:54 PM by wmLambert »

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #26 on: January 05, 2023, 07:48:40 PM »
X and y = not x or not y

Computer code would be fine.

Don't you mean "not (not x or not y)"?

Curses. You're right. I should have drawn the logic cells. Invert-or is equivalent to nand, so you have to invert to get regular and.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #27 on: January 05, 2023, 07:50:43 PM »
Clean coal was great industry marketing. Cleaner coal is more accurate. No coal is clean, no matter what technique you use to trap some carbon.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #28 on: January 05, 2023, 09:02:01 PM »
I'd still like to know which question in particular you thought was a good one. I wasn't impressed by any of the questions, myself, and even the ones I found intriguing are I suspect intriguing to me despite what the author was trying to insinuate (like, say, asking when the FBI started working to undermine political candidates, with the obvious implication being that this is a recent development as opposed to literally one of the earliest functions of the agency.)

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #29 on: January 05, 2023, 10:55:35 PM »
The "dirty energy" question would be ok if it weren't for the actual history of oil/gas companies, and other details that are frankly too involved for me to understand without significant research (the international energy market, supply conditions, the politics of extracting crude, the Saudi situation from the 50's until now, etc). It would be a good topic to explore, but in context he isn't asking the right question.

The question about university admittance policies is also an ok topic, and perhaps the only 'worthy' question of the lot since in principle any selection policy (going back a ways) based on race should in theory be unconstitutional. How it passed muster previously is something I actually don't know; that it happens more now is an expansion of past programs, but not a new practice as such. Whether such policies are useful, or moral, is a separate question from whether they're legal, which should be an important issue regardless of political affiliation.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #30 on: January 05, 2023, 11:16:39 PM »
My issue with the natural gas questions is that they're all highly disingenuous. Natural gas is not "clean-burning" or "abundant" except in comparison to coal; natural gas is not "equivalent" to coal, but nevertheless shares with coal certain disadvantages that make it less desirable as a long-term energy investment; natural gas is not a "pariah" fuel, as it remains one of America's most heavily exploited resources, and no element of its collection or distribution is "near-criminal", much less actually criminalized. That gas extraction and consumption has problematic downsides, and that gas distribution continues to be plagued with inefficiency and safety issues that make pipelines an environmental and residential danger, has been acknowledged fact for as long as we've been alive and not something that has only recently been discovered.

The college one bothers me because, again, it's being presented disingenuously. Leaving aside the reality that it has been "physically dangerous" to "speak the truth" on campuses since the first campuses were established, affirmative action programs have existed for longer than any of us have been alive, and "diversity" as a goal for campus recruitment literally goes back to the Oxford reforms of the 1700s. A quick check shows that the polemicist here was born in the early '50s, meaning that he has never experienced an American college environment where these were not common standards; if anything, American colleges today are far LESS concerned with redistributing financial and social advantages to prioritized minority groups, as many lawsuits of the '80s and '90s specifically rolled back many of these programs.

This is a list of things he's never liked about America, presented as if he doesn't understand the arguments for them and it's only in recent years that they have been insidiously imposed upon him. But we all know that, which is why all of us except William basically shrugged at it in indifferent exasperation.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #31 on: January 06, 2023, 12:04:31 AM »
My issue with the natural gas questions is that they're all highly disingenuous.

Well, yes. It's a false topic couched in a real topic. But I mentioned it because unlike some of the others it is a real topic.

Quote
Natural gas is not "clean-burning" or "abundant" except in comparison to coal; natural gas is not "equivalent" to coal, but nevertheless shares with coal certain disadvantages that make it less desirable as a long-term energy investment; natural gas is not a "pariah" fuel, as it remains one of America's most heavily exploited resources, and no element of its collection or distribution is "near-criminal", much less actually criminalized.

