Black Sunday

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-26-2018, 06:03 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Obama Administration pepper sprays a mob trying to rush the border in 2013:  ...Crickets

Trump Administration tear gases a mob about 6-7 times bigger trying to rush the border in 2018:  Assad!! HITLERRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

Obama sends troops to secure the border in 2010: ...Crickets

Trump sends troops to secure the border in 2018: FACIST! Political ploy! HITLERRRRR!!!!!!!!!


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

I would really love some consistency in the outrage reactions going on here.

You won't get it.  The three headed hydra of social outrage is only concerned with smarmy obfuscation and railing against those of us not as enlightened (i.e. anyone who doesn't agree with their every position).  Get with the program, dude!

[jj22]

So what your saying is all this talk about Trump being tough on borders is a lie and he's doing nothing different then what Obama did? Right.

I already covered this convo in a post earlier. Thanks for proving my point about Trump Supporters.

Carry on talking about how tough on immigration and Pro America Trump is for doing exactly what you admit Obama did for 8 years prior (and thinking I am somehow the one looking like a fool).

[jj22]

(11-26-2018, 05:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What a thoroughly shallow assessment of the situation, about what I'd expect from a guy who's read one book on the subject.  Let's look at huge differences between the two situations.

Germany, just defeated in a ~five year long war that killed a huge number of young men.  USA, not so much.

Germany, suffering under war reparations that made economic recovery difficult to impossible.  USA, not so much.

Germany, deals with the worst economic depression in modern history, possibly ever.  USA, not so much.

Germany, no history of democratic or representative government, instead a long history of authoritarian and militaristic regimes.  USA, not so much.

Germany, autocratic chancellor appointed to position by politician desperate to hold on to power.  USA, lawfully elected POTUS same as every other.

Germany, large scale political violence between two equally violent factions (NSDAP and Communists) is commonplace.  USA, not so much.



Stick to spouting talking points or wait for BallsofSteel to get unbant, because this effort on your part is embarrassing.

A lot more than one book. But you don't really know me so I won't take that shot personally.

Why are you so obsessed with BallsofSteel?

[GMDino]

(11-26-2018, 06:03 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Obama Administration pepper sprays a mob trying to rush the border in 2013:  ...Crickets

Trump Administration tear gases a mob about 6-7 times bigger trying to rush the border in 2018:  Assad!! HITLERRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

Obama sends troops to secure the border in 2010: ...Crickets

Trump sends troops to secure the border in 2018: FACIST! Political ploy! HITLERRRRR!!!!!!!!!


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

I would really love some consistency in the outrage reactions going on here.

Seems that there were articles written about the 2013 event and much concern about it.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-border-patrol-rock-throwing-san-ysidro-2013nov25-story.html

There is probably more, that was the one used in the FOX article that claimed that no one complained when "obama did it".

And of course these were border control agents...not the military deployed by Obama.

And in 2010?

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-obama-to-send-1200-troops-2010may25-story.html

Quote:Obama will also request $500 million for border protection and law enforcement activities, according to lawmakers and administration officials. The moves come as chances for action on comprehensive immigration reform, Obama's long-stated goal, look increasingly small in this election year. But Obama is under pressure to do something with the issue front and center after Arizona's passage of a tough crackdown law.

The National Guard troops will work on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support, analysis and training, and support efforts to block drug trafficking. They will temporarily supplement Border Patrol agents until Customs and Border Protection can recruit and train additional officers and agents to serve on the border, an administration official said.

So, not "crickets" just a better thought out and executed plan.

It seem that the right would like to pretend that Obama was never challenged or questioned without actually going back to see if he was.

(11-26-2018, 06:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You won't get it.  The three headed hydra of social outrage is only concerned with smarmy obfuscation and railing against those of us not as enlightened (i.e. anyone who doesn't agree with their every position).  Get with the program, dude!

I guess pointing out what really happened is misinterpreted as "railing against" people who have opinions and not facts at their disposal.

"swarmy"

[jj22]

So basically what is coming out of all of this is Trump hasn't done anything different at our borders, and like the economy is just riding Obamas coattails. Trump supporters finally admitting this is just the post Thanksgiving tea this Nation needed. Carry on with the confession Trump supporters.

In the mean time tell us again how tough Trump is on immigration and border security and how weak Obama the open border globalist was.....

[jj22]

(11-26-2018, 05:51 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm not sure what honestly no I may need to reread it is referring to..  

Bushitler. You stumped me with Bushitler.

[Benton]

(11-26-2018, 06:03 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Obama Administration pepper sprays a mob trying to rush the border in 2013:  ...Crickets

Trump Administration tear gases a mob about 6-7 times bigger trying to rush the border in 2018:  Assad!! HITLERRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

Obama sends troops to secure the border in 2010: ...Crickets

Trump sends troops to secure the border in 2018: FACIST! Political ploy! HITLERRRRR!!!!!!!!!


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

I would really love some consistency in the outrage reactions going on here.

One of the biggest differences in the 2018/2013 events (from Dino's link):

Quote:Immigrant-rights groups in San Diego said they didn’t know beforehand about the plan to rush the border, and they worry that desperation is driving homeless deportees to make a bold bid to rejoin their families in the United States.

I remember there being grousing about it. And, again, they didn't sneak up on anyone.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-26-2018, 06:19 PM)jj22 Wrote: So what your saying is all this talk about Trump being tough on borders is a lie and he's doing nothing different then what Obama did? Right.

I already covered this convo in a post earlier. Thanks for proving my point about Trump Supporters

Not a Trump supporter, just laughing at the absurd quantities of hypocrisy. Trump could tie his shoes and some people would find a way to link that shit to Hitler... "You know who else wore shoes? Hitler." ...or some secret white power symbol. "Look here, when he grabs the laces, preparing to make two bunny ears, it makes an M, which is just a W upside down. Then when he makes the loop, you can clearly see that one of them makes a P! Irrefutable proof!"

The guy is bad enough on his own, you don't need to make up your own false narratives too. It detracts from your point far more than it adds.

I mean the second sentence of this thread, that you yourself created, says...

Quote:As pictures spread of the unprecedented chemical attack that was authorized by the Trump Administration that hit mostly women and small children...

Unprecedented: Obviously not, I just showed otherwise.

Chemical Attack: Calling tear gas a "chemical attack" is obviously an attempt to put it in the same category as Assad using lethal chemicals that can kill hundreds, which have long been described as chemical attacks. In that case, the US has been having "chemical attacks" every time a Philadelphia sports team wins or loses a big game and riots. The US Government also "chemical attacks" everyone who goes through basic training, including 17-year-old minors.

Mostly Women and Small Children: Mostly? Really? I've seen two verified pictures of a woman with her small children, and they were the same woman and small child. (You can tell from her identical Frozen t-shirt.) Then in the background I see a couple hundred adults. Please show me where there are MOSTLY women and small children.


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

So to recap, your thread you made is entirely based upon easily proven otherwise lies made to create outrage.


Your thread will be hard for History to defend.

[jj22]

History won't have to. That's what pictures and video's are for.

Now back to how Trump is so tough on the border again, and how he's done nothing different then Obama as you were saying in your prior post that proved comical given we all know how it goes with Trump Supporters having to defend the indefensible.....

[*michaelsean*]

(11-26-2018, 06:35 PM)jj22 Wrote: Bushitler. You stumped me with Bushitler.

It's what people used to call Bush.  It's even in the urban dictionary.  So there's nothing unique with this comparison.    It's the go to.

[Dill]

(11-26-2018, 04:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You really don't need me in the conversation do you?

Disagreeing with you is conversing without you?

If you only post to make authoritarian pronouncements and ignore counter evidence and counterarguments, then this never was a "conversation."

Try to respond to an argument with something other than a dodge and see what happens. Start with my point, restated here, that Trump's border shutdown may be illegal/unconstitutional.  Explain how massaging existing law to produce conflict and crisis supports "siding with those who protect laws" as opposed to refugee families with children.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/20/politics/judge-asylum-restrictions/index.html

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/9/18078074/trump-asylum-border-lawsuit-illegal

[Dill]

(11-26-2018, 06:51 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It's what people used to call Bush.  It's even in the urban dictionary.  So there's nothing unique with this comparison.    It's the go to.

I am pretty sure it all started with this picture of Bush as Governor of Texas.

[jj22]

(11-26-2018, 06:51 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It's what people used to call Bush.  It's even in the urban dictionary.  So there's nothing unique with this comparison.    It's the go to.

For what reasons? I didn't google it.

There are legit comparisons between Trump and Hitler's tactics to galvanize their bases and rise to political power (it's one of the reasons he has the full support of Nazi sympathizers and anti-Semitists). It's been discussed and wrote about since Trumps surprising rise. It's actually quite interesting if people wouldn't take it so personal in their defense of Trump.

While Trump supporters are so insulted by the notion, Trump himself would probably have high praise for Hitler (as he does for Putin, Kim, Saudi King and all other Dictators alive today, some I've forgotten to mention). So not really insulting at all to him at all.

[*bfine32*]

(11-26-2018, 06:59 PM)Dill Wrote: Disagreeing with you is conversing without you?

If you only post to make authoritarian pronouncements and ignore counter evidence and counterarguments, then this never was a "conversation."

Try to respond to an argument with something other than a dodge and see what happens. Start with my point, restated here, that Trump's border shutdown may be illegal/unconstitutional.  Explain how massaging existing law to produce conflict and crisis supports "siding with those who protect laws" as opposed to refugee families with children.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/20/politics/judge-asylum-restrictions/index.html

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/9/18078074/trump-asylum-border-lawsuit-illegal

No. But introducing a Red Herring and then arguing that is. Nowhere did I say shutting down the border completely was the best choice, you just assigned that stance to me so you could argue against it. 

[Beaker]

It amazes me that there are some who think the US should just let people show up at our border and demand to be let in....and we should do so or we are uncaring jerks. People rushing a border crossing in an attempt to overwhelm is an invasion. I don't care if there were women and children in the crowd, they had no right to assume their actions were in any way justified.

100 people you don't know show up at your front door and demand to be let in your house because you have a nice house and they want to live there because it would be better for them....you letting them in?

[jj22]

Well when you have it on your door that they are welcomed and no one there is the original owner..... like it or not we are a nation of immigrants. Something folks used to be proud of.

[Dill]

(11-26-2018, 06:03 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Obama Administration pepper sprays a mob trying to rush the border in 2013:  ...Crickets

Trump Administration tear gases a mob about 6-7 times bigger trying to rush the border in 2018:  Assad!! HITLERRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Obama sends troops to secure the border in 2010: ...Crickets

Trump sends troops to secure the border in 2018: FACIST! Political ploy! HITLERRRRR!!!!!!!!!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I would really love some consistency in the outrage reactions going on here.

Obama separated families too, right? Where is the outrage?!?
Len, you forgot the Fox News links with those titles. LOL

What happens if we look a bit more closely at the incidents you allude to above?

The 2013 incident, for example, was not preceded by weeks of negative "caravan" Fox/Trump reporting and not precipitated by a possibly illegal total shutdown of the border crossing. It did not follow years of Obama disparaging brown immigrants, and policies using children to create fear in parents, nor from Obama daily calling attention to the border. It was the border patrol responding to a spontaneous rush on a fence, making a judgment call with no reference to the White House at all, not a shutdown following a policy which Obama was deliberately keeping in the news. No children gassed. Lacking the policy implications of Trump's shutdown, local not national news-- So yes, crickets. And five years later Fox can work up the outrage machine about the "silence" following this blip on the radar screen, while liberals and press are all exercised over this caravan Trump/Fox kept front and center in the news for months.  So unfair!

So in 2010 Obama sends 1,200 troops to the border for drug enforcement and trafficking problems, until the border patrol can up its numbers.  Didn't hear crickets after that. McCain demanded he send 3,000 more.   Others on the border thought this an ineffective use of tax payer money, given the cost of the deployment and the fact that U.S. military cannot arrest anyone, only serve in a support role.  Had Obama vowed to "seal the border" with 4,000 more troops and whooped up an ISIS-Soros threat of thousands of well organized criminals bringing disease, then maybe some would have compared him to Hitler for gassing children and connocting an ethnic threat. Obama had his chance to generate outrage--and blew it.

So long story short, for months the showman Trump makes a BIG DEAL of a threatening cultural other "invading" the border, and embraces cruel policies which fall hardest on immigrant/refugee children, and gets LOTS MORE news coverage and OUTRAGE than Obama.  Go figure.

[Benton]

(11-26-2018, 07:12 PM)Beaker Wrote: It amazes me that there are some who think the US should just let people show up at our border and demand to be let in....and we should do so or we are uncaring jerks. People rushing a border crossing in an attempt to overwhelm is an invasion. I don't care if there were women and children in the crowd, they had no right to assume their actions were in any way justified.

100 people you don't know show up at your front door and demand to be let in your house because you have a nice house and they want to live there because it would be better for them....you letting them in?

Wait... How do you stop them from showing up at the border (outside of diplomacy, which I'll repeat is what we should have done)?

I get stopping them from crossing but when did it become 'it's not ok for people to want to come here'?

[Dill]

(11-26-2018, 07:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No. But introducing a Red Herring and then arguing that is. Nowhere did I say shutting down the border completely was the best choice, you just assigned that stance to me so you could argue against it. 

You can create red herrings by falsely accusing people of deploying them.

Nowhere did I say you said that "shutting down the border completely was the best choice."  

I said Trump shut it down, a possibly unconstitutional move, and that complicates your "side with the law protectors not the refugees" argument.

Trump has orchestrated an event, a television drama, in which the country is bound to fall into two parties--those who side with the gassed children and those who side with "the law."  For one the analogy is to hungry, helpless people fleeing violence and for the other criminals are breaking into our house and librals won't fight back. 

It it not just about the law, but about everything which lead up to the confrontation, and the questions some politicians can count on their base--and more--not to ask.

[*bfine32*]

(11-26-2018, 04:25 PM)Dill Wrote: Of course you are. That is the best defense of a choice to shut down the border and deny asylum seekers the opportunity to present themselves legally to U.S. authorities.

The jury is still out though, on whether the order to shut down the border is protecting the law or breaking it. The courts may have to decide that.

(11-26-2018, 08:25 PM)Dill Wrote: You can create red herrings by falsely accusing people of deploying them.

Nowhere did I say you said that "shutting down the border completely was the best choice."  

I said Trump shut it down, a possibly unconstitutional move, and that complicates your "side with the law protectors not the refugees" argument.

Trump has orchestrated an event, a television drama, in which the country is bound to fall into two parties--those who side with the gassed children and those who side with "the law."  For one the analogy is to hungry, helpless people fleeing violence and for the other criminals are breaking into our house and librals won't fight back. 

It it not just about the law, but about everything which lead up to the confrontation, and the questions some politicians can count on their base--and more--not to ask.

Enjoy your conversation