Meme on Facebook

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 2:11 pm

Nice article except it address's nothing about controlling the boarders. Without control at the boarders we will still have the dislike for the illegals as they they will continue to pour in. Control and compassion should go hand in hand.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 2:17 pm

woodchip wrote:Nice article except it address's nothing about controlling the boarders.

why aren't the boarders controlled? Not enough food for them?

Without control at the boarders we will still have the dislike for the illegals as they they will continue to pour in. Control and compassion should go hand in hand.

as the article tried to point out, there are differences in opinion about the details, but our system was built on compromise and legislative agreement. NOT VOTING ON ANYTHING is not a solution, but that's been Boehner's answer.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 2:20 pm

callmeslick wrote:
woodchip wrote:Nice article except it address's nothing about controlling the boarders.
why aren't the boarders controlled? Not enough food for them?

Without control at the boarders we will still have the dislike for the illegals as they they will continue to pour in. Control and compassion should go hand in hand.
as the article tried to point out, there are differences in opinion about the details, but our system was built on compromise and legislative agreement. NOT VOTING ON ANYTHING is not a solution, but that's been Boehner's answer.

Still waiting for a intelligent reply

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 2:25 pm

to what?

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 2:36 pm

OK, the brilliant mind of Rick Perry thinks that mobilizing 1000 National Guard troops and deploying them on the border will work just ducky. 2 problems. Putting 1000 armed men along the entire Texas border itself would string them out pretty thin, leaving big holes and inviting sheer boredom. Plus, what are these troops supposed to do when they DO run across an illegal immigrant(s)? Shoot them or just tell them to go back?

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 2:38 pm

callmeslick wrote:
woodchip wrote:Nice article except it address's nothing about controlling the boarders.
why aren't the boarders controlled? Not enough food for them?

HEH!

See also:

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 2:40 pm

tunnelcat wrote:OK, the brilliant mind of Rick Perry thinks that mobilizing 1000 National Guard troops and deploying them on the border will work just ducky. 2 problems. Putting 1000 armed men along the entire Texas border itself would string them out pretty thin, leaving big holes and inviting sheer boredom. Plus, what are these troops supposed to do when they DO run across an illegal immigrant(s)? Shoot them or just tell them to go back?

that's less than 2 men per MILE.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 2:51 pm

How about we do drone strikes instead, it would be cheaper and easier to implement.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 2:53 pm

callmeslick wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:OK, the brilliant mind of Rick Perry thinks that mobilizing 1000 National Guard troops and deploying them on the border will work just ducky. 2 problems. Putting 1000 armed men along the entire Texas border itself would string them out pretty thin, leaving big holes and inviting sheer boredom. Plus, what are these troops supposed to do when they DO run across an illegal immigrant(s)? Shoot them or just tell them to go back?
that's less than 2 men per MILE.

The absolute genius of Rick Perry!

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 4:18 pm

I would have to assume if one was going to deploy 1000 troops along the border they would be deployed in patrol groups.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 4:19 pm

callmeslick wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:OK, the brilliant mind of Rick Perry thinks that mobilizing 1000 National Guard troops and deploying them on the border will work just ducky. 2 problems. Putting 1000 armed men along the entire Texas border itself would string them out pretty thin, leaving big holes and inviting sheer boredom. Plus, what are these troops supposed to do when they DO run across an illegal immigrant(s)? Shoot them or just tell them to go back?
that's less than 2 men per MILE.

And two men in a Apache can cover a lot of ground.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 5:21 pm

Just an aside for Krom. If I cite the content of their deeds as my complaint why assume it is really another motive?

Certainly the usual suspects rush in at every turn to say it is only racist hate or partisan motivation but that is all they have to try and derail the conversation. Have they actually affected your ability to give my complaints a face value consideration?

As to the frequency and intensity of my focus on them, they are winning and having huge impact, acting with relative impunity thanks to their willing accomplices in the media. Thus I find their concerted efforts worthy of greater scrutiny than any conservative in Washington right now.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 5:52 pm

woodster (or larry), did you just seriously suggest that for mere border control duties, they should deploy 500 very expensive close-in support tank destroyers?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 6:19 pm

hey, this is America! Money is no object if it suits their ideology.

(I'd love to see the numbers on running even 50 Apaches daily for the forseeable future)

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 7:32 pm

But it's the glorious and blessed military-industrial complex, so budgetary concerns don't apply!

