Boston men beat homeless man; cite Trump; Trump shrugs

#128
#128
hog88 said:
Who's the last candidate that fits this description?
Click to expand...

I would say a lot of them do. Politics tend to get in the way. That's why we shouldn't continue to support guys like Trump, who have 0 commitment to principle.

I would say Romney, Carson, Obama, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Huckabee, etc. are/were candidates who really want to make a difference. Whether or not they are that in practice is another question. Whether or not they are egomaniacs too is another question.

Like it or not, Obama cared a lot about some of his principles. Hillary has not cared for at least 20 years.
 
#129
#129
n_huffhines said:
Question for the board....

What is so bad about illegal immigration? Meaning the act. Is there anything morally or ethically wrong with immigration? Or is it just the fact that government officials that you love and trust so much have arbitrarily told them no, they can't come, and that's what makes it "wrong".
Click to expand...

You know, calling it "immigration" gives it some sort of legitimacy in people's minds. Which is conditioning you, and others, to think it's not such a big deal.

Now what's so bad about it? I'll tell you exactly what's bad about it. It perpetuates the welfare system.

You have an illegal alien that comes into the country and does a job for minimum wage (or sometimes below) and does the best they can under the circumstances. Always living in fear of being found out and (possibly) deported. Not being able to provide basic health care for their families. Barely making ends meet. But make no mistake, they work their asses off at whatever job they do and I can never fault their work ethic.

On the opposite side of that coin, you have plenty of people on public assistance that believe they are too "good" for those menial jobs being done by illegal aliens. And the systems allows them to remain on that assistance even though in many cases they just have to "look" for a job. I work at an employer like that right now. And I can't tell you how many people send in resumes from ZipRecruiter or Indeed or Craigslist that don't ever make the next step in applying. Or we can't contact. Or I get hung up on. Or they schedule an appointment to come in and apply and never show up. I kept stats on our Indeed applications last year for two months. 22% actually showed up for the interview. And of those, I'd say less than half actually work an event for my company.

And I'd bet pennies to dollars a good majority of them go to their case workers and say "look, I sent in an application. I even went in and applied. But they didn't have any work for me." When in truth, my event staffing company provides staffing for every social and sporting event on the University of Oklahoma. So to say there isn't "work" available is a bold faced lie. But the most common answer lie given to DHS? "They don't have work."

So instead of the public assistance making people that could be working, yet choose not to and continue to live off the government tit, employers are forced into using illegal aliens to get the job done. Unfortunately, that's not an option for my company since we are mandated to E-Verify everyone. And those aliens would be caught by the system.

So what's wrong with the illegal "immigration?" Simply put, it allows those US citizens that could (and should) be working to continue to suck up your tax dollars and allows aliens to do those jobs instead since employers must get the job done. I have no problems with those that want to come here legally and work and provide a better life for their family. I would almost be willing to accept some form of amnesty provided the welfare system was reformed as well. But the major problem with all of this is people are told they are too "good" to do certain menial jobs and it's okay to stay on generational welfare. And in turn, illegal aliens continue to come across the border and work in jobs that, again, could and should be filled by those trying to get off welfare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#130
#130
n_huffhines said:
Like it or not, Obama cared a lot about some of his principles. Hillary has not cared for at least 20 years.
Click to expand...

Sometimes you make me chuckle Huff.

Obama is a power hungry, egotistical man who cared more about getting reelected than he did any "principles." If he cared about principle, he would have learned the art of compromise like Reagan and Clinton had done before him and learned to accept slow, incremental changes in what he wanted.

But I wouldn't expect an egotistical, power hungry man to do such things.

(in before you reference Trump)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#131
#131
n_huffhines said:
Question for the board....

What is so bad about illegal immigration? Meaning the act. Is there anything morally or ethically wrong with immigration? Or is it just the fact that government officials that you love and trust so much have arbitrarily told them no, they can't come, and that's what makes it "wrong".
Click to expand...
What is so bad about inviting a family of illegals to share your home with you? Would that be morally or ethically wrong? Or is it just the fact that you have arbitrarily told them no, they can't move in, and that's what makes it wrong?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#132
#132
Grand Vol said:
You know, calling it "immigration" gives it some sort of legitimacy in people's minds. Which is conditioning you, and others, to think it's not such a big deal.

Now what's so bad about it? I'll tell you exactly what's bad about it. It perpetuates the welfare system.

You have an illegal alien that comes into the country and does a job for minimum wage (or sometimes below) and does the best they can under the circumstances. Always living in fear of being found out and (possibly) deported. Not being able to provide basic health care for their families. Barely making ends meet. But make no mistake, they work their asses off at whatever job they do and I can never fault their work ethic.

