Total posts: 150
-->
@Greyparrot
That wasn't his quote. Its what he inferred, but not what he said.
Secondly, its not my place to do opposition research to an unresearched claim. That 'noise' whatever that means, might cause cancer is an interesting suggestion. I look forward to what you might have to say about it. In the mean time, we can turn to thousands upon millions of examples of high decibel occupations in which the primary injury while on the work site is unsurprisingly premature hearing loss. Shall I site OSHA, or are you done?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Please explain how to play your game.
I say Trump lies.
you say "nu-uh"
I say, Trump said windmills cause cancer.
That is a lie.
I say Trump over inflated how much aid has actually gone to Puerto Rico (a lie), you say "no evidence"
That, so far, is 2 lies.
That fulfills my end of the bargain (and proves my point) until such time as you come around and explain the rules of your game.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Because I am asking for your criteria of evidence.
How would you like your debunking laid out?
Quote and citation?
C'mon big-mouth. I am willing to play your silly game, lets hear the rules.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
How many times out of how many times of speech do you require as 'proof?
I can open with his lie about windmills causing cancer, the Puerto Rico aid relief, and how successful he claims the summits with Kim would be.
From there, we can go to his off the cuff remarks (aka lies) regarding immigration stats, then I supposed we could finish up with some interesting tales about "beautiful clean coal".
Oh, does his lies pre-office count? I mean, if you look at the contract he had with voters, some of the stuff he claimed would be his first 100 days hasn't even been mentioned yet.
But, again, the benchmark for what you consider to be proven is yours. Please tell me what criteria meet that he lies, much much much more often than he tells the truth.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
"Sometimes"?
"More often than not".
"Rarely if ever tells the truth..."
"Is generally prone to self aggrandizement, or hyperbole when raw statistics are requested..."
He lies so frequently that I would consider "Sometimes..." to be a lie in relation to how frequently he lies.
Created:
-->
@Alec
A tadpole doesn't look like a frog, because it isn't.
Kinda like how a fetus/embryo isn't a person. I mean, if its the looks you think that are the major differences, I can understand why this entire subject is difficult for you.
On the matter of looks, to me it looks like a bear embryo. Or an ape embryo. Do those get personhood, too?
Created:
-->
@Alec
And its still the heart and brain of a tadpole, not a frog, if you want to return to the salient part of my post.
Once born, there is no denying rights (at least in the US, its pretty well laid out in the Constitution).
Not being old enough to have rights, on the other hand, especially if you aren't actually the thing we confer rights too, is what is relevant.
Created:
-->
@Alec
Its not that I don't believe you, its that I don't consider a tadpole to be a frog.
Humans have a 4 chambered heart. That doesn't exist six weeks post conception.
Humans have 3 pronounced areas of the brain. That doesn't exist six weeks post conception.
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
Maybe a doctor doesn't value a clump of unwanted cells to be any more human life than brain cancer or colon cancer.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Because draconian laws such as the current ones weren't crafted until recently.
"there is no law that I can think of that would prevent a state to regulate healthcare services via regulations, licences and privileges to prevent doctors from preforming or limiting them." You think rationally. The people that put laws like Georgia's abortion law into motion don't think rationally, at least with regards to a non-authoritarian society.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You think because the woman whom gets the abortion doesn't speak its going to be a dropped thing?
Jilted lover?
Angry husband?
Religious confidant gone sour?
There are hordes of ways it can go side ways, and these varieties of laws do nothing to protect against it.
"Yeah, my 'ex' wife was carrying my kid, went to (insert abortion friendly state here), came back, is no longer pregnant."