Around where I live natural gas is touted as being the environmental choice over using electric, e.g. for stove appliances or grills. It seems to me cities incentivize the arduous task of installing the gas connection from the common source when this is available, rather than plugging into the wall. Imperfect such as it may be, it seems to have thus far been seen as the superior alternative. The reason one might doubt the honesty of natural gas companies is because they are usually also crude oil companies. It's sort of like the local don offering you an actually decent product rather than a shakedown, but he's still who he is.

Quote
The college one bothers me because, again, it's being presented disingenuously.

Hah, obviously.

Quote
Leaving aside the reality that it has been "physically dangerous" to "speak the truth" on campuses since the first campuses were established, affirmative action programs have existed for longer than any of us have been alive, and "diversity" as a goal for campus recruitment literally goes back to the Oxford reforms of the 1700s. A quick check shows that the polemicist here was born in the early '50s, meaning that he has never experienced an American college environment where these were not common standards; if anything, American colleges today are far LESS concerned with redistributing financial and social advantages to prioritized minority groups, as many lawsuits of the '80s and '90s specifically rolled back many of these programs.

I didn't know it went back that far, but I suspect there's a material - if not theoretical - difference between trying to include some minorities versus establishing hard quotas. I understand that the latter could be seen as a mechanical means to ensure the former actually happens, but it does imply that at a certain point a double standard is used that is, well, discriminatory. Again, whether that's good or bad is separate from whether it's technically constitutional. Has anyone ever sued over this? Maybe the issue is proof; this is one area where a lack of whistleblowers could mean you can never prove anything.

Quote
This is a list of things he's never liked about America, presented as if he doesn't understand the arguments for them and it's only in recent years that they have been insidiously imposed upon him. But we all know that, which is why all of us except William basically shrugged at it in indifferent exasperation.

Right.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #32 on: January 06, 2023, 04:53:33 PM »
Quote
VDH is never bombastic, and rises above most historians by his simple common sense. Go back and look at his writings to understand that. He's like Justice Thomas in that of the others on the bench with him, Thomas always has the clearest and best thought-out responses. If you want the gist of legal decisions - look to Thomas' opinion. Hanson doesn't shout at you with capital letters - he just makes sense, and validates his statements with learned facts and established history.

I'm not going to bother reading his works based on your list above.  That simply doesn't impress me.

However, since you seem familiar with his writing, maybe you could point out some essays where he address Special Ambassador Gordon Sondland's sworn testimony that he told the Ukrainians that military aid was tied to investigating Burisma (which had ties to Joe Biden's son) which was the issue about Trump's phone call.  Sondland basically confirmed that that was what Trump was saying to Zelensky.  Of course, if Sondland wasn't speaking for the President when he told that to the Ukrainians, what was he doing there in the first place?  ;D

How does VDH explain that?  Or does he ignore it like everyone else?

If you can't find the answer, you can give me a link to his best essay.  I would be curious to see what you consider his best.

Quote
Look at your petty response to VDH's statement about clean natural gas. I thought the idea that burning hydrocarbons increased CO2, yet you act like the natural gas, itself, warms the planet. Science doesn't support that, but bureaucrats do. Coal is interesting. There is clean-burning coal, you know.

I don't know where you got the idea I hate natural gas per se.  Of course you burn it.  What else do you do with it?  ???

But burning it releases CO2 as a by-product, so yes, it does increase that greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, and so is warming the planet. 

I'd be curious to see how his common sense explanation of this basic science (higher concentrations of greenhouse gases leads to more heat being trapped on Earth) differs from the accepted science.

And as The Drake mentioned, there is no such thing as clear burning coal.  Only clearer burning coal at best.  As far as CO2 capture, I understand it isn't all that good.  Didn't VDH explain that fact to you?

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #33 on: January 07, 2023, 02:10:38 PM »
The majority of the 'points' put forward paints everything is either / or  so there is little room for debate or solution.
Its not worth commenting on further . Imagine trying to create usable computer code with only NOT and ORs. Without AND nothing works.

This is probably the most misleading post yet. No connection to the myriad questions asked - and an illogical attempt to apply logic.

