Discussion:
What economists have gotten wrong for decades
(too old to reply)
Steve Carroll
2019-07-26 17:30:00 UTC
Permalink
says...
You do not get to speak for others
I'm not... it's clear you want open borders, you just won't use that
term, instead, you're drumming up all kinds of absurd arguments to 'say'
it another way.
Open borders means votes for the libtards, non citizen votes.
Carroll brought up the idea of open borders.
No one had to bring it up, it oozes from every pore of your every post.
Do you want border agents, Snit? If you say 'yes', like you should if
you don't want open borders, do you want border agents that can, you
know, actually *do* something about border crossings? If you say 'yes,
(again, like you should) then what do you recommend they do when a
person who doesn't speak English (or speaks it poorly) wearing a shirt
made out of the Guatemalan flag is standing next to a group of people
who appear to be looking for a way to run? IOW, what 'powers' would you
give to them and which would you prevent? We already know you'd bar them
from asking for ID if you could, but what else? Knowing that a person
doesn't *have* to respond at all to the CBP, what course of action
should be available to the CBP officer in that case? Should the concept
of 'reasonable suspicion' not apply? If not, why not?
Because of a little wee something called the Fourth Amendment, that's why
not. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that arresting and detaining a
person requires PROBABLE CAUSE, not just reasonable suspicion.
And if you're against the Fourth Amendment then you're a no-good rotten
anti-American jackbooted goosestepping treasonous treacherous traitor and
quite probably a communist spy. What happened, did you read /1984/ and
mistake it for a how-to manual? You retard.
Things like the border search exception aside... I'm clearly asking what
*should* a CBP officer be able to do?
Follow the Constitution. Accept equal rights as axiomatic.
None of this stops them from doing their job.
Knowing that a person can just refuse to speak at all and that can be
the end of things, how does that square with security, from preventing
child traffickers, drug traffickers, terrorists, etc. from coming
across?
Compare your comments there with your earlier comments about you feeling
YOU had the right to not speak to the police talked to you about your
harassment.
Your lie here aside, I've acknowledged they have the right to remain
silent, the question is what should be done about it. People like you
refuse to respond so grownups necessarily take matters in hand and deal
with it. You don't like that so you piss an moan about laws you believe
shouldn't be followed <shrug>.
Does it not occur to you that it makes no sense to patrol the
border if someone can just 'silence' their way across? If you're not for
open borders and you won't give CBP what's needed to do the job, then
you *should* be for building a wall. But you're not. So tell me how you
figure you're *not* sending the message that you're for open borders.
How does it work in your mind? The border search exception clearly
doesn't "Follow the Constitution", despite the Martinez-Fuerte ruling as
based on impracticality (pragmatism in action, Snit,), so we know you
must be against it. Your stated positions are clearly contradictory.
<crickets still chirping>
Skeeter
2019-07-26 17:30:08 UTC
Permalink
The losing left supports it, as well as free shit for them.
Notice you offer NO evidence anyone supports it (hint, if you actually
followed the left you could pull up a few examples -- but not many...
and many more denouncing it. Hint: watch the first Democratic debates.)
I did and they all raised there hands when asked.
Cite.
Oh. You made that up.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/every-dem-on-debate-stage-endorses-
publicly-funded-health-care-for-illegal-immigrants/
Skeeter
2019-07-26 17:32:20 UTC
Permalink
says...
We should not profile by race or religion.
How do you propose that will work, you know, when you're charged with
something like securing the border?
Without bigotry.
In your mind profiling is bigotry?
Stopping my darker skinned friends and not me, and doing so based on the
color of skin or race is bigotry. Sure.
Based on what definition of the word bigotry?
Based on it being a clear example of bigotry
Until you supply a definition of the term as you are using it, I'm
going with the one I supplied. Can you prove that the stopping of people
based on how they look is tied to an "intolerance" of those people, as
opposed to people charged with border security merely doing something
logical in pursuit of their job goals? You're aware that you're calling a
*helluva* lot of people, many of them hispanic/latino, bigots, right?
Seems to me you'd want to at least know what the term means <shrug>.
There are many hispanic border patrol. No mention of that by the Snit.
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-citizens-academy-20180323-
htmlstory.html
Almost 1/2 are hispanic.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/06/26/fact-check-are-half-of-all-
border-patrol-agents-hispanic/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol
Smackdown on the Snit.
A smackdown of his own making, tacitly labeling them bigots. I wonder if
they'd cut him slack if we tell them he's confused on the definition of
the term? ;)
To not contradict me is a smack down in the minds of idiots. Got it.
Are you saying the Mexican border guards are not profiling? Just the
white ones?
Snit
2019-07-26 17:38:06 UTC
Permalink
says...
We should not profile by race or religion.
How do you propose that will work, you know, when you're charged with
something like securing the border?
Without bigotry.
In your mind profiling is bigotry?
Stopping my darker skinned friends and not me, and doing so based on the
color of skin or race is bigotry. Sure.
Based on what definition of the word bigotry?
Based on it being a clear example of bigotry
Until you supply a definition of the term as you are using it, I'm
going with the one I supplied. Can you prove that the stopping of people
based on how they look is tied to an "intolerance" of those people, as
opposed to people charged with border security merely doing something
logical in pursuit of their job goals? You're aware that you're calling a
*helluva* lot of people, many of them hispanic/latino, bigots, right?
Seems to me you'd want to at least know what the term means <shrug>.
There are many hispanic border patrol. No mention of that by the Snit.
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-citizens-academy-20180323-
htmlstory.html
Almost 1/2 are hispanic.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/06/26/fact-check-are-half-of-all-
border-patrol-agents-hispanic/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol
Smackdown on the Snit.
A smackdown of his own making, tacitly labeling them bigots. I wonder if
they'd cut him slack if we tell them he's confused on the definition of
the term? ;)
What actions of theirs are you saying is bigoted? And be specific with
examples of who and what.

