Another school shooting

[Dattier]

I haven’t defended everything the president has said and done. To claim I have is a gross overstatement and completely untrue. I’ve made it very clear that I dont agree with plenty of things he’s said.

But my point still stands. If Obama called MS-13 gang members animals, there wouldn’t be any outrage. None. Not a word other than probably praise. Trump does a good thing by calling them out for what they are, animals, and liberals are defending them. I don’t mind though, it’s only going to help Trump in the mid terms and in 2020.

No, I know you haven't defended him, and when you take a step back from it you've made distinctions between policies and personal behavior. But when in the moment he gets criticized and you deflect instead of conceding that the criticism is valid, it amounts to about the same thing.

Your hypothetical about President Obama is based on his being a completely different person. You can't change him but insist liberals support him anyway. You'd be closer to the mark if you used Hillary's "deplorable" comment, though I'd still point out numerous differences.

Nobody is defending MS-13. You have a tweet from some random, outlandish dude who says he'd rather his daughter marry one of them than a Republican, and you have the House Minority Leader and me objecting to the term "animals" applied to any person. It's not at all the same thing as defending MS-13.

 

[toonces11]

This is not directed at anyone, but I personally find it insane that people get up in arms around things total nobodies say. Even if the person is famous...its almost like "who gives a shit". People go after minute things people say and act like they should lose their job or their soul is unredeemable. In what world are you going to agree with everything somebody says? What kind of life is it to react so strongly to everything that rubs you the wrong way? A local yoga instructor here went on some retreat and took a really cool picture with an indian headress on---just a cool ass picture. She posted it on Facebook and you wouldn't believe the crazy ass SJ warriors clamoring about cultural appropriation and acting like this random picture disrespected 1000's of years of indian heritage. I mean---you couldn't even make some of these responses up for an SNL skit. What in the actual hell is going on in peoples brains.

 

[Dattier]

Lol this has to be a troll

Nope. I mean, I might be kind of flippant, but seriously, who other than IUBtown has been throwing around accusations of racism haphazardly? I've been talking about it, but he's the only one I recall actually accusing anyone of being a racist. You're exaggerating, and I'm calling you on it before it becomes the new so-called "truth."

 

[SNU0821]

No, I know you haven't defended him, and when you take a step back from it you've made distinctions between policies and personal behavior. But when in the moment he gets criticized and you deflect instead of conceding that the criticism is valid, it amounts to about the same thing.

Your hypothetical about President Obama is based on his being a completely different person. You can't change him but insist liberals support him anyway. You'd be closer to the mark if you used Hillary's "deplorable" comment, though I'd still point out numerous differences.

Nobody is defending MS-13. You have a tweet from some random, outlandish dude who says he'd rather his daughter marry one of them than a Republican, and you have the House Minority Leader and me objecting to the term "animals" applied to any person. It's not at all the same thing as defending MS-13.

I disagree. I think the labeling of MS-13 is completely warranted. And it's not like it's just a random, non important liberal making crazy statements about MS-13. Nancy Pelosi defended them. That is how I view it. They don't deserve to be defended. They don't get any benefit of any doubt. They don't get any pass. I agree with SHS that the term "animals" doesn't go far enough. Lots of democrats and lots of the main stream media took issue with Trumps statements. Only with Trump would that happen. That isn't some leap of faith. Step back and look that the situation on whole. The democrats are essentially defending the most brutal gang of our time. Really think about that. These are terrible people. Maybe I'm more harsh on this issue than you are, which is fine, but I see zero reason to take any exception to the terms used to describe MS-13. IMO, anyone who does (without completely explaining their thoughts like you did) is basically defending them.

 

[JimboBBN]

Nope. I mean, I might be kind of flippant, but seriously, who other than IUBtown has been throwing around accusations of racism haphazardly? I've been talking about it, but he's the only one I recall actually accusing anyone of being a racist. You're exaggerating, and I'm calling you on it before it becomes the new so-called "truth."

Maybe in this thread, we've had some posters I've never seen before come in the political threads and spew a bunch of bull crap, both left and right side. You can agree on that, right?

I'm just saying, I find it hilarious when one side calls out the other when more than likely they're being hypocritical and have done the same exact thing.

 

[dukedevilz]

Labeling MS-13 gang members as "animals" is totally uncalled for.

Calling cops, "pigs in a blanket" is totally cool.

When will Republicans learn? Whatever Trump criticizes, is inherently virtuous. Whatever Trump advocates, is inherently evil. Follow these simple guidelines and you'll always be in the right.

 

[Dattier]

I disagree. I think the labeling of MS-13 is completely warranted. And it's not like it's just a random, non important liberal making crazy statements about MS-13. Nancy Pelosi defended them. That is how I view it. They don't deserve to be defended. They don't get any benefit of any doubt. They don't get any pass. I agree with SHS that the term "animals" doesn't go far enough. Lots of democrats and lots of the main stream media took issue with Trumps statements. Only with Trump would that happen. That isn't some leap of faith. Step back and look that the situation on whole. The democrats are essentially defending the most brutal gang of our time. Really think about that. These are terrible people. Maybe I'm more harsh on this issue than you are, which is fine, but I see zero reason to take any exception to the terms used to describe MS-13. IMO, anyone who does (without completely explaining their thoughts like you did) is basically defending them.

I've said my piece about the label. Only the stubborn or dumb would not understand my reasoning and see my point. That leaves a lot of room for people to disagree and to use that label. If you recognize -- for example -- the need to find preventative measures and provide a means of getting out of gangs, I'm less concerned over what you call the guys who deserve severe legal consequences.

Again, no one defended MS-13. No one. You're doing the same thing to others you're accusing them of doing to our President. A few days ago, when some media were misrepresenting his statements as being about all immigrants, you had a point. Claiming an objection to labeling any human "animal" is the same as defending those people for what they've done is absolutely incorrect.

People could do a better job of explaining statements that could be misunderstood w/o elaboration, but we could also do a better job of not assuming the worst when we hear such statements.

It's not as if President Trump has been randomly selected to be treated differently. He's the President of the United States of America and he has a long history of saying irresponsible things. He made that bed for himself. President Obama got criticized for things he said out of context all the time despite no habit of saying outlandish, inflammatory things, so President Trump isn't really unique except in that there are pretty valid reasons people might jump to that conclusion.

 

[SNU0821]

I've said my piece about the label. Only the stubborn or dumb would not understand my reasoning and see my point. That leaves a lot of room for people to disagree and to use that label. If you recognize -- for example -- the need to find preventative measures and provide a means of getting out of gangs, I'm less concerned over what you call the guys who deserve severe legal consequences.

Again, no one defended MS-13. No one. You're doing the same thing to others you're accusing them of doing to our President. A few days ago, when some media were misrepresenting his statements as being about all immigrants, you had a point. Claiming an objection to labeling any human "animal" is the same as defending those people for what they've done is absolutely incorrect.

People could do a better job of explaining statements that could be misunderstood w/o elaboration, but we could also do a better job of not assuming the worst when we hear such statements.

It's not as if President Trump has been randomly selected to be treated differently. He's the President of the United States of America and he has a long history of saying irresponsible things. He made that bed for himself. President Obama got criticized for things he said out of context all the time despite no habit of saying outlandish, inflammatory things, so President Trump isn't really unique except in that there are pretty valid reasons people might jump to that conclusion.

Don't act like all presidents are treated equally. You think Obama or Clinton (for the most part) got treated the same way as Bush or Trump? Come on now. Not even close. The pure hate spewed at anything conservative or Trump is absolutely far and away more than anything I've ever witnessed in my lifetime. Honestly, it's a big reason why he's president.

 

[Dattier]

Maybe in this thread, we've had some posters I've never seen before come in the political threads and spew a bunch of bull crap, both left and right side. You can agree on that, right?