VDH's questions point to issues that have occurred directly opposed to Constitutional requirements. No one needs to spell it out to you if you have common sense and a brain that can process rationally.

There is no NOT, OR, or AND Venn Diagrams in his list of simple questions. That is your own invention to obscure simple common sense. He asked six questions that everybody has about the border. The fact that the law exists and is ignored is true. There is no attempt by those ignoring it to rationalize their refusal to follow law. The reason is philosophical - those who break the law do so for personal and political ends. The VDH "Why?" points to a dysfunctional Democrat party, complicit MSM, and miseducation. There were 19 Al Queda terrorists on 9-11. We now have 500K gotaways somewhere within our border. There were 98 people on our terror watch list caught at the border in 2022. How many got through unchecked? Explain that with your Venn diagrams.

Fiscal Conservatives have been supporting balanced budgets forever. They are not debated - just ignored.

What authority allows those against energy independence a free hand to outlaw anything?

Minisrty of Truth?

Weaponized DOJ? 17% of Biden voters said they would not have voted for him if they knew the truth about the Biden Crime family.

The Constitution allowed Religious exemptions to medical practice - yet no more. Point to the point of change.

The States control election law. Who changed that?

Theft is not a crime? Assault is not a felony?

McCarthy's new Congress will investigate Afghanistan.

There is no NOT/OR/AND logic on the DOJ being weaponized. It too will be investigated. Hopefully with the worst wearing orange jumpsuits for stealing elections.

Are the Joint Chiefs of Staff on our side?

Since Colleges were started, those running them allowed legacy choices. Now, who and how brilliant they are are secondary to the color of their skin.

Woke hysteria?

VDH noted the preponderance of dysfunction. Too many here leap to defend the dysfunction rather than even see a problem.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #34 on: January 07, 2023, 02:40:35 PM »
Again, which question did you consider good? Most of the ones you restated -- like "assault is not a felony?" -- are intentionally misrepresentations, if not outright stupid.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #35 on: January 07, 2023, 05:07:19 PM »
So an actual question might be if Biden gets tougher on the border and illegal immigration especially with tightening controls on specific countries like singling out Haitians and a few others, how is that not totally racist but when Trump does something similar it totally is racist?

He didn't block all travel and immigration from those country, just made the executive call that most (or all) of the people from those countries don't qualify for asylum. He didn't do it by calling them s-hole countries. Just said that to qualify people need to apply from their home countries and that a 2,000 mile walk through Mexico wouldn't get them anywhere. Isn't this what you wanted? Or is it bitter sweet that you can't hate Democrats for supporting open borders anymore? Probably a good policy. We probably need to take a look at our asylum and immigration laws more whole scale. But given the debacle in the house, I'm not going to hold my breath on any meaningful legislation coming from there in the next 2 years at a minimum.

Good post, with intelligent thought behind it. But you're missing some things. Application of laws do change over time - but rarely by turning into diametrically-opposed positions. You should understand the roots of Democrat Party policies. The victimization-thing has evolved from Immiserization. (I must post a portion an the article, because someone told the server to delete it.)

Quote
[http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3458371.html]The Intellectual Origins Of America-Bashing By Lee Harris[/url]

Marx and Engels were supreme pragmatists who did not believe Communism would succeed because of its inherent strengths and unstoppable inevitability. They argued it would only come about if Immiserization occurred:
Quote from: Harris
  • The capitalists would begin to suffer from a falling rate of profit.
  • The workers would therefore be “immiserized”; they would become poorer as the capitalists struggled to keep their own heads above water.
  • The poverty of the workers would drive them to overthrow the capitalist system — their poverty, not their ideals.
The opposite happened and Immiserization was repudiated.

Then Paul Baran and Immanuel Wallerstein followed with a revision that can be called The Global Immiserization Thesis.
Quote from: Harris
...instead of applying to the workers of the advanced capitalist countries, it now came to apply to the entire population of those countries that have not achieved advanced capitalism: It was the rest of the world that was being impoverished by capitalism, not the workers of the advanced countries.
This thesis is the the basis of America-bashing. America has gotten rich by making other countries poor: a combination of my enumerated points 2 and 3. This subjective argument was embraced by the Left because it denigrated the success of Free-enterprise by using the failure of other systems as victims, and not as losers in an international game of choice and free will.

