Gotta go y'all. If tanq gets mad at me for misconstruing their words, please apologize on my behalf. I'm a very stupid liberal and I just cant help myself.

Instead of the 'chip on your shoulder' type, semi-antagonistic preemptive response towards me, I was looking forward to any substantive response to OO's questions to you. Or perhaps just a substantive response of any sort without any defining adjectives.

If you really need a translation of my response to you, it goes to your automatic classification of every single 'Down with ICE' chant and chanter being preoccupied with the bad way that ICE performs its job, as opposed the veritable nationwide meltdown by progressives over the reason that ICE performs its job.

Oh, and the automatic broad brush characterization of 'toxic ferment environment blabbedy blab' that you toss out there as a bald assumption, as well.

Clear enough for you?

As a public service, let me repost it here for you so you dont have to 'page back':

Quote:But explain to me more about this "toxic culture". How did you come to this conclusion? What is the evidence that led you there? What will be different if we assign the responsibility for border protection and immigration enforcement to, say, the office across the hall from ICE?

(09-05-2019 09:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Instead of the 'chip on your shoulder' type, semi-antagonistic preemptive response towards me, I was looking forward to any substantive response to OO's questions to you. Or perhaps just a substantive response of any sort without any defining adjectives.

If you really need a translation of my response to you, it goes to your automatic classification of every single 'Down with ICE' chant and chanter being preoccupied with the bad way that ICE performs its job, as opposed the veritable nationwide meltdown by progressives over the reason that ICE performs its job.

Oh, and the automatic broad brush characterization of 'toxic ferment environment blabbedy blab' that you toss out there as a bald assumption, as well.

Clear enough for you?

As a public service, let me repost it here for you so you dont have to 'page back':

Quote:But explain to me more about this "toxic culture". How did you come to this conclusion? What is the evidence that led you there? What will be different if we assign the responsibility for border protection and immigration enforcement to, say, the office across the hall from ICE?

I would welcome answers to the above from any liberal, not just Fountains. I an genuinely desirous to know more of this toxic culture.

As for the "stupid party" comment, here are my thoughts on it. Sometimes an individual has a stupid thought or belief, such as "Whites are superior to blacks". Are we all in agreement that is stupid?

Now if he gets together with other people who share his stupid belief, alike say, the KKK, is that not a stupid organization? Now whether we call that group a gang, a lodge, or a party, aren't they still stupid? I certainly think the KKK is a stupid party, just as I think the NFL kneelers are stupid - most of them don't have any idea of what they are "protesting".

I think a lot of the ideas being pushed by the democratic party are stupid. It is stupid to ban fracking and offshore drilling. It is stupid to abolish ICE, unless one of y'all can show me their duties would be better carried out by dispersing them. It is stupid to try to do all things in the GND all at once within a single decade. It is stupid to try and manipulate dietary charts to reduce greenhouse gasses. When one group advocates all these things, how am I supposed to think they are smart?

The GOP is not faultless. But this is the era of choosing the lesser evil, and I guess we could rephrase that as the choosing the least stupid. I think most of the GOP policies are less stupid than the Dem policies. Almost everything the dems want is either more of the same or turn back the clock or just plain old wishful thinking(wouldn't it be nice if everybody made a "living wage"?).

Sorry to see Fountains turn and run, but it just exemplifies my belief that the left can dish it out but can't take it.

With a few exceptions, of course. The Big Three here do not mind going toe to toe for their beliefs, however wrong, and I can respect that.

(09-05-2019 03:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Do you think the people who yelled 'Down with the pigs' in '67 - '74 were merely wishing for a redistribution of various police departments' core duties to other city departments to carry out without a lot of the negatives that might have developed within those police departments?

I think this was happening 5-12 years before I was born, so its really hard to contextualize what was happening. Also, I assume the down with pigs comment was directed at police officers, not the police agency. Abolish ICE is directed at the agency. To me, that is a difference. Also, were politicians chanting down with pigs, or was that just rowdy crowds? Again, I'm giving my opinion of what democratic politicians mean when they suggest abolishing ICE.

(09-05-2019 05:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't think most of the Democrats think abolish ICE just means assigning their duties to other agencies and carrying on as before. I think most of them want to abolish the immigration function altogether.

I'd suggest not speaking for Democrats, you don't appear to be very good at it. I don't try to speak for Republicans for the same reason. Again, find me the Democratic politician who is for open borders. I don't know of any. Most Democrats believe in border security, they just don't believe a wall is the most effective or efficient way to gain security. They also don't believe in family separation of people who are attempting to enter the country legally (asylum seekers). Those positions have nothing to do with "open borders".

(09-05-2019 05:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But explain to me more about this "toxic culture". How did you come to this conclusion? What is the evidence that led you there? What will be different if we assign the responsibility for border protection and immigration enforcement to, say, the office across the hall from ICE?

Well, I mentioned that I have some (admittedly limited) personal experience dealing with ICE. I don't really feel comfortable delving any deeper into that since that was part of litigation and I was representing the federal government. I also remember hearing that Obama administration members complain that ICE often refused to comply with the president's wishes.

I don't have time to explain to you why restructuring an agency can change the culture of the agency. Same thing that can happen when management changes at a corporation or sports team. Same thing that might happen if you get a new boss at work.

(09-06-2019 01:19 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 03:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Do you think the people who yelled 'Down with the pigs' in '67 - '74 were merely wishing for a redistribution of various police departments' core duties to other city departments to carry out without a lot of the negatives that might have developed within those police departments?

I think this was happening 5-12 years before I was born, so its really hard to contextualize what was happening. Also, I assume the down with pigs comment was directed at police officers, not the police agency. Abolish ICE is directed at the agency. To me, that is a difference. Also, were politicians chanting down with pigs, or was that just rowdy crowds? Again, I'm giving my opinion of what democratic politicians mean when they suggest abolishing ICE.

