WWTBAM Bored

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

So, using thinly veiled racial slurs against a political opponent

Why does everything come down to race with you?

The question is why does Trump have to bring race into these debates over and over again, using just enough covering language to allow his followers to claim it's not racial.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 902837001/

You are race-obsessed. Pocohantas is a sarcastic jibe at Warren, who isn't even a native american. We've been over this before. Why can't liberals comprehend simple ideas?

silverscreenselect wrote:

jarnon wrote:

Estonut wrote:Do you have a cite that shows this is true IRL?

According to the Gallup poll, the number of people who say they're Republicans hasn't changed in the last few years.

Well, from February 1, 2017 (the first poll in Trump's presidency) until now, it's dropped 5%. Or to put it another way, about 1/6 of the people who said they were Republicans at the time of Trump's inauguration no longer identify as such.

Are these the same polls that said Hillary has been our President for 1 1/2 years?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

jarnon wrote:According to the Gallup poll, the number of people who say they're Republicans hasn't changed in the last few years.

Well, from February 1, 2017 (the first poll in Trump's presidency) until now, it's dropped 5%. Or to put it another way, about 1/6 of the people who said they were Republicans at the time of Trump's inauguration no longer identify as such.

Are these the same polls that said Hillary has been our President for 1 1/2 years?

I used this statistic (rather than more accurate data like voter registration) because that’s how pollsters determine who in their sampling is a Republican. The difference between 2015 and now is less than the month—to-month random variation.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: You are race-obsessed. Pocohantas is a sarcastic jibe at Warren, who isn't even a native american. We've been over this before. Why can't liberals comprehend simple ideas?

So now, you, Eric Trump, and Sarah Huckabee Sanders are experts at what is and is not a racial jibe as opposed to actual Native Americans who have heard "sarcastic jibes" all their lives.

As for whether Warren is or is not Native American, neither you nor I have any conclusive proof one way or the other and there is family anecdotal evidence that, at the very least, suggests that her family has believed that for decades. There is also no proof that she ever used that claim for economic or employment gain.

You persist in repeating Trump slurs, whether racially motivated or not, without presenting any evidence, and pretty much ignoring what I had posted on the subject.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: You are race-obsessed. Pocohantas is a sarcastic jibe at Warren, who isn't even a native american. We've been over this before. Why can't liberals comprehend simple ideas?

So now, you, Eric Trump, and Sarah Huckabee Sanders are experts at what is and is not a racial jibe as opposed to actual Native Americans who have heard "sarcastic jibes" all their lives.

As for whether Warren is or is not Native American, neither you nor I have any conclusive proof one way or the other and there is family anecdotal evidence that, at the very least, suggests that her family has believed that for decades. There is also no proof that she ever used that claim for economic or employment gain.

You persist in repeating Trump slurs, whether racially motivated or not, without presenting any evidence, and pretty much ignoring what I had posted on the subject.

My God, you are dense. (bang! bang!) That's my head against the wall. Continue to live in your hate-world. I will not disturb you.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: You are race-obsessed. Pocohantas is a sarcastic jibe at Warren, who isn't even a native american. We've been over this before. Why can't liberals comprehend simple ideas?

So now, you, Eric Trump, and Sarah Huckabee Sanders are experts at what is and is not a racial jibe as opposed to actual Native Americans who have heard "sarcastic jibes" all their lives.

As opposed to you, Bob, etc., right?

tlynn78 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:There are 2 sides to every story.
While I applaud trump for doing an executive order to try and alleviate the situation, the fact is Congress must fix it. We cannot be governed by executive orders (Thanks, Obama). Charles Schumer is an idiot. He refuses to even participate in fixing the situation because it is a great political tool for him. He hates to waste the overblown outrage that has been produced over this situation.

https://twitter.com/megwagner/status/10 ... 7970518018

Agree with her or not, she makes her case. Goddamn it, Congress, do your job.

Donny gets no credit from me for deciding not to further exacerbate a situation he created. This was a monstrous policy, its effects will continue to be felt for the indefinite future, and Donny is solely to blame for it.

And as for the thousands of kids who have already been separated from their parents, Donny has made the affirmative decision that they and their parents get no relief, and the separation will continue. So he's not even fixing the problem he created. He's just given up on trying to make it worse than his actions have already made it.

As for Congressional action, every member of the Democratic Senate caucus (this includes the two independents) has signed on as a co-sponsor of the Keep Families Together Act. Not one Republican Senator, though. They're all too afraid of Donny. --Bob

Tell me, Bob, did you swear to uphold only those laws with which you agree?

It turns out that Donny's zero-tolerance policy violated the law. The United States ratified the 1967 Protocol to the 1951 Refugee Convention. One of our obligations under the Protocol (Article 31 of the Convention, as adopted by Article 1, Section 1, of the 1967 Protocol) is not to arrest for illegal entry or illegal presence potential refugees who present themselves promptly to the authorities.

Donny swore an oath to faithfully execute the laws. He didn't do that. And not only were his actions not required by Congress (as his subsequent retreat demonstrated), it turns out they were in outright violation of our treaty obligations, which are just as much binding federal law as anything else. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Donny gets no credit from me for deciding not to further exacerbate a situation he created. This was a monstrous policy, its effects will continue to be felt for the indefinite future, and Donny is solely to blame for it.

And as for the thousands of kids who have already been separated from their parents, Donny has made the affirmative decision that they and their parents get no relief, and the separation will continue. So he's not even fixing the problem he created. He's just given up on trying to make it worse than his actions have already made it.

As for Congressional action, every member of the Democratic Senate caucus (this includes the two independents) has signed on as a co-sponsor of the Keep Families Together Act. Not one Republican Senator, though. They're all too afraid of Donny. --Bob

Tell me, Bob, did you swear to uphold only those laws with which you agree?

It turns out that Donny's zero-tolerance policy violated the law. The United States ratified the 1967 Protocol to the 1951 Refugee Convention. One of our obligations under the Protocol (Article 31 of the Convention, as adopted by Article 1, Section 1, of the 1967 Protocol) is not to arrest for illegal entry or illegal presence potential refugees who present themselves promptly to the authorities.

Donny swore an oath to faithfully execute the laws. He didn't do that. And not only were his actions not required by Congress (as his subsequent retreat demonstrated), it turns out they were in outright violation of our treaty obligations, which are just as much binding federal law as anything else. --Bob

Well Bob, since you didn't even remember you'd sworn to uphold the laws, I'll go ahead and get my legal info elsewhere.

tlynn78 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:
Tell me, Bob, did you swear to uphold only those laws with which you agree?

It turns out that Donny's zero-tolerance policy violated the law. The United States ratified the 1967 Protocol to the 1951 Refugee Convention. One of our obligations under the Protocol (Article 31 of the Convention, as adopted by Article 1, Section 1, of the 1967 Protocol) is not to arrest for illegal entry or illegal presence potential refugees who present themselves promptly to the authorities.

Donny swore an oath to faithfully execute the laws. He didn't do that. And not only were his actions not required by Congress (as his subsequent retreat demonstrated), it turns out they were in outright violation of our treaty obligations, which are just as much binding federal law as anything else. --Bob

Well Bob, since you didn't even remember you'd sworn to uphold the laws, I'll go ahead and get my legal info elsewhere.

You don't need to. I linked the text of the treaty and the protocol. It's right there in black and white for anyone who actually cares whether our government is following the laws, instead of just trying to use personal attacks to deflect attention from our government's indefensible actions.

By the way, the government also is subject to a preliminary injunction precluding it from making detention decisions based on an intent to deter future immigration, which is exactly what happened here. So not only did Donny violate a treaty that the United States ratified, he also violated a court order. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:It turns out that Donny's zero-tolerance policy violated the law. The United States ratified the 1967 Protocol to the 1951 Refugee Convention. One of our obligations under the Protocol (Article 31 of the Convention, as adopted by Article 1, Section 1, of the 1967 Protocol) is not to arrest for illegal entry or illegal presence potential refugees who present themselves promptly to the authorities.

Donny swore an oath to faithfully execute the laws. He didn't do that. And not only were his actions not required by Congress (as his subsequent retreat demonstrated), it turns out they were in outright violation of our treaty obligations, which are just as much binding federal law as anything else. --Bob

Well Bob, since you didn't even remember you'd sworn to uphold the laws, I'll go ahead and get my legal info elsewhere.

You don't need to. I linked the text of the treaty and the protocol. It's right there in black and white for anyone who actually cares whether our government is following the laws, instead of just trying to use personal attacks to deflect attention from our government's indefensible actions.

By the way, the government also is subject to a preliminary injunction precluding it from making detention decisions based on an intent to deter future immigration, which is exactly what happened here. So not only did Donny violate a treaty that the United States ratified, he also violated a court order. --Bob

bob-tel, I asked you for what your solution was and you gave me a wishy washy answer. It seems that all you want to do is throw mud at the people who are trying to do something about the problem. That can describe exactly what happens in DC every day. Throwing mud instead of finding permanent solutions. So what is your answer, my liege?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:
Well Bob, since you didn't even remember you'd sworn to uphold the laws, I'll go ahead and get my legal info elsewhere.

You don't need to. I linked the text of the treaty and the protocol. It's right there in black and white for anyone who actually cares whether our government is following the laws, instead of just trying to use personal attacks to deflect attention from our government's indefensible actions.

By the way, the government also is subject to a preliminary injunction precluding it from making detention decisions based on an intent to deter future immigration, which is exactly what happened here. So not only did Donny violate a treaty that the United States ratified, he also violated a court order. --Bob

bob-tel, I asked you for what your solution was and you gave me a wishy washy answer. It seems that all you want to do is throw mud at the people who are trying to do something about the problem. That can describe exactly what happens in DC every day. Throwing mud instead of finding permanent solutions. So what is your answer, my liege?

Not enough of a problem to be worth changing what we were doing during the Obama Administration.

I'll add that in our current economy, where there are literally more jobs than people to fill them, and where there aren't enough native-born kids to maintain the size of the workforce, there's no reason to turn away anyone who isn't a criminal who's willing to work, and who can afford to pay for their own housing. Hell, I want those people working here in the 2030s so they can pay the Social Security I've worked all my life earning. If, at our legal ports of entry, we limited ourselves to confirming (a) no criminal record, and (b) enough funds to support yourself here for a month (probably less than they have to pay coyotes), and then gave everyone a month to find a job, then I'd be a lot more confident that the people trying to sneak across are people we really don't want here.

But if that's a bridge too far (the economy won't always be this good), I'm fine with how we were handling under the Obama Administration.

And the sarcastic reference to "my liege" is exactly the kind of personal shot that I generally try to avoid and that should have no place in this thread. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:And the sarcastic reference to "my liege" is exactly the kind of personal shot that I generally try to avoid and that should have no place in this thread.

Bullshit! You do exactly that with the name of the President of the United States in EVERY thread.

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:And the sarcastic reference to "my liege" is exactly the kind of personal shot that I generally try to avoid and that should have no place in this thread.

Bullshit! You do exactly that with the name of the President of the United States in EVERY thread.

Personal shot at participants in this conversation. I do hold Donny in contempt. He can take that up with me if he chooses. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Donny gets no credit from me for deciding not to further exacerbate a situation he created. This was a monstrous policy, its effects will continue to be felt for the indefinite future, and Donny is solely to blame for it.

And as for the thousands of kids who have already been separated from their parents, Donny has made the affirmative decision that they and their parents get no relief, and the separation will continue. So he's not even fixing the problem he created. He's just given up on trying to make it worse than his actions have already made it.

As for Congressional action, every member of the Democratic Senate caucus (this includes the two independents) has signed on as a co-sponsor of the Keep Families Together Act. Not one Republican Senator, though. They're all too afraid of Donny. --Bob

Tell me, Bob, did you swear to uphold only those laws with which you agree?

It turns out that Donny's zero-tolerance policy violated the law. The United States ratified the 1967 Protocol to the 1951 Refugee Convention. One of our obligations under the Protocol (Article 31 of the Convention, as adopted by Article 1, Section 1, of the 1967 Protocol) is not to arrest for illegal entry or illegal presence potential refugees who present themselves promptly to the authorities.

Donny swore an oath to faithfully execute the laws. He didn't do that. And not only were his actions not required by Congress (as his subsequent retreat demonstrated), it turns out they were in outright violation of our treaty obligations, which are just as much binding federal law as anything else. --Bob

As far as I know, the zero-tolerance policy is still in effect. They're just not separating families but detaining them together. What's the U.N. going to do about it though?

Bob Juch wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:
Tell me, Bob, did you swear to uphold only those laws with which you agree?

It turns out that Donny's zero-tolerance policy violated the law. The United States ratified the 1967 Protocol to the 1951 Refugee Convention. One of our obligations under the Protocol (Article 31 of the Convention, as adopted by Article 1, Section 1, of the 1967 Protocol) is not to arrest for illegal entry or illegal presence potential refugees who present themselves promptly to the authorities.

Donny swore an oath to faithfully execute the laws. He didn't do that. And not only were his actions not required by Congress (as his subsequent retreat demonstrated), it turns out they were in outright violation of our treaty obligations, which are just as much binding federal law as anything else. --Bob

As far as I know, the zero-tolerance policy is still in effect. They're just not separating families but detaining them together. What's the U.N. going to do about it though?

I expect the detainees' lawyers will shortly begin filing habeas petitions. I understand that a large number of lawyers have lined up to provide services pro bono. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:And the sarcastic reference to "my liege" is exactly the kind of personal shot that I generally try to avoid and that should have no place in this thread.

Bullshit! You do exactly that with the name of the President of the United States in EVERY thread.

Personal shot at participants in this conversation. I do hold Donny in contempt. He can take that up with me if he chooses.

So you think personal shots are only OK when people aren't around to defend themselves. Got it.

I suspect you'd deem that cowardly if someone else were doing it.

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Estonut wrote:Bullshit! You do exactly that with the name of the President of the United States in EVERY thread.

Personal shot at participants in this conversation. I do hold Donny in contempt. He can take that up with me if he chooses.

So you think personal shots are only OK when people aren't around to defend themselves. Got it.

I suspect you'd deem that cowardly if someone else were doing it.

No, I'm not saying anything behind Donny's back that I wouldn't say to his face.

I'm making a different point. I'll take hits because people think I should show Donny more respect because he works in the Oval Office. I'm doing it for a specific reason and I'll defend that reason. Name-calling between participants of the Bored, however, is nothing more than an effort to bully the target into submission. Not going to happen. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Personal shot at participants in this conversation. I do hold Donny in contempt. He can take that up with me if he chooses.

So you think personal shots are only OK when people aren't around to defend themselves. Got it.

I suspect you'd deem that cowardly if someone else were doing it.

No, I'm not saying anything behind Donny's back that I wouldn't say to his face.

I'm making a different point. I'll take hits because people think I should show Donny more respect because he works in the Oval Office. I'm doing it for a specific reason and I'll defend that reason. Name-calling between participants of the Bored, however, is nothing more than an effort to bully the target into submission. Not going to happen.

How many times have you Tweeted "Donny" about your position? This is about the only way you could have direct access to him. Say it to his phone.

Bob78164 wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:And the sarcastic reference to "my liege" is exactly the kind of personal shot that I generally try to avoid and that should have no place in this thread.

Bullshit! You do exactly that with the name of the President of the United States in EVERY thread.

Personal shot at participants in this conversation. I do hold Donny in contempt. He can take that up with me if he chooses. --Bob

Well, bob-tel, let me give you a clue. I hold you in contempt for several things.

Bob78164 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:It turns out that Donny's zero-tolerance policy violated the law. The United States ratified the 1967 Protocol to the 1951 Refugee Convention. One of our obligations under the Protocol (Article 31 of the Convention, as adopted by Article 1, Section 1, of the 1967 Protocol) is not to arrest for illegal entry or illegal presence potential refugees who present themselves promptly to the authorities.

Donny swore an oath to faithfully execute the laws. He didn't do that. And not only were his actions not required by Congress (as his subsequent retreat demonstrated), it turns out they were in outright violation of our treaty obligations, which are just as much binding federal law as anything else. --Bob

As far as I know, the zero-tolerance policy is still in effect. They're just not separating families but detaining them together. What's the U.N. going to do about it though?

I expect the detainees' lawyers will shortly begin filing habeas petitions. I understand that a large number of lawyers have lined up to provide services pro bono. --Bob

These people are not US Citizens and they have no RIGHT to come here unless they do it in the legal way. We have provided a method for them to apply for legal permission to enter. I agree that anyone who comes over the border without any documentation should be immediately sent back with instructions on how to do it legally. All the democrat leaders agreed with that just a few short years ago. Amazing how it's now racist to even suggest that. But then again, anything that a non-liberal says is racist these days. Even what he or she doesn't say but a liberal thinks he/she says.

Bob78164 wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Personal shot at participants in this conversation. I do hold Donny in contempt. He can take that up with me if he chooses.

So you think personal shots are only OK when people aren't around to defend themselves. Got it.

I suspect you'd deem that cowardly if someone else were doing it.

No, I'm not saying anything behind Donny's back that I wouldn't say to his face.

I'm making a different point. I'll take hits because people think I should show Donny more respect because he works in the Oval Office. I'm doing it for a specific reason and I'll defend that reason. Name-calling between participants of the Bored, however, is nothing more than an effort to bully the target into submission. Not going to happen. --Bob

You, of all people, have the GALL to say that? Mr. Ethical Lawyer? Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:These people are not US Citizens and they have no RIGHT to come here unless they do it in the legal way.

You're mistaken. The treaty I linked, which we ratified (thereby making it United States law), provides that they do have the right to come here (whether or not through a Port of Entry) as long as they promptly present themselves to the authorities so their claims to be refugees can be evaluated. And calling me all the names you want won't change that fact. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:These people are not US Citizens and they have no RIGHT to come here unless they do it in the legal way.

You're mistaken. The treaty I linked, which we ratified (thereby making it United States law), provides that they do have the right to come here (whether or not through a Port of Entry) as long as they promptly present themselves to the authorities so their claims to be refugees can be evaluated. And calling me all the names you want won't change that fact. --Bob

How many of them present themselves bob-tel? Is everyone in the world entitled to come and live here, bob-tel? Are we as a sovereign country allowed to protect our citizens and our borders?
I'll call you as many names as I can think of bob-tel because I hold you in contempt. And threatening to sue me won't change that fact.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:I'll call you as many names as I can think of bob-tel because I hold you in contempt. And threatening to sue me won't change that fact.

Hush, flock. The adults are talking. It's rude to interrupt. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote: I'll add that in our current economy, where there are literally more jobs than people to fill them, and where there aren't enough native-born kids to maintain the size of the workforce, there's no reason to turn away anyone who isn't a criminal who's willing to work, and who can afford to pay for their own housing. Hell, I want those people working here in the 2030s so they can pay the Social Security I've worked all my life earning. If, at our legal ports of entry, we limited ourselves to confirming (a) no criminal record, and (b) enough funds to support yourself here for a month (probably less than they have to pay coyotes), and then gave everyone a month to find a job, then I'd be a lot more confident that the people trying to sneak across are people we really don't want here.

But if that's a bridge too far (the economy won't always be this good), I'm fine with how we were handling under the Obama Administration.

And the sarcastic reference to "my liege" is exactly the kind of personal shot that I generally try to avoid and that should have no place in this thread. --Bob

IOW, the Trump economy is so strong that we have to let a lot of people in.