On the opposite side of that coin, you have plenty of people on public assistance that believe they are too "good" for those menial jobs being done by illegal aliens. And the systems allows them to remain on that assistance even though in many cases they just have to "look" for a job. I work at an employer like that right now. And I can't tell you how many people send in resumes from ZipRecruiter or Indeed or Craigslist that don't ever make the next step in applying. Or we can't contact. Or I get hung up on. Or they schedule an appointment to come in and apply and never show up. I kept stats on our Indeed applications last year for two months. 22% actually showed up for the interview. And of those, I'd say less than half actually work an event for my company.

And I'd bet pennies to dollars a good majority of them go to their case workers and say "look, I sent in an application. I even went in and applied. But they didn't have any work for me." When in truth, my event staffing company provides staffing for every social and sporting event on the University of Oklahoma. So to say there isn't "work" available is a bold faced lie. But the most common answer lie given to DHS? "They don't have work."

So instead of the public assistance making people that could be working, yet choose not to and continue to live off the government tit, employers are forced into using illegal aliens to get the job done. Unfortunately, that's not an option for my company since we are mandated to E-Verify everyone. And those aliens would be caught by the system.

So what's wrong with the illegal "immigration?" Simply put, it allows those US citizens that could (and should) be working to continue to suck up your tax dollars and allows aliens to do those jobs instead since employers must get the job done. I have no problems with those that want to come here legally and work and provide a better life for their family. I would almost be willing to accept some form of amnesty provided the welfare system was reformed as well. But the major problem with all of this is people are told they are too "good" to do certain menial jobs and it's okay to stay on generational welfare. And in turn, illegal aliens continue to come across the border and work in jobs that, again, could and should be filled by those trying to get off welfare.
Click to expand...

This doesn't answer my question. I'm asking for an inherent judgment. You are talking about an arbitrary and artificial consequence.

That's a lot of words, tho :good!:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#133
#133
1972 Grad said:
What is so bad about inviting a family of illegals to share your home with you?
Click to expand...

Nothing.

Would that be morally or ethically wrong?
Click to expand...

I have no clue why it would be.

Or is it just the fact that you have arbitrarily told them no, they can't move in, and that's what makes it wrong?
Click to expand...

I thought I invited them, in your hypothetical?

I think what you are trying to say is that keeping someone out of your house is the same thing as keeping them out of your country, which is dumb as hell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#135
#135
tim said:
Hillary and Obama said Benghazi was a result of a youtube video.
Click to expand...


Sigh.

Of all the Obama and HRC bashing material out there, this remains the most petty and misdirected. They were initially told it was the video, then intelligence said no that's not true, and within a week it was corrected.

Those who rely on this as meaningful just come across as vindictive and waiting for gotcha moments. No perspective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#136
#136
lawgator1 said:
Sigh.

Of all the Obama and HRC bashing material out there, this remains the most petty and misdirected. They were initially told it was the video, then intelligence said no that's not true, and within a week it was corrected.

Those who rely on this as meaningful just come across as vindictive and waiting for gotcha moments. No perspective.
Click to expand...

Misdirection is you continuing to stand on the week timeline when I've proven you wrong time and time again. And really, I'm not in the mood to do it again.

But of course, what are facts to you and your kind?
 
#137
#137
Grand Vol said:
Misdirection is you continuing to stand on the week timeline when I've proven you wrong time and time again. And really, I'm not in the mood to do it again.

But of course, what are facts to you and your kind?
Click to expand...


"You're wrong, you're always wrong. There is no point in my telling you that you are wrong, so I'm doing it again."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#138
#138
n_huffhines said:
This doesn't answer my question. I'm asking for an inherent judgment. You are talking about an arbitrary and artificial consequence.

That's a lot of words, tho :good!:
Click to expand...

There is nothing arbitrary about the cause and effect of what you are talking about. And in turn, makes it the base reason why I think illegal "immigration" is morally wrong.

Cause: Americans have become lazy and reliant on the government tit to keep them up. They won't work even when work is available because the system won't enforce getting people off welfare.

Effect: Illegals pour across the border and do the jobs lazy Americans won't do because of said welfare system.

So what is more morally wrong? Allowing lazy Americans to continue abusing the system? Or allowing illegal aliens to continue doing the work Americans feel they are too good to do?

You are correct it's an artificial problem. But you don't like the answer I gave because it blows your open borders An-Cap theory out of the water. Cause and effect. Generational welfare breeds laziness. Lax immigration standards perpetuate more people coming into the country. In turn, more people would rather the State provide than try to work and even more jobs go to illegals. Unless of course you'd rather the State keep them up.

Illegal immigration is morally wrong. Now address the reasons I provided instead of trying to dismiss the answer you don't like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#139
#139
lawgator1 said:
"You're wrong, you're always wrong. There is no point in my telling you that you are wrong, so I'm doing it again."
Click to expand...

You continue to live a lie and continue to toss out this week time frame that's been proven wrong every chance you get. Shouldn't you as a lawyer believe in the facts?

Never mind...you're a lawyer. When are facts convenient?
 
#140
#140
n_huffhines said:
Nothing.



I have no clue why it would be.



I thought I invited them, in your hypothetical?

I think what you are trying to say is that keeping someone out of your house is the same thing as keeping them out of your country, which is dumb as hell.
Click to expand...
I am saying that you aren't as welcoming when it affects you personally.
 
#141
#141
Grand Vol said:
You continue to live a lie and continue to toss out this week time frame that's been proven wrong every chance you get. Shouldn't you as a lawyer believe in the facts?

Never mind...you're a lawyer. When are facts convenient?
Click to expand...



No doubt you get your facts from the same right wing blogs that complain that Obama called it "an act of terror," instead of "terrorism." The same blogs that spend pages trying to claim there's a big difference (so Obama is a Muslim sympathizer).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#142
#142
lawgator1 said:
No doubt you get your facts from the same right wing blogs that complain that Obama called it "an act of terror," instead of "terrorism." The same blogs that spend pages trying to claim there's a big difference (so Obama is a Muslim sympathizer).
Click to expand...

Yeah, the New York Times is a right wing blog...
 
#144
#144
lawgator1 said:
Ok, big guy, link me NYT saying it was meaningfully longer than a week until the admin moved away from spontaneous reaction to video and called it terrorism, or equivalent thereof.
Click to expand...

The only reason they changed their story is due to it being so completely moronic. Nobody fell for it
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#146
#146
lawgator1 said:
Sigh.

Of all the Obama and HRC bashing material out there, this remains the most petty and misdirected. They were initially told it was the video, then intelligence said no that's not true, and within a week it was corrected.

Those who rely on this as meaningful just come across as vindictive and waiting for gotcha moments. No perspective.
Click to expand...

While I agree this is not Hillary's biggest problem you continue to ignore the facts of the timeline.

As you can see here; the first time HC acknowledged it was terrorism was 9/21 - ten days (not within a week).

Benghazi Timeline

Likewise, Obama blamed it on the video more than a week after the event and as much as 2 weeks later (The View and UN) would not rule out the video and specifically mentioned the video respectively. When pressed if it was video or terrorist attack he gave no answer.

The since revealed intelligence timeline shows that Susan Rice's "the 2 things we know for sure" were absolutely not known for sure and the certainty with which the administration claimed it was a spontaneous reaction to a video was 1) never there and 2) when it was quickly internally debunked they still went with the story.

So, in the end the Benghazi spin is a small issue but you continually get the facts wrong about it.

Of course we aren't even adding the role State played in shaping the talking points.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#147
#147
volinbham said:
While I agree this is not Hillary's biggest problem you continue to ignore the facts of the timeline.

As you can see here; the first time HC acknowledged it was terrorism was 9/21 - ten days (not within a week).

Benghazi Timeline

Likewise, Obama blamed it on the video more than a week after the event and as much as 2 weeks later (The View and UN) would not rule out the video and specifically mentioned the video respectively. When pressed if it was video or terrorist attack he gave no answer.

The since revealed intelligence timeline shows that Susan Rice's "the 2 things we know for sure" were absolutely not known for sure and the certainty with which the administration claimed it was a spontaneous reaction to a video was 1) never there and 2) when it was quickly internally debunked they still went with the story.

So, in the end the Benghazi spin is a small issue but you continually get the facts wrong about it.

Of course we aren't even adding the role State played in shaping the talking points.
Click to expand...


10 days, not 7?


Impeach !!!! Prosecute!!! Screeeeeeeech!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#148
#148
lawgator1 said:
10 days, not 7?


Impeach !!!! Prosecute!!! Screeeeeeeech!!!!
Click to expand...

You were wrong - why can't you admit it?

Of course I also never called for impeachment or prosecution and even said it was a small issue in the bigger scheme but your reaction is predictable.

Also:

1) HC's State shaped the original TPs
2) Obama took just over 2 weeks to drop the video nonsense.

I seem to recall a thread where you blasted some one for a factual error - seems you might want to be consistent...
 
#149
#149
volinbham said:
You were wrong - why can't you admit it?

Of course I also never called for impeachment or prosecution and even said it was a small issue in the bigger scheme but your reaction is predictable.

Also:

1) HC's State shaped the original TPs
2) Obama took just over 2 weeks to drop the video nonsense.

I seem to recall a thread where you blasted some one for a factual error - seems you might want to be consistent...
Click to expand...
He is consistent.......consistently behind Democrats, and against Republicans, regardless of what they do.
 
#150
#150
I'll add that even Mike Morrell, the CIA guy that massaged the original talking points to minimize the terrorism angle so as not to embarrass State wonders where the video angle came from and believes that to have been added for political reasons.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top