Page 11 of 667 FirstFirst ... 7891011121314152161111511 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 10005
  1. #151
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,898

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    The term for an immigration system without a limiting principle is called open borders.
    Yet no one in a position of Democratic leadership is calling for that and in fact, past Democratic administrations have called for, and enacted, stronger border security -- even if your argument had any validity whatsoever, it would be much more objective and fact-based to judge the Democratic party on their past record under Obama and Clinton than what a small number of Democrats might have said or done in passing.

    Republicans talk all the time about lowering deficits, yet anyone who knows anything about them knows to judge them by actions rather than words.

    It's a false argument, Mets -- you're trying to frame the discussion on your own terms using a false "strawman" position as a counterpoint to defend your own support of an administration that believes separating families and violating the law is the best way to deal with a fake immigration "emergency" created to stir up the racists in the Republican base.

    If Republicans cared that much about immigration reform they would have focused on that instead of increasing our deficit to record amounts by giving the wealthy another tax cut -- but it makes too convenient a talking point to give up, especially when it distracts from issues like Republican corruption, which you keep trying to avoid discussing so that you won't have to explain why you continue to support a lying, racist, homophobic, islamophobic, fiscally irresponsible political party even in the face of all reason.
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 04-14-2019 at 12:02 PM.

  2. #152
    Incredible Member TheDarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    Yet no one in a position of Democratic leadership is calling for that and in fact, past Democratic administrations have called for, and enacted, stronger border security -- even if your argument had any validity whatsoever, it would be much more objective and fact-based to judge the Democratic party on their past record under Obama and Clinton than what a small number of Democrats might have said or done in passing.

    It's a false argument, Mets -- you're trying to frame the discussion on your own terms using a false "strawman" position as a counterpoint to defend your own support of an administration that believes separating families and violating the law is the best way to deal with a fake immigration "emergency" created to stir up the racists in the Republican base.

    If Republicans cared that much about immigration reform they would have focused on that instead of increasing our deficit to record amounts by giving the wealthy another tax cut -- but it makes too convenient a talking point to give up, especially when it distracts from issues like Republican corruption, which you keep trying to avoid discussing so that you won't have to explain why you continue to support a lying, racist, homophobic, islamophobic, fiscally irresponsible political party even in the face of all reason.
    But, according to Mets’ definition, those actions aren’t principles. It isn’t enough to have immigration be limited through border security and lawful process. Unless you have racist quotas, there isn’t a limiting principle. Which is precisely what I was saying—there is no need for such a principle. These actions are limits unto themselves. The process of immigration takes time and needs no principle to extend how long it takes to reach a certain number of immigrants.
    With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  3. #153
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,898

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarman View Post
    But, according to Mets’ definition, those actions aren’t principles. It isn’t enough to have immigration be limited through border security and lawful process. Unless you have racist quotas, there isn’t a limiting principle. Which is precisely what I was saying—there is no need for such a principle. These actions are limits unto themselves. The process of immigration takes time and needs no principle to extend how long it takes to reach a certain number of immigrants.
    All of which flies in the face of the link I posted that shows we could use more immigration, not less -- solely to appeal to a racist base for votes.

    -----
    "[Studies] found that even though foreign-born people make up about 13% of the US population, immigrant entrepreneurs create some 25% of new companies, and that number continues to rise. In some states, that percentage is even higher, with immigrant “gateways” such as New York and California seeing more than 40% of new businesses led by immigrants.

    The study also found that immigrant-led companies start smaller but grow at a faster rate and are more likely to survive long term.

    “Immigrants as a group can have a dynamic effect on an economy,” says Kerr, adding that the phenomenon cuts across industries, with lower-skilled immigrants opening up dry cleaning businesses, restaurants, and autobody shops, and higher-skilled immigrants launching tech firms."

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbswork...-the-job-done/
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 04-14-2019 at 12:15 PM.

  4. #154
    Incredible Member TheDarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    All of which flies in the face of the link I posted that shows we could use more immigration, not less -- solely to appeal to a racist base for votes.

    -----
    "[Studies] found that even though foreign-born people make up about 13% of the US population, immigrant entrepreneurs create some 25% of new companies, and that number continues to rise. In some states, that percentage is even higher, with immigrant “gateways” such as New York and California seeing more than 40% of new businesses led by immigrants.

    The study also found that immigrant-led companies start smaller but grow at a faster rate and are more likely to survive long term.

    “Immigrants as a group can have a dynamic effect on an economy,” says Kerr, adding that the phenomenon cuts across industries, with lower-skilled immigrants opening up dry cleaning businesses, restaurants, and autobody shops, and higher-skilled immigrants launching tech firms."

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbswork...-the-job-done/
    Oh certainly. As I said before, our economy relies on perpetual growth. Without a growing population to yield that growth, we rely merely on technological advancements. Those come quick but they are hardly enough on their own to yield the kind of growth people like Donald Trump insist we need. Only by understanding how counter-intuitive a limited immigration policy is can we avoid having to change the culture of capitalism where anything short of massive gains in growth are perceived as a failure. We need to grow the population somehow. People aren’t having kids. The natural solution, then, is immigration—and letting drug offenders go for the sin of using drugs.
    With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  5. #155
    Horrific Experiment JCAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,344

    Default

    Arguing in circles with Mets actually made me a supporter of open borders. I realized it would be easier to change my mind than his. *sigh*

    Anyway, the guy who draws the Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal webcomic just wrote a book about open borders.
    http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/open-borders
    I haven't read it, but if you can't trust a random webcartoonist who can you trust.

  6. #156
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,898

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JCAll View Post
    Arguing in circles with Mets actually made me a supporter of open borders. I realized it would be easier to change my mind than his.
    I don't even want him to support "open borders" -- just wanted to point out that he's being dishonest when he tries to frame the argument as "open borders" vs "children in cages" in order to defend his party despite my producing a factcheck that proves that the Democratic party supports neither "open borders" or "abolishing ICE".

    It's the same argument he offered last time while producing no factual evidence to back up his accusations -- just questions to deflect from his own party's behavior as if people can't see through the lies, especially when they are just echoes of Trump's lies.

    -----
    "The Democrats want to have no borders. They want to get rid of ICE. … Between Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi, and getting rid of ICE, and having open borders — and the biggest thing, you have open borders. All it’s going to do is lead to massive, massive crime. That’s going to be their platform, open borders, which equals crime." -- Donald Trump

    "Despite President Donald Trump’s repeated claims, Democrats are not advocating open borders, not even the ones who are calling to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    The small minority of Democrats in Congress calling for the end of ICE have all said they would like to have many of ICE’s functions redistributed to other, existing government agencies. None has called for abandoning border enforcement."

    https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/ca...-open-borders/
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 04-14-2019 at 01:50 PM.

  7. #157
    Horrific Experiment JCAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,344

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    I don't even want him to support "open borders" -- just wanted to point out that he's lying (or being misleading) when he tries to frame the argument as "open borders" vs "children in cages" in order to defend his party.

    It's the same argument he offered last time while producing no factual evidence to back up his accusations -- just questions to deflect from his own party's behavior as if people can't see through the lies, especially when they are just echoes of Trump's exact words.
    That's what I mean. He'll never admit he's wrong about this, so I might as well do what I'm being accused of.

  8. #158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    You use this false strawman as a standard defense when the issues of racism or children being separated from their families is brought up even though the factcheck clearly states that only a small minority of non-leadership members of the Democratic party have even brought it up -- just like your "slippery slope" nonsense about why Congress shouldn't see the Mueller Report when you know we deserve to know the truth about Russian interference in our election.

    Just like you use "immigration limits" as an excuse to claim Democrats are for "open borders" when you know that's a lie as well -- they are dishonest arguments based on misleading rhetoric rather than actual factual proof as I cited when pointing out issues within the Republican party.

    You'll do anything but just admit the truth about your lying, corrupt, racist, homophobic, islamophobic, warmongering, fiscally irresponsible party: you can't defend them on their record so -- just like Trump -- you have to exaggerate and make things up about "Democrats" ("open borders", "abolish ICE") to try to shift the argument away from the truth about the Republican party.
    I'll notice that you're evading the questions. Have Democrats expressed any opinion on a limiting principle on legal immigration (an upper limit on the number of immigrants who should be allowed in)? If so, what is it? If not, what should we infer from the silence, and why should we infer that?

    Quote Originally Posted by JCAll View Post
    Arguing in circles with Mets actually made me a supporter of open borders. I realized it would be easier to change my mind than his. *sigh*

    Anyway, the guy who draws the Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal webcomic just wrote a book about open borders.
    http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/open-borders
    I haven't read it, but if you can't trust a random webcartoonist who can you trust.
    He's working with Bryan Caplan, whose work on Open Borders I've linked to.

  9. #159
    Horrific Experiment JCAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,344

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    He's working with Bryan Caplan, whose work on Open Borders I've linked to.
    Very cool.

  10. #160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarman View Post
    I think it is a little irresponsible to use the term “open borders” to describe a policy that already has a limiting mechanism. I mean, we could provide a principle but that seems counterproductive to our value system. If the effect is not so different from a policy with a principle as it is without it, it ends up being a difference without a distinction. When people think of “open borders”, they see a policy without any limit, either mechanical or otherwise. To say that a policy that simply doesn’t put down quotas is equal to the policy that has no limit seems to be irresponsible framing of the debate.
    When I'm referring to "open borders" I'm describing a policy in which pretty much anyone who wants to get in to the United States can be allowed in, with the potential exception of confirmed criminals/ members of terrorist organizations.

    As I've said before, My impression has been that the left generally wants open borders, so that anyone who wants to be in the United States should be able to come in, with the caveat that there will be a slight delay for background checks, to make sure new arrivals aren't members of criminal or terrorist organizations. That resolves the moral question of whether people who came into the country illegally years ago will be rewarded with citizenship by also granting it to anyone who wants to come in and has been following the appropriate steps in the legal process.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarman View Post
    But, according to Mets’ definition, those actions aren’t principles. It isn’t enough to have immigration be limited through border security and lawful process. Unless you have racist quotas, there isn’t a limiting principle. Which is precisely what I was saying—there is no need for such a principle. These actions are limits unto themselves. The process of immigration takes time and needs no principle to extend how long it takes to reach a certain number of immigrants.
    "Border patrol" and "lawful process" are insufficient as methods that reveal the Democratic party's position on immigration limits because the party's agreed upon position is that the legal immigration system is broken and needs to be changed. Suggested changes include hiring more processors and immigration judges.

    Quote Originally Posted by JCAll View Post
    That's what I mean. He'll never admit he's wrong about this, so I might as well do what I'm being accused of.
    I'll gladly reevaluate my position on what the Democratic party wants when I get the answers: Have Democrats expressed any opinion on a limiting principle on legal immigration (an upper limit on the number of immigrants who should be allowed in)? If so, what is it? If not, what should we infer from the silence, and why should we infer that?

  11. #161
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    17,247

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    What I "realize" is that you're quick to hypocritically call out everyone but your "pet" candidates -- like Sanders -- for their faults and it does nothing positive for the party as a whole when you try to sabotage the leadership of the party.

    I remember you calling out Hillary for not supporting BLM and when I posted the link of the mothers speaking on behalf of her campaign, you disappeared from sight and didn't even have the common decency to admit that you were wrong.

    Same goes for people like you not voting "against" Trump -- which is one of the main reasons we are where we are today.

    Having a preferred candidate is one thing but trying to sabotage the Democratic party is another -- maybe when you start addressing Sanders' lack of "leadership" on key issues as adamantly as everyone else's I'll be able to take you seriously as anything other than someone who will attack the Democratic party unless he gets his way on how the party is run.

    It's telling that you said you liked Carter -- I like Carter too, but despite his best intentions, his politics were not successful on the national stage, especially in comparison to both Clinton and Obama.

    Sanders couldn't even get that far without running as "Democrat" and still lost by millions of votes in the primary.

