Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

sactowndog

Border Crisis

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, pokebball said:

You get back to me when the kids parents are killed in Conflict protecting your freedom. In fact, you probably got some Navy family is there in San Diego with you, send your last post to them.

How is that relevant.  The fact we have kids serving has nothing to do with how we treat people as a country.  It’s completely irrelevant.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, pokebball said:

When your inconsistency is indefensible burn the flag

I served two years in the infantry. I’m not burning any flag. Our country is doing something wrong and you’re excusing it. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

I haven’t made any Nazi comparisons. I’m simply saying what we are doing is morally wrong.

And I'm simply enjoying your situational application of morality

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

How is that relevant.  The fact we have kids serving has nothing to do with how we treat people as a country.  It’s completely irrelevant.  

I think we've been pointing your situational application of caring for children. And your claim that this is irrelevant to the conversation, proves the point

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

I served two years in the infantry. I’m not burning any flag. Our country is doing something wrong and you’re excusing it. 

Show me where I excused it? I'm simply pointing out your situational "caring for children".

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, pokebball said:

Show me where I excused it? I'm simply pointing out your situational "caring for children".

I don’t see the children of volunteer soldiers having a parent deploy as being the moral equivalent of separating and caging the children of people who have entered the country illegally. Apparently you do, so there’s really nothing more for me to say. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, toonkee said:

 He wants more police under his control and to reduce the power of legal process. Definitely not authoritarian.

 

 

I do not think he understands that the only alternative to catch and release for entire family units is to expedite the legal process.  In order to do that more judges are needed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

I don’t the children of volunteer soldiers having a parent deploy as being the moral equivalent of separating and caging the children of people who have entered the country illegally. Apparently you do, so there’s really nothing more for me to say. 

Where did I say I see it as a moral equivalent?  You like putting words in people's mouths?  Why?

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2018 at 7:07 AM, NVGiant said:

Democrats voted overwhelmingly to pass a bipartisan senate bill in 2013, which was supported by Obama ... a bill that was never brought to the floor in the Republican House because it wanted to run on the issue.

2007, no bill passed but mostly because Bush’s own party abandoned him, with only 12 of 49 Republican senators supporting in the end. 

You’re right about Obama’s promise in the first year. 

In 2010, Obama did want to take up reform, but was rebuffed by Senate Democrats. 

I like this lede about the failure of the 2013 effort. It really encapsulates the bipartisan failure on this issue:

Why immigration reform died in Congress

Immigration reform couldn’t pass into law when Republicans controlled the White House and Congress (in 2005-2006). It couldn’t pass when a Republican was in the White House and Democrats controlled Congress (in 2007-2008). It couldn’t pass when Democrats controlled both the executive and legislative branches (in 2009-2010). And now we officially know this after yesterday: It isn’t going to pass with a Democrat in the White House, Democrats in charge of the Senate, and Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives (2011-2014). Back in 2008 or 2012, Republicans COULD argue that President Obama didn’t make immigration reform a priority, or that he took steps to stymie reform in when he was a senator. (And 2010, in particular, the one REAL moment of the Obama first term when immigration was possible, it was Senate Democratic leaders who weren’t ready to give up the politics of the issue. And the White House didn’t fight.) But now, no reasonable person can say that immigration’s death -- in 2013 and 2014 -- is anyone’s fault but House Republicans.

Pretty much sums it up.

A Bill democrats knew wouldn't pass because they designed it not to pass, so there was no risk voting for it.

In 2007 Obama and far left democrats allied with far right republicans to sink Bush's bill with a poison pill amendment.

 

Democrats will never ever vote for an immigration bill that has a chance of passing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

A Bill democrats knew wouldn't pass because they designed it not to pass, so there was no risk voting for it.

In 2007 Obama and far left democrats allied with far right republicans to sink Bush's bill with a poison pill amendment.

 

Democrats will never ever vote for an immigration bill that has a chance of passing.

I agree if recent history is any guide. But you must admit the GOP is going through the same exercise as we speak. Actually, they can’t even get themselves to vote for a bill they know won’t pass. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

I agree if recent history is any guide. But you must admit the GOP is going through the same exercise as we speak. Actually, they can’t even get themselves to vote for a bill they know won’t pass. 

Well they haven't promised a constituency and campaigned on passing an immigration bill.

You would think the party that has campaigned on the issue could make up the couple votes needed to pass it but they won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bluerules009 said:

Well they haven't promised a constituency and campaigned on passing an immigration bill.

You would think the party that has campaigned on the issue could make up the couple votes needed to pass it but they won't.

I would imagine it depends what’s in the bill. The Dems are never going to vote for something the Freedom Caucus will support, and I can’t see a significant block of the GOP breaking with Trump, assuming they can tell what his position is from one minute to the next. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

I would imagine it depends what’s in the bill. The Dems are never going to vote for something the Freedom Caucus will support, and I can’t see a significant block of the GOP breaking with Trump, assuming they can tell what his position is from one minute to the next. 

Which is sad, because most of the problems simply cannot be "fixed" by using executive powers, and the new policies and procedures will need more funding. Congress absolutely must act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2018 at 1:57 PM, BSUTOP25 said:

My doctor was completely confused today when during my physical exam he noticed I had a bright orange penis. He asked me if I had been having unprotected sex with strangers. I told him no and explained that I spend most of my day just sitting around watching porn and eating Cheetos. 

Is The Donald and Stormy on the internet?

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, pokebball said:

And I'm simply enjoying your situational application of morality

 

6 hours ago, pokebball said:

Show me where I excused it? I'm simply pointing out your situational "caring for children".

No you are making light of a situation by drawing false comparatives just to be argumentative.   Says way more about you than anything.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

I would imagine it depends what’s in the bill. The Dems are never going to vote for something the Freedom Caucus will support, and I can’t see a significant block of the GOP breaking with Trump, assuming they can tell what his position is from one minute to the next. 

The freedom caucus isn't supporting the bill because they ran against immigration reform and liberalization.  They are actually keeping their promise.

That is why a couple democratic votes are needed.  

The democrats what to close all the detention centers and open the border.  That is what Schumer said when he refused to debate immigration on the floor of the Senate.  That of course can't happen. 

The democrats could certainly improve the situation for dreamers and others.  Then when they get more power they could do more.   

It is pretty obvious the democrats do not want this issue to go away. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

 

No you are making light of a situation by drawing false comparatives just to be argumentative.   Says way more about you than anything.  

What false comparative did I make?

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...