But you will not. You are trying to change the topic from you insisting
that you have the right to remain silent when asked about your
harassment but others do not have that right.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
mixed nuts
2019-07-26 17:38:16 UTC
Permalink
@gmail.com says...
"Directly" here doesn't mean they can't pass through other states on the
way to the one where they seek to claim asylum. It just means they can't
stop in one of those states to establish residence there, and then later
still claim asylum from the original situation in yet another.
Border-jumpers have been offered refuge in Mexico, and refused it, heading to
the US instead. Only Mexicans can come "directly" into the US, but that's an
entirely different problem.
Laws don't mean anything to the losing left, they want their law not the
peoples.
Wealthy white presidents make the best laws and, when The President
makes the laws, people don't lose time from their jobs voting for
congressional representatives.
--
Grizzly H.
Snit
2019-07-26 17:38:46 UTC
Permalink
I have no obligation to do ANY research for him. I made a clear and
simple point: Stopping my darker skinned friends and not me, and doing
so based on the color of skin or race is bigotry.
Have you tried to sneak across the border lately? Because if you did and
got caught you would be detained and profiled, no matter what color you
are.
That would not be profiling based on race... and hence is not even on topic.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Snit
2019-07-26 17:39:39 UTC
Permalink
says...
We should not profile by race or religion.
How do you propose that will work, you know, when you're charged with
something like securing the border?
Without bigotry.
In your mind profiling is bigotry?
Stopping my darker skinned friends and not me, and doing so based on the
color of skin or race is bigotry. Sure.
Based on what definition of the word bigotry?
Based on it being a clear example of bigotry
Until you supply a definition of the term as you are using it, I'm
going with the one I supplied. Can you prove that the stopping of people
based on how they look is tied to an "intolerance" of those people, as
opposed to people charged with border security merely doing something
logical in pursuit of their job goals? You're aware that you're calling a
*helluva* lot of people, many of them hispanic/latino, bigots, right?
Seems to me you'd want to at least know what the term means <shrug>.
There are many hispanic border patrol. No mention of that by the Snit.
Nor of anything else to do with their profiles. Of course. Why would I
bring that up out of the blue? Why do you?
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-citizens-academy-20180323-
htmlstory.html
Almost 1/2 are hispanic.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/06/26/fact-check-are-half-of-all-
border-patrol-agents-hispanic/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol
Smackdown on the Snit.
I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied anything about their race.
You accuse them of profiling people other than white, yet they are
brown. Now spin away coward.
Accuse WHOM? You have not even given a name of someone no less spoken of
a given person's actions. You are asking me to judge a whole group of
people to try to show bigotry. Oy. Do you understand how you just shot
yourself in the foot?
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Snit
2019-07-26 17:41:32 UTC
Permalink
I am not a libtard, I believe in the rule of law.
Great: so how do you want to deal with Trump's law breaking?
Why would that be a problem for a person who just stated that not all
laws should be followed? You're making no sense... again. You know that,
right?
The concept of civil disobedience goes over your head. Fair enough.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Just Wondering
2019-07-26 17:48:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
I am not a libtard, I believe in the rule of law.
Great: so how do you want to deal with Trump's law breaking?
Why would that be a problem for a person who just stated that not all
laws should be followed? You're making no sense... again. You know that,
right?
The concept of civil disobedience goes over your head. Fair enough.
Let's get back on topic. Otherwise law-abiding people should
answer gun control laws with civil disobedience. If you're a
peaceful gun owner and some knuckle dragging legislature says
you have to give up your semiautomatic sporting rifle and your
20-round magazines, and submit yourself for registration as a
gun owner, you should not comply.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-26 17:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
I am not a libtard, I believe in the rule of law.
Great: so how do you want to deal with Trump's law breaking?
Why would that be a problem for a person who just stated that not all
laws should be followed? You're making no sense... again. You know that,
right?
The concept of civil disobedience goes over your head. Fair enough.
Let's get back on topic. Otherwise law-abiding people should
answer gun control laws with civil disobedience. If you're a
peaceful gun owner and some knuckle dragging legislature says
you have to give up your semiautomatic sporting rifle and your
20-round magazines, and submit yourself for registration as a
gun owner, you should not comply.
And there you have it! ;)
Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛
2019-07-26 18:01:14 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 11:48:40 -0600, LO AND BEHOLD; Just Wondering
<***@jw.com> determined that the following was of great importance and
subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
<W1H_E.88814$***@fx07.iad>:

✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ On 7/26/2019 11:41 AM, Snit wrote:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ On 7/26/19 10:24 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ On 2019-07-26, Snit wrote:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ On 7/26/19 10:00 AM, Skeeter wrote:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ I am not a libtard, I believe in the rule of law.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Great: so how do you want to deal with Trump's law breaking?
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Why would that be a problem for a person who just stated that not all
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ laws should be followed? You're making no sense... again. You know
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ that, right?
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ The concept of civil disobedience goes over your head. Fair enough.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Let's get back on topic. Otherwise law-abiding people should answer gun
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ control laws with civil disobedience. If you're a peaceful gun owner
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ and some knuckle dragging legislature says you have to give up your
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ semiautomatic sporting rifle and your 20-round magazines, and submit
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ yourself for registration as a gun owner, you should not comply.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡

that would be easy but gun nuts have to yammer about their guns instead of just having them and STFU-ing about them.
--
[THIS POAST HAS PASSED TRIMCHECK® VALIDATION]

THIS SPACE FOR RENT


"Thanks to muzzies and their apologist-enablers like puppy whistle, this
seems to be the new norm in the world. It's spreading like a cancer,
and it's time we admit we're at war with pure evil. We need to put an
end to this muzzie plague, or life on Earth is going to become pure hell
everywhere. We need to get these people out of every civilized
country, and there's only one way to do it. IOW, we have to become
like them, with an emphasis on expediency over cruelty." - Checkmate (of alt.checkmate)