(09-05-2019 05:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't think most of the Democrats think abolish ICE just means assigning their duties to other agencies and carrying on as before. I think most of them want to abolish the immigration function altogether.

I'd suggest not speaking for Democrats, you don't appear to be very good at it. I don't try to speak for Republicans for the same reason. Again, find me the Democratic politician who is for open borders. I don't know of any. Most Democrats believe in border security, they just don't believe a wall is the most effective or efficient way to gain security. They also don't believe in family separation of people who are attempting to enter the country legally (asylum seekers). Those positions have nothing to do with "open borders".

(09-05-2019 05:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But explain to me more about this "toxic culture". How did you come to this conclusion? What is the evidence that led you there? What will be different if we assign the responsibility for border protection and immigration enforcement to, say, the office across the hall from ICE?

Well, I mentioned that I have some (admittedly limited) personal experience dealing with ICE. I don't really feel comfortable delving any deeper into that since that was part of litigation and I was representing the federal government. I also remember hearing that Obama administration members complain that ICE often refused to comply with the president's wishes.

I don't have time to explain to you why restructuring an agency can change the culture of the agency. Same thing that can happen when management changes at a corporation or sports team. Same thing that might happen if you get a new boss at work.

Big, I was not speaking FOR Democrats. That's your job. I was speaking ABOUT them, specifically my impression of their attitudes. That why I used the word "Think".

You didn't explain to me about the "toxic culture". Sure, things can change with management changes. sSo change the management. We didn't abolish the Yankees just because we didn't like Steinbrenner. We didn't shut down the auto makers because we didn't like the managers. The Cowboys are still playing even though a lot of people don't like Jerry Jones. We didn't shut down Rice because of Bailiff. We changed management.

This whole "toxic culture" thing sounds like a political witch hunt to me. But I am open to to hearing whatever it is that convinced all those Democrats it existed. Prove it to me, more than vague mutterings. Was it the combination drinking fountain/toilets? I saw the same things in a documentary about prisons. Does the Bureau of Prisons also have a toxic culture? Let's abolish it.

Granted, the system has been overloaded, and is hampered by archaic and contradictory laws and procedures. Same thing for FEMA, but nobody is clamoring for FEMA to abolished.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/...745744001/

" But if we aren’t going to deport those who have had their day in court and have been ordered out of the country, who are we going to deport? And without deportation, what are the consequences for violating American immigration laws?

If there are no consequences for violating American immigration laws, how is that different from having an open border?"

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2...n-borders/

No one will ever be deported—except, presumably, for serious felons, though Warren doesn’t even say that explicitly. Expedited removal will be ended. The Border Patrol will be reshaped from “top to bottom,” and will focus their efforts on “homeland security efforts like screening cargo, identifying counterfeit goods, and preventing smuggling and trafficking.” The whole thing is very similar to Julian Castro’s plan.


You won't find the words "open borders' in any candidates plan - but you need to look to the practical effect of their programs.

(09-06-2019 01:19 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I think this was happening 5-12 years before I was born, so its really hard to contextualize what was happening. Also, I assume the down with pigs comment was directed at police officers, not the police agency. Abolish ICE is directed at the agency. To me, that is a difference. Also, were politicians chanting down with pigs, or was that just rowdy crowds? Again, I'm giving my opinion of what democratic politicians mean when they suggest abolishing ICE.

I think you have decoupled the 'Abolish ICE' completely from the 'heck lets give everyone who is here citizenship' (i.e. the 'pathway to citizenship' phrase) and the people who promulgate the catch and release policy.

I will grant you that there are undoubtedly some who think that ICE is a fermenting toxic hellhole that should be morally equated with the Waffen SS without *any* regard to the stance of 'what a great idea to let every illegal immigrant here completely ignore US law, and not only that lets send them to the absolute front of the entrance line as opposed to the poor slobs that actually go through the process of applying and awaiting their turn' -- or the 'stop searches for illegal immigrants, and only deport the felons' (for the sake of saving keystrokes, the 'open borders crowd').

Simple logic tells you the 'Abolish ICE' people are made up of three groups: the 'toxic fermenters', the 'toxic fermenters who are also open borders', and the 'open borders' (who, mind you, will use the toxic ferment argument as a convenient strawman argument).

The fourth group are 'ICE runs OK' who either dont care about open borders, or actually care about enforcing existing law as it stands. We can write these off the population of chanters for the most part I would assume.

So lets try to ascertain of how many 'Abolish ICE' people have the 'open borders' streak. My guess, based upon the number and amount of calls by politicians for 'pathway to citizenship' and the 'poor plight of the brave people who have braved everything to make it to this country, we really owe it to them to open our doors and hearts to them' calls balanced against the 'ICE is the equivalent of the Waffen SS'

Looking at the statements that politicians make on the 'open borders' side of things versus the 'Waffen SS' statements I think most here can agree that the former outweighs the latter; to a massive extent.

I think it somewhat disingenuous to decouple the groups into mutually exclusive groups like you just did, to be honest.

Quote:I'd suggest not speaking for Democrats, you don't appear to be very good at it. I don't try to speak for Republicans for the same reason. Again, find me the Democratic politician who is for open borders.

Not necessarily 'open borders', but see the above definition. The numbers of Democratic politicians that dont want to extend a 'pathway to citizenship' to those whom circumvented the entire process can be counted on the digits of single individual. Maybe even a one armed and a one legged individual.

Quote:I don't know of any. Most Democrats believe in border security, they just don't believe a wall is the most effective or efficient way to gain security.

The efficacy of any wall has zero overlap with the incessant cry for a 'pathway to citizenship'.

Quote:They also don't believe in family separation of people who are attempting to enter the country legally (asylum seekers).

