Biden administration ADMITS flying 320,000 migrants secretly into the U.S.

[ThreePointTakedown]

16 hours ago, JimmyBT said:

And the pause you always give is throw money at it. We don’t have the money or the capacity in our current system. Sorry but it’s a fact. 

Great. Glad we agree on that. We agree that we want to be able to spend the money to help people. Lets find it. Where to look? 

I have a few suggestion but you can go first. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

16 hours ago, JimmyBT said:

They come from where it’s brutally hot. Seems like your fine stacking more people on top of the 44% in this country you say are already suffering. 

So you don't have any points or solutions just gripes? 

People you don't like are coming here so that needs to stop. People here are suffering but you don't want to see them helped if it inconveniences you. Don't cut the defense budget because the world is after us. Don't help the world because we need to take care of ourselves first. Don't add money to Jimmy Carter's education department because of, pick your boogeyman of the day; book bans, Statanic clubs, evolution, rainbow flags, CRT, or any other stupid ass thing their scared of today that will turn out to be nothing, again. Don't tax corporations or rich people because they obviously earned it. Don't help the less fortunate because they need to just work harder. 

Your cognitive dissonance is astounding. 

And because you don't read articles in links that refute your talking points: Cog. Dis: he state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change. 

This is you to a T!

Again, must be exhausting doing the mental gymnastics to avoid absorbing new information. 

[JimmyBT]

27 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

So you don't have any points or solutions just gripes? 

People you don't like are coming here so that needs to stop. People here are suffering but you don't want to see them helped if it inconveniences you. Don't cut the defense budget because the world is after us. Don't help the world because we need to take care of ourselves first. Don't add money to Jimmy Carter's education department because of, pick your boogeyman of the day; book bans, Statanic clubs, evolution, rainbow flags, CRT, or any other stupid ass thing their scared of today that will turn out to be nothing, again. Don't tax corporations or rich people because they obviously earned it. Don't help the less fortunate because they need to just work harder. 

Your cognitive dissonance is astounding. 

And because you don't read articles in links that refute your talking points: Cog. Dis: he state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change. 

This is you to a T!

Again, must be exhausting doing the mental gymnastics to avoid absorbing new information. 

It’s exhausting seeing your psycho babble over and over. Yep. 

[JimmyBT]

41 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Great. Glad we agree on that. We agree that we want to be able to spend the money to help people. Lets find it. Where to look? 

I have a few suggestion but you can go first. 

Again. I’ll believe you when you take in an illegal all on your own.  Say gooder. Does nothing.   Talk talk talk.  Some Self respect would do wonders for you. 

[JimmyBT]

10 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

You two are better people than me for trying to argue with that whackadoodle!

I know. I know I should just ignore jr But its kinda fun sometimes. He tries so hard not to push out a paragraph of psycho babble but he just can’t stop himself.  

Edited March 14 by JimmyBT

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, JimmyBT said:

Again. I’ll believe you when you take in an illegal all on your own.  Say gooder. Does nothing.   Talk talk talk.  Some Self respect would do wonders for you. 

And we're back to this again.

We're going down a road that you lead us to but you don't want to keep going because it might take us in a direction that your mind won't allow you to accept. 

I've tried to guide you by the hand to more sympathy and empathy on this topic. But I sense they are not things you come by easily. I hope that changes. 

 

[JimmyBT]

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

And we're back to this again.

We're going down a road that you lead us to but you don't want to keep going because it might take us in a direction that your mind won't allow you to accept. 

I've tried to guide you by the hand to more sympathy and empathy on this topic. But I sense they are not things you come by easily. I hope that changes. 

 

Put or shut up. And you won’t guide me anywhere. I’m a doer not an excuse maker. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, JimmyBT said:

Put or shut up. And you won’t guide me anywhere. I’m a doer not an excuse maker. 

How is someone suppose to do that? Sorry you don't answer questions that feel like attacks. Considering you haven't done it either and would rather not. 

There's the truth of it.

You won't be led by anyone that doesn't already agree with you. Let alone to sympathy and empathy for your fellow humans. No member of a cult has ever thought that. I feel bad for you. 

Having to tell people what you you are is a clear indication that you don't believe it. 

[JimmyBT]

17 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

How is someone suppose to do that? Sorry you don't answer questions that feel like attacks. Considering you haven't done it either and would rather not. 

There's the truth of it.

You won't be led by anyone that doesn't already agree with you. Let alone to sympathy and empathy for your fellow humans. No member of a cult has ever thought that. I feel bad for you. 

Having to tell people what you you are is a clear indication that you don't believe it. 

Ummmmm again. I donate my time to help my fellow humans.   You do nothing but whine about the misery of others.   

[ThreePointTakedown]

3 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

Ummmmm again. I donate my time to help my fellow humans.   You do nothing but whine about the misery of others.   

And you haven't put up. So shut up. By your own words. 

[JimmyBT]

37 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

And you haven't put up. So shut up. By your own words. 

Five days a week I put up.  I actually help my fellow humans.  You do NOTHING but whine and complain 

Edited March 14 by JimmyBT

[ThreePointTakedown]

17 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

Five days a week I put up.  I actually help my fellow humans.  You do NOTHING but whine and complain 

As I've mentioned and continue to mention. You and your sources are not trustworthy. Type words all you want. Blah blah blah. 

You don't argue/discuss honestly. So I have no reason to believe you aren't the same way off line. 

If you do good things. Great. Keep doing them. Until you do them in my neighborhood I have no reason to trust your word. 

[JimmyBT]

57 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

As I've mentioned and continue to mention. You and your sources are not trustworthy. Type words all you want. Blah blah blah. 

You don't argue/discuss honestly. So I have no reason to believe you aren't the same way off line. 

If you do good things. Great. Keep doing them. Until you do them in my neighborhood I have no reason to trust your word. 

I will continue helping others instead of whining and making excuses like you do. 

Edited March 14 by JimmyBT

[jross]

2 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

As I've mentioned and continue to mention. You and your sources are not trustworthy. Type words all you want. Blah blah blah. 

You don't argue/discuss honestly. So I have no reason to believe you aren't the same way off line. 

If you do good things. Great. Keep doing them. Until you do them in my neighborhood I have no reason to trust your word. 

What have you mentioned?
What is your definition of trustworthy?
What are his sources?
What is your defintion of honesty?
Please cite your sources.
For the sources you cite, please inform us why they should be believed.
For the author of the sources, please inform of of their perfectly uncriticised and non biased background.
What specific criteria do you use to determine the reliability of a source?
How do you reconcile conflicting information from different sources?
Can you provide examples of situations where skepticism has led to valuable insights or discoveries?
How do you assess the credibility of an author or expert in a particular field?
What measures do you take to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the information you share with others?
Have you encountered instances where your skepticism has been challenged or proven wrong? How did you respond?
What role do personal biases or preconceptions play in your evaluation of information and sources?
How do you navigate situations where there is a lack of authoritative sources on a particular topic?
Are there specific types of evidence or research methodologies that you prioritize when evaluating sources?
How do you distinguish between misinformation, disinformation, and legitimate sources of information?

Not a full stop.  Just getting started with questions.  

Signed,

Bigot Brigade

[JimmyBT]

9 minutes ago, jross said:

What have you mentioned?
What is your definition of trustworthy?
What are his sources?
What is your defintion of honesty?
Please cite your sources.
For the sources you cite, please inform us why they should be believed.
For the author of the sources, please inform of of their perfectly uncriticised and non biased background.
What specific criteria do you use to determine the reliability of a source?
How do you reconcile conflicting information from different sources?
Can you provide examples of situations where skepticism has led to valuable insights or discoveries?
How do you assess the credibility of an author or expert in a particular field?
What measures do you take to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the information you share with others?
Have you encountered instances where your skepticism has been challenged or proven wrong? How did you respond?
What role do personal biases or preconceptions play in your evaluation of information and sources?
How do you navigate situations where there is a lack of authoritative sources on a particular topic?
Are there specific types of evidence or research methodologies that you prioritize when evaluating sources?
How do you distinguish between misinformation, disinformation, and legitimate sources of information?