This same argument has grown into the class-warfare political agenda of the Left. The rich can only become rich and maintain their wealth at the expense of the poor. However, history has indisputably shown that people become wealthy by providing services, which benefits all the people. People can always misuse the wealth they inherited - and often lose it all - but the accumulation of it originally is not heinous.

The attack of 9/11 on the WTC did not signal a revolution on the inequality of wealth. Instead - it strengthened the unity of the U.S. However, as always, the Left continues to whittle at any success of Free Enterprise. Global Warming and the highly successful War against Terror is denigrated daily to make success appear to be losing.

Yes, all these things are byproducts of looking for victimization.

We cannot do what every other nation does because we are so successful that we must allow everyone in.

You fell for the idea of using racism as a metering mechanism. We can deny immigration because we choose to. We need no extenuating circumstances to give us that right. Biden has been told by his keepers that illegal migrants will vote Democrat - so what does he care about the border?

You cannot argue the weaponization of the DOJ. Why else were protestors allowed to threaten Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts, and Clarence Thomas, without being arrested? How did mobs get the idea that they can shoplift en masse and never get prosecuted?

Talk about science - let's have sports based on XX and XY contestants. If you say you are a horse, you still shouldn't run in the Preakness.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #36 on: January 07, 2023, 07:32:55 PM »
Man, you are all over the map, William. Do you realize it, and are just engaging in a bit of desperate flailing, or does it seem to you that you're moving rationally from one topic to another?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #37 on: January 07, 2023, 08:01:39 PM »
"How did mobs get the idea that they can shoplift en masse and never get prosecuted?"

Lets change that to "How did mobs get the idea they could attack and break into the Capital and never get prosecuted?"

My guess is the mobs you are talking about do not have the idea they can shoplift and never get prosecuted. They, like many criminals, just hope they are not found out.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #38 on: January 07, 2023, 08:05:01 PM »
It should probably be noted that retailers are walking back their claims of rampant, mass shoplifting. Walgreens has already admitted that it overstated its shrink by 400% and made a mistake by over-securing some of its urban stores in response. Gangs of people walking through stores just looting them while staff watched placidly turned out to be as much of a real phenomenon as key parties and kids eating Tide Pods.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #39 on: January 08, 2023, 08:03:51 PM »
Man, you are all over the map, William. Do you realize it, and are just engaging in a bit of desperate flailing, or does it seem to you that you're moving rationally from one topic to another?

On the contrary... Out of all the substantiated changes to our ways of like that VDH listed, I saw one item torn apart and rationalized, when the overall point is all the damage that has been done under the Progressives' watch. Every item is terrible and there is little for an apologist to feel proud of - just to ignore.

So many things are interrelated, also. Let's explore... Hillary lost a gimme election by not campaigning smartly or fully. When she lost, she tried to keep her legacy alive by claiming victimization "It was the Russians!" "It was Trump conspiring with te Russians!" "My illegal server didn't matter!" ...And don't forget the targeting of innocent oppositional players to hurt them financially and scare them off, and to smear anyone possible. Not satisfied to just work with what was there, she paid for an untrue dossier to smear Trump and allow a weaponized DOJ cause to illegally spy on him and anyone who could hinder Hillary's future chances. Hunter's laptop was just more of the same. Proof of so much crime protected by the DOJ It's hard not to keep VDH's items separate. 