I'm just saying, I find it hilarious when one side calls out the other when more than likely they're being hypocritical and have done the same exact thing.

If we're talking "all-time," sure, I'll admit to having been quick w/ accusations of racism myself. At some point, we have to break the cycle of bringing up past incidents to justify extreme statements in the present -- the hypocrisy you mention.

 

[toonces11]

After Obama and Trump---man it would be nice to elect a universally likable guy.

 

[Dattier]

Don't act like all presidents are treated equally. You think Obama or Clinton (for the most part) got treated the same way as Bush or Trump? Come on now. Not even close. The pure hate spewed at anything conservative or Trump is absolutely far and away more than anything I've ever witnessed in my lifetime. Honestly, it's a big reason why he's president.

I think we notice the hate coming our way a lot more than the hate our side is throwing back. It's understandable, but something that should temper our perspective if we're aware of it.

GWBush was the first President whose tenure occurred entirely in the age of the Internet. That changed the game. Clinton dodged a bullet there. GWB also got us into two wars that were highly controversial and which became very unpopular. Obama got it really, really bad. From my perspective, it was so disproportionate to who he was that I will never be convinced a bigger portion than you're likely to admit had to do with race.

As far as I'm concerned, President Trump deserves the hate he gets. Does some of it go too far? Sure... just like he does. If you play that game, throwing wild, baseless accusations and name-calling at others, I think you lose any justification for whining when it happens to you in return. It's not that two wrongs make a right; it's more like you reap what you sow.

I don't think the primary responsibility for healing division falls on the people who are out of power. That kind of thing should come from the top, and President Trump has no interest in it.

 

[LetsGoDuke301]

Actually, she and I both have objected to calling anyone animals. I've thoroughly explained why and there's no reasonable objection to it, just a preference for something else.

Wow. We all know the real reason why you and Nancy object to MS-13 being called animals. It is only because Trump called them animals. Here he is talking about policies that focus on getting violent, dangerous and despicable thugs out of our country and you whack jobs deflect attention from that discussion to focus on him calling them animals. You and Nancy are disgusting people.

 

[Dattier]

Wow. We all know the real reason why you and Nancy object to MS-13 being called animals. It is only because Trump called them animals. Here he is talking about policies that focus on getting violent, dangerous and despicable thugs out of our country and you whack jobs deflect attention from that discussion to focus on him calling them animals. You and Nancy are disgusting people.

I missed the policy discussion. What did it entail?

 

[LetsGoDuke301]

I missed the policy discussion. What did it entail?

Ending sanctuary cities, funding for more law enforcement and having ICE agents at the jails in cities where MS 13 is prevalent so they can arrest them before they can ne released. Stuff like that.

 

[JimboBBN]

If we're talking "all-time," sure, I'll admit to having been quick w/ accusations of racism myself. At some point, we have to break the cycle of bringing up past incidents to justify extreme statements in the present -- the hypocrisy you mention.

I agree.

 

[SNU0821]

I think we notice the hate coming our way a lot more than the hate our side is throwing back. It's understandable, but something that should temper our perspective if we're aware of it.

GWBush was the first President whose tenure occurred entirely in the age of the Internet. That changed the game. Clinton dodged a bullet there. GWB also got us into two wars that were highly controversial and which became very unpopular. Obama got it really, really bad. From my perspective, it was so disproportionate to who he was that I will never be convinced a bigger portion than you're likely to admit had to do with race.

As far as I'm concerned, President Trump deserves the hate he gets. Does some of it go too far? Sure... just like he does. If you play that game, throwing wild, baseless accusations and name-calling at others, I think you lose any justification for whining when it happens to you in return. It's not that two wrongs make a right; it's more like you reap what you sow.

I don't think the primary responsibility for healing division falls on the people who are out of power. That kind of thing should come from the top, and President Trump has no interest in it.

I think this is fair.