Not a full stop.  Just getting started with questions.  

Signed,

Bigot Brigade

Bigot Brigade.  I spit my drink all over the place.  Thanks a lot.  

[ThreePointTakedown]

19 hours ago, jross said:

What have you mentioned?
What is your definition of trustworthy?
What are his sources?
What is your defintion of honesty?
Please cite your sources.
For the sources you cite, please inform us why they should be believed.
For the author of the sources, please inform of of their perfectly uncriticised and non biased background.
What specific criteria do you use to determine the reliability of a source?
How do you reconcile conflicting information from different sources?
Can you provide examples of situations where skepticism has led to valuable insights or discoveries?
How do you assess the credibility of an author or expert in a particular field?
What measures do you take to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the information you share with others?
Have you encountered instances where your skepticism has been challenged or proven wrong? How did you respond?
What role do personal biases or preconceptions play in your evaluation of information and sources?
How do you navigate situations where there is a lack of authoritative sources on a particular topic?
Are there specific types of evidence or research methodologies that you prioritize when evaluating sources?
How do you distinguish between misinformation, disinformation, and legitimate sources of information?

Not a full stop.  Just getting started with questions.  

Signed,

Bigot Brigade

You'll have to reread, they're still there. 

Trustworthy and honesty is roughly the same, not try to purposefully being deceptive in collecting or disseminating info. 

Again, you can reread the thread to find them, they're there.

Believed because they point out discrepancies in the data collection method that has not been refuted. If the resource is honest and interested in being taken seriously they should work to prove that their info is true and honest despite the refutation. 

You're moving the goal posts. You and/or they have not done the same. Nor have you asked them for the same. When you do that or insist upon it, then and only then, will I take your request seriously. Other than that you are trying to muddy water so as to make it easier for yourself to deflect from the reality that you come by information in a faulty manner. 

Reliability goes back to honesty and trustworthy but over a longer time line. 

Reconcile conflicting information: great question. Its not easy. Firstly don't trust the thing that you want to be true right off the bat. Look at primary sources. Then secondary sources. Are they from transcripts of testimony or opinion pieces by bias media networks. Love this question. I can go on and on because it is incredibly nuanced and important and something we don't do or try to do nearly enough. Once again, great question. 

Skepticism leading to discoveries: all of science. No model is accurate, some are useful. We only get better models by not believing that the one we currently use is best. What makes it better? More and better science. 

Author: tricky, memory is malleable and unreliable. An author's depiction of something they wish to portray as accurate should always be viewed with skepticism. They are trying to sell you something. Needs corroboration from other sources. Philosophically something can be understood to be true but still needs to be put into practice to be sure. 

I try not to use the most bombastic or flashy articles or sources to make a point. I can be tricked. Its happened. Over zealous with my support of an issue or two. But I like to think that I do it for a good reason. To punch up not down. To support those that need it but would otherwise not get it. 

I'm sure I've been wrong. Sometimes I take it fine and sometimes I need a minute. 

My personal biases are that I like to think that people are naturally good but are also the heroes of their story. They feel they are doing what they feel is good and right. When those things do not agree is where I see issues. Its difficult to reconcile treating people a certain way as a benefit to humanity as a whole. Some disagree. That's when I ask them, why?

So many people out there with so much info to be searched. I would be hard pressed to think of a topic that doesn't have some sort of study dedicated to it.

I'm not familiar with particular sources. But when a source is called into question, it should be taken seriously until it is addressed or called out as hokum.