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #40 on: January 08, 2023, 08:07:40 PM »
It should probably be noted that retailers are walking back their claims of rampant, mass shoplifting. Walgreens has already admitted that it overstated its shrink by 400% and made a mistake by over-securing some of its urban stores in response. Gangs of people walking through stores just looting them while staff watched placidly turned out to be as much of a real phenomenon as key parties and kids eating Tide Pods.
[/quote

If this was a pre-Elon tweet - it would have caused alarms to go off for disinformation. We've seen scores of mass shop-lifting and staff unable to respond. Why pretend this was all exaggerated?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #41 on: January 08, 2023, 08:50:57 PM »
wmLambert,

Do you personally think that any of the individual points you quoted in your OP are weak or insubstantial? Or do you think every single one is a slam dunk?

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #42 on: January 09, 2023, 09:08:41 AM »
Quote
Out of all the substantiated changes to our ways of like that VDH listed, I saw one item torn apart and rationalized, when the overall point is all the damage that has been done under the Progressives' watch.
I feel like, without any actual effort spent, I identified at least six things that have been arguably true -- as true, at least, as they might be from your pundit's perspective -- since before we were born, and thus presumably before modern "Progressives" began their "watch."

Quote
We've seen scores of mass shop-lifting and staff unable to respond.
No, that's my point. We have not actually seen "scores" of mass shoplifting incidents, despite a great deal of sensationalist reporting to the contrary, and many companies that initially reported unusually high shrink are walking back or outright reversing those claims now that the final numbers for the quarter are in. Again, do you think kids eating Tide Pods was a major thing?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #43 on: January 09, 2023, 09:51:19 AM »
It is true that organized retail theft has spiked. That doesn't make it rampant. A pro-business, tough on crime take on this from the US Chamber of Commerce:

Quote
$700,000: Organized retail crime cost stores an average of over $700,000 per $1 billion in sales in 2020--up more than 50% in the last five years.
54%: Fifty-four percent of small business owners experienced an increase in shoplifting in 2021.

So let's look carefully at that number. 700,000 / 1,000,000,000 = 0.07% impact on margin. Hardly some kind of apocalyptic our country is dying kind of number.

Still, we'd like to stop this. How does that group recommend we do that?

Quote
At the federal level, Congress must act to require disclosure of high-volume third-party sellers in online marketplaces and establish transparency that will minimize such coordinated exploitation of online marketplaces through the Integrity, Notification, and Fairness in Online Retail Marketplaces (INFORM) Consumers Act (H.R. 5502).
At the state level, states need to more clearly define the crime “organized retail theft” to provide prosecutors with the legal tools needed to target organized theft rings. States should also take action to aggressively prosecute organized retail theft by passing legislation to enable the aggregation and prosecution of offenses across state lines, and by establishing statewide task forces to take down organized retail theft rings. States also need to adjust the thresholds for the value of goods stolen to trigger a felony charge to prevent thieves from avoiding prosecution and a heavier charge.

The answer is not to let employees whale away on would-be thieves, like a medieval bazaar.

The reaction to the videos is based on the emotionally provoking panic that "all our cities are burning" or "crime is going unpunished". They are not and it isn't.

Quote
Thus far, the immediate response to the shoplifting in San Francisco and Los Angeles has been led by law enforcement.

In late September, the mayor, along with the San Francisco police chief, unveiled the organized retail theft investigation and deterrence strategy. The initiative will expand the city’s retail crime unit from two to five officers. The city will also triple the number of unarmed community ambassadors, from eight to 25.

This move came after months of scrutiny driven by people breaking into cars near tourist hubs such as Fisherman’s Wharf and shoplifting attempts at Walgreens locations in the city, including one that appeared to show a man riding his bike out of a store with a trash bag filled with stolen items. That suspect was arrested and charged.

Arrested. And charged. But the video was widely circulated to advocate for pummeling the one who dared such a brazen theft. If only there were an armed security guard not afraid to use his weapon, lamented the right leaning patriots.

There was ample evidence that retailers were using theft as an excuse to shut down stores so as not to spook investors concerned with poor company performance.

Quote
Political leaders have pushed for more police, particularly in high-traffic areas. Gavin Newsom, the state’s governor, has called for California’s highway patrol to increase their presence and doubled down on his Organized Retail Crime Task Force, a collaboration between police and prosecutors that was established in July. On Friday, the governor announced a $250m proposal to help police fight organized retail theft, which would create a dedicated team in the attorney general’s office to prosecute these crimes.