"Pussy Willow has just proven that Trump's crackdown on previously
unenforced immigration policies is working. We'll deal with the domestic
terrorists as needed, but we don't need to be letting the muzzie
terrorists get a foothold in our country too. One need only look at what
they're doing in Europe right now to know we're doing the right thing by
keeping them out, which is our right and our duty. - Checkmate (#1 pussy willow fan)

-

"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor

-

"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode

-

"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <***@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <***@news.altopia.com>

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
Snit
2019-07-26 18:31:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
I am not a libtard, I believe in the rule of law.
Great: so how do you want to deal with Trump's law breaking?
Why would that be a problem for a person who just stated that not all
laws should be followed? You're making no sense... again. You know that,
right?
The concept of civil disobedience goes over your head. Fair enough.
Let's get back on topic.  Otherwise law-abiding people should
answer gun control laws with civil disobedience.
The reason many gun nuts say they need their guns is to fight against
the government when it gets out of control.

We are there.

Time to put up or shut up. If you are not going to NOW stand up, with
peaceful protests at first, to stop the abuse going on in our government
then what value is your argument?

Where is the NRA in demanding that laws be passed to work to reduce
Russian influence?

Where is the NRA in demanding that gerrymandering be ended?

Where is the NRA in demanding that our for-profit prison system be
ended... a system that has helped make the US have 25% of the world's
prison population?

Where is the NRA in demanding that non-white kids not be abused?

When they NRA and its followers actually back what they say then I will
take them seriously... but for now the big gun argument has been shown
to be a complete and utter farce. It is not at all about fighting back
against a government out of control. That is a lie.
If you're a
peaceful gun owner and some knuckle dragging legislature says
you have to give up your semiautomatic sporting rifle and your
20-round magazines, and submit yourself for registration as a
gun owner, you should not comply.
You should be marching in the street for equal rights and putting your
effort where you claim it is for your right to guns. If you do not fight
for the right for others to live free and have their vote count then why
do you think others should come to your rescue other than because you
think you have special entitlements.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-26 17:51:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
I am not a libtard, I believe in the rule of law.
Great: so how do you want to deal with Trump's law breaking?
Why would that be a problem for a person who just stated that not all
laws should be followed? You're making no sense... again. You know that,
right?
The concept of civil disobedience goes over your head.
LOL! Being that he swore to uphold them, I'll give ya this one.

Me: 101,247,912

Snit: 1

;)

But, seriously, why are you running from *so* much here? You used to
have a stronger backbone. Old age catching up with you? You have to be
aware that you're 'prescription' (not that kind) limiting CBP ability
is tantamount to open borders so why not just admit it's what you
want?
Snit
2019-07-26 18:32:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
I am not a libtard, I believe in the rule of law.
Great: so how do you want to deal with Trump's law breaking?
Why would that be a problem for a person who just stated that not all
laws should be followed? You're making no sense... again. You know that,
right?
The concept of civil disobedience goes over your head.
LOL! Being that he swore to uphold them, I'll give ya this one.
Me: 101,247,912
Snit: 1
;)
But, seriously, why are you running from *so* much here? You used to
have a stronger backbone. Old age catching up with you? You have to be
aware that you're 'prescription' (not that kind) limiting CBP ability
is tantamount to open borders so why not just admit it's what you
want?
I have no obligation to follow you down every rabbit hole as you run.
Here are two questions you repeatedly run from:

1) Why not speak more about your self incriminating crap about how child
abuse is not a crime in your view unless you get caught?

2) Can you explain why you want darker skinned people profiled but not
right wingers even though right wingers are the biggest terrorist threat
the country faces?

But you will ALWAYS run and try to change topics.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Snit
2019-07-26 18:11:01 UTC
Permalink
Will you denounce the violations being done NOW?
Show me the proof of violations.  Actual proof
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/migrant-children-describe-detention_n_5d1646ffe4b03d61163af666
Eyewitness testimony. It doesn't get any proofier than that, short of
mathematical and physics stuff.
1.  Eyewitness testimony is often unreliable.
But more reliable than your empty denial... and keep in mind there are
many reports and pictures. Yes, pictures can be manipulated, too.

And also keep in mind that there are often only eye witness accounts of
people entering unless they are on a camera somewhere!
2.  What you offer isn't eyewitness testimony, it's hearsay within
hearsay within hearsay.  And it was collected, and reported, by
people with a built-in bias.  It wouldn't even be admissible in
court.
This is not a court... this is us looking at evidence and their claims
are FAR more powerful than your utterly empty denials.
3.  It sure does get proofier than that.  Photographs would be
proofier.  The article does have three photos, but they don't show
abuse or any human rights violation.  Police reports would be
proofier - none there.  Court records - none.  Even objective
eyewitnesses would be better - there are none.
All more powerful than your empty denials. And remember this is just one
article on it... there are MANY more. You can get many images here (yes,
images can be faked but they are more conclusive than your denial):

https://www.google.com/search?q=images+of+abuse+camps+trump&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKyMi0l9PjAhVLKqwKHWERB_cQ_AUIECgB&biw=960&bih=766&dpr=2
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Snit
2019-07-26 18:14:32 UTC
Permalink
@gmail.com says...
"Directly" here doesn't mean they can't pass through other states on the
way to the one where they seek to claim asylum. It just means they can't
stop in one of those states to establish residence there, and then later
still claim asylum from the original situation in yet another.
Border-jumpers have been offered refuge in Mexico, and refused it, heading to
the US instead. Only Mexicans can come "directly" into the US, but that's an
entirely different problem.
Laws don't mean anything to the losing left, they want their law not the
peoples.
By law you have the right to asylum and the right to not self-incriminate.
But you don't have the right to cross illegally.
Well, the legal right... moral might be different. But even ignoring
that, you do have the right to cross a border legally.

Not sure why you need things put on such a dumbed down level.
You trying to twist that to say this means open borders is you showing a
failure to respect the law.
I didn't say that, you did.
I am noting your twisting.
But you know what, not all laws SHOULD be followed. Slavery was once
legal you know.
Admission that you refuse to follow the law makes my point above.
I believe in civil disobedience.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-26 18:15:51 UTC
Permalink
On 2019-07-26, Snit <***@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

(snip)
I said nothing of any sub-group of border patrol. You made that up. Keep
in mind you are lying.
You called me a bigot for merely acknowledging profiling goes on (and
understanding why, even if I don't like the idea). This means you are
necessarily (albeit, tacitly) calling border agents who engage in it
bigots (it's just common sense, Snit). Notably, you're doing so while
using the definition of the word I supplied (because you refused to
supply one), which means the agents are, according to you, doing their
jobs based on "intolerance" of "skin color and race". I'd like to see
you prove that in enough cases (I'm sure there may be some) where it
could reasonably be considered systemic but I'm not holding my breath.
As far as your breath is concerned, you should probably stay away from
open flames ;)
Snit
2019-07-26 18:20:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
(snip)
I said nothing of any sub-group of border patrol. You made that up. Keep
in mind you are lying.
You called me a bigot for merely acknowledging profiling goes on
This is a direct lie on your part.

