Total posts: 1,971
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
*slow clap*
Wow. You may have just outdone yourself with this latest post of yours. You haven’t read the sophist playbook; I am now convinced you wrote the damned thing. I almost wonder which of us is the greater glutton for punishment— me, for wasting my time on your sophistry, or you, for enduring my (and others’) obvious frustration and exasperation with your sophistry. Only “almost” because sophists don’t endure punishment unless it is worth it to accomplish the goal of dominating others while simultaneously appearing legit and virtuous. The next step in the playbook is to claim projection.
This is why I've been asking... What is the point you are trying to make with this example?
No, this isn’t why. My point is peppered throughout this thread for anyone as curious and honest as they purport to be (more on that bolder word later). No, you continue to ask as a way to invalidate and avoid examining any and every point I might be making. It’s in your playbook.
Even now, you neglected to quote or address my first paragraph of the post you respond to currently. It’s no wonder, either, because it is an aspect of my point! You fail to take on a lot of what I post. You would rather pretend I didn’t say quite a few salient things.
You've answered it to a certain extent but not to the point where a meaningful dialog can be had, hence the seemingly contradictory statements. But depending on the actual topic, both are correct.
Here, you masterfully offer an olive branch of sorts, purporting (there’s that word again) to seek “meaningful dialog.” You may have your ideological compatriots fooled, but that’s about it. Actually, you might not even be fooling them; it is highly plausible that they just enjoy seeing “the Re-pube-lican getting owned!” You know, like you accuse me of solely wanting to “own the libs!”
“Depending on the actual topic”— again, implying I have no central focus AND using that as a means to justify your blatant contradiction. Well played!
If the point is merely that story X was reported and story X turned out to be false, then the former is what I accept and the conversation stops there. No reason to talk about what the video purports to show.
You already pretended this was the case at one point in this thread. “The conversation stops there” is a polite characterization of what you do. Rather, you make a parting shot such as “So, you really have nothing meaningful to say, really.” It’s in the playbook. It didn’t end there because I called you out on embellishing (aka lying for added effect), and you “ducked, dived, dipped, and dodged.” (From Dodgeball) All in the interests of having a productive, meaningful conversation, of course.
Here’s where I address the word “purport” again. People purport, not things. I have used the word properly earlier to demonstrate the proper context of it. You make it sound as though the video possesses some sentient intent to mislead its audience. Video can be edited by people, though— people who “purport” to show something other than what might be the case.
It’s as if you blame the video for being dishonest. “It wasn’t the journalists saying whipping occurred, it wasn’t the VP. It was the video’s fault! Blame the video!”
If the topic is about journalistic integrity and whether that was exercised here, the former is irrelevant and the latter becomes a valid point.The difference between these two statements is about what point in time we are pointing to. In the immediate aftermath of the video's surfacing we did not have the benefit of an internal investigation which included analyzing other angles that ICE was able to later attain nor interviews with the agents or other witness statements. We had the video, that's it. So the media did what it's supposed to do, report.
You misunderstand the whole framework at play here. To elucidate:
Forget about the internal ICE investigation for a moment. It seems you were unaware of it anyway until I cited it. When I first watched the video(s) of the alleged whipping, I knew that the “journalists” were framing it in a sensationalized manner. Embellishing, as one might say. I, and others, did not need to the internal investigation to tell us what did or didn’t happen. I saw… an absence of whipping occurring! As such, that story serves as a glaring example of propagandistic journalism. Using plausible deniability and a hint of misbehavior to then overstate what is happening. Again, something you think only right leaning outlets do. That is quite naive.
So, I cited that as an example of misleading journalism. Here’s the thing: if not for the investigation and its conclusions, it would have just been your word against mine on this forum. And that is precisely what happened before I made you aware of the investigation’s exonerating results. When I called out the whipping claim as false (ie misleading, suggestive, irresponsible, etc.), you came (over)confidently back with “There were instances of this happening.”
And it would have been your word against mine if not for the third party, objective result of the investigation stating, “No, Double R, there were not instances of whipping happening.” An honest person might reassess, recalibrate, and think “Gee, I was a bit eager to believe that law enforcement was involved in slave era type brutality. Maybe the media is helping to create and exploit preconceived notions in their audience.”
No, your response is “I believe my lying eyes! Police whipping black people was a perfectly valid interpretation… at the time!” Even now, you attempt to frame your interpretation of the video as being just as reasonable and discerning as mine. Perhaps even superior, from the standpoint of compassion for the victims of law enforcement. Unbelievable. Well, actually it should be believed. It’s in the playbook.
Here is what you can’t get around: the media did not HAVE to say that border agents whipped migrants, especially with the meager evidence they had. Calling it whipping was… wait for it… a hasty assumption— what Denzel Washington was talking about. What this whole tedious line of discussion is about.
Honest headlines (perhaps a contradiction in terms, but you sure believe them!) might look like:
“Border agents wave their reins at migrants”
“Border agents twirl their reigns at migrants”
“Border agents chase migrants on horseback”
“Border agents corral migrants into river”
“Border agents use questionable tactics”
Wait, silly me. You WILL get around all this, just not in a way that reflects a desire for “meaningful discussion.” It’s just boring.
Created:
Posted in:
Shit like this just sucks. Transmitting a virtual hug to you and his family, and I would shake the hand of the man who did his best to save him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Care to cite that? I would generally agree. I mean, I would have seen the Civil War at the time as pretty much an outright failure of our constitutional government. We have always had basically 2 parties, but they have always been rooted in post Enlightenment classical liberalism. Alas, an anti liberal undercurrent has been gaining momentum for decades now. George Floyd’s murder has really been a catalyst for it. But that… is a whole other can of worms…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You are SO close! And I don’t even mean that sarcastically. Stay tuned…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Does “ACAB” mean anything to you? Preconceived biases (they are what people bring with them, in this case, to a clickbait headline story) are a thing, and too many people lack discernment. Even more unfortunate, VP Harris is chief among them.
Unsurprisingly, you are framing this in two opposing ways simultaneously, depending upon which is more convenient at a point in time. You claim to accept the findings of the investigation which concluded that no whipping occurred. You also claim that video evidence shows whipping occurring. How you handle the cognitive dissonance, I can only speculate. From your demonstrated MO, one plausibility is that you don’t actually believe one of those opposing claims. Which one? It’s a 50/50 chance at this point…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I can only accept an “Amen!”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No, only right wing media values profits over truthfulness. Can I get an “Amen!”?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You forgot to mention "heavily cherry picked".
No, no cherries. Sour grapes? Most likely.
You conveniently left out that part where I acknowledged that the correction which came later on was most likely accurate
Patently false. Your selective reading comprehension strikes again!
or how I repeatedly asked you to explain what your point was to which you had no answer except to keep going right back to this techinal falsehood within the story
*sigh* Yet again, I have addressed this. You just don’t accept it. So you can stop lying now (or can you?). Initially, I knew you wouldn’t accept any point I was making, so I simply said, “You do you.” Which you have! Second time you asked, I directed you to re-examine the discussion you chimed in on. You did not, so initial suspicion confirmed. Third time you asked, I directed you towards relevant posts, which you ignored. Initial suspicion reconfirmed. If you can’t be bothered or told, why should I be bothered to tell you?
except to keep going right back to this techinal falsehood within the story, and how I stopped responding to you altogether because it was obvious you weren't interested in a meaningful conversation - until you started to pretend that the tool the agents were using was the point.
Dude, you were called out for embellishing a story to an even greater extent than the media itself, and instead of owning up to it, whereupon the conversation could then move onward and upward, you attempted to dodge and dismiss it as being beside your point entirely. Balderdash. And blame me for sidetracking the discussion. Utter gall. If it were completely beside your point, why embellish (in other words, lie) in the first damn place?
This is not serious comportment… not seriously honest comportment, that is. It’s not even a one off; it’s a tediously predictable mode of operation.
“Whipping" is an often used colloquialism, most people have never used or even seen an actual whip in real life let alone understand how one works, instead the term is often used to describe that type of motion regardless of the tool being used so the idea that people were "lied to" by the use of this term is just plain stupid.
You really should know better than this. In fact, I think you do know better, but it would hurt your case. “Whipping,” as applied to black people, evokes a shameful history. Similarly, a noose, as applied to black people, evokes a shameful history. Black paint on a white person’s face evokes a shameful history. You know all this.
Then, add the fact that whipping wasn’t even occurring! And you have… what? Border agents being utilized improperly and using techniques they weren’t taught to use, such as twirling their reins.
