Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Another school shooting

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
    There is a portion of incompetents that will let other incompetents to do tremendous damage. I disagree with you that the majority of people in the business of keeping incompetents from using firearms, are somehow "dropping the ball". If it were more than 5% that were burnouts or dimwits (psychologists, law enforcement, judges, etc.) we'd have a lot more shootings, IMHO.

    The press, if they were doing their job, could give the public an idea of how effective the "firearm filter" might be, if they took all the cases of denied sales to ex-cons and mentally unstable, added cases where adjudication identified others, and gave us a "what if". What if only 10% of those cases of denied sales and other legal restrictions against incompetents, would have resulted in a mass shooting of at least 3 people? We could have a number that would be well into the thousands, if there were simply no enforcement. That is the comparison, between enforcement of effective laws, and non-enforcement for whatever reason.
    Good points and it probably can't hurt.

    My skepticism of people given power of any kind, over other people will always remain though.

    ?


    • Originally posted by redrover View Post
      There are stories in the Washington Post asking why is the Right unwilling to admit that children are being put in cages? I don't want to pay to read it because I already know why the Right won't admit it. Once the last of the World war generations passes they will be able to break out the swastikas with impunity.
      "the Right" (whomever THEY are) won't admit it because it is not happening...and you are the only one breaking out the swastikas that I'm seeing.

      ?


      • Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

        "the Right" (whomever THEY are) won't admit it because it is not happening...and you are the only one breaking out the swastikas that I'm seeing.
        He does enjoy talking about Hitler, Nazis and dictators doesn't he ?

        Yes.

        In the meantime, we're seeing more lies from the media being exposed.

        Being exposed as the fake news, emotional manipulators the media is.

        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Fake news scores another one: Crying migrant child in photo never separated from her mother

        Score one for the power of fake news.

        We already know it was going on with the manufactured crisis over child separations of people caught breaking U.S. law by entering the country illegally. The policies were Democrat policies, yet Democrats and Jeb Bush-style #NeverTrumps were decrying it as a product of President Trump's heartlessness, separating parents from children entering illegally as families, in order to keep the children out of their parents' jail. Yet they were President Obama's and President Bush's and President Clinton's policies, dating to 1997. The press pounded the drumbeat nonstop for days that President Trump was heartless and evil - the same way they did for President Reagan.

        Best of all in this feeding frenzy, there were the photos: The crying toddler, crying as toddlers do, wildly, for all the universe to hear them. The big one on that front was the one shot by Getty Images photographer John Moore, showing a one-year old crying in front of Border Patrol agents, as her mother was apprehended for illegal entry and searched for weapons or drugss by the lawmen. The photo was a highly edited one, showing only the huge legs of the neutrally clad, utterly depersonalized Border Patrol officers, and the crying one-year-old, Yanela Sanchez, clad in a brand new bright pink toddler jacket and bright pink, brand new pink sneakers.

        Time magazine edited the photo even more impressively, with this much-tweeted magazine cover here.


        [ see picture at link ]

        Any questions as to why the mainstream media is held in such low regard by the American public? Memo to the left: As the fake news filters out, this is how you get More Trump.

        Now the facts come out, and pretty quickly, too. Someone tracked these people down and asked them about it, and now we learn the real story:

        Turns out the kid was never separated from her mother, not once. The girl's father, Denis Javier Varela Hernandez, was located by the always-on-the-job Daily Mail, and told a very different story from what the press had been reporting.

        One, the kid wasn't separated.

        Two, family separation indeed occured, from the Honduran illegal immigrant's side. The girl's mother had actually abandoned three other children and her father, to take the one-year-old toddler, through the hands of smugglers, to the U.S. illegally, without the father's permission. She in fact didn't tell anyone.

        Three, this was no poverty story: The kid's expensive shoes and jacket offered a hint of that in the photo, but now it turns out the mother apparently lived a very wealthy life, her spouse or babydaddy a sea captain over in Puerto Cortes. She had a spare $6,000 handy to pay a human smuggler for the crossing, according to the father.

        Oh, and she's been deported before, in 2013, a multiple entry case with little regard for U.S. law, as so many of them are.

        And instead of inhuman treatment, the father says she's comfortable and well-cared for by Americans over in McAllen, Texas.

        What's more, she was not coming up here under a credible fear of persecution, as has been reported from the asylum-promoting crowd, but here to make money, as the child's dad said, dead set on taking a job from an American.

        I suspected something was off when I listened to this interview with photographer John Moore with CNN's Ana Cabrera, who tried to whip up outrage, even as the photographer, probably thinking of his Pulitzer on the line, kind of hemmed and hawed about it, reluctant to engage in the whipping up game or repeat the narrative Cabrera was trying to put on him, instead choosing his descriptions of the details very carefully, so that they wouldn't be read as utter lies if the truth should come out. He was careful; not surprising, given that Getty has the best photographers.

        Now we know why. The Washington Post, which still cares about its credibility, is already exposing and effectively repudiating the false narrative here. Meanwhile, Time itself isn't promoting that magazine cover now, which surely must be a traffic driver for them otherwise - when you go to Time's Twitter site, you can see that it's not promoting that cover at all. No pinned tweet. Because let's face it, this is now an embarrassment. A supposedly objective news organization has been exposed as an activist propaganda outlet, getting national attention from it, yet can't even get its story straight. Fake news to the max.


        https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...er_mother.html

        ?


        • Now that school is out I guess the gun control pressure is off until the fall when the next mass shooting season begins.

          ?


          • Originally posted by redrover View Post
            Now that school is out I guess the gun control pressure is off until the fall when the next mass shooting season begins.
            Correct. Now, back to our story on child abuse of another sort...

            ?


            • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

              He does enjoy talking about Hitler, Nazis and dictators doesn't he ?

              Yes.

              In the meantime, we're seeing more lies from the media being exposed.

              Being exposed as the fake news, emotional manipulators the media is.

              -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Fake news scores another one: Crying migrant child in photo never separated from her mother

              Score one for the power of fake news.

              We already know it was going on with the manufactured crisis over child separations of people caught breaking U.S. law by entering the country illegally. The policies were Democrat policies, yet Democrats and Jeb Bush-style #NeverTrumps were decrying it as a product of President Trump's heartlessness, separating parents from children entering illegally as families, in order to keep the children out of their parents' jail. Yet they were President Obama's and President Bush's and President Clinton's policies, dating to 1997. The press pounded the drumbeat nonstop for days that President Trump was heartless and evil - the same way they did for President Reagan.

              Best of all in this feeding frenzy, there were the photos: The crying toddler, crying as toddlers do, wildly, for all the universe to hear them. The big one on that front was the one shot by Getty Images photographer John Moore, showing a one-year old crying in front of Border Patrol agents, as her mother was apprehended for illegal entry and searched for weapons or drugss by the lawmen. The photo was a highly edited one, showing only the huge legs of the neutrally clad, utterly depersonalized Border Patrol officers, and the crying one-year-old, Yanela Sanchez, clad in a brand new bright pink toddler jacket and bright pink, brand new pink sneakers.

              Time magazine edited the photo even more impressively, with this much-tweeted magazine cover here.


              [ see picture at link ]

              Any questions as to why the mainstream media is held in such low regard by the American public? Memo to the left: As the fake news filters out, this is how you get More Trump.

              Now the facts come out, and pretty quickly, too. Someone tracked these people down and asked them about it, and now we learn the real story:

              Turns out the kid was never separated from her mother, not once. The girl's father, Denis Javier Varela Hernandez, was located by the always-on-the-job Daily Mail, and told a very different story from what the press had been reporting.

              One, the kid wasn't separated.

              Two, family separation indeed occured, from the Honduran illegal immigrant's side. The girl's mother had actually abandoned three other children and her father, to take the one-year-old toddler, through the hands of smugglers, to the U.S. illegally, without the father's permission. She in fact didn't tell anyone.

              Three, this was no poverty story: The kid's expensive shoes and jacket offered a hint of that in the photo, but now it turns out the mother apparently lived a very wealthy life, her spouse or babydaddy a sea captain over in Puerto Cortes. She had a spare $6,000 handy to pay a human smuggler for the crossing, according to the father.

              Oh, and she's been deported before, in 2013, a multiple entry case with little regard for U.S. law, as so many of them are.

              And instead of inhuman treatment, the father says she's comfortable and well-cared for by Americans over in McAllen, Texas.

              What's more, she was not coming up here under a credible fear of persecution, as has been reported from the asylum-promoting crowd, but here to make money, as the child's dad said, dead set on taking a job from an American.

              I suspected something was off when I listened to this interview with photographer John Moore with CNN's Ana Cabrera, who tried to whip up outrage, even as the photographer, probably thinking of his Pulitzer on the line, kind of hemmed and hawed about it, reluctant to engage in the whipping up game or repeat the narrative Cabrera was trying to put on him, instead choosing his descriptions of the details very carefully, so that they wouldn't be read as utter lies if the truth should come out. He was careful; not surprising, given that Getty has the best photographers.

              Now we know why. The Washington Post, which still cares about its credibility, is already exposing and effectively repudiating the false narrative here. Meanwhile, Time itself isn't promoting that magazine cover now, which surely must be a traffic driver for them otherwise - when you go to Time's Twitter site, you can see that it's not promoting that cover at all. No pinned tweet. Because let's face it, this is now an embarrassment. A supposedly objective news organization has been exposed as an activist propaganda outlet, getting national attention from it, yet can't even get its story straight. Fake news to the max.


              https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...er_mother.html
              Here's what the Trump administration law enforcement stated about separating kids from parents, in the last couple of months. Note the time frame and numbers, then compare that with separation practices under Obama and other past administrations:
              The Trump administration separated 1,995 children from 1,940 adults from April 19 to May 31, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security said Friday, a period in which the "zero tolerance" policy was in effect.
              https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/im...milies-n884856

              No one claims that previous administrations separated children at that rate. Obviously the high-speed, Big Numbers are due to the "zero tolerance" policy of this administration. It is also due to their lack of planning before implementing the policy. Typical.

              Parents can be held in the same facility as their children, and can be reunited when it is determined the kids are traveling with their parents, this after proving said parents are also innocent of human trafficking or other non-migration crimes involving their children. It was done this way -by GOP and Dem administrations- for decades. Rather than criticize how this was done in the past, Trump and family have chosen to deny any screw up and/or blame others. Sad!

              Even more sad than the press picking whatever photo of a crying kid they can get their hands on. If the press had access to the facilities where 1,995 kids were separated since mid-April, they would have published legitimate photos, some resolution would be in place, and this would be an old story. We can add press incompetence and WH cover-up to the list of mistakes. It is the responsibility of the WH to change enforcement policy after careful consideration of consequences. They should also take care to treat their law enforcement agents (ICE in this case) with respect, rather than make them look and feel like shitheels.

              ?


              • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                Here's what the Trump administration law enforcement stated about separating kids from parents, in the last couple of months. Note the time frame and numbers, then compare that with separation practices under Obama and other past administrations:
                https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/im...milies-n884856

                No one claims that previous administrations separated children at that rate. Obviously the high-speed, Big Numbers are due to the "zero tolerance" policy of this administration. It is also due to their lack of planning before implementing the policy. Typical.