    Stop trying to force a losing strategy on the rest of the Democratic party.
    Pointing out(as Rashida Tlaib and Marc Lamont Hill did) that deciding not to even use Rep. Omar's name when you are making some lousy attempt at addressing this is not "Sabotage".

    It's pointing out the reality of that "Leadership" is not happening.

    Even more so when Sanders and Warren are having to call this out while Pelosi won't even use Omar's name.

    You want leadership on a key issue?

    Sanders just did it.

  12. #162
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,662

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post

    The British system has not killed 100,000 people.
    I apologise, it was right wing austerity tactics that killed 120,000. The Disability groups are within that number however which is where my confusion from my initial sources came from.

    https://fullfact.org/health/austerit...essary-deaths/

    Fact checker suggests its plausable frankly, or as plausable as you can get with this kind of data where you can't actually pinpoint the death on the factor in question. Ie : You could brush off higher black american mortality as merely inner city violence but that ignores WHY the ghetto and inner city violence occurs in the first place.

  13. #163
    Incredible Member zinderel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    If #ACAB isn't meant to be understood as a statement that All Cops Are Bastards, this does suggest a communication problem when statements aren’t meant to be taken literally.
    I...have to ask this. IT’s been rattling in my brain for a while now, and I haven’t felt it appropriate to ask. But...look, Mets...are you on the spectrum? I don’t mean any offense, honestly and truly, but in the time I have been on these threads, I have noticed that, like my nephew who IS on the spectrum, you have a real difficulty with rhetorical flourishes and subtext. If you ARE, I will work harder at being more precise. If you are NOT, then you need to stop policing semantics and recognize that people are poetic and emotional and that seeps into our speech.

    As for #ACAB, as I have explained before, that is a rhetorical device called ‘metonymy’. It is essentially shorthand, and a cousin to metaphor and synonym. It is when you use a quick, brief word or phrase to mean something more detailed.

    Examples:

    - ‘the crown’ referring to the role of leadership and the responsibilities of leadership in the phrase ‘heavy is the crown’.
    - ‘suit’ referring to a businessman or government spook, or otherwise rigid, stuffed-shirt type with no sense of humor.
    - ACAB referring to the undeniably corrupt system inherent in the police force, regardless of individual ‘good ones’’

    It’s shorthand, man. It’s how people talk...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I understand the distinction between recent assassinations, and the history of it. My point is that this isn’t a one-sided thing where the only victims are those fighting for left-wing causes shot for trying to make the world a better place. It’s worth noting JFK was killed by a communist, Harvey Milk was killed by a former Democratic colleague, Bobby Kennedy was killed by a Palestinian (Christian) upset at his support for Israel, etc. This doesn’t mean we should take assassination lightly. We all have to accept that people who hold different views should not be victims of violence, even if we think their views will contribute to people dying/ failing to reach their potential.
    Again, my list was about numbers, and it is telling that most would-be assassins of progressives are angry at them for trying to move forward, and assassination attempts on conservatives come from people angry at what those politicians have done to actually hurt people. JFK was killed because he wasn’t giving Russia what it wanted. Bobby was killed by a bigoted Christian (thanks for proving THAT point for me...). Harvey Milk’s assassin was a Christian as well, Democrat or no. The point is, progressives get targeted for trying to make people’s lives better, and conservatives get targeted for actually making people’s lives worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    1. The timeline of the law matters, since the argument started before the Supreme Court recognized gay marriage as a national right.
    No. The timeline does not matter, because we do not live in 1980s world. We live in 2019, and right now, RIGHT NOW, the law is very plain. And these bakers are breaking the law NOW. Stop trying to change the subject to something unrelated and unimportant to the discussion we are having NOW. Should businesses who denied service to gay people in the past have done better. Absolutely. Morally, and ethically, yes. But there weren't laws then – or inclusion in the laws that did exist - to FORCE businesses to not be shitty bigots if they want to make money off of the public. Your question about whether or not businesses in the 80’s should be held to today's standards has as much relevance as my question about slave owners. Shitty bigots are shitty bigots, no matter the time frame or legality of that bigotry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    2. You are going to need to quote Mike Pence or his acknowledged religious mentors if your argument is that he thinks gay people deserve to be stoned to death.
    My response to this is gonna take up room, so…I’ll address it separately.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    3. I’m not arguing about treating people differently, but about efforts to get equal outcomes.
    You seriously think progressives want equal outcomes…? No. That's just…no. We want equal OPPORTUNITY. Which, no matter what rich, white, Christian men say to the contrary, is not what we have in America. Poor people are not on a level playing field with rich people. People of color do not start on the same line as white people. Gay people are not on par with straight people. And so on. One very specific subsection of humanity has the vast majority of resources, power, and cache, and the rest of us are well behind, in the race. No one is pushing for everyone to cross the same finish line at the same time, but allowing everyone the opportunity to start the race at the same line, on a level playing field would sure be nice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    4. I get the argument against nuclear power, but it does seem that the left’s main opposition is to cheap energy. We can discuss what type of "hit to the wallet" is acceptable.
    As others have pointed out, nuclear is not cheap. The long term risks are greater, and thus, more costly in the long run, the short term benefits do not outweigh those risks, and the costs are anything but cheap. So…yeah.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    5. If you’re concerned about rape and abortion, you can make sure the grand compromise includes exceptions for rape, as well as incest and situations in which the mother’s life is in danger/ the baby would have severe health problems.
    I am concerned about you trying to use women's health as a bargaining chip. Period. Abortion is not murder, women's health is not a commodity, and if your party would rather see the world burn than see women free to make choices about their own bodies, well, that says quite a bit, I think.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I know your position on immigration. My interest is in why you think elected Democrats aren’t openly discussing theirs.
    As others have pointed out, what YOU claim is Democratic policy has never once been pushed by any Democrat, outside of that VERY IMPORTANT T-SHIRT THAT ONE GUY WORE THAT ONE TIME.

    Looking at ACTUAL policy, Democrats believe inBorders, and work to uphold them. They just don't put kids in cages, or RIP babies from their mothers to sell on the black market. Sorry, to 'adopt out to white couples looking for exotic babies', the way we used to do to the Native Americans when we 'settled' America and took it for Jesus from the savage heathen hordes...

  14. #164
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,898

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I'll notice that you're evading the questions. Have Democrats expressed any opinion on a limiting principle on legal immigration (an upper limit on the number of immigrants who should be allowed in)? If so, what is it? If not, what should we infer from the silence, and why should we infer that?
    I'm not evading anything Mets -- I've already told you pointblank I'm not answering an inherently dishonest and misleading question.

    For the sake of clarity though, I don't "infer" anything from their silence because actions speak louder than words, regardless: the Democrats have proposed reasonable immigration reform in the past while the Republican party has proposed and enacted separating families en masse at the border -- Trump has even suggested "getting rough" and mentioned "machine guns" in dealing with said immigrants.

    What should we infer from that Mets, and the silence of the Republicans like yourself who let this man stoke racism and xenophobia amongst the American people while denying us the right to see whether he is compromised by foreign influence? Should we infer that you support his racist and anti-democratic agenda since you cover for him and echo his words?

    The Democrats are not for "open borders" no matter how you try to frame this argument -- you're trying to make this a matter of opinion, and in the process avoid the fact that your party is separating families at the border to incite the racists in the Republican base while simultaneously trying to hide the Mueller report from both Congress and the public.

    So peddle your opinion to others with dishonest arguments as you will -- I'll stick with the facts, which you like to avoid for obvious reasons.
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 04-14-2019 at 04:49 PM.

  15. #165
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,898

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    You want leadership on a key issue?
    Yeah, I already mentioned three of them (racial issues, gender equality, tax form releases) and Sanders failed in "leadership" on every single one of them.

    Just like he failed to win the nomination by millions of votes last election.

    And how you failed to give Hillary credit for inviting BLM to speak at her campaign after you lied and claimed she didn't.

    And how people like you failed to vote against Trump so here we are.
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 04-14-2019 at 04:56 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •