Jump to content

WhatTheBuck

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    29432
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by WhatTheBuck

  1. 2 hours ago, JimmyHoffa said:

     

    What exactly did my post have to do with torture? It was about those in DC making shit up to push a narrative. And sorry that shit has been going on long before W was in office. 

    Then you missed my point about all the ways the Dubya presidency foreshadowed the Dotard presidency. 

    • Like 1
  2. 1 hour ago, JimmyHoffa said:

    It didn't start with GW. It's fucking politics it's been happening forever, the internet and social media just made it easier to spread the word all over the world instead of just those passing you buy as you yell stupid conspiracy theories from the street corner you're standing on. 

    That said it definitively has been turned up to 11. 

    Which Republican president prior to Dubya was in favor of torture?

  3. 2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

    Karl Rove derided Ron Suskind for living in the "reality-based community," and said "when we act, we create our own reality." That was in 2004.

    Yep. And George nicknamed him "Turd Blossom." I assume that was in reference to his political skills of being able to find his man in a world of shit and make him come out smelling like a rose. Dubya liked to give everyone nicknames. They weren't mean and abusive like Trump's, but the foreshadowing was there. 

    Bush said either you're with us or you're with the terrorists. Trump has taken that divide to the extreme. You either support him completely, without question, or you're the enemy. Stephen Miller said the president's power will not be questioned. Again, turning it up to 11. 

    When Bush named his bloated expansion of government the Dept. of Homeland Security, we were reminded of Hitler's use of the term "Fatherland" and worried that it smacked of creeping fascism. Look where we are now. We have a president who defends Nazis. 

    I really never thought it could get worse than the Bush/Cheney years but we've seen this before. Just not to this extreme. 

    • Like 2
  4. 14 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

    I much prefer the ease of a quick post. When shit is happening fast I would rather go back and apologize for a mistake than to miss out on a breaking story. Fact check? What the hell is that? When our president lies without the least bit of conscience and has spent his entire life gaslighting everyone around him up to and including his lawyers to the extent that they will not meet with him alone I can afford a few miscues. 

    If that's the consensus then we need to be a lot more forgiving of the media when, in their rush to get out the story, they occasionally get it wrong. 

  5. 8 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

    I wasn’t here for these glory days some are pining for but it’s WAY easier to post a tweet with a simple copy and paste than to link and paste the text of an article - especially for fast moving/breaking news stories.

    And especially on Tapa.

    And I’m sorry, if the freaking president uses Twitter as his default press secretary, then it’s good enough for a message board.

    This place would be horrible if everyone posted long winded essays of 5,000 words when they can get the message across in 1/16th of that.

    Yeah, but the ease of copying and pasting a Twitter link leads to the posting of a lot more trivial and/or irrelevant material that wouldn't have been posted before. Sometimes the tweet amounts to nothing more than a link to an article. If someone is posting a tweet linking to the article, presumably they read the article and it would be just as easy to copy and paste the link directly to the article. 

  6. 9 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

    Start with solid verification with employment.  Query the IRS and Social Security databases for multiple users of the same SS # and do something about that. Then crack down hard on companies that have a habit of hiring illegals. Audit the industries that have a propensity for hiring folks with cash and no paper trails.  Shut down the worst. Hammer banks that have multiple people using the same identity or SS#.  

    Dry up jobs for illegals and punish those companies benefitting from them.  

    Then let’s talk about babies born here, because the numbers will drop.

    But we don't want to spend $5 for a head of lettuce. 

    • Like 1
  7. 8 hours ago, Grandioso said:

    Much of the right isn't even showing up to debate anything anymore. They've just taken a trolley to their own land of make believe and set up a tent city of disorganized thinking and conspiratorial festishism. 

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/22/14762030/donald-trump-tribal-epistemology

    Trump & Fox News have created the permission structure for believing whatever feels right even if unsupported by any evidence. On the contrary, you can just magically wish-think your way to a belief even if there is massive evidence to the contrary. Our President does this DAILY. 

    This isn't new. In the premiere episode of The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert introduced the word "truthiness" which was defined as exactly that, belief in something becausse it feels true despite the absence of supporting facts and evidence. That was back in 2005. 

    Like  I've said before, the George W Bush presidency foreshadowed all of this. Trump is just turning it up to 11. 

    • Like 3
  8. 22 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

    My son believes he has been purged, he thinks because his last known Harris County address was at his mom's place in Westbury, which is kinda hood.

    He hadn't taken care of it sooner because he was active duty army in Korea until a few weeks ago. If they refuse him a ballot I will make Stan Stanart answer for it. That fucker should have been voted out years ago. 

    Service members are more likely to vote Republican. They'll probably make sure he can vote.

  9. 6 minutes ago, BrazilHorn said:

    Like I mentioned. I did quick google search. It’s the Pew institute for Hispanic Studies doing research so I imagine preponderance of these births are to Hispanics. I do think it is a policy that hasn’t scaled with today’s world (same with gun rights) but it should be addressed as part of broader immigration reforms vs a stand alone action. 

     

    I missed that while I was reading the article, following the embedded links and reading those articles, and composing my reply. 

    Incidentally, if you click the link from your google search results and give the page a little time to load, you can copy the direct url to the target resource rather than the Google search link. 

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/andyjsemotiuk/2016/10/05/the-citizenship-and-immigration-problems-of-anchor-babies-and-surrogacy/amp/

  10. 1 hour ago, BrazilHorn said:

    Nothing in that article, or in the linked Pew study, says anything about the whiteness or non-whiteness of the anchor babies. According to the Pew study, the number of anchor babies born in the U.S. rose steadily every year from the time of Reagan and started to come down again at about the start of the Obama administration. I thought that was ironic. 

    According to the Pew study, about 8% of the 3.9 Million births in 2013 were to unauthorized-immigrant parents, but that also includes couples where only one parent is unauthorized. I don't think 8% is all that significant. A lot of those are going to be children of people who came here to make a better life for themselves. The so-called Dreamers. 

    The thrust of the Forbes article is about "birth tourists" who come here just to have their baby so it has U.S. citizenship. That number is estimated at 36,000 a year, or one tenth of one percent of overall births. That seems pretty insignificant. Sort of like the actual frequency of in person voter fraud. 

    The author does a lot of speculation and what iffing. Who's going to pay for their health care? Maybe that's something he could have researched. He does say:

    "Pregnant women fly here, stay at special hotels and pay sometimes extraordinarily high costs for “concierge services” designed to facilitate the birth of their children. The benefit to the family is that the child is thereby eligible to claim U.S. social welfare, be educated at much lower cost and obtain certain medical benefits for life here."

    Maybe if they can afford to pay for the process, they can pay for the care and maintenance of their child. I doubt that they're just dropping them off and leaving them to be wards of the state. Most parents actually love their children and want to take care of them. Maybe he could have done some case studies on actual birth tourists and told us their stories. Given the slant of the article, though, I gather he would've looked for the worst case scenarios, like his anecdotal reference (without citation) of the Honduran woman who had a Zika baby in NY. Presumably not a birth tourist. Who's going to pay for that, he asks. I don't know. Why don't you track her down and ask her?

    Maybe the majority of anchor babies are non-white. It would make sense since we share a border with Mexico and Canada, and Canadians have a lot less reason to want their kids to be American citizens. 

    What about the birth tourist babies? I wonder what their demographics look like. What's the distribution among non-whites? How many are Latino vs Chinese, Indian, or African? How many are Russian? Regardless, I see that as a total non-issue. If you want to do something about it, don't amend the constitution, go after the people selling the services to facilitate it. While you're at it, go after the Kushners who are selling Visas to the Chinese for exorbitant sums. 

  11. 1 hour ago, BrazilHorn said:

    I guess I don't see as racist per se as to me the policy was written long before the current ease of global travel/birth tourism etc. I think it should be adjusted to reflect 2018. I can see how it is perceived as racist however given that the majority of folks having "anchor" babies are non-white. Like I said above, I don't care if they change and it is nothing more than political theater.

    Where can I go to see the stats on anchor babies? How many are born every year, where do their parents come from, when and how did they get here? I'd like to know. 

  12. 3 hours ago, Okie State said:
    12 hours ago, After irth said:
     

    I'm not an expert, but I think they can tweak the syrup to water ratio and maybe most places just don't give a shit to get it just right. I agree that they suck more often than they don't.

    The water source plays a significant role too. 

  13. 18 minutes ago, kevwun said:

    I don't believe there is anything Trump could propose that Graham would disagree with.  He's committed to going down with the ship at this point.

    I wonder what was promised to him on that golf outing that made him sell out. 

  14. 3 minutes ago, shnsajax said:

    Can he not find a coat that doesn't make his hands look so damn small?

    According to Stormy Daniels he has a penis that makes his hands look pretty large in comparison. 

    • Like 2
    • Haha 1
  15. 21 minutes ago, Js1 said:

    The migrants are going to infect us with leprosy; it'll be a bigger public health debacle than the ISIS members invading and giving everyone Ebola a few years back! We still haven't recovered.

    Good scare tactic for the evangelicals whose only understanding of the disease comes from the bible. They don't know that it's not that common, isn't that contagious, and is now curable.

×
×
  • Create New...