But I thought those lefty mayors just wanted everybody to steal, and didn't care about crime?

I know this won't penetrate through the reverse event horizon, into which no information can penetrate, but I actually worked hard to try and justify this concept. Maybe Tom is wrong, I thought. Maybe there really is less consequence.

Quote
Fact checkers and criminologists, however, have said it is false to suggest there were no consequences to theft and that there was no research-based evidence linking retail thefts in the state this year to reform measures. Prop 47 did not eliminate punishments for thefts, but directed that thefts under $950 be prosecuted as misdemeanors, not felonies (the previous threshold for felonies was $400). California’s laws also remain harsher than the majority of states, which dictate amounts higher than $950 for thefts to be classified as felonies.

“There are a lot of unknowns about what’s behind the smash-and-grabs and robberies, but I’m quite confident that this is not the result of Prop 47, specifically, or criminal justice reforms more generally,” said Charis Kubrin, a professor of criminology, law and society at the University of California, Irvine, whose 2018 study found that Prop 47 was not responsible for an uptick in crimes. She noted that there were other states without Prop 47 seeing similar smash and grab cases, and also pointed out that it would be difficult to prove that a 2021 trend was the result of a law passed seven years prior.

All aboard the nonsense express, next stop, imaginary crime. Thank you for riding Disinformation Railway, where we take simplistic views as obvious and dismiss data, analysis, and reality from deterring us from our destination.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #44 on: January 09, 2023, 10:10:16 AM »
Quote
We've seen scores of mass shop-lifting and staff unable to respond.
No, that's my point. We have not actually seen "scores" of mass shoplifting incidents, despite a great deal of sensationalist reporting to the contrary, and many companies that initially reported unusually high shrink are walking back or outright reversing those claims now that the final numbers for the quarter are in. Again, do you think kids eating Tide Pods was a major thing?
[/quote]

Notice when this mass shop-lifting is reported that its always show the same videos.
I think thier is a term for this kind of fear but I can't find it. The first time I heard it was when their was a sniper shooting people in Washington DC. the reporting was so intense that people assumed snipers were active in states across the country. People nowhere near DC were losing thier *censored*.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #45 on: January 10, 2023, 11:22:08 AM »
This is going to be really hard for conservatives to hear and understand, but: unanimously among liberals, the sentiment is that Martha's Vineyard handled DeSantis' stunt gracefully and effectively, and his continued callous stunting only shames him and his supporters. That, in fact, what he's proving is that illegal immigrants aren't a particular hardship or a whole class of problematically dangerous people, and that even malicious cruelty of the sort he's been displaying can be easily met by a united community.

Easily met by a community, lol.  Martha's Vineyard immediately deported those immigrants - without trial, without hearing their case to stay.  Martha's Vineyard "didn't have the resources" to support 50 immigrants with its population of what 15k people in one of the wealthiest places in the country?  Sure they did.  That's an illegal immigrant burden of about 0.3% of their population.

Meanwhile, TX with a population of around 29M is supposed to "easily support the needs" of somewhere between 2-3M illegal immigrants?  That's somewhere between 8% and 10% of the population of the state. 

So I get it, its "clear" to Democrats and "universal" among progressives (not liberals) that TX supporting illegal immigrants is "easy" because it's not them that has to do it, but the wealthiest Democrats in the country having to be directly involved is cruel and manipulative and evil.  Meanwhile people in TX are robbed, beaten, threatened with gang violence, sometimes killed by gangs, have their property repeatedly invaded, and they're the bad people in your world for getting sick of it.

Quote
Biden's immigration policy is flawed, but not for the reasons you think -- and absolutely not because DeSantis has somehow forced his hand.

