(11-15-2019 09:28 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(11-15-2019 07:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-15-2019 06:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-15-2019 05:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-15-2019 05:45 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  relax dude

Naw, let him champion the barely grade-school equating of email correspondence to personal pornography.

You STILL don't get it?

The "personal" porn was sent by email.

So we are comparing one email correspondence to another.

How far will you go to NOT understand?

The transmission method is irrelevant. Apparently there is a massive amount of difference in one thing sent with an expectation of confidence in the material and a second thing sent with an expectation of confidence in the material.

Yes, one is personal porn. And yes, the other is personal information. Please do tell us the enormity of that difference, and please do tell where in lad world the magic line is drawn that so distinguishes 'personal porn' so as to engender such a massive difference in both outlook and treatment in that world?

So we're all good with S. Miller in the White House driving immigration policy? Awesome.

I think the better question is not necessarily whom is 'driving immigration policy', but what is the better immigration policy.

And yes, Sessions, Miller, and Bannon were absolutely the architects of a vastly more restrictive immigration stance ---- including zero tolerance and very sharp increases in actual enforcement of existing legal structures.

And for dismantling legal structures that were facially illegal --- such as DAPA *and* facets of DACA.

What has been the alternative from today's left? That is aside from open borders, the primacy of sanctuary cities to disregard enforcement of law, f-ck ICE, and ultimate nirvana stage of passing out amnesty like cotton candy?

And, to be honest, if the issue is to put into question the people behind policies, then perhaps you should also look at the promulgation of people like Van Jones as a 'person who promotes policy' by the previous administration with the same umbrage. Or not. My guess would be on the 'not' in most cases by the left.

Further, if the bar to naming someone a 'racist' is by what sites they have read, or what books they have read --- then I guess you should color me in as one as well. Hate to tell you I have read some of the same sites that the SPCL (loud fing laugh at using the SPCL as a source, but that is another topic entirely) uses as their yardstick -- albeit I read them since one of my first clients as a solo practitioner was an avowed white nationalist. A real one. Not the ones that y'all keep jumping up and down and flapping your wings about.

And I have read 'Camp of Saints' -- back in the mid-80's when it was compared to 'Soylent Green' and wasnt the casue celebre that it seems to be amongst both the dumb*** right *and* the dumb*** left of today. But these are probably the same myna birds that hate the novel 'Submission' for similar reasons. Btw another novel I have read....

But I guess, thank heavens I will never run for office --- as I guess my negative view on open borders *and* the temerity of actually having read 'Camp of Saints' would make me a de facto racist jacktard to the left by insinuation.

The funny thing, is that when you ever read what Miller promotes, it is undoubtedly nationalistic. No arguments there in the slightest. But, what I find absolutely hilarious is the absolutely short-bus level methodologies to equate 'nationalism' to 'white nationalism' by some.

But, I really hate to tell you, that being less than pro-immigration is not ipso facto racist; even being anti-immigration is not ispo facto racist. Perhaps if you all actually read Bannon's and Miller's positions and points on immigration, you might be able to discern the rather glaring difference between the two. Or, you can simply read the SPLC (lol, again) synopsis of their viewpoints and squawk about racism if that is your choice.