She doesn't have to say a word. That trial could still reasonably happen.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
except for the right to privacy and 5th amendment, she doesn't have to tell or admit anything. I'm not sure if doctor/patient relationship is similar to that of client/attorney but regardless the rights mentioned still stand as does HIPAA privacy.2 have ever been prosecuted, ever?as far as a body being commandeered unless a woman can grow 2 more arms, legs and in some cases a penis, I would say that body is a separate entity. Yes rights can be trumped by other's rights in some situations, I've already posted about that. My right to defend my life can trump your right to life in certain circumstances. Happens all the time, nothing new.There is no right to an abortion I don't believe Roe v Wade has ever been interpreted that way.if you attempt or do hurt yourself the state steps in then, you can't sell one of your kidneys, you can't have something removed so you could be considered "disabled" this bodily autonomy sees to have it's limits, could a conjoined twin have the other killed?But we both know what the intent of the law is and that it will never stand as it is, if at all. It's fun to discuss though.
Her saying or admitting something doesn't matter, some one (a family member, clergy member, friend, co-worker) could easily report her.
There is no moral law preventing an abortion. You can't sell a kidney, but you can definitely donate them. You can donate blood and marrow, too. Forcing a woman to carry is really no different than compelling citizens to donate plasma, the state is forcing the citizen to do something with their body they don't want to do under penalty of law.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Bills have been known to hold the woman liable for seeking an abortion, as well as responsible for the upkeep of the pregnancy, that being a terminated pregnancy (even if wholly natural) could call for an inquiry. Not only that, should the woman in question travel out of state to recieve the abortion, she is potentially a criminal when she returns.
As it stands (important turn of phrase), through force of law, women's bodies are being commandeered by the state at the behest of another party (the unborn). A specific onus is being placed, not just a ban of a certain medical procedure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
"Takeaway from the first link:
"Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self defense. Most self reported self defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society."
"Appeal to the constitution"
This example and the proceeding objection are hypocritical. If you are going to appeal to a "law", you can't arbitrarily choose which laws are the ones you decided to make your point.
Slavery, btw, was officially removed from the US via Constitutional convention. Not only due you attempt hypocrisy, you cherry pick it.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Nor do I, apologies.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Soldiers disagree with policy of leaders.
Film at 11.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I have often found that when the circumstance is "no problem", "no action" makes the best sense.
The short answer is always "spend money", but I would prefer to spend countless billions on people, people that track visas, maintain regular contact with trusted immigrants, more BP agents, more use of technology.
I am against a wall because of its environmental impact, and that it will more than likely require seizure of land via eminent domain in many cases. If Trump stated he wanted to increase the BP budget by 10 billion, I would be just fine with that. Its making an edifice that irks me.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
I don't 'need' to learn, I frankly just don't care about you being inconvenienced.
For the record, you are comparing a border patrol that is never more than 100 miles or so from a) a populated metropolitan area and b) from a major road way. How does that factor into your build costs, as well as deployment cost....
or did it factor in at all?
Right now you are putting a trooper roughly ever .1 mile. Dare I ask how said trooper got there? Or is this further information you haven't factored?
As has been sourced by the Dred pirate, wandering the desert is dangerous. 'Asylum' is the buzz word, and barring that, the vaaaaaast majority of illegal immigration comes through a port of entry.
This of course all is moot, considering over the past decade, immigrants traveling to the US from Mexico has been on a steady decline, no wall needed.
The best immigration policy would be one where the US actively attempts to work with those on our border rather than selling them guns, attempting to negotiate 'better deals', doesn't call their people thieves and rapists, doesn't intimate invasion under pretense of humanitarian aid in the same breath wondering about their oil, and engineering coups.
Anecdotally, have you actually looked around at the border? In some places, its no different than crossing the street in the US. There is no border fence, there is no throng of neer-do-wells running into the US. This issue is a total farce.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The physical barrier is the ocean and desert. As your article states, most migrants are presenting themselves at points of entry, trying to use asylum as an inroad.
I am not certain how a physical barrier deters using diplomatic negotations, or am I sure how the majority of illegal immigrants, those that over stay visas, are at all concerned about a wall.
If you think it was the democrats that 'blinked', I would suggest you review the various footages of Mexico paying for a wall, the PDF of Mexico stroking a check to pay for the wall, the government shut down that Trump proudly owned because he couldn't get a wall after 2 years of having majorities in the House and Senate, and the begging and pleading Trump asked of the Mexican president to hint he would pay for the wall.
Art of the Tantrum.
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
"Is this a joke comment? You're worried about providing a job that costs tens of thousands of dollars? You do realise that the U.S. taxpayer has to foot the bill of illegal immigrants getting public education, welfare benefits, and other benefits and services, all to the tune of roughly $54.5 BILLION a year? "
Shaddup and answer the question. You need to patrol 2K miles of wall, now, in perpetuity. How much have you offset?
"Mexico itself has a border wall to keep Guatemalans out. " --- makes you wonder how the caravan got past Mexico, then.
"
Even if the fence kept 50% of the illegals out, which would make it by far the worst wall out of all those above (and arguably the worst in human history), you'd still be saving $27.25 Billion.
Your lack of confidence is born from ignorance."
--- MORE than half the illegals here are because they overstayed a visa, dimwit. My lack of confidence is born from watching Israeli forces -continue- to battle (literally battle) an group of militarized (wonder how that happened....) forces outside said walls. That and this new fangled thing called "ropes", "chains", and "internal combustion engines".
You are asking for the largest modern day edifice yet built by man to be manned. 24 7. Please don't let that escape your thinking.
You need to pay people to patrol the wall. That is the bottom line. Said people will cost money, for as long as you would like to keep disastrous policy in force.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I give up, its your cheese, you describe the smell.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Do you feel as though a huge unmanned structure would prevent crossings to make it worth while?
56K a year is the cost, give or take, of a border patrol officer, time and and equipment depending.
I just don't have confidence in an edifice being a real deterrent, thats all.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Instead, the onus now falls on the victims of crime to instead take their injustice with force multipliers being absent their ability to acquire.
Prevent rapes by removing men's penises.
Worthy plan, right?
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
If the are rushing the standard points of entry, as said caravans seem to do, it makes the point of a border wall moot, and instead shifts it into larger ports of entry, manpower, facilities, etc.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Its your cheese, you describe the smell however you like, though just because people you don't agree with don't like him, it doesn't automatically mean Trump == good.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
What I do wasn't the topic here, why are you abandoning
your point when its absurdity is revealed? Or did I answer my own question?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why wait? Why spend the money? Why let some one whom lost a poll on the matter of being president do anything?
Naw, I like him yelling at other people when he had 2 years to build his wall. It shows a competent leader.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump lost that poll.
FYI.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
"There is certainly an I am better than you component "
Food for thought.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Isn't thinking what you think and what everyone else thinks are the same thing a trait of solipsism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Wasn't Mexico supposed to pay for it? I mean, if the funding portion was just a shameless empty, hollow campaign promise, lets just call the whole thing a big pandering attempt, akin to locking her up and draining the swamp.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Non-sequiturs can be informative even if they don't answer the question posed.
"None of your business" is a great answer as it adequately highlights the thrust of my suspicion, while eroding credibility of your assertions. More to wit: it either shows you a monster before said special revelation or lends to said revelation being more of a double down on your own self confessed arbitrary convictions.
Have a magical day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I am literally asking you what specific checks to your behavior occurred because of your following, and 4 times now you have deflected.
I suspect the answer you are desperately trying to evade from rendering is that either nothing changed, or nothing you could directly attribute to your personal and special revelation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You are still speaking in generalities, and I am beginning to suspect such is by design rather than miscommunication. What did you consider moral before your chosen following that you now consider immoral because of your following. What check to your behavior occurred specifically because of your following, and what actions do you have conflict with morally that you don't engage in because if your following?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You still aren't answering the question. I asked for personal anecdote as to when your personal view of a situation mis-aligned with whatever it is you follow.
Does such a time exist after you started to follow it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Or, hear me out here, the dude actually is slimy. I would think my son meeting with Russian operatives for the purpose of getting dirt on my opponent might have cleared that up. Now, the question behind that is realistically whether or not Trump asked for it to be done, is such conceivable, likely, or provable.