 

[toonces11]

I think we notice the hate coming our way a lot more than the hate our side is throwing back. It's understandable, but something that should temper our perspective if we're aware of it.

GWBush was the first President whose tenure occurred entirely in the age of the Internet. That changed the game. Clinton dodged a bullet there. GWB also got us into two wars that were highly controversial and which became very unpopular. Obama got it really, really bad. From my perspective, it was so disproportionate to who he was that I will never be convinced a bigger portion than you're likely to admit had to do with race.

As far as I'm concerned, President Trump deserves the hate he gets. Does some of it go too far? Sure... just like he does. If you play that game, throwing wild, baseless accusations and name-calling at others, I think you lose any justification for whining when it happens to you in return. It's not that two wrongs make a right; it's more like you reap what you sow.

I don't think the primary responsibility for healing division falls on the people who are out of power. That kind of thing should come from the top, and President Trump has no interest in it.

I agree Trump has earned a ton of the hate based on his inability to have an ounce of tact. Ive said it before, but his idiocy undermines his policies which are actually pretty solid. Obama wasn't some innocent pawn though---he earned a lot of his "hate" thru terrible policies and using language that inflamed racial tension on the regular. Although worlds different then the type of language Trump used, it pissed off a huge chunk of americans----and gave us trump. I think race played a huge role in him being elected and a minor role in the amount of hate he received after being elected. I think people blindly voted for him based on skin color which is just as bad as voting against him b/c of skin color.

There is no defending Trump as a man in my mind--but that wasn't why he was elected. We needed someone to get stuff done. He is getting less done than i thought he would, but his policies trumped clinton's and easily bernies.

I think GWB was a better POTUS than Obama and trump combined, he just happened to be president when shit hit then fan and the war drug on and on. GWB was light years more likable and genuine than either of our last two presidents.

 

[Dattier]

Ending sanctuary cities, funding for more law enforcement and having ICE agents at the jails in cities where MS 13 is prevalent so they can arrest them before they can ne released. Stuff like that.

Local police in sanctuary cities are very much against ending that arrangement. They depend on trust w/in immigrant communities to investigate anything there.
The problem w/ ICE is that they may post up somewhere looking for specific people, but they end up grabbing anybody, similar to profiling. I've heard rumors they have quotas, so people who are low priority end up helping them meet that.

 

[SNU0821]

Local police in sanctuary cities are very much against ending that arrangement. They depend on trust w/in immigrant communities to investigate anything there.
The problem w/ ICE is that they may post up somewhere looking for specific people, but they end up grabbing anybody, similar to profiling. I've heard rumors they have quotas, so people who are low priority end up helping them meet that.

That's their job, to get illegals off the street. It's literally their job. If people don't want to get arrested by ICE, don't come in the country illegally. It's a real simple concept. They may not be specifically targeting some people, and some people may just get picked up in the normal course of business, but they have broken the law. It's very black and white. Break the law, you can get arrested. Simple as that. I also think the liberals are way overblowing this whole "trust" in the immigrant community thing.

 

[LetsGoDuke301]

Local police in sanctuary cities are very much against ending that arrangement. They depend on trust w/in immigrant communities to investigate anything there.
The problem w/ ICE is that they may post up somewhere looking for specific people, but they end up grabbing anybody, similar to profiling. I've heard rumors they have quotas, so people who are low priority end up helping them meet that.

If they are at jails and get an illegal immigrant that had been arrested that happened to not be the person they were looking for, does that bother you?

Anyways, that was not the intent on the conversation. If you would like to have that conversation, I will have it with you without any disrespect. I am closer to this issue than you probably realize, but it doesn't operate the same everywhere.

 

[Dattier]

That's their job, to get illegals off the street. It's literally their job. If people don't want to get arrested by ICE, don't come in the country illegally. It's a real simple concept. They may not be specifically targeting some people, and some people may just get picked up in the normal course of business, but they have broken the law. It's very black and white. Break the law, you can get arrested. Simple as that. I also think the liberals are way overblowing this whole "trust" in the immigrant community thing.

