Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Politicians say the darndest thingsFollow

#55Trappin, Posted: Sep 04 2015 at 2:07 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) 46,002. ( He'll win because 46,000 vs 470)
#56lolgaxe, Posted: Sep 04 2015 at 2:07 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Here's your response.
#57 Sep 04 2015 at 3:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Someone should nuke you both for that ********* Aren't any moderators left though so you two ******* will end up getting a pass.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#58 Sep 04 2015 at 4:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Trappin wrote:
The larger issue is whether or not federal law should be selectively applied. And if federal law is beholden to political agenda only, then we're all screwed. Selective prosecution or prosecutorial direction, it's simply a matter of whose oxen are gored.

Having sat in federal immigration court, I can say without hesitation that prosecutorial discretion is a good thing.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#59 Sep 04 2015 at 5:17 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Trappin wrote:
Being a glib wiseass may earn you respect here with imaginary internet friends, but it don't mean jack-s to me.


With friends like these who needs enemies amirite?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#60 Sep 04 2015 at 7:31 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
#61 Sep 04 2015 at 7:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Being the boss means getting away with things that lesser employees would be fired for. That's part of what makes them lesser employees.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#62 Sep 04 2015 at 8:22 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Being the boss means getting away with things that lesser employees would be fired for. That's part of what makes them lesser employees.


So she apologized for being a boss? What kind of a boss apologizes for that?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#63 Sep 04 2015 at 10:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
angrymnk wrote:
So she apologized for being a boss?

Not that I know of.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#64 Sep 05 2015 at 6:43 AM Rating: Good
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
No, no, no. She apologized Like A Boss.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#65 Sep 05 2015 at 8:07 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
No, no, no. She apologized Like A Boss.


She has history on her side. Bill's apology was quarter *** and it was still accepted by teh american ppl.

Then again, some recent CEO apologies were actual apologies so I am not sure if it is true for all high level bosses these days.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#66 Sep 05 2015 at 11:37 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Quote:
Here's your response.


I thought that was our thing.

I mean, it's not a great thing to have, but it was ours. You cheating *****.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#67 Sep 07 2015 at 11:15 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
You have a thing with someone? I'm envious.
#68 Sep 08 2015 at 7:31 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Someone should nuke you both for that
Looks like someone's finger slipped and added some fuel to the fire. This should be fun to watch.
Kavekkk wrote:
I thought that was our thing.
Oh baby, you know it was nothing. It was just meaningless dismissive post counting. He means nothing to me. I didn't even use a three syllable word with him like I do with you. That's how much I care for you. We'll always have something special.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#69 Sep 08 2015 at 7:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The majority, beyond the majority, are coming in the good ole fashioned ways.


And you know this because? Wishful thinking? You know nothing Jophiel.

Quote:
No argument that immigration reform would help this but the GOP isn't actually concerned with "reform" so people trapped in bad situations are less likely to seek help since the response is "You're in here illegally so you're just like an axe murdering child rapist!"


Yeah. Because the Dems are so concerned with reform. Seriously?

Quote:
Be that as it may, the number of illegal immigrants entering the US is somewhere around 350,000 annually. The number of people trafficked into the US each year is around 15,000. I hired an illegal alien from a drug lord to do the math and he told that that it comes out to less than 5% of the undocumented immigrants being trafficked (and that number includes all trafficked immigrants such as those from Africa, Russia or Eastern Europe).


Um... Those are the numbers who are forcibly moved into the US against their wills (mostly sex slaves). That number does not include the number who owe debts to those who helped them move (willingly) across the border. Way to totally miss the point. It's nearly impossible for someone to illegally cross from Mexico into the US without significant help from an organized smuggling operation. Given that most of them are incredibly poor, so much so that they'd risk life and limb to work for low wages and hard labor in the US, it's unbelievable to not grasp that payment must come after they arrive here, not before. How exactly do you suppose that happens?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#70 Sep 08 2015 at 9:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And you know this because? Wishful thinking? You know nothing Jophiel.

Actually, I just cited numbers. You're welcome to cite yours. Or you can pout and stomp your foot and insist that everyone else is wrong because... ?
Quote:
Um... Those are the numbers who are forcibly moved into the US against their wills (mostly *** slaves). That number does not include the number who owe debts to those who helped them move (willingly) across the border.

Well, no. It also includes: "the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery." Gee... coercion? Debt bondage? Isn't that exactly what you were talking about? Damn, cites are a bitch, huh?

Again, show your work. C'mon, you can do it. Maybe you read a review of the Cliff Notes of the conclusion of a report somewhere? Something? Anything?

Gee, maybe I'm just "naive". I mean, in absence of any real evidence I bet saying "naive" will change people's minds!

Edited, Sep 8th 2015 10:37pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#71 Sep 09 2015 at 5:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You think Mexicans entering the nation are unaware of where the major Mexican populations are in the US where they can find people who speak their language and share their culture? Or where their friends and family have wound up? They have no clue which cities and towns have the resources and network to help them get established? This is an argument you were trying to make? For real?


Yes. It's an argument I'm making. For real. You don't live in a southern border city. I do. A group of illegals walking along asking people in Spanish where they can hang their hat will be deported in like 10 minutes. How do you think they find a "network" to help them get established? Who do you think runs that network? The people who bring them in drop them off in camps and safe houses. They run them. The same people. Get it? The same people who are directly associated with organized criminal cartels, and who expect those illegals to work off their debt. These people do not do this out of some love for the working man trying to improve his life. They do it for money and power. And they abuse the heck out of those who are in debt to them.