I called you a bigot for spewing bigoted crap about promoting profiling
and saying others should not have the rights you demanded when the
police spoke to you about you harassing people.
Post by Steve Carroll
(and
understanding why, even if I don't like the idea). This means you are
necessarily (albeit, tacitly) calling border agents who engage in it
bigots (it's just common sense, Snit). Notably, you're doing so while
using the definition of the word I supplied (because you refused to
supply one), which means the agents are, according to you, doing their
jobs based on "intolerance" of "skin color and race". I'd like to see
you prove that in enough cases (I'm sure there may be some) where it
could reasonably be considered systemic but I'm not holding my breath.
As far as your breath is concerned, you should probably stay away from
open flames ;)
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Snit
2019-07-26 18:18:36 UTC
Permalink
says...
We should not profile by race or religion.
How do you propose that will work, you know, when you're charged with
something like securing the border?
Without bigotry.
In your mind profiling is bigotry?
Stopping my darker skinned friends and not me, and doing so based on the
color of skin or race is bigotry. Sure.
Based on what definition of the word bigotry?
Based on it being a clear example of bigotry
Until you supply a definition of the term as you are using it, I'm
going with the one I supplied. Can you prove that the stopping of people
based on how they look is tied to an "intolerance" of those people, as
opposed to people charged with border security merely doing something
logical in pursuit of their job goals? You're aware that you're calling a
*helluva* lot of people, many of them hispanic/latino, bigots, right?
Seems to me you'd want to at least know what the term means <shrug>.
There are many hispanic border patrol. No mention of that by the Snit.
Nor of anything else to do with their profiles. Of course. Why would I
bring that up out of the blue? Why do you?
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-citizens-academy-20180323-
htmlstory.html
Almost 1/2 are hispanic.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/06/26/fact-check-are-half-of-all-
border-patrol-agents-hispanic/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol
Smackdown on the Snit.
I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied anything about their race.
And below you go of into la-la land.
Are you trying to pretend there isn't profiling going on by border
agents?
I am sure there is by some.
Or are you trying to pretend you're not aware of it?
Here I will not you have gone completely off into la-la land.
If CBP came
upon a group of what appear to be Asians playing Pokemon Go in the
desert, tossing candy wrappers in their wake, and 30 yards away sat a
group at rest with a trail of Gallo beer cans leading up to them, what
should they do if they can only deal with one group because they assume
the other will leave before they get to them?
They should go to your house and talk to you about your harassment of
others and note you have now said the right to remain silent and not
incriminate yourself need not be respected. And then invite both groups
to live with you on your dime so we are not paying $775 per night per
child to abuse them.

Wait. You have suggested YOU have engaged in child abuse with your
claims you do not see child abuse as a crime unless you get caught.
Scratch that last part.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Snit
2019-07-26 18:19:03 UTC
Permalink
says...
says...
You do not get to speak for others
I'm not... it's clear you want open borders, you just won't use that
term, instead, you're drumming up all kinds of absurd arguments to 'say'
it another way.
Open borders means votes for the libtards, non citizen votes.
Carroll brought up the idea of open borders.
No one had to bring it up, it oozes from every pore of your every post.
Do you want border agents, Snit? If you say 'yes', like you should if
you don't want open borders, do you want border agents that can, you
know, actually *do* something about border crossings? If you say 'yes,
(again, like you should) then what do you recommend they do when a
person who doesn't speak English (or speaks it poorly) wearing a shirt
made out of the Guatemalan flag is standing next to a group of people
who appear to be looking for a way to run? IOW, what 'powers' would you
give to them and which would you prevent? We already know you'd bar them
from asking for ID if you could, but what else? Knowing that a person
doesn't *have* to respond at all to the CBP, what course of action
should be available to the CBP officer in that case? Should the concept
of 'reasonable suspicion' not apply? If not, why not?
Because of a little wee something called the Fourth Amendment, that's why
not. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that arresting and detaining a
person requires PROBABLE CAUSE, not just reasonable suspicion.
And if you're against the Fourth Amendment then you're a no-good rotten
anti-American jackbooted goosestepping treasonous treacherous traitor and
quite probably a communist spy. What happened, did you read /1984/ and
mistake it for a how-to manual? You retard.
Things like the border search exception aside... I'm clearly asking what
*should* a CBP officer be able to do? I snipped your other 'material' in
an attempt to make you appear somewhat reasonable ;) But I take it that
you're of a mind that the U.S. should have open borders, too. Am I
right?
No. But I do think it should have the Bill of Rights. No unreasonable
searches and seizures, in particular.
I'm only asking for the sake of expediency...
Circumventing the people's rights "for the sake of expediency" always,
ALWAYS leads to tyranny and horror and evil. No matter what the initial
intentions.
Crossing the river is a crime moron.
Seeking asylum is legal.
Crossing illegally isn't.
And crossing legally is. You are at like a 1st grade level in
understanding.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Loading...