Is it truly 'legal' when *everyone* is coached to myna bird 'I want asylum'? The asylum process has been utterly hijacked in this manner at this point. Please dont paint *this* aspect as a picture boy perfect innocent situation. Again, I find that disingenuous.

Quote:Those positions have nothing to do with "open borders".

Even though you brought it up as trying to sway emtionally for the defense, the issue that everyone and their dead parents is being coached to abuse the asylum process actually *does* have something to 'open borders'.

Quote:I don't have time to explain to you why restructuring an agency can change the culture of the agency. Same thing that can happen when management changes at a corporation or sports team. Same thing that might happen if you get a new boss at work.

To the extent that ICE may have the pervasive issues that you claim, perhaps there may be a point.

But I dont think it probable in the slightest that the calls for 'Abolish ICE' have *everything* to do with such a supposedly pervasive toxic ferment whatever, and *nothing* to do with a widespread viewpoint that the ability to bypass the current laws is actually justified. And again, I think the viewpoint of the vast, vast majority of the 'Abolish ICE' culture has deep and widespread overlap with the 'open borders' issue that seems to be a pet focus of one side.

They don’t actually want open borders, but for the purposes of stoking fires and making someone defend a position that doesn’t exist, I’m going to call them Open Border Supporters...

There is a wide range of positions between true open borders (which means explicitly, that there is no restriction on immigration) and have very strict immigration requirements and standards. It’s not binary.

(09-06-2019 01:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-06-2019 01:19 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 03:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Do you think the people who yelled 'Down with the pigs' in '67 - '74 were merely wishing for a redistribution of various police departments' core duties to other city departments to carry out without a lot of the negatives that might have developed within those police departments?

I think this was happening 5-12 years before I was born, so its really hard to contextualize what was happening. Also, I assume the down with pigs comment was directed at police officers, not the police agency. Abolish ICE is directed at the agency. To me, that is a difference. Also, were politicians chanting down with pigs, or was that just rowdy crowds? Again, I'm giving my opinion of what democratic politicians mean when they suggest abolishing ICE.

(09-05-2019 05:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't think most of the Democrats think abolish ICE just means assigning their duties to other agencies and carrying on as before. I think most of them want to abolish the immigration function altogether.

I'd suggest not speaking for Democrats, you don't appear to be very good at it. I don't try to speak for Republicans for the same reason. Again, find me the Democratic politician who is for open borders. I don't know of any. Most Democrats believe in border security, they just don't believe a wall is the most effective or efficient way to gain security. They also don't believe in family separation of people who are attempting to enter the country legally (asylum seekers). Those positions have nothing to do with "open borders".

(09-05-2019 05:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But explain to me more about this "toxic culture". How did you come to this conclusion? What is the evidence that led you there? What will be different if we assign the responsibility for border protection and immigration enforcement to, say, the office across the hall from ICE?

Well, I mentioned that I have some (admittedly limited) personal experience dealing with ICE. I don't really feel comfortable delving any deeper into that since that was part of litigation and I was representing the federal government. I also remember hearing that Obama administration members complain that ICE often refused to comply with the president's wishes.

I don't have time to explain to you why restructuring an agency can change the culture of the agency. Same thing that can happen when management changes at a corporation or sports team. Same thing that might happen if you get a new boss at work.

Big, I was not speaking FOR Democrats. That's your job. I was speaking ABOUT them, specifically my impression of their attitudes. That why I used the word "Think".

You didn't explain to me about the "toxic culture". Sure, things can change with management changes. sSo change the management. We didn't abolish the Yankees just because we didn't like Steinbrenner. We didn't shut down the auto makers because we didn't like the managers. The Cowboys are still playing even though a lot of people don't like Jerry Jones. We didn't shut down Rice because of Bailiff. We changed management.

This whole "toxic culture" thing sounds like a political witch hunt to me. But I am open to to hearing whatever it is that convinced all those Democrats it existed. Prove it to me, more than vague mutterings. Was it the combination drinking fountain/toilets? I saw the same things in a documentary about prisons. Does the Bureau of Prisons also have a toxic culture? Let's abolish it.

Granted, the system has been overloaded, and is hampered by archaic and contradictory laws and procedures. Same thing for FEMA, but nobody is clamoring for FEMA to abolished.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/...745744001/

" But if we aren’t going to deport those who have had their day in court and have been ordered out of the country, who are we going to deport? And without deportation, what are the consequences for violating American immigration laws?

If there are no consequences for violating American immigration laws, how is that different from having an open border?"

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2...n-borders/

No one will ever be deported—except, presumably, for serious felons, though Warren doesn’t even say that explicitly. Expedited removal will be ended. The Border Patrol will be reshaped from “top to bottom,” and will focus their efforts on “homeland security efforts like screening cargo, identifying counterfeit goods, and preventing smuggling and trafficking.” The whole thing is very similar to Julian Castro’s plan.


You won't find the words "open borders' in any candidates plan - but you need to look to the practical effect of their programs.

Funny, in a similar manner you wont find the words "lets drastically restrict gun ownership to where we can strangle it completely" in any candidates plan --- but you need to look to the practical effect of the vast, vast majority of their plans.

Or, in similar manner you wont find the words "lets drastically restrict the ability to obtain an abortion to where we can strangle it completely" in any candidates plan (that is except for the recent 4 or 5 states that passed very restrictive laws who openly state that) -- but you need to look to the practical effect of the vast, vast majority of their plans.

And the progressives do a smashing good job of looking at the practical effects and broadcasting them as such major infringements for that abortion topic; not so good with using that same behavior on the topic of illegal immigration and the organizations charged with enforcing the immigration laws or gun control.

(09-06-2019 07:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-06-2019 01:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-06-2019 01:19 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 03:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Do you think the people who yelled 'Down with the pigs' in '67 - '74 were merely wishing for a redistribution of various police departments' core duties to other city departments to carry out without a lot of the negatives that might have developed within those police departments?

