Border Wars

[JimmyBT]

5 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

If you answered the questions I posed in my first response you, likely, wouldn't need to ask this follow up question. Take another swing at it. 

Throw your own money at it. Take in some immigrants and help support them. Pay for their education and food and phone and all those luxuries you say they should have to be equal with the rich people.  All talk and no action. Which is typical of your type. 

Edited January 30 by JimmyBT

[ThreePointTakedown]

21 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

Throw your own money at it. Take in some immigrants and help support them. Pay for their education and food and phone and all those luxuries you say they should have to be equal with the rich people.  All talk and no action. Which is typical of your type. 

And there you go deflecting again. I commend you and your flexibility to not answer an inconvenient question and pivot to nonsense. (applause) 

[JimmyBT]

7 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

And there you go deflecting again. I commend you and your flexibility to not answer an inconvenient question and pivot to nonsense. (applause) 

What specific question didn’t I already answer?  I’ll answer it and then you can answer why you won’t take in and support an illegal immigrant. No “I can’t afford it” excuses though because anyone that wants to can figure out how to make it work. 

Edited January 30 by JimmyBT

[Bigbrog]

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

'What policies are in place currently that is keeping some group from gaining ground?'

Funding for public education. Property taxes in poor areas aren't enough to meet the needs of the area. Areas that have been woefully underfunded since RED LINING! The money needed to bring schools up to a reasonable average, at this point, is too high. So we can raise taxes. You're not a fan. Take money from affluent areas to help less fortunate areas. You're not a fan. Or we can just have the government pony up more for those areas than others. You're not a fan, because that isn't fair. Seems like you're not a fan of paying for poor kids to get a better education. 

Health care policy. Paying a higher % of your salary to medical care would keep someone from saving or investing. Eliminate that cost and people would be able to move to a better job or take a risk to start a business. This one is across the board btw, all groups are hit with this one, some more then others but all are effected. 

'How would you provide a more equal floor for every single person in the US??' Tax uber rich and corporations that stole money from us during inflation. Cap their profits so they are more inclined to reinvest in R&D, higher wages and tax bonuses. Take the money swim in it like Scrooge McDuck then hand it out to struggling schools to replace lead pipes and moldy tile and crumbling walls and pay for teachers and books and equipment so that a minimum standard of education can be attained throughout the country. Universal pre-school and pre-k too. That'll also help working families. Throw a ton of money at that too. Like, a ton. Its expensive and needed. 

Something can't be fair if its also unequal. 

There is a HUGE difference between policies that are systemically racist and meant to keep a certain demographic group "down" versus results of poor management of cities/areas/schools/etc.  Property taxes in the areas you speak of are low because people don't want to live there, because of decisions that law makers and city officials have made to make it less appealing to live there...period!!  Thus, there isn't a lot of money for the schools.  Yell at the city leaders for being terrible leaders and making terrible decisions that force people to leave the city and move elsewhere.  There wasn't a devious policy out there or systemic racism that is directed at keeping a certain group down, it was just bad decisions.  Have there been systemic racism in our past...OF COURSE...and that is terrible but that has changed. 

Same goes for your supposed argument about Health Care Policy...you paint that as somehow related to policy meant to keep one group "down" over another.  Health Care policy could be improved, sure, but it isn't part of this systemic racism claim you and your ilk like to throw out there.  And how in the heck would an improved health care policy make it easier for someone to get a better job??  How about get a better job and get better health care??

And your attack once again on rich people and corporations is laughable...you do understand what happens when you over tax big corporations don't you...yep...people lose those good jobs you just claimed people need to get, or products people buy now become too expensive for every person in all the different demographics to buy...you'll then be yelling systemic racism again over something you ask to have happen.  

Do you actually even think your thoughts through, or do you just love the emotional part of trying to spew illogical and incorrect things because your ideological group tells you to? 

And by the way, in our society, you absolutely can have fair, but not equal!  I will never be smart enough to be a doctor, nor big enough or athletic enough to play professional sports...thus I don't deserve to get paid what they do.  I can work hard at other things and earn as much money as I am willing to put forth the effort to earn.  Equality is about everyone having the same chance.  There are policies and programs in the US that help those who maybe aren't starting at the same point as others based on uncontrolled circumstances like who their parents are and how wealthy or poor they are.

Edited January 30 by Bigbrog

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 minute ago, Bigbrog said:

There is a HUGE difference between policies that are systemically racist and meant to keep a certain demographic group "down" versus results of poor management of cities/areas/schools/etc.  Property taxes in the areas you speak of are poor because people don't want to live there, because of decisions that law makers and city officials have made to make it less appealing to live there...period!!  There wasn't a devious policy out there or systemic racism that is directed at keeping a certain group down.  Have there been in our past...OF COURSE...and that is terrible but that has changed.  Same goes for your supposed argument about Health Care Policy...you paint that as somehow related to policy meant to keep one group "down" over another.  Health Care policy could be improved, sure, but it isn't part of this systemic racism claim you and your ilk like to throw out there.  And how in the heck would an improved health care policy make it easier for someone to get a better job??  How about get a better job and get better health care??

And your attack once again on rich people and corporations is laughable...you do understand what happens when you over tax big corporations don't you...yep...people loose those good jobs you just fretted over, or products people buy now become to expensive for every person in all the different demographics to buy...you'll them be yelling systemic racism again over something you ask to have happen.  

Do you actually even think your thoughts through or do you just love the emotional part of trying to spew illogical and incorrect things because your ideological group tells you to?

This is where it feels like you are being purposefully dishonest. Maybe I'm wrong. 

We know those racist practices happened. For decades. Red lining by banks to force certain groups into certain areas and law makers then moved high ways to cut them off and prevent investment from adding value to the neighborhoods which led to schools getting less funding and more crime. 

We know these things happened. People were actively trying to keep a group from gaining wealth. IT HAPPENED. 

My question is where do you draw the line between; when those things happened and directly and indirectly effected people to the point where we are no longer responsible for the consequences? Where is that line? 

My health care example was not group specific. I mentioned that in the post. Just another example of things keeping people from being able to grow their wealth and elevate their station. Another crappy thing about this country that other countries do better. 

And your response to that is pretty typical of someone with no experience or sympathy with struggling people. If the public transportation in your neglected neighborhood is shoddy at best how do you suppose someone afford to get to a better job? The ability to take a risk to apply for another job or take work off to go on an interview is not as ubiquitous as you may think. The same reason for mail in voting or a voting holiday exists here. Giving someone just a little bit of flexibility would improve the outcome, maybe not a ton, but a bit. 

Attack on business? Is that what you think I'm doing? And why are you defending them as if they need it? Is there some trauma there? Safe space! 

Honest questions; in your opinion, the companies that made record profits during rampant inflation, did they come by those honestly? 

Your paranoia is new.

You keep bringing up emotion. That I mention empathy and sympathy I guess are giveaways. I care about people, I don't like seeing me hurt. As much as the law should show no passion or prejudice in the application. I feel creating the laws should take the opposite track. 

[mspart]

46 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

This is where it feels like you are being purposefully dishonest. Maybe I'm wrong. 

We know those racist practices happened. For decades. Red lining by banks to force certain groups into certain areas and law makers then moved high ways to cut them off and prevent investment from adding value to the neighborhoods which led to schools getting less funding and more crime. 

We know these things happened. People were actively trying to keep a group from gaining wealth. IT HAPPENED. 

My question is where do you draw the line between; when those things happened and directly and indirectly effected people to the point where we are no longer responsible for the consequences? Where is that line? 

My health care example was not group specific. I mentioned that in the post. Just another example of things keeping people from being able to grow their wealth and elevate their station. Another crappy thing about this country that other countries do better. 

And your response to that is pretty typical of someone with no experience or sympathy with struggling people. If the public transportation in your neglected neighborhood is shoddy at best how do you suppose someone afford to get to a better job? The ability to take a risk to apply for another job or take work off to go on an interview is not as ubiquitous as you may think. The same reason for mail in voting or a voting holiday exists here. Giving someone just a little bit of flexibility would improve the outcome, maybe not a ton, but a bit. 

Attack on business? Is that what you think I'm doing? And why are you defending them as if they need it? Is there some trauma there? Safe space! 

Honest questions; in your opinion, the companies that made record profits during rampant inflation, did they come by those honestly? 

Your paranoia is new.

You keep bringing up emotion. That I mention empathy and sympathy I guess are giveaways. I care about people, I don't like seeing me hurt. As much as the law should show no passion or prejudice in the application. I feel creating the laws should take the opposite track. 

This is where it feels that you are purposefully being dishonest.  You dismiss questions you don't want to respond to by asking stupid question designed to divert attention.   You play the classic card of a professional politician.   Never answer and always pivot. 

mspart

[Lipdrag]

5 hours ago, JimmyBT said:

“say” gooders

I am giving you fair warning that I am going to Claudine Gay this term unashamedly.  Yes, she is now a verb.  I coined that usage so don't Claudine Gay me by using Claudine Gay as a verb without properly citing me, this date, and this publication.

"Say gooders".  It is genius.  I like it.  I want it.  It's mine.  I am a merry ole hypocrite in these Claudine Gay (adjective usage in this case) matters.

[JimmyBT]

15 minutes ago, Lipdrag said:

I am giving you fair warning that I am going to Claudine Gay this term unashamedly.  Yes, she is now a verb.  I coined that usage so don't Claudine Gay me by using Claudine Gay as a verb without properly citing me, this date, and this publication.

"Say gooders".  It is genius.  I like it.  I want it.  It's mine.  I am a merry ole hypocrite in these Claudine Gay (adjective usage in this case) matters.

I snorted out loud on this one.  Feel free to use at your leisure.  

[GreatWhiteNorth]

18 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

read it again, GWN.

i'm pretty sure Brog is saying 'he didn't address / rebut' the claims made by the other guy.

I read it again.

'The other guy' didn't say anything about the US being crappy and terrible - just flawed. (Which is 100% true.) Brog was the 1st to bring up the "crappy and terrible" line. And without attributing it to 'the other guy.' Thus the mixup. Words matter when communicating with only words.

I'll take half an "L" on that one.

[Offthemat]

12 hours ago, JimmyBT said:

So it was legal when some of your family came here?  Or they just happened to immigrate here first ???

They’re Cherokee. 

[Husker_Du]

It's not going to go anywhere and there's no evidence that he's corrupt, but they are moving to impeach Mayorkas. 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/30/politics/impeaching-dhs-secretary-mayorkas-committee/index.html

[Ohio Elite]

 

[Husker_Du]

pure virtue signaling.

the left is detached from reality until it punches them in the face.

they sincerely can't extrapolate the ramifications of their pie-in-the-sky ideas. 

did anyone ever read the "Green New Deal"? i mean, it was a document they flaunted for years.

did you ever read it? it's not a plan; it's a wish list. 

if i was their writing professor and they submitted that to me they would have gotten an "F".

but this is what we have as congressman. they aren't serious people.

[Offthemat]

8 minutes ago, Ohio Elite said:

 

That’s par for the course.  Leftists have been shown to be the least charitable, believing that that’s the duty of the government.  Then they vigorously avoid paying taxes.

[WrestlingRasta]

3 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

this is what we have as congressman. they aren't serious people.

We’ we possibly never agreed more. 

[WrestlingRasta]

Don't know who this guy is but he certainly has some interesting information...

 

https://x.com/WeHearPodcast/status/1752170095965622438?s=20

[JimmyBT]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

That’s par for the course.  Leftists have been shown to be the least charitable, believing that that’s the duty of the government.  Then they vigorously avoid paying taxes.

The “say” gooders “do” nothing.  No one should be surprised by this.  

[ThreePointTakedown]

15 hours ago, mspart said:

This is where it feels that you are purposefully being dishonest.  You dismiss questions you don't want to respond to by asking stupid question designed to divert attention.   You play the classic card of a professional politician.   Never answer and always pivot. 

mspart

Did you not put together your two questions in the middle with my response? Take another look. 

The last question I felt is rhetorical. If you would like to posit your response to the opposing sentiment in the form of a similar question it would go a long way to help me determine what you're asking and how to answer. 

[Ohio Elite]

 

[Husker_Du]

spot on

[mspart]

I am torn a little on this issue. 

Ohio Elite brings up a good point.   Biden swore up and down that he would drop Trump's immigration policies.   Now that that has become a real problem, Biden wants R help to help him fix it.  

Problem:

1.  The situation needs to be fixed, needed it before the problem started.

2.  To give Biden a win on this would not be in the Rs self interest, but would be in the country's best interest.  

3.  Biden says he will close the border after the bill passes IF the border gets overwhelmed.   In straight talk that means he ain't gonna do nuttin'.   He will just be able to say he got immigration bill passed.   No actual change.

What to do?   I can tell you that the bill as it currently states 5000 illegals a day will be allowed is a no go item.   0 illegals.   Period.   5000 is more than Trump allowed in by a long shot.   No way.   So that legislation is dead unless it is changed dramatically. 

Something needs to be done, but it needs to be done in such a way that Biden must administer the law as it is written and with 0 illegals allowed in.   No more asylum claims.   If we could guarantee that Biden would abide by a 0 illegal law, then I am for it.    If not, then no.   Do it when Rs have a majority and the White House.   Current bill is just bad politics, bad business, and bad national security.  

mspart

 

[Lipdrag]

"The left's open borders rhetoric is pure virtue signaling. All of them believe that the costs of illegal immigration should be born by other people — people like you."

Like our colleague on this site who thinks "we" deserve it.  Martha's Vineyard Blues vote like they love illegal immigration so long as Americans in fly-over country have to deal with the catastrophe.  Now I am starting to realize what they mean.  It is not that all Americans deserve to have an uninvited reparations deserving person from 100+ countries right next to them right now.  They think that all Americans who Love America deserve to have a reparations deserving person from 100+ countries right next to them.  America hating leftie Americans don't like America so they should not have to shoulder any of this deserved personal, direct, local, in our face, reparations receiving people from 100+ countries.  How is it that those people coming here sans invitations don't realize this fact?

[GreatWhiteNorth]

3 hours ago, mspart said:

I am torn a little on this issue. 

Ohio Elite brings up a good point.   Biden swore up and down that he would drop Trump's immigration policies.   Now that that has become a real problem, Biden wants R help to help him fix it.  

The president wants the rest of the politicians to work together to do their job and resolve the countries problems. Within the limits of meaningful, quality policies.

They are all on the same team. Time to step up and act like the professionals that their positions require.

... or they can continue to act like D vs R children that are too preoccupied with the grandstanding and "but, but" garbage to be able to perform like the leaders they were elected to be.

Yet, voters keep voting them in and keep getting redirected to focusing on the R vs D game that keeps them from realizing and acknowledging their elected officials are acting like children instead of doing their jobs.

It's a spiral, but not the upward kind.

[Lipdrag]

26 minutes ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

wants the rest of the politicians to work together to do their job

They did.  Years ago R's and D's, together passed the laws.  Biden's job is to enforce those laws.  He won't.  He is not asking the R's to help him fix anything.  He is asking the R's to be co-conspirators on indemnifying 5,000 illegal acts per day.  That is not a fix.  That is corrupting someone else to commit the same professional negligence he is committing.

How about Congress adopts a resolution stating, "Hey Brandon, Enforce the Law.  It is your job"?  No grandstanding there and it has a nice ring.  Don't even need to be a D or an R to do it.  Just have someone read the law and then do it.  Easy peasy.

[GreatWhiteNorth]

1 minute ago, Lipdrag said:

They did.  Years ago R's and D's, together passed the laws.  Biden's job is to enforce those laws.  He won't.  He is not asking the R's to help him fix anything.  He is asking the R's to be co-conspirators on indemnifying 5,000 illegal acts per day.  That is not a fix.  That is corrupting someone else to commit the same professional negligence he is committing.

How about Congress adopts a resolution stating, "Hey Brandon, Enforce the Law.  It is your job"?  No grandstanding there and it has a nice ring.  Don't even need to be a D or an R to do it.  Just have someone read the law and then do it.  Easy peasy.

Except illegals have been crossing that border in large numbers for many decades. Through both R and D administrations. And it has been illegal for them to do it the entire time.

None have been able to resolve the problem. None. Zero.

But you keep blaming whoever you want to use as the scapegoat.

Keep conveniently ignoring the fact that it is an incredibly complicated and difficult problem that nobody has been able to resolve. And don't bring up the fact that it was documented that Trump had many illegal immigrants working at his golf course in Florida. After that fact was revealed, they kept working there.

It's just one of those problems that nobody has been able to solve. Everything else is political grandstanding and BS.