                Parents can be held in the same facility as their children, and can be reunited when it is determined the kids are traveling with their parents, this after proving said parents are also innocent of human trafficking or other non-migration crimes involving their children. It was done this way -by GOP and Dem administrations- for decades. Rather than criticize how this was done in the past, Trump and family have chosen to deny any screw up and/or blame others. Sad!

                Even more sad than the press picking whatever photo of a crying kid they can get their hands on. If the press had access to the facilities where 1,995 kids were separated since mid-April, they would have published legitimate photos, some resolution would be in place, and this would be an old story. We can add press incompetence and WH cover-up to the list of mistakes. It is the responsibility of the WH to change enforcement policy after careful consideration of consequences. They should also take care to treat their law enforcement agents (ICE in this case) with respect, rather than make them look and feel like shitheels.
                As I've said before;

                We want to;

                "stop separating kids from parents" at the border ?

                Very easy.

                Stop allowing ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS across our border.

                They were called "dreamers" for awhile, now we're calling them "asylum seekers."

                Stop with the idiotic word games, it's an insult to our intelligence ! ...they are illegal immigrants and they do not belong here.

                Period.

                Build that wall !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                No more Separating Parents, Kids at Border

                The "media" lies and lies about it to get everyone in a tizzy, and it's just silly.

                The propaganda show never ends ! We have idiots blathering about "kids in cages" now LOL

                It was fake propaganda to get unhinged idiots - no shortage of them today - screaming & yelling.

                This exposes the media for what it truly is, and it exposes the fools for what they truly are.

                Guys like rover can blather and rant forever about "caged kids" now LOL

                Isn't staged propaganda great ??

                It IS !

                for ....

                Unmasking dummies every day : )

                -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                A picture is worth a thousand words and some people hope that holds true even if the picture isnt what it claims to be.

                Take the latest example of a photo designed to tug at the hearts of anyone who cant stand the image of a children crying for his parents, especially when its allegedly crying because of the callous nature of our president.

                The June 11 post came from Jose Antonio Vargas, who describes himself on his Twitter profile as a filmmaker and journalist. He said kids being held in cages is what happens when a government believes people are illegal.

                Although Vargas never specified where the photo was taken, its clearly a young Latino child inside a contained area, with the legs of other young children visible in the background. The inference is this child is just one of thousands of distraught youngsters being caged like animals by U.S. authorities at the countrys southern border and my gosh, this president needs to go right now!

                Naturally, this powerful picture went viral. The impact of the picture isnt as great, however, when you realize its not what it seems to be.

                Vargas, when questioned after posting the picture, admitted he didnt know its source beyond the fact he had seen it on a friends Facebook page. But that wasnt the point, he argued. He said he shared it because he had once been detained in McAllen, Texas in 2014.

                I was with boys who were locked up, Vargas tweeted. It wasnt okay then; its not okay now.

                ..it turned out the sobbing young boy in the picture was crying for his mother, but not because of anything President Trump or any other U.S. official had done.

                ... the picture of the boy was snapped during a protest earlier this month outside city hall in Dallas. The protest was to draw attention to the separation of parents who enter the country illegally and their children. To drive home their point, they constructed a small enclosure and had some children stand inside. They were given signs to hold that outlined how terrible it is for families to be split apart.

                LeRoy Pea, the man who took the photo Vargas used in his tweet, told PolitiFact that when he snapped the photo, the boy had just followed his older brother through a gate into the enclosure. But once inside, he spotted his mother outside and couldnt figure out how to reach her. While he appears in the photo to be distraught, in reality his mother quickly came and showed him how to get out of the enclosure.

                He was only in there 30 seconds, Pea said.


                https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/ch...ign=manualpost

                ?


                • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                  As I've said before;

                  We want to;

                  "stop separating kids from parents" at the border ?

                  Very easy.

                  Stop allowing ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS across our border.

                  They were called "dreamers" for awhile, now we're calling them "asylum seekers."

                  Stop with the idiotic word games, it's an insult to our intelligence ! ...they are illegal immigrants and they do not belong here.

                  Period.

                  Build that wall !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                  No more Separating Parents, Kids at Border

                  The "media" lies and lies about it to get everyone in a tizzy, and it's just silly.

                  The propaganda show never ends ! We have idiots blathering about "kids in cages" now LOL

                  It was fake propaganda to get unhinged idiots - no shortage of them today - screaming & yelling.

                  This exposes the media for what it truly is, and it exposes the fools for what they truly are.

                  Guys like rover can blather and rant forever about "caged kids" now LOL

                  Isn't staged propaganda great ??

                  It IS !

                  for ....

                  Unmasking dummies every day : )

                  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  A picture is worth a thousand words and some people hope that holds true even if the picture isnt what it claims to be.

                  Take the latest example of a photo designed to tug at the hearts of anyone who cant stand the image of a children crying for his parents, especially when its allegedly crying because of the callous nature of our president.

                  The June 11 post came from Jose Antonio Vargas, who describes himself on his Twitter profile as a filmmaker and journalist. He said kids being held in cages is what happens when a government believes people are illegal.

                  Although Vargas never specified where the photo was taken, its clearly a young Latino child inside a contained area, with the legs of other young children visible in the background. The inference is this child is just one of thousands of distraught youngsters being caged like animals by U.S. authorities at the countrys southern border and my gosh, this president needs to go right now!

                  Naturally, this powerful picture went viral. The impact of the picture isnt as great, however, when you realize its not what it seems to be.

                  Vargas, when questioned after posting the picture, admitted he didnt know its source beyond the fact he had seen it on a friends Facebook page. But that wasnt the point, he argued. He said he shared it because he had once been detained in McAllen, Texas in 2014.

                  I was with boys who were locked up, Vargas tweeted. It wasnt okay then; its not okay now.

                  ..it turned out the sobbing young boy in the picture was crying for his mother, but not because of anything President Trump or any other U.S. official had done.

                  ... the picture of the boy was snapped during a protest earlier this month outside city hall in Dallas. The protest was to draw attention to the separation of parents who enter the country illegally and their children. To drive home their point, they constructed a small enclosure and had some children stand inside. They were given signs to hold that outlined how terrible it is for families to be split apart.

                  LeRoy Pea, the man who took the photo Vargas used in his tweet, told PolitiFact that when he snapped the photo, the boy had just followed his older brother through a gate into the enclosure. But once inside, he spotted his mother outside and couldnt figure out how to reach her. While he appears in the photo to be distraught, in reality his mother quickly came and showed him how to get out of the enclosure.

                  He was only in there 30 seconds, Pea said.


                  https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/ch...ign=manualpost
                  For someone who has little faith in the enforce-ability of laws, you have suddenly made an exception for immigration laws. Just because they exist, people will yet violate them. Immigration law along with a wall will prove to be no exception. (Google -tunnel illegal immigration- for further details).

                  Also, it will be necessary to deal with definitions of "asylum" or "refugee status" along international standards, then apply them in these cases. If organized criminal activity and gov't. corruption pushes a state toward "failing" status, and the family has a police report proving they are targeted, it may be necessary for the conservatives to withdraw the US from international agreements on issues involving asylum.

                  Better get started, righties. The election is just around the corner. (winks)

                  ?


                  • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                    For someone who has little faith in the enforce-ability of laws, you have suddenly made an exception for immigration laws. Just because they exist, people will yet violate them. Immigration law along with a wall will prove to be no exception. (Google -tunnel illegal immigration- for further details).
                    No doubt about it.

                    However it will be more difficult and risky to figure out how to get around, over or under a wall. This will certainly cut back on the massive numbers coming here illegally.

                    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                    Also, it will be necessary to deal with definitions of "asylum" or "refugee status" along international standards, then apply them in these cases. If organized criminal activity and gov't. corruption pushes a state toward "failing" status, and the family has a police report proving they are targeted, it may be necessary for the conservatives to withdraw the US from international agreements on issues involving asylum.

                    Better get started, righties. The election is just around the corner. (winks)
                    If we forever continue allowing illegal immigration, we ourselves will enter failing status. America will be become a place like what they were escaping !

                    Then we will no longer have an illegal immigration problem.

                    That isn't what any of us want.

                    Everyone on earth doesn't have some "right" to invade America.

                    If people wish to come here, they need to do it correctly and legally. Our problem is that we haven't yet decided to enforce our own laws, until now.. MAYBE.

                    We'll see, but it's one of the main issues that helped Trump get elected. Americans are sick of the invasion that's been going on for decades. It's not a victimless crime.

                    ?


                    • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                      No doubt about it.

                      However it will be more difficult and risky to figure out how to get around, over or under a wall. This will certainly cut back on the massive numbers coming here illegally.



                      If we forever continue allowing illegal immigration, we ourselves will enter failing status. America will be become a place like what they were escaping !

                      Then we will no longer have an illegal immigration problem.

                      That isn't what any of us want.

                      Everyone on earth doesn't have some "right" to invade America.

                      If people wish to come here, they need to do it correctly and legally. Our problem is that we haven't yet decided to enforce our own laws, until now.. MAYBE.

                      We'll see, but it's one of the main issues that helped Trump get elected. Americans are sick of the invasion that's been going on for decades. It's not a victimless crime.

                      Ok, here we go.


                      The Federal, State, and Local governments have never stopped enforcing laws, the Feds simply stopped providing enough money to arrest all those families fleeing wars and violence we helped create, so in response cities and states passed laws that gave those people some rights elevating them to 2nd class citizens (as opposed to felon women and children like our conservative Christian friends, and whatever Trump is, want to do).

                      California is chock a block full of illegals and the crime rate is the same or less in Los Angeles and Oakland as it is in St Louis or New Orleans.
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_crime_rate

                      Also the economy is booming.
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...GDP_per_capita

                      When my great grandparents left Sicily, they didn't get a visa or get in line. They bought a ocean liner ticket and rocked up to New York harbor. You think the Statue of Liberty was asking people for their visas?

                      The current visa system was deployed in 1990 and allows about 675,000 legal entries to the US each year, many of these temporary and many more of these for very high skilled work like for scientists or celebrities.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990

                      Currently the US averages about 1.5 million total immigrants (legal and illegal). To get in line, while also trying to avoid being persecuted or bombed by one of the dictators the US helped install in the name of fighting communism or terrorism, would be, in legal terms, contra bonos mores.

                      Illegal immigration has been on the decline since the year 2000 for various reasons, none of which have to do with which political party suggested a reform.
                      This also isn't the largest (per capita) immigration wave the US has had. In fact it is the smallest. The Irish were the biggest, followed by northern European, followed by Italian. Immigration to the US (both legal and illegal) between 1990 and 2010 was about 12% increase to population. Compared to 23% from 1840 to 1860, 22% from 1870 to 1890, and 20% from 1900 to 1920.

                      Add to these facts that other countries allow far more immigration per capita than the US (Germany and the UK take in 1% of it's population per year, Australia takes .87%, France takes about .5%, the US comes in about .3%).

                      But back to my point about US interventions in foreign affairs that has helped create this mess. Below is a short list. Korea and Vietnam were actual wars we kicked into high gear creating millions of refugees. Does anyone know what the US did after the Vietnam war to help resettle refugees? Mueller... Mueller...

                      The US passed legislation and took in about 400k straight refugees from Vietnam with 100's of thousands also going to Canada and Australia.
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_boat_people

                      The US also took in hundreds of thousands more through legal migration for those lucky enough to qualify for visas. Today there are millions of Vietnamese Americans contributing to the so called society, ok mostly blue states - for some reason people don't like getting chased around by obese toothless people butt hurt they lost a racist war and don't like being presented with facts about why they are just plain incorrect and wrong on so many issues like putting a bloody serial number on a high powered rifle, but I digress...

                      Iran 1953 300 800
                      Overthrew democratically elected Mosaddegh who sought to audit Anlgo-Iranian Oil Company
                      Guatemala 1954 140,000 200,000
                      Overthrew Democratically elected president who wanted to form a liberal capitalistic, instituted minimum wage opposed by united fruit company
                      Syria 1956-1957
                      Failed
                      Indonesia 1957
                      Failed
                      Bay of Pigs 1961 367
                      Failed
                      South Vietnam Coup 1963
                      Brazil 1964
                      Successful, CIA heavily involved, documents still classified
                      Chile 1973
                      Pinochet comes to power, 3000+ are disappeared or killed, Kissinger complained of lack of recognition for US role
                      Afghanistan 1979-1989
                      Money, weapons, and training provided to Al-Qaeda
                      Nicaragua 1979-1990 20,000 53,000
                      Iran-Contra, cocaine smuggling
                      Other activities
                      Albania
                      Operation Condor
                      Salvadorian Civil War 1979-1992
                      Honduras 1987, 1995, 2008 (Clinton)
                      Noriega (US helped create Drug lord, then had to overthrow him)
                      Congo 1961 (and 64, 67, 91), Lumumba (34 y/o) is democratically elected following independence, accepted Soviet support, rebellion against him starts with support from Belgium, President orders his house arrest, he escapes, CIA asset Mobutu for over 30 years arrests him and delivers him to Belgians on arrest warrant given by CIA employee after CIA gives additional 250k more to Mobutu



                      So the US, helped create war, then shuns those fleeing those wars, never mind the Bretton Woods ponzi scheme. But today at least the US is doing ok right?

                      Trump is strong, he will fix what dirty Obama did by you know, governing with the gerrymandered opposition society, actually I can't really praise Obama, all he did was fix the economy and rule like any normal person should except foreign policy.

                      Speaking of which, obviously brilliant segue, what is current US foreign policy? I mean, do we recognise a government in Libya? What happened to that UN Resolution calling for western help? Did we run out of really big bombs?

                      Does the US support the government in Tripoli or in Tobruk? The one in Tripoli is internationally backed but supports the same group that attacked our brilliant diplomatic mission in Benghazi, although they were running the hospitals at the time and weren't designated a terror group until 2 years later.

                      Or does the US support the government in Tobruk which has the current Libyan army and is full of Gaddafi supporters and supported by Egypt and the UAE?

                      What is US policy on the Free Syria Army? Or on the Kurdish, excuse me, um, yes, Kurdish militias occupying three countries?

                      What is US policy on Palestinians? Do they belong to Israel or is there a Palestinian state with borders?

                      What is US policy on the Arab Spring movements? Does the US support democratic movements generally? Or only when it suits their purpose?

                      If generally, again, what is the US policy towards the Arab Spring movements in Egypt, Bahrain, and Yemen?

                      If only when it suits our purpose, what is US policy towards the Free Syrian Army, the Kurdish armies, and the Libyan government(s)?

                      What is US policy on releasing military aid to Al-Sisi when he is arresting every single opposition candidate, as well as several thousand supporters?

                      What is US policy on the Columbian or Afghan drug producing region? Is anyone trying to stop these areas from producing billions of dollars worth each year, or do we simply lock people up for 5 years if they're white, 20 if their Hispanic, or 40 if they're black?

                      What is US policy on North Korea? They've returned remains, decommissioned test sites before, and promised to halt nuclear activities before, are we going to lift sanctions because Trump has an ego problem? Will the US apply the same logic to Iran, a democratic country I might add?

                      What is US policy on Russia's occupation of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea, and Western Ukraine?

                      But I digress. I'm asking questions to things I already know the answers to. Strictly speaking, the US doesn't have any policies on any of the above. Cool.


                      I know Republican policy on these things. Bomb, overthrow, then act high and mighty.

                      Immigrants should be legal only, even though most of our great grandparents (or in this audience, your parents) were illegal, screened for TB, then handed a green card.

                      The Federal, State, and Local governments have never stopped enforcing laws, the Feds simply stopped providing enough money to arrest all those families fleeing wars and violence we helped create, so in response cities and states passed laws that gave those people some rights elevating them to 2nd class citizens (as opposed to felon women and children like our conservative Christian friends, and whatever Trump is, want to do).

                      But nah, you guys are winning, so much winning considering you hold all branches of government but still can't repeal Obamacare, fix immigration, have a coherent foreign policy, or shrink the deficit.

                      You guys are all right I tell ya. Truly something else. One of human kind's little gems of wisdom that our media historians are doing a great job of recording.

                      Yeah that's right immigrants are simultaneously taking your jobs and committing crime in higher numbers, even though the highest crime cities and states and not ones with liberal values like taxing the rich an extra percentage to allow for public transit and social worker jobs.

                      Yes, allowing 18 year olds to rock up to Walmart and walk out with any and all guns they want while telling 70 year old African Americans to drive 75 miles, wait in line for several hours, and both be registered and have a valid ID in order to vote is all good in the hood.

                      Fine, a comedian telling jokes about conservatives is offensive but Trump is just telling it like it is.

                      Black people have suffered generation, after generation, after generation of oppression, racism, and prejudice, but they now have the right to jump a place or two in line to spend 100's of thousands to attend Harvard so it's fine, the problems in their community are theirs and if they have an unpaid parking ticket the police can legally break down their door and shoot them because they shouldn't have had that cell phone in their hand.


                      O'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave... play ball!

                      Also please note my name really should now be the .4 don't vote party, and you have to have voted in the 2016 election to vote, one of the most boycotted elections in US history.

                      Murican!

                      Also please note some of the sarcasm in my post was not meant to be mean but rather illustrate my point. Feel free to call all 65 million who voted for Hillary tree huggers in their parents basement. I get that not all 62 million who voted for Trump are obese and toothless, but the rates are higher for that stuff in the south so whatevs.

                      Also apologies to any trained English teachers who might read this. I'll happily provide an email so you can respond with corrections and hopefully not a grade ;-)

                      Cheers mates.

                      ?


                      • Originally posted by .3dontVoteParty View Post


                        Ok, here we go.


                        The Federal, State, and Local governments have never stopped enforcing laws, the Feds simply stopped providing enough money to arrest all those families fleeing wars and violence we helped create, so in response cities and states passed laws that gave those people some rights elevating them to 2nd class citizens (as opposed to felon women and children like our conservative Christian friends, and whatever Trump is, want to do).

                        California is chock a block full of illegals and the crime rate is the same or less in Los Angeles and Oakland as it is in St Louis or New Orleans.
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_crime_rate

                        Also the economy is booming.
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...GDP_per_capita

                        When my great grandparents left Sicily, they didn't get a visa or get in line. They bought a ocean liner ticket and rocked up to New York harbor. You think the Statue of Liberty was asking people for their visas?

                        The current visa system was deployed in 1990 and allows about 675,000 legal entries to the US each year, many of these temporary and many more of these for very high skilled work like for scientists or celebrities.

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990

                        Currently the US averages about 1.5 million total immigrants (legal and illegal). To get in line, while also trying to avoid being persecuted or bombed by one of the dictators the US helped install in the name of fighting communism or terrorism, would be, in legal terms, contra bonos mores.

                        Illegal immigration has been on the decline since the year 2000 for various reasons, none of which have to do with which political party suggested a reform.
                        This also isn't the largest (per capita) immigration wave the US has had. In fact it is the smallest. The Irish were the biggest, followed by northern European, followed by Italian. Immigration to the US (both legal and illegal) between 1990 and 2010 was about 12% increase to population. Compared to 23% from 1840 to 1860, 22% from 1870 to 1890, and 20% from 1900 to 1920.

                        Add to these facts that other countries allow far more immigration per capita than the US (Germany and the UK take in 1% of it's population per year, Australia takes .87%, France takes about .5%, the US comes in about .3%).

                        But back to my point about US interventions in foreign affairs that has helped create this mess. Below is a short list. Korea and Vietnam were actual wars we kicked into high gear creating millions of refugees. Does anyone know what the US did after the Vietnam war to help resettle refugees? Mueller... Mueller...

                        The US passed legislation and took in about 400k straight refugees from Vietnam with 100's of thousands also going to Canada and Australia.
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_boat_people

                        The US also took in hundreds of thousands more through legal migration for those lucky enough to qualify for visas. Today there are millions of Vietnamese Americans contributing to the so called society, ok mostly blue states - for some reason people don't like getting chased around by obese toothless people butt hurt they lost a racist war and don't like being presented with facts about why they are just plain incorrect and wrong on so many issues like putting a bloody serial number on a high powered rifle, but I digress...

                        Iran 1953 300 800
                        Overthrew democratically elected Mosaddegh who sought to audit Anlgo-Iranian Oil Company
                        Guatemala 1954 140,000 200,000
                        Overthrew Democratically elected president who wanted to form a liberal capitalistic, instituted minimum wage opposed by united fruit company
                        Syria 1956-1957
                        Failed
                        Indonesia 1957
                        Failed
                        Bay of Pigs 1961 367
                        Failed
                        South Vietnam Coup 1963
                        Brazil 1964
                        Successful, CIA heavily involved, documents still classified
                        Chile 1973
                        Pinochet comes to power, 3000+ are disappeared or killed, Kissinger complained of lack of recognition for US role
                        Afghanistan 1979-1989
                        Money, weapons, and training provided to Al-Qaeda
                        Nicaragua 1979-1990 20,000 53,000
                        Iran-Contra, cocaine smuggling
                        Other activities
                        Albania
                        Operation Condor
                        Salvadorian Civil War 1979-1992
                        Honduras 1987, 1995, 2008 (Clinton)
                        Noriega (US helped create Drug lord, then had to overthrow him)
                        Congo 1961 (and 64, 67, 91), Lumumba (34 y/o) is democratically elected following independence, accepted Soviet support, rebellion against him starts with support from Belgium, President orders his house arrest, he escapes, CIA asset Mobutu for over 30 years arrests him and delivers him to Belgians on arrest warrant given by CIA employee after CIA gives additional 250k more to Mobutu



                        So the US, helped create war, then shuns those fleeing those wars, never mind the Bretton Woods ponzi scheme. But today at least the US is doing ok right?

                        Trump is strong, he will fix what dirty Obama did by you know, governing with the gerrymandered opposition society, actually I can't really praise Obama, all he did was fix the economy and rule like any normal person should except foreign policy.

                        Speaking of which, obviously brilliant segue, what is current US foreign policy? I mean, do we recognise a government in Libya? What happened to that UN Resolution calling for western help? Did we run out of really big bombs?

                        Does the US support the government in Tripoli or in Tobruk? The one in Tripoli is internationally backed but supports the same group that attacked our brilliant diplomatic mission in Benghazi, although they were running the hospitals at the time and weren't designated a terror group until 2 years later.

                        Or does the US support the government in Tobruk which has the current Libyan army and is full of Gaddafi supporters and supported by Egypt and the UAE?

                        What is US policy on the Free Syria Army? Or on the Kurdish, excuse me, um, yes, Kurdish militias occupying three countries?

                        What is US policy on Palestinians? Do they belong to Israel or is there a Palestinian state with borders?

                        What is US policy on the Arab Spring movements? Does the US support democratic movements generally? Or only when it suits their purpose?

                        If generally, again, what is the US policy towards the Arab Spring movements in Egypt, Bahrain, and Yemen?

                        If only when it suits our purpose, what is US policy towards the Free Syrian Army, the Kurdish armies, and the Libyan government(s)?

                        What is US policy on releasing military aid to Al-Sisi when he is arresting every single opposition candidate, as well as several thousand supporters?

                        What is US policy on the Columbian or Afghan drug producing region? Is anyone trying to stop these areas from producing billions of dollars worth each year, or do we simply lock people up for 5 years if they're white, 20 if their Hispanic, or 40 if they're black?

                        What is US policy on North Korea? They've returned remains, decommissioned test sites before, and promised to halt nuclear activities before, are we going to lift sanctions because Trump has an ego problem? Will the US apply the same logic to Iran, a democratic country I might add?

                        What is US policy on Russia's occupation of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea, and Western Ukraine?

                        But I digress. I'm asking questions to things I already know the answers to. Strictly speaking, the US doesn't have any policies on any of the above. Cool.


                        I know Republican policy on these things. Bomb, overthrow, then act high and mighty.

                        Immigrants should be legal only, even though most of our great grandparents (or in this audience, your parents) were illegal, screened for TB, then handed a green card.

                        The Federal, State, and Local governments have never stopped enforcing laws, the Feds simply stopped providing enough money to arrest all those families fleeing wars and violence we helped create, so in response cities and states passed laws that gave those people some rights elevating them to 2nd class citizens (as opposed to felon women and children like our conservative Christian friends, and whatever Trump is, want to do).

                        But nah, you guys are winning, so much winning considering you hold all branches of government but still can't repeal Obamacare, fix immigration, have a coherent foreign policy, or shrink the deficit.

                        You guys are all right I tell ya. Truly something else. One of human kind's little gems of wisdom that our media historians are doing a great job of recording.

                        Yeah that's right immigrants are simultaneously taking your jobs and committing crime in higher numbers, even though the highest crime cities and states and not ones with liberal values like taxing the rich an extra percentage to allow for public transit and social worker jobs.

                        Yes, allowing 18 year olds to rock up to Walmart and walk out with any and all guns they want while telling 70 year old African Americans to drive 75 miles, wait in line for several hours, and both be registered and have a valid ID in order to vote is all good in the hood.

                        Fine, a comedian telling jokes about conservatives is offensive but Trump is just telling it like it is.

                        Black people have suffered generation, after generation, after generation of oppression, racism, and prejudice, but they now have the right to jump a place or two in line to spend 100's of thousands to attend Harvard so it's fine, the problems in their community are theirs and if they have an unpaid parking ticket the police can legally break down their door and shoot them because they shouldn't have had that cell phone in their hand.


                        O'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave... play ball!

                        Also please note my name really should now be the .4 don't vote party, and you have to have voted in the 2016 election to vote, one of the most boycotted elections in US history.

                        Murican!

                        Also please note some of the sarcasm in my post was not meant to be mean but rather illustrate my point. Feel free to call all 65 million who voted for Hillary tree huggers in their parents basement. I get that not all 62 million who voted for Trump are obese and toothless, but the rates are higher for that stuff in the south so whatevs.

                        Also apologies to any trained English teachers who might read this. I'll happily provide an email so you can respond with corrections and hopefully not a grade ;-)

                        Cheers mates.
                        Yes we are the land of the free as long as you have the proper skin tone nd are a member of an approved religion. I don't know where this home of the brave comes from. All I see is a bunch of bone spurs who are afraid of of two year old children who don't even have AIDS

                        ?


                        • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                          ... If we forever continue allowing illegal immigration, we ourselves will enter failing status. America will be become a place like what they were escaping !

                          Then we will no longer have an illegal immigration problem.

                          That isn't what any of us want.

                          Everyone on earth doesn't have some "right" to invade America.

                          If people wish to come here, they need to do it correctly and legally. Our problem is that we haven't yet decided to enforce our own laws, until now.. MAYBE.

                          We'll see, but it's one of the main issues that helped Trump get elected. Americans are sick of the invasion that's been going on for decades. It's not a victimless crime.
                          Sure, enforce the laws. My point is, withdrawing from international agreements on refugee and asylum status has consequences. Here:
                          Not only does the US have an international legal obligation to do so, based on the requirement of complying with the object and purpose of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and implementing legal obligations in good faith, it has an obligation to do so under its own domestic law.

                          The executive order cannot displace domestic legal obligations.
                          https://theconversation.com/qanda-wh...refugees-72007

                          I was hoping the GOP would go whole-hog with the marauding band of prosecuting attorneys, sending corrupt politicians from latin america into the can. Here's one example:
                          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.f4b29b64918d
                          Nothing's perfect, but after 40 years, more room would be available for the less corrupt, if the more corrupt were safely distanced from decent society in a jail cell. Sure, like .3don'tvote observed, it would have worked out better if the US hadn't chosen ethically other-abled caudillos as our "allies" in LA, but that's in the past.