Motivation. Given enough time and material its not difficult to understand the motivation of a particular author, editor, publisher,  or orator. Figure out what it is and you'll be able to figure out the distinction in those terms(mis, dis, and legit info)

Thanks for the questions. 

[JimmyBT]

[Husker_Du]

 

[Offthemat]

6 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

 

This is one of the guys that was vetted before being allowed to buy his own airline ticket to enter the U.S.

[ThreePointTakedown]

15 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

 

Tell me where your slippery slope ends? 

If true, its a bad guy. A bad guy that got caught. Those are the best kind. 

It seems as though you are finding isolated incidents associated with a group of people you happen to dislike. You'll find them. That's not surprising. What is your point?

How is this not a tactic that can be used to shut down, literally, everything? 

If it is, and it is, why should we take this or any of them seriously? Because they almost always represent a vanishingly small percentage of the group. 

Then ms is going to say, 'where is your post for every little bad thing that happens ever?' as if its a point for anything. It isn't. They are just mad they don't have the CS to know the difference. And shutting down a conversation that you're losing is better than admitting you don't have a coherent point. 

Edited March 15 by ThreePointTakedown
typo

[Husker_Du]

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

 

It seems as though you are finding isolated incidents 

not sure why i'm wasting my time responding to someone i think lacks basic logic, but here I go:

therein lies the problem.

they aren't isolated. they aren't rare. it every single day and sometimes multiple.

the fact of the matter is, the border is broken, they are coming through en masse and unvetted. 

you can stick your head in the sand all you want, but the tenor of the country should tell you all you need to know.

blaming it on xenophobia is lazy; blaming it on lack of empathy is inaccurate; most rational human beings want safety for their community.

if you think differently, why don't you house a few illegals you know nothing about and see how that works out. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 minute ago, Husker_Du said:

not sure why i'm wasting my time responding to someone i think lacks basic logic, but here I go:

therein lies the problem.

they aren't isolated. they aren't rare. it every single day and sometimes multiple.

the fact of the matter is, the border is broken, they are coming through en masse and unvetted. 

you can stick your head in the sand all you want, but the tenor of the country should tell you all you need to know.

blaming it on xenophobia is lazy; blaming it on lack of empathy is inaccurate; most rational human beings want safety for their community.

if you think differently, why don't you house a few illegals you know nothing about and see how that works out. 

https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-bandwagon/#:~:text=The bandwagon fallacy is also,it comes out this weekend.

All an appeal to the crowd. Linked, in case you want to know how and why this argument holds NO WATER! 

At no point can you say how often this is happening from the group of people you are alleging are the culprits. That it happens at all is bad, I agree. Glad they were caught in this situation. Your appeal to emotion should alarm you as to how you are coming to your conclusions. Also the name calling too. Regulate your emotions and find a better argument. 

You are trying to browbeat someone into following your conclusion on bad evidence. You shouldn't believe this either for those reasons. 

You have a crappy method of discerning what is true. For which I will guarantee you will not think critically about. But would serve you well to try. 

[Bigbrog]

Anyone want to interpret the above post for me...wow...

[Husker_Du]

i'll give it a shot:

"Ignore your eyes and ears and all that is common sense. Instead, look at this psychobabble. Preventable violent crimes will still occur, but you can trick yourself into getting over it."

[mspart]

15 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

 Preventable violent crimes will still occur."

Not if you prosecute heavily.   I take that back.   They will still occur for sure.  But the rate and numbers will decrease immensely as most perps will be in jail.   And they will continually decrease as they continually prosecuted.   Crime went down in the 90's adn 2000's when there was a tough on crime stance generally in the US.   After George Floyd and the defunding of cops movement, crime has skyrocketed as no one is seriously  held accountable for their actions.   Crime will continue to rise until prosecutions happen and we quit blaming cops for everything.  

mspart