I know exactly why Biden's immigration policy is flawed.  Biden has systematically refused to fulfill his oath of office to faithfully enforce the law.  I've read the briefs filed by Biden's DOJ and listened to the oral arguments they make at the SC.  They have zero intention of actually enforcing the law, any claim to the contrary is pure sophistry.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #46 on: January 10, 2023, 11:35:48 AM »
Quote
Martha's Vineyard immediately deported those immigrants - without trial, without hearing their case to stay.
Are you perhaps using a different definition of "deported?" To the best of my knowledge (current to a month or so ago; I haven't heard anything since), of the around 50 people dumped in the Vineyard, 5 of them found homes there and the other 45 or so were relocated to other residences (some to apartments, others to shelters) in Massachusetts. All of them remain in the country, and were in fact given special dispensation for missing court dates and other deadlines due to being shipped across the country under false pretenses.

In what sense do you believe they were "deported without trial?"

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #47 on: January 10, 2023, 12:03:54 PM »
I thought about this, and also wanted to discuss this quote from you on the subject of immigration:

Quote
Meanwhile people in TX are robbed, beaten, threatened with gang violence, sometimes killed by gangs, have their property repeatedly invaded...
The clear implication here is that states along the southern border have to "cope" with thuggish waves of barbarian criminals ignored by the spoiled states that just happen to live further north, not only bearing expenses those latter states do not but constant existential threat as well.

Is it your contention that Central American immigrants -- legal and illegal -- are much more likely to commit violent crimes than native Texans? And that Texas spends significantly more on border security and immigration support than it receives from the federal government (setting aside some of Abbott's recent stunts, which took the form of performative spending as kickbacks to donors)?

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #48 on: January 11, 2023, 03:52:26 PM »
Quote
Martha's Vineyard immediately deported those immigrants - without trial, without hearing their case to stay.

Where did you get this B.S.?  ;D

According to a Texas newspaper, after a couple of days with food and shelter at Martha's Vineyard, the immigrants were relocated to a nearby military base for longer term housing.  Voluntarily sent.  Because Martha's Vineyard does have facilities for so many immigrants over the long-term.  It's an island, for heaven's sake.

So someone's been taking you for a fool.  ;D

Quote
Meanwhile, TX with a population of around 29M is supposed to "easily support the needs" of somewhere between 2-3M illegal immigrants?

And where did you get this B.S., too?  Most refugees are not kept where they crossed the border.  Most of them as sent to relatives and other people who know them to await they're day in court.  And they're not all in Texas, but across the country.

Unless, of course, someone decides they should be locked up while waiting.  But then that's handled by the Federal Government, and if there are not sufficient facilities in Texas, they're transported to other facilities out of state.  If the stupid governor of Texas doesn't have room for all the immigrants, he should coordinate with the Federal Government and other states to house them, not just dump them on the plane and send them to some community that isn't prepared to take them.  That's INSANE.

Oh, but that's right.  It was the stupid Florida governor who sent these Texas refugees to Martha's Vineyard using Florida tax money.  ;D

You've been taken again, Seriati.  Who have you been listening to?

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question.
« Reply #49 on: January 11, 2023, 05:25:50 PM »
So, a couple of things.

You take every other category of theft, and I mean *every* one, add them all up, and it is significantly less then estimated wage theft. As in, employees being screwed out of the agreed upon compensation that they are due for their labor. I don't think shoplifting is moral or right. I also don't think it's a sign of the apocalypse. Lots of other, higher level theft going on that is actually hurting working class people, not a corporation's bottom line.

I'm also not getting the conservative kickback on the economy here. They all complain about how no one wants to work anymore, meantime they're complaining about minimum wage jobs. Good lord, if you go off of federal minimum wage I'd be very interested to see what parts of the country you could even rent a studio apartment on minimum wage. It's not flagged to increase with inflation, and every time a vote comes up to increase it conservatives get on the House floor tearing their shirts about how it will destroy America.

I mean...okay? Obvious BS, but where I get confused is ya'll immediately turn around and fight against bringing in immigrants to work for super low wages, because they're used to being treated like *censored*.

Pick a lane, guys.