                          Now, let's get started. Regarding the much needed slammer-time by "strong leaders" who are "close allies" (snicker) of the US, we'll probably need to start out slow. Since party bias in foreign affairs demonstrates that lefty corrupt bastards are coddled by our Dems, while the GOP has a bad habit of excusing righty psychos in leadership positions, we can start by funding El Jefe's trip up the river depending on whether the thieving crook spouts left or right platitudes. Let's say Trump sends a few million bucks to fund prosecution of Venezuela's Maduro, then he could claim victory for stemming both communism and the numbers of Venezuelan folks trying to leave their country. Not to be outdone, Candidate X from the Dem party wins the WH in 2020, and sends a few million to a Brazilian head-hunting group of lawyers. Righty goes to prison to even the balance. After that, it becomes a competition: Which Uncle Sam administration can help send the most kleptocrats to the hoosegow? Going for sheer headcount, the "my friends ain't crooks" rule might be tossed out altogether. Lots of fun for everyone in the US as well as LA countries, watching all those crooks going to jail, their collection of expensive toys converted to public funding. Sure, there is one huge obstacle to this strategy ...why in the world would a US politician support a band of bloodthirsty lawyers who go after corrupt politicians? It's enough to make a public serpent have nightmares.

                          Enough of the stick, waddabout the economic carrot, which is also subject to political bias? Which one is better, the Dems Massive Public Projects (spending), or the GOP's Massive Private Sector (initiative)? NAFTA had it's faults (there was apparently no "free trade" for the smallest business doing cross-border commerce). But it did bump the standard of living in some parts of Mexico. Infrastructure re-builds are a no-brainer benefit, despite claims to the contrary by many empty craniums in Congress (ask the Chamber of Commerce and most Dems, all you righties who try to side with the empty skulls). To that end, I'd like to propose Two Carrots in One. Private sector investment and Infrastructure. Tweak the economic stimulus to include small sector business, and extend the infrastructure projects to all current roadways (not just the capitol of Country X). Make the whole package a Giant Sting Operation, to send more corrupt politicians up the river. The aid packages only look like old-style programs from Uncle Sam, but there are auditors attached, evidence gathered. Who knows? Maybe a bi-lingual reality show north and south of the border, with live tapes of crooked politicians "dipping into the till". Would pay some of the expenses and everyone could enjoy the show -except the klepto politicians. Lots of other ideas, many of which have already been tried on a small scale in LA (like local militias setting up roadblocks to keep out violent narcotics traffickers), or cooperatives taking over abandoned factory buildings.

                          Comprehensive immigration reform should include something along the lines of the "carrot and stick" strategy, rather than just building a rilly big wall and hoping it will contain the body parts and bullets flying around south of our border.


                          ?


                          • Originally posted by .3dontVoteParty View Post
                            ...
                            Black people have suffered generation, after generation, after generation of oppression, racism, and prejudice, but they now have the right to jump a place or two in line to spend 100's of thousands to attend Harvard so it's fine, the problems in their community are theirs and if they have an unpaid parking ticket the police can legally break down their door and shoot them because they shouldn't have had that cell phone in their hand.
                            ...
                            I don't ordinarily like cutting out portions of a quote, but doggone it, 3, ain't nobody got time to read your 3-foot dissertation. So I am just focusing on this part.

                            while it is accurate that African American people have, indeed, suffered, even myopics have to acknowledge their "suffering" was getting much much better until Obama took office. Obama was a tribalist and one of the chief goals of a tribalist is to pit one tribe against another, including emphasizing differences in the various tribes into which (he) is positioning us. He pitted Christians against Muslims, citizens against police, the blacks against whites, students against businesses, "rich" against "not rich' (including poor) ... and as he divided us into our assigned tribes, he exacerbated the problems these tribes (and several others) face. These "progressive" democraps MUST have one group that is oppressed and one that is the oppressor in order for their caste system to take root. So the "suffering" of African Americans has gotten much MUCH worse in the last 10 years. Although we by no means had healed the rift between the races, we were on our way and improvement was being shown under both democrap and republican administrations. And, then, that wart got into the office and it all, literally, went to hell.

                            Don't get me wrong, I totally understand most of your post is nothing more than hyperbole and an attempt at emotional manipulation, but I did feel I had to offer a correction to this part.

                            ?


                            • Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

                              I don't ordinarily like cutting out portions of a quote, but doggone it, 3, ain't nobody got time to read your 3-foot dissertation. So I am just focusing on this part.

                              while it is accurate that African American people have, indeed, suffered, even myopics have to acknowledge their "suffering" was getting much much better until Obama took office. Obama was a tribalist and one of the chief goals of a tribalist is to pit one tribe against another, including emphasizing differences in the various tribes into which (he) is positioning us. He pitted Christians against Muslims, citizens against police, the blacks against whites, students against businesses, "rich" against "not rich' (including poor) ... and as he divided us into our assigned tribes, he exacerbated the problems these tribes (and several others) face. These "progressive" democraps MUST have one group that is oppressed and one that is the oppressor in order for their caste system to take root. So the "suffering" of African Americans has gotten much MUCH worse in the last 10 years. Although we by no means had healed the rift between the races, we were on our way and improvement was being shown under both democrap and republican administrations. And, then, that wart got into the office and it all, literally, went to hell.

                              Don't get me wrong, I totally understand most of your post is nothing more than hyperbole and an attempt at emotional manipulation, but I did feel I had to offer a correction to this part.
                              For example, one might believe some police were egged on by Obama, or perhaps Obama was the first prez to order DOJ investigations into police brutality based on racial bias. Would that would be one example of conditions for African Americans "worsening" under Obama? Please elaborate.

                              ?


                              • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                                For example, one might believe some police were egged on by Obama, or perhaps Obama was the first prez to order DOJ investigations into police brutality based on racial bias. Would that would be one example of conditions for African Americans "worsening" under Obama? Please elaborate.
                                Rad David never elaborates you just have to accept it as the absolute truth. I've been trying to squeeze some evidence out of him to back up his claims for weeks. No luck.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X