“Invoking the historical imagery of an “agent of white supremacy” using a whip on a defenseless black person is surely intended to evoke a visceral response and sense of outrage”
It wasn't invoked genius, it's what the video showed. You don't have to agree with why people were upset about it but stop pretending it was because of people being "lied to" about which tool was being used.
You have a low standard of evidence for things you want to believe and a high standard of evidence for things you don’t want to believe. That isn’t unique to you; that’s part of the human condition. I think I even said this elsewhere in the thread, and it’s part of my point you refuse to accept. Knowing this aspect of the human psyche, you should guard against such bias where possible.
If the various media headlines said, “Border patrol agents twirl [or wave] their reins at migrants” then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. No, media felt the need to evoke American slave era imagery instead. That is clickbait and provocative rhetoric rather than good reporting. We are at an impasse. Surprise! I can agree to disagree on this. Can you? Or must you be “right”?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The point is that it isn’t about the tool; it’s about how it is wielded. (That’s what she said)
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
There are two kinds of people: those who constantly repeat themselves, and those who constantly repeat themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
“It doesn’t matter if a Cracker has a whip or horse reins? Who in the world said that?”
-Kunta Kinte
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Boy, ya gotta hand it to Spinspeare. He was smart as a whip!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
That is a field of strawmen there. It might not even be an exaggeration to say that the sophists of yore could have learned a thing or two from your posts here. They display a cunning at shifting the frame and original basis of a discussion which deserve a tribute of sorts. So here it is, a distilled, only slightly humorized summary of this discussion along with supporting source posts:
Me: One particularly glaring example of media being on the wrong side of a story is the “Border patrol whips migrants” headline. Clearly, media outlets were invoking the “white slave driver whipping black slaves” historical imagery to great emotional effect with this, even triggering the Biden administration to demand an investigation, but it was merely provocative sensationalism as opposed to good, truthful reporting.
You: There were instances of border agents whipping migrants.
Me: Really?? How can you claim this? I can even supply an article debunking the claim.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9760-lets-face-it-maga-voters-are-stupid?page=4&post_number=93
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9760-lets-face-it-maga-voters-are-stupid?page=5&post_number=145
You: Well, one can see how a rational observer would come to this conclusion initially. I mean, there were border agents armed with whips and threatening to whip migrants. One can even observe how a migrant’s head snapped back, and he stumbled after possibly being struck by a whip, or at least from trying to avoid getting whipped. He may even have sustained whiplash.
But I see that ICE later investigated itself and has cleared itself of any whipping. Honest debater that I am, unlike *ahem* some people, I can accept these findings.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9760-lets-face-it-maga-voters-are-stupid?page=4&post_number=102
Me: So… what makes you think there were actual whips involved?
You: I’m not answering your obviously loaded, “gotcha” question, Mr. “You who projects all his own flaws and trickery onto me.” As I clearly said to another poster, the point is, and always has been, that the border agents comported themselves poorly! What strap or whip or even candy rope they may or may not have had matters not one iota. Like… Dur!!
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9760-lets-face-it-maga-voters-are-stupid?page=5&post_number=144
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9760-lets-face-it-maga-voters-are-stupid?page=5&post_number=148
Me: https://youtu.be/HNy--_r5eW0?si=fAYAZCGBxZhq7vtW
Get yourself your own show on MSNBC prime time already!
Me: One particularly glaring example of media being on the wrong side of a story is the “Border patrol whips migrants” headline. Clearly, media outlets were invoking the “white slave driver whipping black slaves” historical imagery to great emotional effect with this, even triggering the Biden administration to demand an investigation, but it was merely provocative sensationalism as opposed to good, truthful reporting.
You: There were instances of border agents whipping migrants.
Me: Really?? How can you claim this? I can even supply an article debunking the claim.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9760-lets-face-it-maga-voters-are-stupid?page=4&post_number=93
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9760-lets-face-it-maga-voters-are-stupid?page=5&post_number=145
You: Well, one can see how a rational observer would come to this conclusion initially. I mean, there were border agents armed with whips and threatening to whip migrants. One can even observe how a migrant’s head snapped back, and he stumbled after possibly being struck by a whip, or at least from trying to avoid getting whipped. He may even have sustained whiplash.
But I see that ICE later investigated itself and has cleared itself of any whipping. Honest debater that I am, unlike *ahem* some people, I can accept these findings.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9760-lets-face-it-maga-voters-are-stupid?page=4&post_number=102
Me: So… what makes you think there were actual whips involved?
