(07-02-2019 01:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 12:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Art Del Cueto

This guy was just on TV. He said he estimates the people posting the offensive posts number about 20, and cautions that not everybody posting there is in the BP.

When that video becomes available I will post it.

Hopefully the Facebook group and the posts will be made public so that light is shed on this situation. I had no illusions that all members of the group were border agents. I wouldn't be surprised if less than half of the members are.

So, for all your concerns that these posts indicated how the the 20K members of the BP treated illegals, we don't know at this point if ANY of the offensive posts were from BP agents.

(07-02-2019 01:28 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 12:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 12:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 12:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Anything that the Trump administration does, utters, or breathes is bathed in racism. Trust me '93, it is painfully obvious that that is your take on it.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion based on my posts on the topic of this Propublica article. I would ask you to walk me through it but I have a feeling that you are ready to throw that accusation at all leftists.

I will certainly give any self-admitted progressive the opportunity to show that that isnt their subjective default stance.

So here is the walk through, you know, the one you asked for *before* your all inclusive and all seemingly knowing end statement:

Based upon your calling out first of the 'far right' for their terrible rhetoric, then when pressed for specifics on such 'terrible rhetoric' your reply was "Google Stephen Miller trump administration", that is a small clue as to your stance.

And in that vein I sent two links. Could you point out the specific horrific rhetoric in those links I found through Google, as you requested? I mean, this rhetoric obviously rises to the level of your potential justification in using language that, while not explicitly calling an organization Nazis, so heavily alludes to it to be equivalent.

I truly look forward to some examples of rhetoric that rise to that level from the conservative ranks.

Am I incorrect and your viewpoint is that the Trump administration is not awash in racism? If so, I will take your word on it. And, I have actually met one progressive who thinks in that manner, so I am aware that that (pretty microscopic) subset exists, notwithstanding your statement above.

I'm at work... I'll do some research on Stephen Miller/Trump administration rhetoric later. Sounds like you think that Miller is simply following the laws on the books. No issue with him, then? Happy with the direction that he would like to lead the administration?

I personally don't think the Trump administration is awash in racism. I think Trump has tapped into the Nationalistic tendencies that have emerged worldwide and this has served him well politically.

He is probably also suggesting policy directions. I will certainly give you that. From the blurbs there, I think he was a major proponent of the so-called (and somewhat misnamed, for that matter) Muslim ban.

I believe he was a proponent of the Executive Order that ended Obama's DACA Executive Order (that is, until the left somehow came up with the odd notion that one Executive Order cannot legally supplant a previous Executive Order).

On the former point, *if* the intent was 'keep the dark skins out', my 'ordered liberty side' would be offended. That is the song your side of the aisle continuously sings. If it wasnt, and it actually was meant to restrict travel from very specified locales that might have an issue in 'visa looseness' in those locales, I dont have that problem. Since the order was tailored to such locales, I dont jump right on board with the braying mob of RRAAAAAACCCCCIIIIISSSSTTTTT that some yell.

Regardless, the underlying law actually gives to the President to do what occurred at their discretion if in the interest of national security, which is a fact that is strangely (not strangely all, really) absent from the RRRAAACCCIIIIIISSSSTTTT curriculum on that.

On the latter, I am actually a proponent of the DACA program. Too bad that Obama did this by fiat and through an extra-legal method that ran contrary to the written law. But, hey, when all you have to argue is that the underlying law should be ignored in light of a feel good Executive Order, that makes it all okey-dokey in prog-ville, right? But then they went that extra step to say that Trump ending it was RRRAAACCCCIIIIISSSSTTTTT and therefore illegal. Notwithstanding that the sister program DAPA was shot down by the judiciary as an unlawful act contrary to the actual law, and that the Trump administration noted that unconstitutionality as a reason for not extending it. Better to ignore all those lil' ol' unimportant side notes to proclaim RRRRAAAAAACCCCCIIIISSSSTTTTT, right?

So when you want to come around here and preach your lil ol ditties about racism, racist acts, and 'merely following the law', I suggest you do a little more research than the Vox primer or the Mother Jones anthology.

If he has done other 'rhetorically horrible acts' Im all ears.

For the third time:

Here is the root important question 93: is actually asking that a law be actually enforced, instead of ignored, callous rhetoric in your view?

I am still wondering if he wants open borders or not.

(07-02-2019 02:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 01:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 12:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Art Del Cueto

This guy was just on TV. He said he estimates the people posting the offensive posts number about 20, and cautions that not everybody posting there is in the BP.

When that video becomes available I will post it.

Hopefully the Facebook group and the posts will be made public so that light is shed on this situation. I had no illusions that all members of the group were border agents. I wouldn't be surprised if less than half of the members are.

So, for all your concerns that these posts indicated how the the 20K members of the BP treated illegals, we don't know at this point if ANY of the offensive posts were from BP agents.

Heck, lets assume all of the members are BP, and all of the members made bad comments. Aside from showing them being crass, venal, and disgusting --- does this indicate that they are truly for and actually commit acts, legal or illegal, against their charges? Or are we making a new standard that one not only has to perform their legal duty, but one is prohibited from making crass remarks in the slightest?

If this is the case, we need to fire about 90 per cent of the entire nation's police force, about 95 per cent of all ambulance personnel, and about 300 per cent of public defenders with those new moral directives. Just saying.

I just realized I have a nurse neighbor that makes jokes at parties about her role in death. I guess if we extend the tautology in this segment of the thread of 'bad statements on FB == illegally mistreating illegal immigrants', I should never go to the operating room my neighbor plays a role in.

(07-02-2019 03:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am still wondering if he wants open borders or not.

Sorry. Not avoiding. Just very busy. Quickly, I am not for open borders. I think we need to have immigration laws that make sense and enforce those laws. Even with no changes to the current immigration laws, we certainly need to pour more resources into processing people who are rounded up at the border. We need to be able to more quickly determine who has a reasonable claim for asylum. I would send those back that have not met our standards for asylum.

We need to treat people rounded up at the border with dignity and provide them safe conditions. We should treat children caught up in this mess as if they were our own children. We should not use the poor treatment of children as a deterrent to further immigrants.

(07-02-2019 04:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 02:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 01:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 12:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Art Del Cueto

This guy was just on TV. He said he estimates the people posting the offensive posts number about 20, and cautions that not everybody posting there is in the BP.

When that video becomes available I will post it.

Hopefully the Facebook group and the posts will be made public so that light is shed on this situation. I had no illusions that all members of the group were border agents. I wouldn't be surprised if less than half of the members are.

So, for all your concerns that these posts indicated how the the 20K members of the BP treated illegals, we don't know at this point if ANY of the offensive posts were from BP agents.

Heck, lets assume all of the members are BP, and all of the members made bad comments. Aside from showing them being crass, venal, and disgusting --- does this indicate that they are truly for and actually commit acts, legal or illegal, against their charges? Or are we making a new standard that one not only has to perform their legal duty, but one is prohibited from making crass remarks in the slightest?

If this is the case, we need to fire about 90 per cent of the entire nation's police force, about 95 per cent of all ambulance personnel, and about 300 per cent of public defenders with those new moral directives. Just saying.

I just realized I have a nurse neighbor that makes jokes at parties about her role in death. I guess if we extend the tautology in this segment of the thread of 'bad statements on FB == illegally mistreating illegal immigrants', I should never go to the operating room my neighbor plays a role in.

I posted the original link with a comment to the effect of “This is awful.”

I don’t remember calling for any border agents to be fired.

I still think it’s awful.

(07-02-2019 03:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  For the third time:

Here is the root important question 93: is actually asking that a law be actually enforced, instead of ignored, callous rhetoric in your view?

No.

(07-02-2019 04:20 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 03:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am still wondering if he wants open borders or not.

Sorry. Not avoiding. Just very busy. Quickly, I am not for open borders. I think we need to have immigration laws that make sense and enforce those laws. Even with no changes to the current immigration laws, we certainly need to pour more resources into processing people who are rounded up at the border. We need to be able to more quickly determine who has a reasonable claim for asylum. I would send those back that have not met our standards for asylum.

We need to treat people rounded up at the border with dignity and provide them safe conditions. We should treat children caught up in this mess as if they were our own children. We should not use the poor treatment of children as a deterrent to further immigrants.

We have some areas of agreement.

But I need to know what you think are immigration laws that make sense and how they differ from now.

I agree with more resources. But those resources come from Congress. One of my cousins was recently named an immigration judge. But we need thousands more. Yes, the ideal would be to hear them all in a few days and send back the ones who do not meet our standards for asylum. I wonder why we have had such a surge in people claiming asylum. Not much has changed in mexico and Central America to warrant that. I have my suspicions, but that is a discussion for another time.

I agree, we should treat people with dignity and keep them safe, and I agree we should treat the children as we would treat our own. I think the BP is doing exactly those things to the best of their ability now.

The problem is that we have had such a giant surge in people to deal with, and facilities built to house 50 people for a week are now needed to house hundreds for months. Write your Congressman, and tell then to stop the petty politics. Send the money.

I do not believe poor treatment of children is being used as a deterrent. Where did you hear that?

Hi everyone

Just getting up to speed here in the Quad

Looking forward to getting all my political opinions out before thanksgiving. I got sent to the backyard before dessert last year and auntie beth said 2019 will be my last chance to shape up

(07-02-2019 04:46 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Hi everyone

Just getting up to speed here in the Quad

Looking forward to getting all my political opinions out before thanksgiving. I got sent to the backyard before dessert last year and auntie beth said 2019 will be my last chance to shape up

Welcome!

(07-02-2019 04:49 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 04:46 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Hi everyone

Just getting up to speed here in the Quad

Looking forward to getting all my political opinions out before thanksgiving. I got sent to the backyard before dessert last year and auntie beth said 2019 will be my last chance to shape up

Welcome!

Yes. Be sure to get your ducks in a row, though, as people who let their ducks wander aimlessly don't do well here. A nice, orderly duck line, that's the ticket.

(07-02-2019 04:46 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Hi everyone

Just getting up to speed here in the Quad

Looking forward to getting all my political opinions out before thanksgiving. I got sent to the backyard before dessert last year and auntie beth said 2019 will be my last chance to shape up

Welcome to the mudpit!!!

(07-02-2019 04:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 04:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 02:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 01:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 12:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Art Del Cueto

This guy was just on TV. He said he estimates the people posting the offensive posts number about 20, and cautions that not everybody posting there is in the BP.

When that video becomes available I will post it.

Hopefully the Facebook group and the posts will be made public so that light is shed on this situation. I had no illusions that all members of the group were border agents. I wouldn't be surprised if less than half of the members are.

So, for all your concerns that these posts indicated how the the 20K members of the BP treated illegals, we don't know at this point if ANY of the offensive posts were from BP agents.

Heck, lets assume all of the members are BP, and all of the members made bad comments. Aside from showing them being crass, venal, and disgusting --- does this indicate that they are truly for and actually commit acts, legal or illegal, against their charges? Or are we making a new standard that one not only has to perform their legal duty, but one is prohibited from making crass remarks in the slightest?

If this is the case, we need to fire about 90 per cent of the entire nation's police force, about 95 per cent of all ambulance personnel, and about 300 per cent of public defenders with those new moral directives. Just saying.

I just realized I have a nurse neighbor that makes jokes at parties about her role in death. I guess if we extend the tautology in this segment of the thread of 'bad statements on FB == illegally mistreating illegal immigrants', I should never go to the operating room my neighbor plays a role in.

I posted the original link with a comment to the effect of “This is awful.”

I don’t remember calling for any border agents to be fired.

I still think it’s awful.

No doubt some of the posts there are awful.

And to be honest, I bootstrapped your question on 'whether firing could be legal as a result of the post' as an indication that that might be an option you consider as viable.

My apologies for extending that. Hopefully you can understand why I might.

Did any of you all catch this today:

followed by:

followed by:

(07-02-2019 05:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 04:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 04:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 02:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 01:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Hopefully the Facebook group and the posts will be made public so that light is shed on this situation. I had no illusions that all members of the group were border agents. I wouldn't be surprised if less than half of the members are.

So, for all your concerns that these posts indicated how the the 20K members of the BP treated illegals, we don't know at this point if ANY of the offensive posts were from BP agents.

Heck, lets assume all of the members are BP, and all of the members made bad comments. Aside from showing them being crass, venal, and disgusting --- does this indicate that they are truly for and actually commit acts, legal or illegal, against their charges? Or are we making a new standard that one not only has to perform their legal duty, but one is prohibited from making crass remarks in the slightest?

If this is the case, we need to fire about 90 per cent of the entire nation's police force, about 95 per cent of all ambulance personnel, and about 300 per cent of public defenders with those new moral directives. Just saying.

I just realized I have a nurse neighbor that makes jokes at parties about her role in death. I guess if we extend the tautology in this segment of the thread of 'bad statements on FB == illegally mistreating illegal immigrants', I should never go to the operating room my neighbor plays a role in.

I posted the original link with a comment to the effect of “This is awful.”

I don’t remember calling for any border agents to be fired.

I still think it’s awful.

No doubt some of the posts there are awful.

And to be honest, I bootstrapped your question on 'whether firing could be legal as a result of the post' as an indication that that might be an option you consider as viable.

My apologies for extending that. Hopefully you can understand why I might.

No problem. Makes sense why you thought that.

Andy Ngo, the journalist attacked by Antifa, has brain damage from the assaults.

One

Two

Three, but there is plenty more

In an interview, he said the police refused to intervene for fear of inciting the crowds.

(07-02-2019 04:20 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I think we need to have immigration laws that make sense

Someday, when you have time, I would like to hear what you think would make sense.

(07-02-2019 06:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Andy Ngo, the journalist attacked by Antifa, has brain damage from the assaults.

One

Two

Three, but there is plenty more

In an interview, he said the police refused to intervene for fear of inciting the crowds.

He noted he was attacked multiple times. He reported the first three attacks to police, who....... did nothing.

The Portland mayor issued a non-apology statement.

Portland is absolute scum imo.

I had lunch with a local prosecutor. He noted it was hard to find the perpetrators since literally scores of Antifa were outfitted not just in masks, but black motorcycle helmets that covered all hair, with opaque darkened visors.

He also noted that Ngo was explicitly threatened in the days before. Further, Antifa and right didnt even meet up with one another over the weekend -- there was no alt/right v. antifa violence. The only violence seemed to be 'prep violence' on the antifa side.

My lunch partner had a neat notion, but it would take a mayor with an actual spine to do it. The act of using motorcycle helmets with opaque visors is expressly in contemplation with a commission of a criminal act and further an act that is done expressly to avoid identification. That common act could be viewed as a common act of conspiracy. In criminal law, if one member in a conspiring group commits a crime, all the members of that group are liable for that crime (i.e. the felony murder rule).

He suggested that once anyone with a helmet and visor commits an assault, the police should be empowered to literally arrest anyone with the helmet and visor for ostensibly, at a minimum, being in a criminal conspiracy and for any underlying crime that is committed as a result of that conspiracy.

But, I dont think the spineless pos Mayor of Portland would ever do that.

Someone’s obviously going to be killed at one of these rallies, possibly Ngo if he shows up again. And the blood will be on the hands of the mayor and the cops who’ve now received ample notice that they have a major gang problem on their hands and seem unwilling thus far to do anything about it.

edited to add:

Quote: the world has a good reason to be wary of any movement that embraces wearing masks.

(07-02-2019 06:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Andy Ngo, the journalist attacked by Antifa, has brain damage from the assaults.

One

Two

Three, but there is plenty more

In an interview, he said the police refused to intervene for fear of inciting the crowds.

Maybe the Democrats have the right idea to focus their political ideals on '68 to '71.

It seems like we are on the fast track to that troubled year in many ways more than thinking mandatory racial busing is a good idea.

Nixon won on a strong response for law and order based on the riots of '67 and '68. Looks like the antifa wish to gun for that same response.