I think this was happening 5-12 years before I was born, so its really hard to contextualize what was happening. Also, I assume the down with pigs comment was directed at police officers, not the police agency. Abolish ICE is directed at the agency. To me, that is a difference. Also, were politicians chanting down with pigs, or was that just rowdy crowds? Again, I'm giving my opinion of what democratic politicians mean when they suggest abolishing ICE.

(09-05-2019 05:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't think most of the Democrats think abolish ICE just means assigning their duties to other agencies and carrying on as before. I think most of them want to abolish the immigration function altogether.

I'd suggest not speaking for Democrats, you don't appear to be very good at it. I don't try to speak for Republicans for the same reason. Again, find me the Democratic politician who is for open borders. I don't know of any. Most Democrats believe in border security, they just don't believe a wall is the most effective or efficient way to gain security. They also don't believe in family separation of people who are attempting to enter the country legally (asylum seekers). Those positions have nothing to do with "open borders".

(09-05-2019 05:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But explain to me more about this "toxic culture". How did you come to this conclusion? What is the evidence that led you there? What will be different if we assign the responsibility for border protection and immigration enforcement to, say, the office across the hall from ICE?

Well, I mentioned that I have some (admittedly limited) personal experience dealing with ICE. I don't really feel comfortable delving any deeper into that since that was part of litigation and I was representing the federal government. I also remember hearing that Obama administration members complain that ICE often refused to comply with the president's wishes.

I don't have time to explain to you why restructuring an agency can change the culture of the agency. Same thing that can happen when management changes at a corporation or sports team. Same thing that might happen if you get a new boss at work.

Big, I was not speaking FOR Democrats. That's your job. I was speaking ABOUT them, specifically my impression of their attitudes. That why I used the word "Think".

You didn't explain to me about the "toxic culture". Sure, things can change with management changes. sSo change the management. We didn't abolish the Yankees just because we didn't like Steinbrenner. We didn't shut down the auto makers because we didn't like the managers. The Cowboys are still playing even though a lot of people don't like Jerry Jones. We didn't shut down Rice because of Bailiff. We changed management.

This whole "toxic culture" thing sounds like a political witch hunt to me. But I am open to to hearing whatever it is that convinced all those Democrats it existed. Prove it to me, more than vague mutterings. Was it the combination drinking fountain/toilets? I saw the same things in a documentary about prisons. Does the Bureau of Prisons also have a toxic culture? Let's abolish it.

Granted, the system has been overloaded, and is hampered by archaic and contradictory laws and procedures. Same thing for FEMA, but nobody is clamoring for FEMA to abolished.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/...745744001/

" But if we aren’t going to deport those who have had their day in court and have been ordered out of the country, who are we going to deport? And without deportation, what are the consequences for violating American immigration laws?

If there are no consequences for violating American immigration laws, how is that different from having an open border?"

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2...n-borders/

No one will ever be deported—except, presumably, for serious felons, though Warren doesn’t even say that explicitly. Expedited removal will be ended. The Border Patrol will be reshaped from “top to bottom,” and will focus their efforts on “homeland security efforts like screening cargo, identifying counterfeit goods, and preventing smuggling and trafficking.” The whole thing is very similar to Julian Castro’s plan.


You won't find the words "open borders' in any candidates plan - but you need to look to the practical effect of their programs.

Funny, in a similar manner you wont find the words "lets drastically restrict gun ownership to where we can strangle it completely" in any candidates plan --- but you need to look to the practical effect of the vast, vast majority of their plans.

Or, in similar manner you wont find the words "lets drastically restrict the ability to obtain an abortion to where we can strangle it completely" in any candidates plan (that is except for the recent 4 or 5 states that passed very restrictive laws who openly state that) -- but you need to look to the practical effect of the vast, vast majority of their plans.

And the progressives do a smashing good job of looking at the practical effects and broadcasting them as such major infringements for that abortion topic; not so good with using that same behavior on the topic of illegal immigration and the organizations charged with enforcing the immigration laws or gun control.

You’re saying you don’t see candidates advocating for making abortion co pletely illegal by overturning Roe v Wade?

(09-06-2019 07:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  They don’t actually want open borders, but for the purposes of stoking fires and making someone defend a position that doesn’t exist, I’m going to call them Open Border Supporters...

There is a wide range of positions between true open borders (which means explicitly, that there is no restriction on immigration) and have very strict immigration requirements and standards. It’s not binary.

I dont think I noted it was binary. I just dont feel the need to type eighty fing million keys to describe every possible position in that flux. Call me flojon.

Where do you find the following on your analog scale?

Quote:No one will ever be deported—except, presumably, for serious felons, though Warren doesn’t even say that explicitly. Expedited removal will be ended. The Border Patrol will be reshaped from “top to bottom,” and will focus their efforts on “homeland security efforts like screening cargo, identifying counterfeit goods, and preventing smuggling and trafficking.”

Aside from the massive welcome mat and a handful of roses like you get when you get off the plane in Hawaii, I find those to being pretty darn close to your former description in the poles you set out.

Please do tell what we should call people whose position is that quoted?

(09-06-2019 07:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-06-2019 07:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-06-2019 01:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-06-2019 01:19 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 03:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Do you think the people who yelled 'Down with the pigs' in '67 - '74 were merely wishing for a redistribution of various police departments' core duties to other city departments to carry out without a lot of the negatives that might have developed within those police departments?

I think this was happening 5-12 years before I was born, so its really hard to contextualize what was happening. Also, I assume the down with pigs comment was directed at police officers, not the police agency. Abolish ICE is directed at the agency. To me, that is a difference. Also, were politicians chanting down with pigs, or was that just rowdy crowds? Again, I'm giving my opinion of what democratic politicians mean when they suggest abolishing ICE.

(09-05-2019 05:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't think most of the Democrats think abolish ICE just means assigning their duties to other agencies and carrying on as before. I think most of them want to abolish the immigration function altogether.

I'd suggest not speaking for Democrats, you don't appear to be very good at it. I don't try to speak for Republicans for the same reason. Again, find me the Democratic politician who is for open borders. I don't know of any. Most Democrats believe in border security, they just don't believe a wall is the most effective or efficient way to gain security. They also don't believe in family separation of people who are attempting to enter the country legally (asylum seekers). Those positions have nothing to do with "open borders".

(09-05-2019 05:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But explain to me more about this "toxic culture". How did you come to this conclusion? What is the evidence that led you there? What will be different if we assign the responsibility for border protection and immigration enforcement to, say, the office across the hall from ICE?

Well, I mentioned that I have some (admittedly limited) personal experience dealing with ICE. I don't really feel comfortable delving any deeper into that since that was part of litigation and I was representing the federal government. I also remember hearing that Obama administration members complain that ICE often refused to comply with the president's wishes.

I don't have time to explain to you why restructuring an agency can change the culture of the agency. Same thing that can happen when management changes at a corporation or sports team. Same thing that might happen if you get a new boss at work.

Big, I was not speaking FOR Democrats. That's your job. I was speaking ABOUT them, specifically my impression of their attitudes. That why I used the word "Think".

You didn't explain to me about the "toxic culture". Sure, things can change with management changes. sSo change the management. We didn't abolish the Yankees just because we didn't like Steinbrenner. We didn't shut down the auto makers because we didn't like the managers. The Cowboys are still playing even though a lot of people don't like Jerry Jones. We didn't shut down Rice because of Bailiff. We changed management.

This whole "toxic culture" thing sounds like a political witch hunt to me. But I am open to to hearing whatever it is that convinced all those Democrats it existed. Prove it to me, more than vague mutterings. Was it the combination drinking fountain/toilets? I saw the same things in a documentary about prisons. Does the Bureau of Prisons also have a toxic culture? Let's abolish it.

Granted, the system has been overloaded, and is hampered by archaic and contradictory laws and procedures. Same thing for FEMA, but nobody is clamoring for FEMA to abolished.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/...745744001/

" But if we aren’t going to deport those who have had their day in court and have been ordered out of the country, who are we going to deport? And without deportation, what are the consequences for violating American immigration laws?

If there are no consequences for violating American immigration laws, how is that different from having an open border?"

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2...n-borders/

No one will ever be deported—except, presumably, for serious felons, though Warren doesn’t even say that explicitly. Expedited removal will be ended. The Border Patrol will be reshaped from “top to bottom,” and will focus their efforts on “homeland security efforts like screening cargo, identifying counterfeit goods, and preventing smuggling and trafficking.” The whole thing is very similar to Julian Castro’s plan.


You won't find the words "open borders' in any candidates plan - but you need to look to the practical effect of their programs.

Funny, in a similar manner you wont find the words "lets drastically restrict gun ownership to where we can strangle it completely" in any candidates plan --- but you need to look to the practical effect of the vast, vast majority of their plans.

Or, in similar manner you wont find the words "lets drastically restrict the ability to obtain an abortion to where we can strangle it completely" in any candidates plan (that is except for the recent 4 or 5 states that passed very restrictive laws who openly state that) -- but you need to look to the practical effect of the vast, vast majority of their plans.

And the progressives do a smashing good job of looking at the practical effects and broadcasting them as such major infringements for that abortion topic; not so good with using that same behavior on the topic of illegal immigration and the organizations charged with enforcing the immigration laws or gun control.

You’re saying you don’t see candidates advocating for making abortion co pletely illegal by overturning Roe v Wade?

I think you need to reread the comments.

I also think you need to be a tad more careful in how you reason through items.

First, there are people whom try to squash actions by a thousand cuts, and try and pull the song and dance of 'well its a restriction, but since we already restrict the right it is *just* a matter of how far we wish to self define 'restriction' by pulling that definition of 'restriction' out of our ass.' Those are the people who refuse to either acknowledge the practical effect of the vast, vast majority of their plans, and know damn well what they are trying to do an end around. (Progressives on immigration, progressives on gun control, Texas legislature on abortion)

The second group calls out explicitly what they want to do. Alabama legislature on abortion. Some people who call out for overturning RvW. Some who call out for removing the 2nd amendment -- explicitly saying so.

That is my comment. I actually acknowledged the group giving the explicit middle finger to RvW and abortions in the Alabama legislature -- the authors have stated specifically this is the purpose of that bill.

Next, overturning RvW will *not* by itself make abortion illegal, let alone your *completely* illegal. So your comment there is on its face false.

Finally, not all who explicitly call for the overturning of RvW think that abortion should be de facto illegal, nor only legal in very limited circumstances. Namely, yours truly. I think RvW should be overturned as a massive overreach of an activist court, and on that basis solely. It is an abortion of a ruling that has baked into it a huge amount of potential hurt for an activist court to run with, and not just a liberal activist court.

And as for the issue of abortion, hate to tell you, I support the position that abortions should be available on a very liberal basis --- but I also think that at some point the rights of a viable fetus should be considered in the calculus.

(09-05-2019 10:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 09:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Instead of the 'chip on your shoulder' type, semi-antagonistic preemptive response towards me, I was looking forward to any substantive response to OO's questions to you. Or perhaps just a substantive response of any sort without any defining adjectives.

If you really need a translation of my response to you, it goes to your automatic classification of every single 'Down with ICE' chant and chanter being preoccupied with the bad way that ICE performs its job, as opposed the veritable nationwide meltdown by progressives over the reason that ICE performs its job.

Oh, and the automatic broad brush characterization of 'toxic ferment environment blabbedy blab' that you toss out there as a bald assumption, as well.

Clear enough for you?

As a public service, let me repost it here for you so you dont have to 'page back':

Quote:But explain to me more about this "toxic culture". How did you come to this conclusion? What is the evidence that led you there? What will be different if we assign the responsibility for border protection and immigration enforcement to, say, the office across the hall from ICE?

I would welcome answers to the above from any liberal, not just Fountains. I an genuinely desirous to know more of this toxic culture.

As for the "stupid party" comment, here are my thoughts on it. Sometimes an individual has a stupid thought or belief, such as "Whites are superior to blacks". Are we all in agreement that is stupid?

Now if he gets together with other people who share his stupid belief, alike say, the KKK, is that not a stupid organization? Now whether we call that group a gang, a lodge, or a party, aren't they still stupid? I certainly think the KKK is a stupid party, just as I think the NFL kneelers are stupid - most of them don't have any idea of what they are "protesting".

Please provide some evidence that the majority of NFL players who are protesting "don't have any idea" why.

(09-06-2019 07:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 10:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 09:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Instead of the 'chip on your shoulder' type, semi-antagonistic preemptive response towards me, I was looking forward to any substantive response to OO's questions to you. Or perhaps just a substantive response of any sort without any defining adjectives.

If you really need a translation of my response to you, it goes to your automatic classification of every single 'Down with ICE' chant and chanter being preoccupied with the bad way that ICE performs its job, as opposed the veritable nationwide meltdown by progressives over the reason that ICE performs its job.

Oh, and the automatic broad brush characterization of 'toxic ferment environment blabbedy blab' that you toss out there as a bald assumption, as well.

Clear enough for you?

As a public service, let me repost it here for you so you dont have to 'page back':

Quote:But explain to me more about this "toxic culture". How did you come to this conclusion? What is the evidence that led you there? What will be different if we assign the responsibility for border protection and immigration enforcement to, say, the office across the hall from ICE?

I would welcome answers to the above from any liberal, not just Fountains. I an genuinely desirous to know more of this toxic culture.

As for the "stupid party" comment, here are my thoughts on it. Sometimes an individual has a stupid thought or belief, such as "Whites are superior to blacks". Are we all in agreement that is stupid?

Now if he gets together with other people who share his stupid belief, alike say, the KKK, is that not a stupid organization? Now whether we call that group a gang, a lodge, or a party, aren't they still stupid? I certainly think the KKK is a stupid party, just as I think the NFL kneelers are stupid - most of them don't have any idea of what they are "protesting".

Please provide some evidence that the majority of NFL players who are protesting "don't have any idea" why.

Just take a look at the wide range of reasons given. They range from 'police brutality' to 'criminal justice discrimination' to 'LGBTQ' to 'Trump sucks' along with probably at least ten or twelve other individualized reasons.

The kneel has seemingly devolved into a protest for anything and everything that the individualized protester seemingly wants it to be.

Most 'kneel downs' have zero accompanying statement of why, so one could use this as such evidence. Not to mention as evidence of the efficacy of the 'statement' of the kneel.

The Texans had an uncommented 'kneel' only after the owner made a comment about 'the inmates running the prison' -- please do tell us how that adds to any cogent, directed point.

Considering the Saints' 'kneel down' had zero comment, Drew Brees tweeted "As a way to show respect to all, our #Saints team will kneel in solidarity prior to the national anthem & stand together during the anthem." That...... doesnt tell me very much at all.

Perhaps they 'dont know the reason why' may not be accurate. Perhaps the statement of 'because any number of varied and random reasons, some stated, and many not, and confusing as all sin to the outside world' is a better descriptor. Does that do it better for you?

Perhaps Antonio Brown will kneel in the next game he plays in because of the "discriminatory injustice of the helmet restrictions" and the "imbalance in equity when threatening to punch the lights out of the general manager". Seems appropriate given the lack of cogent point to the trend, doesnt it?

(09-05-2019 10:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Sorry to see Fountains turn and run, but it just exemplifies my belief that the left can dish it out but can't take it.

With a few exceptions, of course. The Big Three here do not mind going toe to toe for their beliefs, however wrong, and I can respect that.

I'm not running. I just have better things to do with my evenings than spend them arguing with a circle-jerk of lonely old people.

Funny your comment there makes you out still to be running, if you didnt notice.

(09-06-2019 08:41 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 10:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Sorry to see Fountains turn and run, but it just exemplifies my belief that the left can dish it out but can't take it.

With a few exceptions, of course. The Big Three here do not mind going toe to toe for their beliefs, however wrong, and I can respect that.

I'm not running. I just have better things to do with my evenings than spend them arguing with a circle-jerk of lonely old people.

Yet you returned and went completely out of your way to not bother to answer in any substantive form.

And replied instead in a passive/aggressive antagonistic way to boot. Once last night and now again this morning.
Why is that not characterized as running, yet you claim you are not.

And your responses contain zero effort in the slightest to actually reply substantively after your loaded, biased, and unfounded initial statement that is largely, if not wholly, opinion.

And then follow it up with your nothing but douchebag level comment above, including the completely learned and civil comment of 'shut the **** up, boomer'.

And still without any iota of a substantive response. But no, you arent running. At all. In the slightest.

Good job. You just maxed out the irony meter there sparkles. And upped your 'feels necessary to communicate by and with the depth of gifs' score to a respectable 88 out of 100.

(09-06-2019 08:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-06-2019 07:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 10:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 09:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Instead of the 'chip on your shoulder' type, semi-antagonistic preemptive response towards me, I was looking forward to any substantive response to OO's questions to you. Or perhaps just a substantive response of any sort without any defining adjectives.

If you really need a translation of my response to you, it goes to your automatic classification of every single 'Down with ICE' chant and chanter being preoccupied with the bad way that ICE performs its job, as opposed the veritable nationwide meltdown by progressives over the reason that ICE performs its job.

Oh, and the automatic broad brush characterization of 'toxic ferment environment blabbedy blab' that you toss out there as a bald assumption, as well.

Clear enough for you?

As a public service, let me repost it here for you so you dont have to 'page back':

Quote:But explain to me more about this "toxic culture". How did you come to this conclusion? What is the evidence that led you there? What will be different if we assign the responsibility for border protection and immigration enforcement to, say, the office across the hall from ICE?

I would welcome answers to the above from any liberal, not just Fountains. I an genuinely desirous to know more of this toxic culture.

As for the "stupid party" comment, here are my thoughts on it. Sometimes an individual has a stupid thought or belief, such as "Whites are superior to blacks". Are we all in agreement that is stupid?

Now if he gets together with other people who share his stupid belief, alike say, the KKK, is that not a stupid organization? Now whether we call that group a gang, a lodge, or a party, aren't they still stupid? I certainly think the KKK is a stupid party, just as I think the NFL kneelers are stupid - most of them don't have any idea of what they are "protesting".

Please provide some evidence that the majority of NFL players who are protesting "don't have any idea" why.

Just take a look at the wide range of reasons given. They range from 'police brutality' to 'criminal justice discrimination' to 'LGBTQ' to 'Trump sucks' along with probably at least ten or twelve other individualized reasons.

The kneel has seemingly devolved into a protest for anything and everything that the individualized protester seemingly wants it to be.

Most 'kneel downs' have zero accompanying statement of why, so one could use this as such evidence. Not to mention as evidence of the efficacy of the 'statement' of the kneel.

The Texans had an uncommented 'kneel' only after the owner made a comment about 'the inmates running the prison' -- please do tell us how that adds to any cogent, directed point.

Considering the Saints' 'kneel down' had zero comment, Drew Brees tweeted "As a way to show respect to all, our #Saints team will kneel in solidarity prior to the national anthem & stand together during the anthem." That...... doesnt tell me very much at all.

Perhaps they 'dont know the reason why' may not be accurate. Perhaps the statement of 'because any number of varied and random reasons, some stated, and many not, and confusing as all sin to the outside world' is a better descriptor. Does that do it better for you?

Don't have time to go through all this at work but to say that players are protesting without having a clue why they are doing so paints them as relative dullards. When I hear Kaepernick, Stills, Martellus Bennett, etc. speak on the topic it is clear that they are thoughtful and informed.

(09-06-2019 09:59 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-06-2019 08:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-06-2019 07:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 10:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 09:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Instead of the 'chip on your shoulder' type, semi-antagonistic preemptive response towards me, I was looking forward to any substantive response to OO's questions to you. Or perhaps just a substantive response of any sort without any defining adjectives.

If you really need a translation of my response to you, it goes to your automatic classification of every single 'Down with ICE' chant and chanter being preoccupied with the bad way that ICE performs its job, as opposed the veritable nationwide meltdown by progressives over the reason that ICE performs its job.

Oh, and the automatic broad brush characterization of 'toxic ferment environment blabbedy blab' that you toss out there as a bald assumption, as well.

Clear enough for you?

As a public service, let me repost it here for you so you dont have to 'page back':

I would welcome answers to the above from any liberal, not just Fountains. I an genuinely desirous to know more of this toxic culture.

As for the "stupid party" comment, here are my thoughts on it. Sometimes an individual has a stupid thought or belief, such as "Whites are superior to blacks". Are we all in agreement that is stupid?

Now if he gets together with other people who share his stupid belief, alike say, the KKK, is that not a stupid organization? Now whether we call that group a gang, a lodge, or a party, aren't they still stupid? I certainly think the KKK is a stupid party, just as I think the NFL kneelers are stupid - most of them don't have any idea of what they are "protesting".

Please provide some evidence that the majority of NFL players who are protesting "don't have any idea" why.

Just take a look at the wide range of reasons given. They range from 'police brutality' to 'criminal justice discrimination' to 'LGBTQ' to 'Trump sucks' along with probably at least ten or twelve other individualized reasons.

The kneel has seemingly devolved into a protest for anything and everything that the individualized protester seemingly wants it to be.

Most 'kneel downs' have zero accompanying statement of why, so one could use this as such evidence. Not to mention as evidence of the efficacy of the 'statement' of the kneel.

The Texans had an uncommented 'kneel' only after the owner made a comment about 'the inmates running the prison' -- please do tell us how that adds to any cogent, directed point.

Considering the Saints' 'kneel down' had zero comment, Drew Brees tweeted "As a way to show respect to all, our #Saints team will kneel in solidarity prior to the national anthem & stand together during the anthem." That...... doesnt tell me very much at all.

Perhaps they 'dont know the reason why' may not be accurate. Perhaps the statement of 'because any number of varied and random reasons, some stated, and many not, and confusing as all sin to the outside world' is a better descriptor. Does that do it better for you?

Don't have time to go through all this at work but to say that players are protesting without having a clue why they are doing so paints them as relative dullards. When I hear Kaepernick, Stills, Martellus Bennett, etc. speak on the topic it is clear that they are thoughtful and informed.

When Kaepernick started this whole thing, he said it was because he would not honor the flag of an oppressive country. HE said it. He SAID it.

Here are his exact words:

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” he told NFL Media in an interview published on Saturday.

What I hear most often is "police brutality".

What I hear most often is team solidarity. As in, I will support this, whatever it is, because i don't want my teammates mad at me.

Must still be 1952.

Since you have listened when Kaepernick, Stills and Bennett spoke on the subject, and they were thoughtful and informed, tell us what they are protesting.

And tell us if you think the USA is an oppressive country.

(09-06-2019 10:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-06-2019 09:59 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-06-2019 08:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-06-2019 07:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 10:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I would welcome answers to the above from any liberal, not just Fountains. I an genuinely desirous to know more of this toxic culture.

As for the "stupid party" comment, here are my thoughts on it. Sometimes an individual has a stupid thought or belief, such as "Whites are superior to blacks". Are we all in agreement that is stupid?

Now if he gets together with other people who share his stupid belief, alike say, the KKK, is that not a stupid organization? Now whether we call that group a gang, a lodge, or a party, aren't they still stupid? I certainly think the KKK is a stupid party, just as I think the NFL kneelers are stupid - most of them don't have any idea of what they are "protesting".

Please provide some evidence that the majority of NFL players who are protesting "don't have any idea" why.

Just take a look at the wide range of reasons given. They range from 'police brutality' to 'criminal justice discrimination' to 'LGBTQ' to 'Trump sucks' along with probably at least ten or twelve other individualized reasons.

The kneel has seemingly devolved into a protest for anything and everything that the individualized protester seemingly wants it to be.

Most 'kneel downs' have zero accompanying statement of why, so one could use this as such evidence. Not to mention as evidence of the efficacy of the 'statement' of the kneel.

The Texans had an uncommented 'kneel' only after the owner made a comment about 'the inmates running the prison' -- please do tell us how that adds to any cogent, directed point.

Considering the Saints' 'kneel down' had zero comment, Drew Brees tweeted "As a way to show respect to all, our #Saints team will kneel in solidarity prior to the national anthem & stand together during the anthem." That...... doesnt tell me very much at all.

Perhaps they 'dont know the reason why' may not be accurate. Perhaps the statement of 'because any number of varied and random reasons, some stated, and many not, and confusing as all sin to the outside world' is a better descriptor. Does that do it better for you?

Don't have time to go through all this at work but to say that players are protesting without having a clue why they are doing so paints them as relative dullards. When I hear Kaepernick, Stills, Martellus Bennett, etc. speak on the topic it is clear that they are thoughtful and informed.

When Kaepernick started this whole thing, he said it was because he would not honor the flag of an oppressive country. HE said it. He SAID it.

Here are his exact words:

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” he told NFL Media in an interview published on Saturday.

What I hear most often is "police brutality".

What I hear most often is team solidarity. As in, I will support this, whatever it is, because i don't want my teammates mad at me.

Must still be 1952.

Since you have listened when Kaepernick, Stills and Bennett spoke on the subject, and they were thoughtful and informed, tell us what they are protesting.

And tell us if you think the USA is an oppressive country.

Again... busy so will respond more later but of course the USA has a long history of injustice when it comes to black people. Does injustice = oppression?

Tell me if you think black people are treated equally in the US in 2019.

(09-06-2019 10:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-06-2019 10:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-06-2019 09:59 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-06-2019 08:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-06-2019 07:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Please provide some evidence that the majority of NFL players who are protesting "don't have any idea" why.

Just take a look at the wide range of reasons given. They range from 'police brutality' to 'criminal justice discrimination' to 'LGBTQ' to 'Trump sucks' along with probably at least ten or twelve other individualized reasons.

The kneel has seemingly devolved into a protest for anything and everything that the individualized protester seemingly wants it to be.

Most 'kneel downs' have zero accompanying statement of why, so one could use this as such evidence. Not to mention as evidence of the efficacy of the 'statement' of the kneel.

The Texans had an uncommented 'kneel' only after the owner made a comment about 'the inmates running the prison' -- please do tell us how that adds to any cogent, directed point.

Considering the Saints' 'kneel down' had zero comment, Drew Brees tweeted "As a way to show respect to all, our #Saints team will kneel in solidarity prior to the national anthem & stand together during the anthem." That...... doesnt tell me very much at all.

Perhaps they 'dont know the reason why' may not be accurate. Perhaps the statement of 'because any number of varied and random reasons, some stated, and many not, and confusing as all sin to the outside world' is a better descriptor. Does that do it better for you?

Don't have time to go through all this at work but to say that players are protesting without having a clue why they are doing so paints them as relative dullards. When I hear Kaepernick, Stills, Martellus Bennett, etc. speak on the topic it is clear that they are thoughtful and informed.

When Kaepernick started this whole thing, he said it was because he would not honor the flag of an oppressive country. HE said it. He SAID it.

Here are his exact words:

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” he told NFL Media in an interview published on Saturday.

What I hear most often is "police brutality".

What I hear most often is team solidarity. As in, I will support this, whatever it is, because i don't want my teammates mad at me.

Must still be 1952.

Since you have listened when Kaepernick, Stills and Bennett spoke on the subject, and they were thoughtful and informed, tell us what they are protesting.

And tell us if you think the USA is an oppressive country.

Again... busy so will respond more later but of course the USA has a long history of injustice when it comes to black people. Does injustice = oppression?

Tell me if you think black people are treated equally in the US in 2019.

Pretty much.

I know of no restaurant that excludes black people. I know of no apartment complex or house seller that excludes black people. I know of no college that excludes black people. I know of no restroom they are not allowed to use. I do know of Affirmative Action. This is all 2019. In 1952, there was a lot of oppression. heck, I remember when black people really were oppressed. I remember lunch counter sit ins at Woolworth's. do you remember Woolworth"s? Or lunch counters?

So tell me how those three people you named are oppressed. Are they not allowed to make a great living? better than yours, I warrant. Where are they not allowed to go that you are allowed?

Glad to hear you are busy. Busy is good, usually.

I will be leaving here soon. But we can piece together this discussion over time. I am eager to hear how you think the USA is an oppressive country. I think it was in 1952 - not so much now. But "now" is what Kaep is protesting. And most of the rest of them have no idea why they kneeling or what they are protesting, just some idea of team solidarity. What is Drew Brees protesting?