And those are the illegals who aren't just held for ransom from family members already somewhat established in the States.


I'm honestly confused how you think this works.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#72 Sep 09 2015 at 5:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
A group of illegals walking along asking people in Spanish where they can hang their hat will be deported in like 10 minutes

Good thing no one said this.
Quote:
I'm honestly confused how you think this works.

I sincerely believe this, but I don't see it as a failing on my end. But, again, since you made the claims of human trafficking and that's how everyone is getting here these days I'm going to continue to wait on a cite stronger than you calling people naive or admitting that you're confused. Come back, bring some real stats and we'll talk.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#73 Sep 09 2015 at 6:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
No, no, no. She apologized Like A Boss.


She has history on her side. Bill's apology was quarter *** and it was still accepted by teh american ppl.


If by accepted you mean "he was impeached", I suppose you have a point. Also, what he did wasn't illegal (just highly inappropriate). What she did probably violated a half dozen different laws involving national security, handling of classified information, handling of national records, etc, etc, etc. She can claim she didn't realize what she was doing was a problem, but one has to wonder about that. The sole reason for using your own server is specifically so you can keep control of what is on it and prevent others from being able to access it. For a private citizen, it's a privacy thing. But for a highly placed public servant? What she does as Secretary of State is supposed to be recorded. It's supposed to be auditable. It's supposed to be done through official channels and methods. She intentionally managed her communications in a way designed to prevent all of those things. Again. Not an accident.

And I find it hard to believe her when she says that "people knew about this". What people? Who did she consult with before doing this? Did she get the AG to sign off on this? Heads of data security? Who? There's no way anyone in charge of managing communications for the State Department (or any part of the government) could have signed off on this arrangement. And if they had, they'd be subject to charges.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#74 Sep 09 2015 at 6:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Well, no. It also includes: "the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery." Gee... coercion? Debt bondage? Isn't that exactly what you were talking about? Damn, cites are a bitch, huh?


through the use of force, fraud, or coercion

It's like you didn't bother to read the part of the sentence that is exactly relevant to what I was talking about:

gbaji wrote:
That number does not include the number who owe debts to those who helped them move (willingly) across the border.



What numbers do you want? Every single illegal has to pay the people who transport them across the border illegally. Every. Single. One. Here's a relevant article. That's from 2009. Things have gotten worse since then. Organized crime has taken over the illegal border crossing business. You can bury your head in the sand on this and pretend that it's just about evil conservatives hating on poor immigrants trying to make a better life for themselves, but the reality is that these people are far more victimized by the people your "side" thinks we should just ignore than they are by the border patrol, or even us conservatives saying we should do something about this problem.

It's not going to go away. The status quo is horrific. Heck. I'm not even trying to propose a solution here. Just trying to get you to acknowledge that this really is a problem. Why is that so hard?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#75 Sep 09 2015 at 6:33 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
No, no, no. She apologized Like A Boss.


She has history on her side. Bill's apology was quarter *** and it was still accepted by teh american ppl.


If by accepted you mean "he was impeached", I suppose you have a point. Also, what he did wasn't illegal (just highly inappropriate). What she did probably violated a half dozen different laws involving national security, handling of classified information, handling of national records, etc, etc, etc. She can claim she didn't realize what she was doing was a problem, but one has to wonder about that. The sole reason for using your own server is specifically so you can keep control of what is on it and prevent others from being able to access it. For a private citizen, it's a privacy thing. But for a highly placed public servant? What she does as Secretary of State is supposed to be recorded. It's supposed to be auditable. It's supposed to be done through official channels and methods. She intentionally managed her communications in a way designed to prevent all of those things. Again. Not an accident.

And I find it hard to believe her when she says that "people knew about this". What people? Who did she consult with before doing this? Did she get the AG to sign off on this? Heads of data security? Who? There's no way anyone in charge of managing communications for the State Department (or any part of the government) could have signed off on this arrangement. And if they had, they'd be subject to charges.


Huh? Political class impeached him; among 'teh american pplz' he had a very high, prolly highest of any leaving president, rating.

As for Hillary, just the other day she said, and I am paraphrasing here: I am not evil and/or malicious, just stupid. That should do well. I was honestly worried that Hillary might win this time.. but she keeps tripping over her own shoes.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#76 Sep 09 2015 at 6:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Huh? Political class impeached him; among 'teh american pplz' he had a very high, prolly highest of any leaving president, rating.


Sorry. I was assuming you were talking about the response to his actions immediately during/after they became public, not the public reaction a few years later. Since we're right in the middle of the same sort of situation for Hillary, that seemed more appropriate. At the time the affair with Lewinsky became public, his approval rating dropped about 10 points, so it's not fair to say that the public forgave him then. Later? Sure. We Americans tend to be a pretty forgiving lot, especially of past presidents. Heck. Even Nixon's approval ratings went up about 10% a decade or so after he resigned.

Quote:
As for Hillary, just the other day she said, and I am paraphrasing here: I am not evil and/or malicious, just stupid. That should do well. I was honestly worried that Hillary might win this time.. but she keeps tripping over her own shoes.


Yeah. For her, it's not just about what she did, but her horrible handling of questions about those things after the fact. She seems to be honestly surprised when the rest of the world doesn't just forget about her past and move on like she'd like them to do. Worse, she gets angry at reporters for asking questions. That's never a good thing. Even if you're one of those people who view certain lines of questions as just political baiting, you expect a politician of that level to handle them better than she is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 431 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (431)