(07-02-2019 08:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 06:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 12:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I answered your questions. Now it is my turn to ask a few questions:
Do you believe this force, itself half Hispanic, is a racist organization that hates Hispanics and wants to kill or hurt them?

No. Short of racist language in its bylaws, can an organization be racist? Probably there are plenty of racist agents. I imagine that there are plenty of Hispanic agents that have great disdain for these "illegal trespassers". In my experience (none of which involves knowing CBP agents, mind you), some Hispanic people are some of the most "anti-illegal immigration" people around. Doesn't make them racist.

You make a good point here that many of your fellow travelers on the left seem to miss. Being opposed to illegal immigration is not racist, and holding such a view does not make one a racist. Being opposed to all immigration might be racist, or it might be motivated by other factors.

Quote:

Quote:Do you believe that they are running concentration camps? Remember, the Nazi concentration camps for designed for extermination and forced work. Is that what you think is happening?

I'd have to look up the definition of "concentration camp". I don't think that they are "extermination camps".
My top google search brings up this: "a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to await mass execution. The term is most strongly associated with the several hundred camps established by the Nazis in Germany and occupied Europe in 1933–45, among the most infamous being Dachau, Belsen, and Auschwitz.".
By this definition probably so.

Actually, implicit in that definition, and an attribute of every actual concentration camp of which I am aware, is that people were rounded up and forced into such camps. My guess, since you found it in an apparently contemporaneous Google search, is that the author of that definition has probably omitted or removed specific mention of the rounding up to make his/her definition politically correct in the context of current events.

If you don't believe the "rounding up" is an essential element of a concentration camp (see the definition of "concentrate") then kindly give examples of "concentration camps" where people came voluntarily. If you want to maintain that "rounding up" is not a necessary element, then you need to denounce the obviously transparent efforts to create an inferential connection between places where people come voluntarily to await processing for immigration with extermination camps where people were rounded up to be killed (easy to kill a lot of them in a hurry if you concentrate them in one place).

If the forcible rounding up element is included, then the answer to OO's question is not only no, but hell no.

It was one of those Miriam-Webster type links at the top of a google search. I don't think it had any political bias nor do I guess that it was recently posted in light of the current issue.

Plenty of people who have some insight seem to think it is OK to call them concentration camps.

https://www.newsweek.com/holocaust-genoc...ce=Twitter

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Do you believe they are forcing women to drink from toilets? AOC made this claim, based on hearsay.

Didn't one of the congresswomen say that she was told from a prisoner that this happened? Is it hearsay if you hear is directly from a witness? I'm not an attorney...

Yep. It's generally hearsay if anyone but the actual witness is saying it, because the evidentiary problem with hearsay is that a non-witness making a statement cannot be cross-examined as to the truth or falsity of that statement. The congresswoman can say, "It's true that the witness made that statement." But the congresswoman cannot say, "I know that the witness was telling the truth when he/she made that statement because ..." So the congresswoman saying that somebody told her something is not evidence that such something is true.

Got it. Thanks.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Do you believe that these family men hate children and enjoy separating them from their mothers? After a hard day starving babies, they go home and read Dr. Seuss to their kids?

No. But I think there is a massive problem if a good percentage of these agents think the posts on this Facebook group are okey-dokey.

The operative word is "if." You have no basis for believing that the clause following the word "if" is true.

My basis is that they were still members of the Facebook group. If I was part of a Facebook group that posted such material I would quickly no longer be a part of said group. I would guess that most of us would take similar action.

Maybe it will come out that there were a bunch of members in the group that argued against the posting of such material within the group. We'll see.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Do you think things could be done better and more humanely if the Congress would authorize more money?

Yes. For sure. But lack of funding isn't the cause of this Facebook group.

Perhaps not directly, but perhaps very much indirectly, because that lack of funding is placing those agents in an impossible situation, and the resulting frustration could easily build to the point of this kind of outburst. That is, of course, if (there's that word again) the Facebook posts are legitimate.

The conditions on the border have deteriorated because the flow of immigrants has vastly exceeded capacity of the facilities and personnel. There are three, and insofar as I can tell only three, possible solutions:
1) Increase funding to catch up the facilities and personnel to the demand;
2) Slow down the flow; or
3) Open the floodgates, let everybody in and live with the consequences.

Democrats want 3), because they see a steady flow of illegal immigrants as steady supply of future democrat voters. They have voted against 1) for decades, as quite frankly have some republicans for different reasons. So Trump is putting pressure on Mexico to accomplish 2). Mexico now seems willing to cooperate. We shall wait and see how that progresses.

Actually the Democrats were pushing for 1) but wanted stipulations attached to make sure the money went to programs that could aid the people who needed it. McConnell fought the stipulations, the Democrats capitulated and gave the Senate the blank check that was requested. Hopefully the Senate will do some good with this blank check.