You: I’m not answering your obviously loaded, “gotcha” question, Mr. “You who projects all his own flaws and trickery onto me.” As I clearly said to another poster, the point is, and always has been, that the border agents comported themselves poorly! What strap or whip or even candy rope they may or may not have had matters not one iota. Like… Dur!!
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9760-lets-face-it-maga-voters-are-stupid?page=5&post_number=144
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9760-lets-face-it-maga-voters-are-stupid?page=5&post_number=148
Me: https://youtu.be/HNy--_r5eW0?si=fAYAZCGBxZhq7vtW
Get yourself your own show on MSNBC prime time already!
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Sorry— that is not one of the two choices.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I couldn’t have put it better myself.
So, between the good choice and the bad choice, my advice is to choose the good choice.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
As Duke Ellington once said, “There are only two types of music: good and bad.”
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Ha, he’s violating the constitution
Well then, I stand corrected. You don’t believe our current president is morally and ethically unassailable. But I did say “perhaps.”
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You seem to live in a simple world of moral clarity with straightforward solutions. Perhaps you believe our current president is morally and ethically unassailable. I don’t find myself in your simple world. Hence, I grade politicians on a curve. I have no other choice. What is really sad here is that I do you the courtesy of posting an honest remark on your thread (ha! Silly, silly me…) and you repay my honesty with an assumptive, accusatory question. Not that I am all that surprised; just disappointed that you kill the rabbit every chance you get.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ah, then the symbolic point broke an altitude record over that critic’s head, apparently. It happens… a lot…
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Just found this critique of the movie behind your avatar. I’m surprised he doesn’t mention “The Producers” as a point of comparison.
Created:
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
But you still support him. Why?
You are establishing an incorrect premise here— that Trump is my #1 person of choice. This is a thread on Ramaswamy, is it not? You seem to be attempting to derail your own thread. Why? (Actually, I know why, so no answer needed nor desired)
Created:
I have to say that I’m not a fan of companies which fleece their shareholders. If that is sadly the case, there’s always DeSantis! Actually, the list I would put ahead of Biden/Harris is rather lengthy…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
From the memoir of American writer Thomas Chatterton Williams:
“… the most shocking aspect of today’s mainstream antiracist discourse is the extent to which it mirrors ideas of race— specifically the specialness of whiteness— that white supremacist thinkers cherish. “Woke” antiracism proceeds from the premise that race is real— if not biological, then socially constructed and therefore equally if not more significant still— putting it in sync with the toxic presumption of white supremacism that would also like to insist on the fundamentalists of racial difference. Working toward opposing conclusions, racists and many anti racists alike eagerly reduce people to abstract color categories, all the while feeding off of and legitimizing each other, while any of us searching for gray areas and common ground get devoured twice.”
“… the most shocking aspect of today’s mainstream antiracist discourse is the extent to which it mirrors ideas of race— specifically the specialness of whiteness— that white supremacist thinkers cherish. “Woke” antiracism proceeds from the premise that race is real— if not biological, then socially constructed and therefore equally if not more significant still— putting it in sync with the toxic presumption of white supremacism that would also like to insist on the fundamentalists of racial difference. Working toward opposing conclusions, racists and many anti racists alike eagerly reduce people to abstract color categories, all the while feeding off of and legitimizing each other, while any of us searching for gray areas and common ground get devoured twice.”
Created:
I’m a poet and didn’t know it, but Longfellow’s feet show it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
After I say this:
“Invoking the historical imagery of an “agent of white supremacy” using a whip on a defenseless black person is surely intended to evoke a visceral response and sense of outrage, which it surely did. Mission accomplished and with no apologies offered to the falsely accused. You know, a propaganda tactic only right wing media is supposed to resort to.”
You respond with this:
You can watch that video and take no issue with it all you want, that doesn't mean it didn't resonate with many people and no one who watched the video and took issue with it would have changed their minds if someone came along and said "duh those aren't whips those are split reins".
It must be your selective reading comprehension again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Back to where it started then. My original claim of a media false claim:
“9. ICE whipping migrants”
Your response:
There were instances of this. How heavily it was reported compared to how often it was happening I don't know.
Since then, it has just been backpedaling and goalpost adjustment attempts on your part rather than good faith retraction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Loaded question? These are your words:
Ok, so at the time a video surfaces showing ICE agents chasing migrants with whips…
I don’t confuse your weak sauce backpedaling for you never having made the claim as you seem to wish. I’m not one of those who simply watched a video and readily believed that agents of our oppressive, heteronormative patriarchy were keeping defenseless black people in line by mercilessly whipping them, presumably pining for the “good ole days” when a proud white man could do so with impunity and even solely for sport. I try to avoid jumping to conclusions.
Invoking the historical imagery of an “agent of white supremacy” using a whip on a defenseless black person is surely intended to evoke a visceral response and sense of outrage, which it surely did. Mission accomplished and with no apologies offered to the falsely accused. You know, a propaganda tactic only right wing media is supposed to resort to.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
What you point out here is similar to my thoughts posted in another thread on this subject:
“The severity seems to be what is most difficult to predict. My issues with mitigation strategies are:
1. Be careful that the mitigation measures are worthwhile, and that they don’t end up being as consequential as the problem itself.
2. The human race has shown itself much more adept at adaptation rather than prevention.
3. The globe basically shut down for over a year, and it barely made a dent in mitigating climate change. If that didn’t do much, what will?”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
“How do you substantiate your belief that there were, in fact, whips involved?”
Your lack of an answer leads me to conclude that some video footage provided sufficient evidence in your view of the presence of whips and the inexcusable whipping of people. Your standard of evidence, and that of the journalists involved as well as the Whitehouse, for what constitutes an act of an agent of the federal government whipping defenseless people seems to be rather low— too low to be consistent with reality, as it turned out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Who would you like to see get the Republican nomination out of the current field?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You might be right, but Romney is not a good example because he won the Republican nomination in 2012.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
He has handled himself well in every interview I have seen, whether it be hostile or agreeable… which is why he must be stopped.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
As a government outsider whose popularity is steadily rising, it is imperative that he be sidelined by any means necessary.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
It is very hard to secure. And even if you could, the ramifications would be dire. Much of the US' food production is reliant on imported labor, much of it from illegals. If the border were magically secure tomorrow, american food production would plummet, companies would go bankrupt, and food prices would jump.
I like the idea of a secure border because I want a nation to have control over what becomes a part of it. I want a nation’s laws to have meaning and importance. But as you point out, I have wondered if we are a nation with several industries virtually dependent upon “under the table” labor, such as farming, construction, maid services, and landscaping. It creates a de facto “B tier” pay scale system with various positive and negative ramifications for individuals and society. Is that sort of system a net benefit overall? I doubt anyone could agree for sure on that. It is a generally accepted hypocrisy in any case.
I think a core of the problem here is that the legal immigration path is broken. It is possible to immigrate legally of course, but there are many hurdles to jump though and it takes lots of time and money to do so. So if you only want doctors, mechanics, engineers etc, then the current system is cumbersome, but workable. But for people who want to move to america to do low end jobs, (janitors, working on farms etc), the system is a shit show. You aren't going to be able to stop people from trying to come illegally as long as it is effectively impossible for them to come legally. People want a better life, and if you tell them you will never be allowed to have one, they will find their own way.
The legal immigration system can be fixed of course, but there is no political will to do so. Both republicans and democrats benefit from the status quo. The democrats can point to those heartless, racist, republicans and use it to fundraise. The republicans can point to the open border, illegal loving, communists and use it to fundraise and fear monger. Neither side actually wants any sort of fix to the problem.
Well stated and agreed.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
It is a very large issue with alot of nuance. I think there should be border checkpoints. I think fencing in certain areas makes sense. I think there should be checks on goods passing through the border. You will need to be more specific on your question.
Indeed, it is a complex issue. You said, “I think there are some security measures that would make sense,” and I was just wondering what those proposed measures were. You mainly gave me measures that have already been in place for decades. As for a more specific question, in what certain areas does fencing make sense?
ok. And all countries have tariffs and/or trade restrictions. There isn't a single country on the planet that allows unrestricted trade. So yeah, they are a requirement.
I think we are talking at cross purposes on this. I am making the point that tariffs aren’t absolutely required for trade to occur. With that truism, I am describing a concept of free trade. You are saying that tariffs must be enforced in a world which almost universally charges tariffs so as to have a more level playing field. With that, you are describing a concept of fair trade. Not a real sticking point on the border issue in any case. Tariff policy is actually a whole other can of worms.
The US has miles and miles of border fencing, border patrols etc. That is hardly "token security".
Recall that you were asking me what constitutes a “looser border,” and I answered. You did not ask me how I would describe our current border enforcement, which seems to be the mistaken assumption you are operating under in the above response.
there is no answer to that. Switzerland's situation is very different to the US'. Mexico's situation is very different to Canada. Trying to boil it down to "which country has the right amount of security" is not going to work. No two countries have the same situation.
Ok. I just find that the US is often criticized devoid of any meaningful larger context. I am a believer in learning from other people’s mistakes and successes.
what is the level of security you think is correct? what specific policies do you think would achieve that?
Like yourself, I’m no expert on this subject. I am beginning to wonder if there is such a person. I think our border should be more secure than it is, with more agents who are properly supported to do their job effectively. I think illegal immigration is too incentivized and that those incentives need to be reduced where possible. I think immigration should be a matter of national enrichment, not a show of global charity.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
this is a common argument for disingenuous people. they point some of sort of problem, sometimes it's made up, sometimes it's wildly exaggerated, sometimes it's even legitimate. But usually they don't make a legitimate argument for addressing that problem. Take trump, he drummed up fear of evil convoys that were invading america. This was wildly exaggerated, almost to the point of being made up. But his solution, building a wall in the middle of nowhere, was stupid. It wouldn't actually address the issue, and the issue itself was wildly overblown just to make people afraid.
I am simply trying to ascertain what it is you believe about border security devoid of the partisan hackery, so you needn’t waste the keystrokes on my account. If you simply need to shake your fist rhetorically and often, then by all means…
I think there are some security measures that would make sense.
Such as?
If you don't know what goods are coming into your country then these tariffs cannot be enforced.
Tariffs are not required for trade. To the contrary, they are intended to be a restriction on trade.
what does looser borders mean to you?
Token security, if any, outside of ports of entry;
Do you use this to mean higher legal immigration numbers? Do you mean less enforcement on illegal immigrants? Do you mean reduced border checks on goods? Do you mean lower or non existent tariffs on incoming goods?
Pretty much. Just so you don’t get the wrong idea— I’m not advocating on behalf of said think tanks. I’m just letting you know they exist and that they… think about these things.
To go back a bit:
every country in the world has border security
Which nations have nearly the ideal level of border security in your view, and is it possible and desirable to be emulated by the US?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
It is a requirement for basic safety, trade etc.
People who threaten “basic safety” are getting into the country now. Do we need more effective border security? How is border security a requirement for trade? Some think tanks want looser borders (I know you don’t care for that phrase, but I simply don’t know what terms you will respect on this subject) to invigorate trade.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You know who had excellent grammar? Hitler. Which is why he founded the elite SS:
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
But there is virtually no one who advocates for an open border.
Here’s one organization which you apparently don’t believe exists:
there are certainly arguments for a loose border. But that is a very vague term that could mean almost anything. An open border is 100% just a political term. It's something rightwing assholes say that means whatever they want it to mean. Like saying someone is "woke". It's just a term used to attack people without saying anything substantive.
You think the above cited organization is a right wing asshole organization? It uses the term “open borders.”
Seeing as how you don’t like the words I used in my previous question, I’ll rephrase it: why have border security?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Yes. But if you read the article I provided, you can see this seemingly polytheistic belief summarized thusly:
“First and foremost, the central truth that you must now grasp at the very outset is that all these seemingly different deities are actually varied manifestations of that One Supreme Godhead.”
In other words, what Ramaswamy proposes does not constitute a violation of, or “shitting upon,” Hindu belief. Whatever the case may be, I tend to view countless religious claims as unprovable and unfalsifiable.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Got nothing to substantiate your accusation, then?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
since literally no one has advocated an "open border", this is a stupid thing to say.
“Literally no one”? Or do you mean “no one of import,” as in not “literally”? There are several think tanks and organizations which advocate for open or “loose” borders.
In any case, why not have open or loose borders?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Hindus believe there are multiple Gods. He’s a Hindu.
Who says? That depends upon who/what you consider an authority on “true” Hinduism, doesn’t it?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
How is he shitting on his religion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Don’t forget about the very lucrative speech circuit and book deals. I mean, Biden has earned as much as $200k for a single speech! Is that surprising? Let’s see an example of his inspirational style and charisma:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe they were “rat tails”? When properly made and snapped, those can really smart!
Created: