Come on now that was a great speech

[zipman]

You beautiful little man.

Just when I was thinking I have lost my favorite snow flake to laugh at you show up with your tear stained face and babbling lies.

Thank you!!

Well, I guess you've gone from obsessing over shemales to professing your adoration of actual men.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. I support your right to love whoever you want, even if those feelings are not reciprocated.

 

[Wrong Element]

The speech was a mix of patriotic platitudes, fear mongering, lies and exaggerations.

What was good about it?

Not only that, but he read the speech off a teleprompter, which I've been hearing for eight years is the sign that someone is a complete idiot.


That he's actually getting praise from the (cough) liberal media is an example of, in the words of the greatest Republican president of the 21st century, the soft bigotry of low expectations.

 

[HisArpy]

Of course they can. If I'm trying to persuade a judge as to a matter of scientific or historical fact, that is exactly the kind of proof I will present and that will be most persuasive.

Fail. Your OPINION on the validity of the facts matters not in the least. It's the JUDGE OR JURY whose opinion matters. You try to be both while ignoring counter views. Bad.

The facts are the facts regardless of who accepts or rejects them and regardless of who "wins" a debate.

True, IF you produce ALL the facts. You tend to produce only those facts you like, ignore those you don't, and then claim victory. Again, bad.

My experience of them has been entirely otherwise. MSM journalists worship the truth. Reporting something that turns out not to be true is an occasion of the deepest shame (and potentially exposes the journalist and publication to liability for libel).

Really? Explain the articles about how Ivanna Trump supposedly said that The Donald beat her after which she said he didn't and the articles were lies. Explain how the Daily Mail said Melania was an escort (aka a hooker) while KNOWING it was false. Explain how all those women in that NY times article against Trump DISAVOWED it completely. Explain how NYTimes v. Sullivan even came to exist if journalists were so worshipful of the truth?

Oh, those are just examples of bad apples right? Somehow the whole barrel seems full of those lately. You like to google for internet citations, try this one direct from Google - it seems as if Google says journalists LIE ALL THE TIME:

https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammedialying/

 

[KingOrfeo]

Fail. Your OPINION on the validity of the facts matters not in the least. It's the JUDGE OR JURY whose opinion matters.

Yes, in court; and scientific studies are a good way to persuade them, because everybody, including you, knows that what they say is almost always true. Such studies deal with facts, and what is a matter of fact is not a matter of opinion. It is a fact that human activity is causing climate change, and not all the denial on the Intertubes will halt the rise of global temperatures.

True, IF you produce ALL the facts. You tend to produce only those facts you like, ignore those you don't, and then claim victory. Again, bad.

One side in a debate is not obliged to present proof in support of both sides. If you disagree, it's up to you to find and bring a counter-cite, and if you do, I might dismiss it (e.g., as coming from a bullshit source like Breitbart or the Daily Caller or RealClimate), but will not ignore it.

Really? Explain the articles about how Ivanna Trump supposedly said that The Donald beat her after which she said he didn't and the articles were lies. Explain how the Daily Mail said Melania was an escort (aka a hooker) while KNOWING it was false. Explain how all those women in that NY times article against Trump DISAVOWED it completely. Explain how NYTimes v. Sullivan even came to exist if journalists were so worshipful of the truth?

What MSM journalists publish is almost always true. Journalists make occasional mistakes like anyone else, and are capable of lapses in professional ethics or professional judgment, and can yield to the temptation to go with a poorly-sourced story to sell papers; but they're still much better at finding out the truth and determining what is true and what is false than you are, because that's their job, and it is very, very important to them to do it right.

Oh, those are just examples of bad apples right? Somehow the whole barrel seems full of those lately. You like to google for internet citations, try this one direct from Google - it seems as if Google says journalists LIE ALL THE TIME:

https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammedialying/

No, it does not seem that way at all. If the site can find a lot of examples, that's only because there's a lot of media content.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Of course it does, it's a guest-worker program, i.e., a form of peonage; it provides no path to citizenship, time spent in the U.S. under it does not count as time in residence for citizenship purposes, workers have no rights under it, and if you make any trouble the boss can have you deported.

Seriously, do you know how NOT to lie? https://www.dol.gov/whd/posters/pdf/WHD1491Eng_H2A.pdf

These are the worker rights directly associated with the program. Workers have a broad penumbra of other legal rights and access to government services and private charities simply by being on U. S. soil, as you WELL know.

And why should a guest worker program provide a path to citizenship to participants who have no intention of pursuing citizenship? That's not the purpose of the program. If you want to pursue citizenship, you come in legally on a different immigrant visa.

I'm still waiting for that unassailable, rational argument for a reasonable compulsion to violate immigration laws in response to which an aggrieved government should reasonably suspend enforcement of its laws.

Please make that argument.

 

[KingOrfeo]

And why should a guest worker program provide a path to citizenship to participants who have no intention of pursuing citizenship?

How do you know they don't?

 

[KingOrfeo]

I'm still waiting for that unassailable, rational argument for a reasonable compulsion to violate immigration laws in response to which an aggrieved government should reasonably suspend enforcement of its laws.

Please make that argument.

Fait accompli. E.g., there is no good reason to deport a non-citizen who grew up in this country and knows no other. Such do not create any significant social problems. Neither is there any good reason to deport one who snuck in last year, if he's doing honest work for a living and not committing crimes. Such do not create any significant social problems either. Whether to relax or tighten border controls is an entirely different discussion.

 

[domroger]

Excuse me? Try NOT HIRING them unless they can produce valid ID's and can pass the eVerify check.

Then they can watch the crops rot and look forward to the bank's foreclosure .

 

[Conager]

Then they can watch the crops rot and look forward to the bank's foreclosure .

Or. . .they could pay a "living wage" out of their "excess profits," amirite?

 

[Liar]

Ok, now I've seen the speech.

For any normal politician with proper handlers and a wee bit dicipline, it woulda been bog standard. Not talking about truthfulness or policies, merely the speech as written and delivered. It was meh. Ok, but meh. A bit rambling, and lacking in both theme, structure and useful tropes.

Pacing was on point though. The Donald could play a pretty convincing President in a movie.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I've always kind of wondered but I'm now officially calling bullshit on you having a law degree. That's not at all what fait accompli means.

It means "accomplished fact."

 

[Conager]

It means "accomplished fact."

Yes, I know what it means. Labeling your argument with that makes no sense.

If you want to make the (retarded) argument, the legal concept you are grasping for is laches.

It felt smart to throw out some Latin, though didn't it?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Yes, I know what it means. Labeling your argument with that makes no sense.

If you want to make the (retarded) argument, the legal concept you are grasping for is laches.

It felt smart to throw out some Latin, though didn't it?

I used it to mean that the immigrant's established presence in America is an accomplished fact the government should take into account; "leave well enough alone" would be another way to state it. And the term is French, not Latin.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Fait accompli. E.g., there is no good reason to deport a non-citizen who grew up in this country and knows no other. Such do not create any significant social problems. Neither is there any good reason to deport one who snuck in last year, if he's doing honest work for a living and not committing crimes. Such do not create any significant social problems either. Whether to relax or tighten border controls is an entirely different discussion.

Why on earth would we have an "entirely different discussion" about border "CONTROLS" when you have already decided that "NO GOOD REASON" for ENFORCEMENT of those controls exist in absence of a specific showing of harm by the person(s) violating the law?

It's not a separate discussion at all. It's the very same BULLSHIT discussion of a "legal" standard that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the law as written and enacted, but only with a subjective assessment of social harm defined solely (it would appear) by the absence of the overt commission of a crime -- oh, except for the VERY OVERT CRIME of having entered the country illegally. That one's perfectly fine.

And mindfuckingly absurdly, you apply that same "standard" to those who have "snuck in" as recently as a year ago as well as to those who have created an "otherwise lawful" co-existence over decades of (nonetheless illegal) residency. Therefore, the two conditions that apparently mean NOT ONE DAMN THING TO YOU are: the length of residency of the illegal; OR the fact that he or she entered this country illegally in the first place.

The ONLY thing of relevance to you is whether they are committing some crime OTHER THAN that of illegal entry while they are here.

And while you persist in explaining why enforcement of the law is unwise despite the government's unquestioned right to do so, you will NOT even approach an argument justifying an alien's violation of the law to begin with.


Why is that?

What is unwise, unconscionably burdensome, unfair, immoral, discriminatory or egregious about the many different ways we have for aliens to enter this country LEGALLY on a temporary or permanent basis that EVER REASONABLY COMPEL THEM TO VIOLATE our immigration laws?

Make. That. Argument.

 

[butters]

I used it to mean that the immigrant's established presence in America is an accomplished fact the government should take into account; "leave well enough alone" would be another way to state it. And the term is French, not Latin.

nice

 

[KingOrfeo]

Why on earth would we have an "entirely different discussion" about border "CONTROLS" when you have already decided that "NO GOOD REASON" for ENFORCEMENT of those controls exist in absence of a specific showing of harm by the person(s) violating the law?

Because we are discussing whether to deport people who are here, not whether to let people in. Different factors must be weighed in those decisions.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Queen Oreo

The term began life as Vulgar Latin.

The Vulgars were homeless winos who came to Britain as impoverished camp followers of the Romans and became BUTTERS antecedents. Vulgar Latin became Pig Latin, the vernacular of most Brits.

 

[Rightguide]

The speech was a mix of patriotic platitudes, fear mongering, lies and exaggerations.

What was good about it?

Sounds like you came away from it with a severely damaged rectum. Please accept our heartfelt condolences. You probably should have stayed in your safe space sucking your thumb instead of tuning in.

 

[KingOrfeo]

So, on the one hand, it's bad because the illegal immigrants are victimized. But, on the other hand, that continued victimization is ok because they and their kids also won't be victimized afterward?

I can tell you've never been in any immigrant community for longer than a drive by.

AFTER they get here, illegal immigrants don't get high paying jobs. They live in squalor, 4 to 6 in a single bedroom, sleeping on the floor of a cockroach infested house or apartment or in some shed in the backyard with no heat or light. Drugs and gangs are a way of life. Shootings are daily, almost hourly, occurrences. They have to buy food already cooked because they have no cooking or refrigeration which increases their living expenses from an already dismal pay packet.

Police and social services networks in the immigrant communities are extensive because of the high crime rate. High crime means higher policing costs. Hospitalization and emergency services costs are higher. It also means higher governmental costs for sanitation and maintenance because of the overcrowding due to hidden living arrangements because these areas weren't designed to support or accommodate the numbers of people living there.

On top of that, we PAY THEM to live under these conditions via HUD and Welfare programs, which means the cost to taxpayers is higher. We mandate "low income housing" for construction projects which, in turn, increase the cost of regular housing, increase crime in new neighborhoods AND increase taxpayer costs through the social programs mentioned above.

Yet, there is no downside? Somehow your worldview doesn't match reality.

Whatever the conditions of their lives, they think they're better off here than in Mexico or wherever, and they should know, and they can leave if they change their minds. Their presence here presents no downside to them and no downside to American society.

 

[phrodeau]

Ok, now I've seen the speech.

For any normal politician with proper handlers and a wee bit dicipline, it woulda been bog standard. Not talking about truthfulness or policies, merely the speech as written and delivered. It was meh. Ok, but meh. A bit rambling, and lacking in both theme, structure and useful tropes.

Pacing was on point though. The Donald could play a pretty convincing President in a movie.

Meh is a big improvement for Trump.

 

[zipman]

Sounds like you came away from it with a severely damaged rectum. Please accept our heartfelt condolences. You probably should have stayed in your safe space sucking your thumb instead of tuning in.

I see insults are the preferred means of responding to a post when you can't refute it.

By no means am I crying as VatAss suggested nor am I in any way butt hurt.

The only reason people think it was a great speech was because until now rump has bloviated like a buffoon.

However, he lied or exaggerated repeatedly during it so how can it be a great speech. If you're just going by sheer rhetoric and not factual content, it was probably somewhere around average at best.

 

[Sean]

I see insults are the preferred means of responding to a post when you can't refute it.

By no means am I crying as VatAss suggested nor am I in any way butt hurt.

The only reason people think it was a great speech was because until now rump has bloviated like a buffoon.

However, he lied or exaggerated repeatedly during it so how can it be a great speech. If you're just going by sheer rhetoric and not factual content, it was probably somewhere around average at best.

Pretty much this. The bar is now so low for Trump that any speech with actual sentences is "great".

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Because we are discussing whether to deport people who are here, not whether to let people in.

NO!! That's what YOU are discussing. I'm trying, despite your dedicated recalcitrance, to discuss BOTH under the SAME LEGAL AUTHORITY THAT GOVERNS BOTH!!


You won't do that. You'll only distort the reasonable reach and application of the LAW as an arguable exercise of public policy APART FROM the law itself.

It's a smarmy, disingenuous attempt to circumvent the law rather than a reasonable evaluation of the LAW'S reasonable application. "Smarmy" and "disingenuous" because you have made it quite clear with your prior posts here, that YOUR avowed standard for deportation proceedings is a demonstrable social harm or criminal violation of law OTHER THAN the criminal ACT of entering this country illegally.

That is a policy standard, not a LEGAL standard for deportation UNDER THE LAW. Surely you do not deny this. Your statements could not be more clear.

Furthermore, they have nothing to do with a practical or legal basis for accepting a fait accompli condition. The English Oxford dictionary defines fait accompli as "A thing that has already happened or been decided before those affected hear about it, leaving them with no option but to accept it."

Absent specific "statute of limitations" written into the applicable law, legal options quite obviously exist. Attempting to present a fait accompli in the face of those options IS the smarmy, disingenuosity you keep trying to peddle.

The hypocrisy of such a baldfaced lie could not be more apparent than when you present this fait accompli standard as applicable to illegal aliens who have "snuck in" as recently as the past year.

WHAT THE FUCK!!??!! To whom then SHOULD deportation proceedings UNDER THE LAW apply? Only those convicted of committing separate "crimes"?

Hello, McFLY!!! That ain't how the law is written. That contingency does not exist.

But if I understand YOUR immigration policy which you would READILY advocate as LAW, it would be that we can prohibit entry to any alien we want for virtually ANY reason, but once they successfully illegally enter this country they are, for some indeterminate period (immediately?) non-deportable as long as they are "gainfully" employed and/or commit no other "crime."

Really? REALLY??? REALLY-THE-FUCK????

This demand is now one hour old, and I make it yet again.

And while you persist in explaining why enforcement of the law is unwise despite the government's unquestioned right to do so, you will NOT even approach an argument justifying an alien's violation of the law to begin with.


Why is that?

What is unwise, unconscionably burdensome, unfair, immoral, discriminatory or egregious about the many different ways we have for aliens to enter this country LEGALLY on a temporary or permanent basis that EVER REASONABLY COMPEL THEM TO VIOLATE our immigration laws?

Make. That. Argument.

 

[zipman]

Pretty much this. The bar is now so low for Trump that any speech with actual sentences is "great".

Wrong Element made the same point above.

It's a "great" speech if he doesn't come completely unhinged and start attacking SNL.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

I see insults are the preferred means of responding to a post when you can't refute it.

By no means am I crying as VatAss suggested nor am I in any way butt hurt.

The only reason people think it was a great speech was because until now rump has bloviated like a buffoon.

However, he lied or exaggerated repeatedly during it so how can it be a great speech. If you're just going by sheer rhetoric and not factual content, it was probably somewhere around average at best.

You are crying like a little bitch and making shit up. What exactly is there to argue with.

Pointing and laughing is the best and only response for a delusional little bitch.

< points and laughs>