It really isn't that simple. We willfully turned a blind eye to undocumented immigration for decades b/c we needed the cheap labor. Life went on for those people and they have families, property, businesses, deep roots here. As a nation, we tacitly encouraged that. Going after people indiscriminately on the blind, simple basis of "they broke the law" is impractical, unreasonable, and cruel.

 

[SNU0821]

It really isn't that simple. We willfully turned a blind eye to undocumented immigration for decades b/c we needed the cheap labor. Life went on for those people and they have families, property, businesses, deep roots here. As a nation, we tacitly encouraged that. Going after people indiscriminately on the blind, simple basis of "they broke the law" is impractical, unreasonable, and cruel.

Breaking the law is breaking the law. End of story. Some are worse, some get enforced more than others but we can be arrested for all of them.

 

[LetsGoDuke301]

It really isn't that simple. We willfully turned a blind eye to undocumented immigration for decades b/c we needed the cheap labor. Life went on for those people and they have families, property, businesses, deep roots here. As a nation, we tacitly encouraged that. Going after people indiscriminately on the blind, simple basis of "they broke the law" is impractical, unreasonable, and cruel.

I don't believe we turned a blind eye because we needed cheap labor. Small business owners took advantage of cheap labor by illegally hiring illegal immigrants, sure. But are you suggesting that our government turned a blind eye by assisting businesses in cheating on taxes and hiring people who earn money without paying taxes? Doesn't seem legit.

 

[Dattier]

I don't believe we turned a blind eye because we needed cheap labor. Small business owners took advantage of cheap labor by illegally hiring illegal immigrants, sure. But are you suggesting that our government turned a blind eye by assisting businesses in cheating on taxes and hiring people who earn money without paying taxes? Doesn't seem legit.

 

[Dattier]

Breaking the law is breaking the law. End of story. Some are worse, some get enforced more than others but we can be arrested for all of them.

I guess we don't have anything left to discuss on this issue.

 

[LetsGoDuke301]

View embedded media

I am sorry, datt. But I watched that video and I am missing the part that backs up your claim.

 

[SNU0821]

I guess we don't have anything left to discuss on this issue.

And that’s alright man. You and I feel differently on this. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Dattier]

And that’s alright man. You and I feel differently on this. Nothing wrong with that.

As far as our discussion goes, that's fine. It's not purely an "agree to disagree" situation to me, though. The effect on immigration policy your position has is incredibly harmful, short-sighted, and cruel. I can drop the discussion, but I can't ever justify dropping the moral fight surrounding it.

I hope you'll choose to overlook whatever perceived disrespect toward your stance in favor of seeing the respect for you on a personal level in telling you the truth as I see it.

 

[SNU0821]

As far as our discussion goes, that's fine. It's not purely an "agree to disagree" situation to me, though. The effect on immigration policy your position has is incredibly harmful, short-sighted, and cruel. I can drop the discussion, but I can't ever justify dropping the moral fight surrounding it.

I hope you'll choose to overlook whatever perceived disrespect toward your stance in favor of seeing the respect for you on a personal level in telling you the truth as I see it.

No worries man. Totally cool.

 

[Dattier]

I am sorry, datt. But I watched that video and I am missing the part that backs up your claim.

You're probably looking for something using exact words addressing an idiosyncratic, literal facet of it all.

Let's skip an 8 post back-and-forth where I explain it repeatedly and thoroughly, then you nitpick and deny it and claim it's so typical of me.

Even if you could get it, you'd choose not to.

 

[LetsGoDuke301]

You're probably looking for something using exact words addressing an idiosyncratic, literal facet of it all.

Let's skip an 8 post back-and-forth where I explain it repeatedly and thoroughly, then you nitpick and deny it and claim it's so typical of me.

Even if you could get it, you'd choose not to.

I am trying to have an objective conversation with your dumb ass here. I honesty didn't get the message. I even apologized for not seeing it. You could elaborate on which part you say backs up your claim or you can be you (a dick). Of all the people on this board, YOU are the last one who needs to accuse anyone of nitpicking.

 

[Dattier]

...your dumb *** here....be you (a ****)...

I'm so inspired to engage...

 

[LetsGoDuke301]

I'm so inspired to engage...

That's where we're at. You may as well stop quoting me. I only engage in you when you quote me. Not the other way around. You're a fraud.

 

[Big_Blue79]

I don't believe we turned a blind eye because we needed cheap labor. Small business owners took advantage of cheap labor by illegally hiring illegal immigrants, sure. But are you suggesting that our government turned a blind eye by assisting businesses in cheating on taxes and hiring people who earn money without paying taxes? Doesn't seem legit.

Yes, by effectively ending any enforcement on companies known to hire illegal immigrants (which has the effect of increasing demand). This was a big issue in the first GWB term. Literally turning a blind eye because businesses requested it:

"The government's steady retreat from workplace enforcement in the 20 years since it became illegal to hire undocumented workers is the result of fierce political pressure from business lobbies, immigrant rights groups and members of Congress, according to law enforcement veterans."

 

[LetsGoDuke301]

Yes, by effectively ending any enforcement on companies known to hire illegal immigrants (which has the effect of increasing demand). This was a big issue in the first GWB term. Literally turning a blind eye because businesses requested it:

"The government's steady retreat from workplace enforcement in the 20 years since it became illegal to hire undocumented workers is the result of fierce political pressure from business lobbies, immigrant rights groups and members of Congress, according to law enforcement veterans."

I don't feel like that necessarily backs up the claim that the government turned a blind eye to take advantage of cheap labor more than it shows them catering to lobbyists and special interests. Which I guess is splitting hairs on the topic. Either way, I don't agree with said policies and feel like we need to correct some wrongs on all ends.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

If we're talking "all-time," sure, I'll admit to having been quick w/ accusations of racism myself. At some point, we have to break the cycle of bringing up past incidents to justify extreme statements in the present -- the hypocrisy you mention.

Hell, I readily agree that I am racist. To resist is stupid.


I am racist because:

I look white
I live in the South
I do not speak Spanish Jose
I was born in the United States
I voted for Trump
I voted for Rand Paul
I voted for Mitch McConnell
I am a member of the NRA
I stand for the National Anthem
I am a capitalist
I earned a living
I did not major in sociology
I don’t like rap
I think Muhammad was a horrible prophet
I send money to politicians that I agree with

 

[Big_Blue79]

I don't feel like that necessarily backs up the claim that the government turned a blind eye to take advantage of cheap labor more than it shows them catering to lobbyists and special interests. Which I guess is splitting hairs on the topic. Either way, I don't agree with said policies and feel like we need to correct some wrongs on all ends.

Thanks for sharing.

I think it's the exact same thing, but I'd accept a rewrite of the proposition as: The government acted at the behest of businesses that wanted to take advantage of cheap labor. Agreed that such a policy is dumb. If the disastrous war on drugs taught us nothing else, it should be that going after (and demonizing) supply without addressing demand will end in failure.

 

[Dattier]

That's where we're at. You may as well stop quoting me. I only engage in you when you quote me. Not the other way around. You're a fraud.

I don't feel like that necessarily-

RollLaugh
See how pointless it is to try, @Big_Blue79 ?

 

[Dattier]

Hell, I readily agree that I am racist. To resist is stupid.


I am racist because:

I look white
I live in the South
I do not speak Spanish Jose
I was born in the United States
I voted for Trump
I voted for Rand Paul
I voted for Mitch McConnell
I am a member of the NRA
I stand for the National Anthem
I am a capitalist
I earned a living
I did not major in sociology
I don’t like rap
I think Muhammad was a horrible prophet
I send money to politicians that I agree with

No on 12 of them, maybe some connection on 3 of them.

 

[Dattier]

Another another-school-shooting...