Look, I get it, the guy could pick bad actors. Like, real bad actors.
Or, said actors could be doing bad things with the expressed notion of being pardoned.
Or, said actors could have been given assurances.
Or Trump just doesn't vet his team, he is a helpless babe in the woods, all these bad actors that some how glommed on to him during his controversial rise to the top, against all odds and a crapload of Russian NRA funneled money... much akin to mafia Dons. Poor legit business entrepreneur sullied by a den of snakes that magically appeared.
In any case, none of that demonstrates what people might call "competency".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Don't mafia Dons enjoy the same variety of defense?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
In what ways do your God's morals and your morals differ such that it requires Him/It to check your behavior?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
I will appeal to common sense.Demonstration of breeding capacity need not control for preference, barring that the 50 women and 1 man, and the 50 men and 1 woman, are not likely/certain to produce the same amount of offspring (which, prima facie, is absurd. Feel free to prove otherwise).
50 women do NOT want to breed with a male whom has Down's syndrome.
The tragic part is that 50 men MIGHT want to breed with a female whom has Down's syndrome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Is your wife your employer? I daresay my point has been missed.
No, but we mutually enjoy the benefits of eachother's labors. Don't daresay that, I stand by my observation, your labors fruits are most recognized by some one downstream of your efforts.
My point here didn't address mate selection. My point addressed the effects of sexual dimorphism on reactions to male suffering. Please read it again.
I agree. Your point didn't address one of the most salient aspects of human sexuality: preference. Males have a preference. Females have a preference. The fifty male and one female vs fifty female and one male relation removed human preference. Is that something you care to address?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Okay, How to start.
1) NAWALT (not all women are like that)
The odds of this are pretty much confirmed, there are outliers to the stereotype.
To lend credence to the point, you need to say "enough women are like this..." which would really go miles to your observation.
2) Be a man
Whatever that means.
3) Work hard [for women]
Work hard, in general, or work smart in general. The nature of a capitalist society is you are working for some one else. Own the means of production, or choose whom shares the wealth of your ability.
4) Stop whining
Duh. If you have grievance, ground it in reality, demonstrate your issue.
RE the rest.... um... sure? Find me a random sampling of 50 men, I assure you, there will be some people you won't want to mate with.
Were I to supply you 50 women, do you have a preference, or do you have an order?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
There were no such polls dolly. They were fabricated lies.
The polls that mattered mirrored the sentiment. The majority of the voting population did not vote for Trump.
Its no wonder as to why the 'victory' margin of the opposition would be misconstrued, the polls in outcome got it right, the polls in percentage got it wrong.
Trump was simply not elected by a majority of the voting populace of this country.
I don't expect you to accept that, just like every other presidential winner this century that had an R next to their name. The majority of the population did not vote for them.
I am sure the take away for you will be grossly different that what the results should mean.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
So the answers are really
1) Captialism
2) 100 years of (currently unaccepted) capitalism
Yeah, that is a fallacious question, Ethan.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
And again you can't say.
Your incredulity is not an argument.
Sorry, you haven't given me a list of acceptable questions yet. But you did say the govt fights. Did you forget?
Yes, I said the government fights. 'Who' is but one subject, which may or may not be appropriate, as 'who' is not as important as the 'what', and the 'who' is subject to change, time and locale dependent, making it a poor subject of questioning. Don't worry, you should catch up. Eventually.
Can you smell the "big govt good" stench? Govt is working for our best interests and we don't know it.
Mouse in your pocket? Or "we" the collective "we" that are as poorly educated or under-researched as you in this subject matter?
Again, how can a worldview that requires you to lie be satisfying to you?
I will let you twist yourself into knots as to why you think "selective enforcement" = illegal activity. As I asked previously, if the highway patrolman doesn't pull over a speeder, is the patrolman engaging in illegal activity? You ignore this, but its the salient knock down to your your mental gymnastics.
Be sure to send me a list of the questions I should ask you
'appropriate' ones.
'germane' ones.
"How do you know..." is neither of those. If you feel the information is inaccurate, thats fine, I eagerly await how you think illegals are paid through major Ag businesses such as Tyson and Perdue, the likes of which are picked up in the story I linked you too, and I won't even ask "How you know....", because its inappropriate. You very well might have insight into illegals being paid through a perfectly valid TIN, or SSN, though I would question how that works, you know, an illegal immigrant being paid 'above' the table.
Not how you came by it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Answer the OP question please.
Your question is fallacious. Slaves were considered 'capital'.
Its like asking what makes orange juice, a juicer or an orange.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
How do you know?
Research. I am not interested in citing sources, I have seen where that gets with you, its just one huge rabbit hole of "liberal source, liberal source, liberal source".
I sure am ignorant about how you know someone is paying under the table.
So ICE conducts a raid, grabs a whole mess load of people (as mentioned in the article I gave you to spring board from), how do you think those illegals are being paid? They are gonna take their check down to First National, present ID, and cash it?
And again you can't say.
Your incredulity isn't an argument, I have no need to address it.
Fights who?
Wrong question. Engage your brain, and think of the right question, and come back to the table.
As their citizens oppose it?
Have you ever heard the term "fighting" or "voting" against one's own best interest?
How do you know this?
One again, your incredulity is not an argument, I have no need to address it.
No illegality by ICE was mentioned.
Did I say ICE was doing something illegal? Or did I say they cut a deal with Ag firms? A cop not pulling over a speeder doesn't mean he did something illegal, so it goes with ICE not rounding up work camps en masse.
"How do you know?" You dodged and pretended retardation.
I have no need to answer this, Ethan. Its not a counter point. If you have questions about the issue at hand, feel free to fire them off, I look forward to your questions. An appropriate question would be "Wait, how much, as an example was Ag companies subsidized", to which I would say something to the effect of "Well, in 2017, the dairy industry alone received something to the tune of 160 billion. You can understand why now Canadians don't want to trade fairly with the US, if the marketplace at the time now is valued well under 10 Billion." That would be an appropriate question.
You will have to tell us how you know the charges you make, or they will get dismissed as the unsupported trash they are.
I am afraid you will have to be content with the simple notion that "Some one knows more than you" or "some one has researched more than you" or "some one pays attention closer than you".
I answer oppositional points, not your incredulity.
Your resort now is to either "research", or sputter.
I am confident I know which you will choose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Still waiting for your exposition.
How do you know?
^ is that where you exposed something?
I think its your ignorance, not a hole in my point.
Cities have many more people than banks.
Surely, that is where something was exposed. Oh, wait, no, its something irrelevant.
How do you know this?
Not a typo, folks. Just asked it twice on his quest to expose something.
So, the majority of citizens who want illegal immigration stopped, don't like low food prices? But the omnibenevolent government is fighting to keep them fed? Against the evil banks and evil ICE?
Yes, the government fights to keep people fed. Ag is subsidized a huge amount, on top of selective enforcement when it comes to ICE raids. RE Evil banks, if you are referring to Perdue and Tyson, those companies that I mentioned as being "evil banks", I am confident indeed you have exposed something, inability to follow context being a portion of it.
A casual search on your end of "ICE raid" followed up with Perdue or Tyson should bring you up to a level you might be capable of continuing the discussion at.
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/20/us/tyson-foods-indicted-in-plan-to-smuggle-illegal-workers.html start here if you want a spring board.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
So let them in and then deny them jobs?
If that happened in the first place, they wouldn't keep coming.
Supply and demand is always at play. Some one is supplying jobs. Some one is paying under the table. Some one is giving people motivation to come here. Its really easy to harp on sanctuary cities when Perdue and Tyson pretty much have established their own bank to settle up with illegals on pay day.
ICE literally cuts deals with certain ag suppliers to take only a percentage of their labor force on any given raid.
Its almost like people are trying to keep the price of food unrealistically low, for some reason. Hm.
Created: