Jump to content

Politically charged altercations at Whataburger


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

OK, got it.  So my assertion that there is no indication that factions of law enforcement would be willing to shoot those crossing the border is "lunacy".  Got it.  It's interesting that you have actually zero inclination to debate the point, because, of course, you can't.  You know it's true.

Thanks for enabling the downfall of our country.

Your scenario is possible, albeit unlikely. I don’t believe for a second that was your original point, but it appears we’re getting nowhere. Good luck to you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chrispy said:

What you posted about the paramilitary happily carrying out “the order” is embarrassingly silly, I’m rather glad you’re backtracking. 

Why? Some of the "paramilitary" contractors involved in the operation have links to human trafficking. It's a small step from that to snuffing someone out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

and the willingness of the ice employees to continue to act in such a manner. i couldn't live with myself. somehow they seem to be able to do so, and that scares the fuck out of me

For the most part, these are the same people that were working there doing the exact same job in 2014.  They don't view themselves as doing anything wrong because they have seen enough of the bad shit that cause Obama to implement this policy during his term. 

obama.jpg

The only difference is the volume of cases come in. The administration gave an order to reunite the families with the kids but there is quite clearly a bottleneck is in this process. We don't have the infrastructure to house all these people and definitely don't have enough case workers able to get them through the system.  Sessions started this DNA solution but that's not exactly a quick solution.

I don't think anyone wants kids separated from their actual parents and that's not what this policy was designed to do.  What it's supposed to do is to stop kids being tortured by actual bad guys. 

Obama's policy was catch and release because we don't have the infrastructure in place to stop the bad guys.  So his policy was to just let them through and let the local PD handle it.  Trump wants to stop them from entering in the first place but is having to settle for this hybrid system that basically forces the US to house these people until they get to see a judge.

 

So the real debate is how we stop kids that are crossing the border illegally from being tortured without them ending up in cages in the process.  It's a problem and I don't think you can solve both by just blaming the other side.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Your scenario is possible, albeit unlikely. I don’t believe for a second that was your original point, but it appears we’re getting nowhere. Good luck to you. 

I would suggest that you learn how to read, because I have been quite clear throughout on this topic.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, udaydanceparty said:

For the most part, these are the same people that were working there doing the exact same job in 2014.  They don't view themselves as doing anything wrong because they have seen enough of the bad shit that cause Obama to implement this policy during his term. 

obama.jpg

The only difference is the volume of cases come in. The administration gave an order to reunite the families with the kids but there is quite clearly a bottleneck is in this process. We don't have the infrastructure to house all these people and definitely don't have enough case workers able to get them through the system.  Sessions started this DNA solution but that's not exactly a quick solution.

I don't think anyone wants kids separated from their actual parents and that's not what this policy was designed to do.  What it's supposed to do is to stop kids being tortured by actual bad guys. 

Obama's policy was catch and release because we don't have the infrastructure in place to stop the bad guys.  So his policy was to just let them through and let the local PD handle it.  Trump wants to stop them from entering in the first place but is having to settle for this hybrid system that basically forces the US to house these people until they get to see a judge.

 

So the real debate is how we stop kids that are crossing the border illegally from being tortured without them ending up in cages in the process.  It's a problem and I don't think you can solve both by just blaming the other side.

Ankle bracelets work just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

Why? Some of the "paramilitary" contractors involved in the operation have links to human trafficking. It's a small step from that to snuffing someone out.

There’s a difference between unsavory individuals doing illegal acts for personal gain, and an official order form the president. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I'd gladly trade 95% of illegal immigrants that come in for the entire native-born white populations of Oklahoma, Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi.

As an Alabamian, this could be a win-win. You get new roofers and less of whatever you don't like. Meanwhile, the South of the Border gets a new population that would certainly stir things up in a good way, and probably benefit as well.

It could be the best example of an old stagnant culture being upturned and rattled by savage rednecks since the Normans took over Sicily and Southern Italy. Though I am not sure I'd include Oklahomans as Normans, maybe Enids. Arkansans would be a sort of knife-happy Irish auxiliary class.

If you were to send a pack of Ohioans into Mexico City, they go all "nee nee nee" nasal-talking, looking down their Kraut noses, alienating everyone. Send Alabamians? Hell, it's not any crookeder than Montgomery, we got this. Be able to schmooze silver-mining and telecom concessions by Tuesday, and our new brother-in-law in La Administracion is happy about it.

Yeah, bro-in-law. Because of Mexican Womanhood's desire for ever-whiter, ever-taller babies, we'll be wearing shiny shirts with popped collars staggering telenovela-style from mistress to wife to mistress to some other wife.

Oh, you said native-born. I was born in boring-ass Georgia. Guess I could sneak in.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

There’s a difference between unsavory individuals doing illegal acts for personal gain, and an official order form the president. 

Presidents can give unlawful orders.  Neither Obama nor Trump are giving an illegal one by making sure these kids being smuggled across the border aren't being tortured by the people bringing them across.  It's a shit situation and the policy's origin is a direct response to that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I think it’s important to never say never and be mindful of our past. However, the advent of social media has created a world of hyper vigilance, to the degree that I believe a genocide would be extremely unlikely. 

We’re are most certainly the same ape, but we’re apes being watched incessantly. 

All right, so in your mind the technological creation of social media websites and media cameras is the bulwark between 21st century America and genocide? Is there anything else?

What if there was someone at the highest level of American power who was attempting to constantly undermine the free press whose cameras are trained on those facilities? What if there were people who wanted to silence or dismiss what is reported via social media?

28 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I don’t believe so. The media has reporters and cameras parked outside every one of these facilities, not to mention the politicians and protestors. Social media has proved to be a effective tool, even if I don’t agree with its tactics

And there it is. Like clockwork.

Edited by bad_teammate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

Presidents can give unlawful orders.  Neither Obama nor Trump are giving an illegal one by making sure these kids being smuggled across the border aren't being tortured by the people bringing them across.  It's a shit situation and the policy's origin is a direct response to that.

How does taking the kids away from their parents ensure that those kids aren't being tortured by the coyotes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

or, i don't know, stay with me here, actually create a guest worker program so that they can come here legally, do the work legally, pay taxes, and go home when finished. or allow them to stay for a certain amount of time with a path to citizenship. i know, immigration is so complex. we better keep doing it he way we currently are. it works so well.

For some reason, the cynic in me thinks the IRS loves the illegals working with fake SS#s because it results in millions of revenue that doesn't get returned.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

For some reason, the cynic in me thinks the IRS loves the illegals working with fake SS#s because it results in millions of revenue that doesn't get returned.  

The IRS will provide undocumented workers with taxpayer IDs specifically for the purpose of collecting taxes from them. The IRS doesn't care if they are here illegally.

Edited by David Dennison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bad_teammate said:

All right, so in your mind the technological creation of social media websites and media cameras is the bulwark between 21st century America and genocide? Is there anything else?

What if there was someone who was attempting to constantly undermine the free press whose cameras are trained on those facilities? What if there were people who wanted to silence or dismiss what is reported via social media?

And there it is. Like clockwork.

I think anyone attempting to undermine the media and social media is going to realize it’s an exercise in futility.

Social media tends to be overly strident and therefore easier to ignore, that’s my only point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

I think anyone attempting to undermine the media and social media is going to realize it’s an exercise in futility.

Social media tends to be overly strident and therefore easier to ignore, that’s my only point. 

Do you not see how this completely undermines it as a bulwark against genocide? Literally the only bulwark you were able to conjure?

Look, just embrace the reality that we can head just as merrily towards genocide today as we could at any other time in history in any other place in the world. I have no idea why you would want to pretend otherwise. It's irrational to pretend that it can't happen here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

Presidents can give unlawful orders.  Neither Obama nor Trump are giving an illegal one by making sure these kids being smuggled across the border aren't being tortured by the people bringing them across.  It's a shit situation and the policy's origin is a direct response to that.

 

Duly noted. I recently read that it’s fairly common to give young girls birth control for the journey because rape is so rampant, it’s all so disturbing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Duly noted. I recently read that it’s fairly common to give young girls birth control for the journey because rape is so rampant, it’s all so disturbing.

So if they know that, imagine how bad it must be in their homeland to want to take that risk.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Do you not see how this completely undermines it as a bulwark against genocide? Literally the only bulwark you were able to conjure?

Look, just embrace the reality that we can head just as merrily towards genocide today as we could at any other time in history in any other place in the world. I have no idea why you would want to pretend otherwise. It's irrational to pretend that it can't happen here.

No, I don’t. Replacing the hysterics with factual information will ensure less eye rolling and insouciant shrugs, that’s my point.

Never say never, but I find it highly unlikely.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Chrispy said:

No, I don’t. Replacing the hysterics with factual information will ensure less eye rolling and insouciant shrugs, that’s my point.

Who defines what things are "hysterics"? You are arguing in this thread that genocide cannot happen here because Facebook exists, which is, on its face, a completely laughable argument. And you are the one to define what is hysterical?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How does taking the kids away from their parents ensure that those kids aren't being tortured by the coyotes? 

 

If they are being sold into the sex trade then a coyote will hand off the kid or a group of kids to another person on the US side of the border or set a rendezvous point for people in the group to meet once on the other side of the border.  The danger doesn't suddenly stop once they cross the border.  Those smugglers view them as merchandise and someone is buying them stateside.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

So if they know that, imagine how bad it must be in their homeland to want to take that risk.

There are plenty of naive people out there with hopes and dreams for people to exploit. 

 

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Who defines what things are "hysterics"? You are arguing in this thread that genocide cannot happen here because Facebook exists, which is, on its face, a completely laughable argument. And you are the one to define what is hysterical?

Equating what's going on at the border with genocide is the definition of "hysterics".   People need to stop crying wolf about every little thing Trump does and start offering viable alternatives.   Open borders isn't even something Mexico is willing to deal with right now.  Their new president announced he's going to build a southern border wall.

 

Edited by udaydanceparty
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

26 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

If they are being sold into the sex trade then a coyote will hand off the kid or a group of kids to another person on the US side of the border or set a rendezvous point for people in the group to meet once on the other side of the border.  The danger doesn't suddenly stop once they cross the border.  Those smugglers view them as merchandise and someone is buying them stateside.

All right, so if a kid says, "That's my mother" then... what? We presume the kid is lying? What process is in place to ensure that family connection? Do we do DNA tests?

18 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

There are plenty of naive people out there with hopes and dreams for people to exploit. 

If they're taking birth control BEFORE the trip because they know they'll likely be raped, what the hell do you mean by "naive"?

Quote

Equating what's going on at the border with genocide is the definition of "hysterics".

Literally no one has said that genocide is currently happening. What we're saying -- and we're right -- is that we're on the road towards genocide. And it isn't hysterical, it's coldly and depressingly rational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Who defines what things are "hysterics"? You are arguing in this thread that genocide cannot happen here because Facebook exists, which is, on its face, a completely laughable argument. And you are the one to define what is hysterical?

I didn’t specify Facebook or say it couldn’t happen, only that it’s unlikely. My point is the hyper vigilance is a byproduct of social media, which is an effective tool if wielded properly. 

Also, it’s fairly easy to discern hysterics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I didn’t specify Facebook or say it couldn’t happen, only that it’s unlikely. My point is the hyper vigilance is a byproduct of social media, which is an effective tool if wielded properly. 

Also, it’s fairly easy to discern hysterics. 

Except for the fact that every single damn thing that has gone down during the Trump administration has done so with this alleged hyper-vigilant bulwark against atrocity . . . weird how it isn't working.

Can you please try a LITTLE harder not to come across as a Russian stooge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I didn’t specify Facebook or say it couldn’t happen, only that it’s unlikely. My point is the hyper vigilance is a byproduct of social media, which is an effective tool if wielded properly. 

You didn't say it couldn't happen? You spent quite a long time and a lot of effort dismissing those who voiced it as a concern. Glad to see you retreating from an illogical position.

Quote

Also, it’s fairly easy to discern hysterics. 

It's not, actually, not at all. Remember all the insane leftists who thought Trump was going to destroy America and the Very Smart Centrists who assured everyone in condescending tones that the institutions of government would behave normally and that the magnitude of the office of the presidency would smooth Trump's rough edges? Those leftists were considered hysterical... and they have been completely right.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bad_teammate said:

You didn't say it couldn't happen? You spent quite a long time and a lot of effort dismissing those who voiced it as a concern. Glad to see you retreating from an illogical position.

It's not, actually, not at all. Remember all the insane leftists who thought Trump was going to destroy America and the Very Smart Centrists who assured everyone in condescending tones that the institutions of government would behave normally and that the magnitude of the office of the presidency would smooth Trump's rough edges? Those leftists were considered hysterical... and they have been completely right.

 

It would be naive to think it could never happen, but believing the border situation is heading to genocide is undoubtedly insane. Hence the mockery of certain posters that possess a vivid imagination. 

Your second paragraph is the epitome of hyperbole. See? It’s not hard to recognize. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

 

All right, so if a kid says, "That's my mother" then... what? We presume the kid is lying? What process is in place to ensure that family connection? Do we do DNA tests?

If they're taking birth control BEFORE the trip because they know they'll likely be raped, what the hell do you mean by "naive"?

Literally no one has said that genocide is currently happening. What we're saying -- and we're right -- is that we're on the road towards genocide. And it isn't hysterical, it's coldly and depressingly rational.

1) Sessions was pushing for DNA testing.. Not sure where they are with that at the moment.

2)  You are kind of talking past the points I am making.  They are naive to think that the problems are only on their journey.  A lot of times these people are smuggled in and told they have to work to pay off their visa etc.  They sell them on the idea they will have a job and everything will be okay.  Instead they are made into servants.

3) You are railing against a dark future that exists exclusively in your mind.  You can't predict the future.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Except for the fact that every single damn thing that has gone down during the Trump administration has done so with this alleged hyper-vigilant bulwark against atrocity . . . weird how it isn't working.

Can you please try a LITTLE harder not to come across as a Russian stooge?

I simply do not believe that is the case, Jimmy. It’s apparent we will not agree on this issue, so have a good one my man. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In light of its director, Claude Lanzmann, dying this past week, it would serve all Americans well to set aside several evenings in the near future to watch the film Shoah. It is a monumental achievement of cinema and historical record. Viewing it once is enough for a lifetime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Do you not see how this completely undermines it as a bulwark against genocide? Literally the only bulwark you were able to conjure?

Look, just embrace the reality that we can head just as merrily towards genocide today as we could at any other time in history in any other place in the world. I have no idea why you would want to pretend otherwise. It's irrational to pretend that it can't happen here.

Genocide?  Step back from the cliff.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chrispy said:

It would be naive to think it could never happen, but believing the border situation is heading to genocide is undoubtedly insane.

It would be naive to think it could never happen, but to believe it could happen is undoubtedly insane.

Good doublethink. Doubleplus good.

1 hour ago, udaydanceparty said:

1) Sessions was pushing for DNA testing.. Not sure where they are with that at the moment.

So they decided to separate the families without having that in place? And no plan to implement it?

Quote

They are naive to think that the problems are only on their journey.  A lot of times these people are smuggled in and told they have to work to pay off their visa etc.  They sell them on the idea they will have a job and everything will be okay.  Instead they are made into servants.

How does stripping children from parents solve any of this?

Quote

3) You are railing against a dark future that exists exclusively in your mind.  You can't predict the future.

But you can? You can see into the future that genocide is impossible on our continent? (Even though we white Americans have already done plenty of genocide.)

3 minutes ago, ScottishHorn said:

Genocide?  Step back from the cliff.

Can you articulate a sound, reasoned argument as to why it is impossible for this to turn slowly into a campaign of genocide?

Just now, ScottishHorn said:

Sex trafficking of us citizens is a far worse problem than what is happening at the border to people that put themselves in harm's way

Your argument here is that the US government's armed agencies are marginally better than sex traffickers? Uh... congratulations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ScottishHorn said:

Sex trafficking of us citizens is a far worse problem than what is happening at the border to people that put themselves in harm's way

Let's all reflect on this for a moment.  One of our resident foreign patriots has postulated that sex trafficking is actually "far worse" when it happens to someone who didn't travel miles on foot and a hopped rail.  Because, as we all know, the means by which one arrives at a location where a crime is committed completely informs the way we judge crimes inflicted upon same.

Seriously, let's revel in this remarkable insight.  Oh, the things I wish upon you, ScottishHorn, but decorum prohibits me from speaking further.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Do you not see how this completely undermines it as a bulwark against genocide? Literally the only bulwark you were able to conjure?

Look, just embrace the reality that we can head just as merrily towards genocide today as we could at any other time in history in any other place in the world. I have no idea why you would want to pretend otherwise. It's irrational to pretend that it can't happen here.

You would think that all of the hispanic border control officers and police wouldn't be such fanatical followers of Trump and his death squads.  I guess they will join in on the firing squads and gas chambers.  You better get down there and stop it!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ScottishHorn said:

You would think that all of the hispanic border control officers and police wouldn't be such fanatical followers of Trump and his death squads.  I guess they will join in on the firing squads and gas chambers.  You better get down there and stop it!

All you and your ilk are capable of is breathless sarcasm because you lack a rationale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Let's all reflect on this for a moment.  One of our resident foreign patriots has postulated that sex trafficking is actually "far worse" when it happens to someone who didn't travel miles on foot and a hopped rail.  Because, as we all know, the means by which one arrives at a location where a crime is committed completely informs the way we judge crimes inflicted upon same.

Seriously, let's revel in this remarkable insight.  Oh, the things I wish upon you, ScottishHorn, but decorum prohibits me from speaking further.

It's a problem that is assisted by our open borders.  That's my point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ScottishHorn said:

It's a problem that is assisted by our open borders.  That's my point

Funny how the only people that mention the term "open borders" is someone from the right.

I do not remember anyone on the left crying or shouting we need to open the borders.

Edited by Steamboat1874
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It would be naive to think it could never happen, but to believe it could happen is undoubtedly insane.

Good doublethink. Doubleplus good.

So they decided to separate the families without having that in place? And no plan to implement it?

How does stripping children from parents solve any of this?

But you can? You can see into the future that genocide is impossible on our continent? (Even though we white Americans have already done plenty of genocide.)

Can you articulate a sound, reasoned argument as to why it is impossible for this to turn slowly into a campaign of genocide?

Your argument here is that the US government's armed agencies are marginally better than sex traffickers? Uh... congratulations?

You created an entirely new sentence and attributed it to me, color me unimpressed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

You created an entirely new sentence and attributed it to me, color me unimpressed. 

Please articulate how it is misleading.

Your sentence literally says it is "naive" to think it couldn't happen here but warning that it might be starting now is "undoubtedly insane". With ZERO explanation. Those are your words, bud. You are experiencing and expressing cognitive dissonance.

15 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

Funny how the only people that mention the term "open borders" is someone from the right.

I do not remember anyone on the left crying or shouting we need to open the borders.

It depends on what "open borders" means. It means a million different things depending on the mood of the speaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Please articulate how it is misleading.

Your sentence literally says it is "naive" to think it couldn't happen here but warning that it might be starting now is "undoubtedly insane". With ZERO explanation. Those are your words, bud. You are experiencing and expressing cognitive dissonance.

It depends on what "open borders" means. It means a million different things depending on the mood of the speaker.

I’ve seen nothing at the border that leads me to believe there’s an impending genocide, it’s unnecessary paranoia on your part. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...