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 7:36 pm

You guys are amazing…

Someone says 1000 troops on the border and someone imagines them standing in a line…

Someone else suggests 2 people can cover a lot of ground in an apache, and it becomes 500 of them…

LOL!

Wow just keep convincing me you guys are making up opponents in your imaginations, because you are doing a good job of it.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 8:10 pm

Ferno wrote:woodster (or larry), did you just seriously suggest that for mere border control duties, they should deploy 500 very expensive close-in support tank destroyers?

I guess you took me too literally...any helo would do. And who is Larry?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 9:18 pm

Helicopters are very expensive to run. That was sort of my point.

As for Larry.. you'll get it one day.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 10:05 pm

callmeslick wrote:hey, this is America! Money is no object if it suits their ideology.

(I'd love to see the numbers on running even 50 Apaches daily for the forseeable future)

You are something else! I know Repubs have started to catch up to the Dems in spending but you have no moral high ground from which to make that accusation!

Under the guise of making the effort to 'stop the influx' (nudge*nudge*wink*wink) Obama wants billions, much of it for housing transportation and lawyers for the new arrivals.
And you think moving men along the border to spot the incoming...you know...kind of like a real 'border patrol' .... is ideology burning money?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:17 am

w00t!!!!! We're all safe now, the situation is under control:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/10 ... chine-gun/

can't make this type of material up!

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:21 am

Will Robinson wrote:Just an aside for Krom. If I cite the content of their deeds as my complaint why assume it is really another motive?

Certainly the usual suspects rush in at every turn to say it is only racist hate or partisan motivation but that is all they have to try and derail the conversation. Have they actually affected your ability to give my complaints a face value consideration?

As to the frequency and intensity of my focus on them, they are winning and having huge impact, acting with relative impunity thanks to their willing accomplices in the media. Thus I find their concerted efforts worthy of greater scrutiny than any conservative in Washington right now.

The problem is that your scenario is more than a little too perfect and too convenient to be realistic. Too many entities that mix like oil and water have to come together to make it work like you suggest it does. Whenever someone disagrees with you about the democrats and their policies, they are either uninformed/blind/stupid or malicious lying political lackeys. Did it ever occur to you that your sources may be lying to and manipulating you in exactly the same way you imply the media bogeyman is doing to everyone else?

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:40 am

callmeslick wrote:w00t!!!!! We're all safe now, the situation is under control:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/10 ... chine-gun/

can't make this type of material up!

So apparently his idea of immigration reform is to patrol around in a boat with a machine gun and do what exactly? Shoot children who are approaching the border?
(Article is wrong BTW, it isn't a .50. Google says M240 machine gun: 7.62x51mm NATO = .308. So if he used it, he'd still only be shooting kids instead of exploding them, not that it makes much difference.)

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:32 am

Will Robinson wrote:
callmeslick wrote:hey, this is America! Money is no object if it suits their ideology.

(I'd love to see the numbers on running even 50 Apaches daily for the forseeable future)
You are something else! I know Repubs have started to catch up to the Dems in spending but you have no moral high ground from which to make that accusation!

three words, "War on Terror". It's cost us an easy 4 Trillion to date.

Under the guise of making the effort to 'stop the influx' (nudge*nudge*wink*wink) Obama wants billions, much of it for housing transportation and lawyers for the new arrivals.
And you think moving men along the border to spot the incoming...you know...kind of like a real 'border patrol' .... is ideology burning money?

when several hundred million dollars of the proposal would do just that, along with more robust surveillance technology, where is the problem with being humane to people who are legally(since Bush passed the bill) refugees until proven otherwise?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 11:37 am

Maybe the reublican line should be "protect the children. unless they're immigrants. then we shoot them."

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 11:46 am

Ferno wrote:Maybe the reublican line should be "protect the children. unless they're immigrants. then we shoot them."

or to put it bluntly: Pro-life when it's convenient.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 5:57 pm

You make such a big deal out of it, but I wonder who and how many actually suggested shooting children... Maybe you need more material if you feel the need to bring that up more than once.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 9:48 pm

callmeslick wrote:...
three words, "War on Terror". It's cost us an easy 4 Trillion to date.

I'll see your three words and raise you three: Repubs didn't pass it by themselves....

callmeslick wrote:...when several hundred million dollars of the proposal would do just that, along with more robust surveillance technology, where is the problem with being humane to people who are legally(since Bush passed the bill) refugees until proven otherwise?

Yea it was 'all Bush's fault'....what was he doing there in the Clinton administration when the Bill was conceived and passed anyway?!? Maybe he moved into the Whitehouse early and hid in Bill's pocket.

In order to combat the growing issue of trafficking in persons, members of the international community came together and concluded a new protocol to the Transnational Crime Commission that banned trafficking, resulting in the Palermo Protocol, which the U.S. Government helped develop and support. During this process and ultimately to provide for both implementation of the Protocol and to fill gaps in U.S. law, Congress passed the bipartisan Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and it was signed by President Clinton on October 28, 2000 (Public Law 106-386). The issue of trafficking in persons included those trafficked into the sex trade, slavery, and forced labor. The TVPA 2000 was created to, “ensure just and effective punishment of traffickers, and to protect their victims.”3 In particular, there were three main components of the TVPA, commonly called the three P’s:

PROTECTION: The TVPA increased the U.S. Government’s efforts to protect trafficked foreign national victims including, but not limited to:

Victims of trafficking, many of whom were previously ineligible for government assistance, were provided assistance; and

A non-immigrant status for victims of trafficking if they cooperated in the investigation and prosecution of traffickers (T-Visas, as well as providing other mechanisms to ensure the continued presence of victims to assist in such investigations and prosecutions).

PROSECUTION: The TVPA authorized the U.S. Government to strengthen efforts to prosecute traffickers including, but not limited to:

Creating a series of new crimes on trafficking, forced labor, and document servitude that supplemented existing limited crimes related to slavery and involuntary servitude; and

Recognizing that modern-day slavery takes place in the context of fraud and coercion, as well as force, and is based on new clear definitions for both trafficking into sexual exploitation and labor exploitation: Sex trafficking was defined as, “a commercial sex act that is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such an act has not attained 18 years of age.”4 Labor trafficking was defined as, “the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.”5

PREVENTION: The TVPA allowed for increased prevention measures including, but not limited to:

Authorizing the U.S. Government to assist foreign countries with their efforts to combat trafficking, as well as address trafficking within the United States, including through research and awareness-raising; and

Providing foreign countries with assistance in drafting laws to prosecute trafficking, creating programs for trafficking victims, and assistance with implementing effective means of investigation.

It looks pretty clear that it was intended to stop slavery and human sex trafficking. Not as a loop hole for children to be able to walk up to a Border Patrol agent and say 'I want to stay because I'm afraid and my Mommy is coming too.'

It was reauthorized under Bush a few times, not created, and the last time the verbiage changed to make it less clear as to the scope of the intent although it was still very much slavery/sex crime focused.
Do you know who sponsored that last revision? Joe Biden.

What is much more pertinent to the situation than which Presidents signed an anti slave/sex trafficking Bill is that only under Obama's watch did it get turned into a loophole that enabled a swarm of illegal immigration-made refugee by way of a law that isn't supposed to be a means to gain asylum. It never factored the victims home country economics or gang activity as a trigger. It was designed to give a witness/victim of sex trafficking or slavery a safe haven and only in return for their testimony in a trial.

As Obama has proven many times it isn't the letter of the law so much as will he enforce it or decide to circumvent it or, in this case, exploit it by way of twisted interpretation?

But I guess all those relevant distinctions don't come into the discussion if you have the media on your side recharacterizing it as "a Bush law that tied Obama's hands" for you huh? Funny how he can find his way around the law anytime he wants to but in this case he just can't figure out what to do...well...other than offer to take billions in additional spending in exchange for his signature on another revision (no promise he will change his enforcement tactics though).

Yea, 'all Bush's fault', and people wonder why I point at the way things are turning.

lol!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:30 am

The really humane thing is to send buses down to Guatemala to pick the kids up. slick and all his rich friends could easily pick up the tab

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 10:02 am

Nah, the humane thing to do would be to de-criminalize all vices.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 2:39 pm

I'll pass this by slick. I've come up with a conspiracy theory about this uptick in child immigrants. My "theory" is that Republican operatives have gone down to Central America and are spreading rumors that Obama is welcoming all children with open arms and to come on up. Then they can blame the whole mess on Obama, which they're currently doing. I wouldn't put it past them they hate Obama so much.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 4:35 pm

Yea, lotta hate goin on.

Really...do you hear yourself?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 4:54 pm

tunnelcat wrote:I'll pass this by slick. I've come up with a conspiracy theory about this uptick in child immigrants.

Why? Didn't you just pass it by the whole E&C forum?

tunnelcat wrote:My "theory" is that Republican operatives have gone down to Central America and are spreading rumors that Obama is welcoming all children with open arms and to come on up.

What 'rumor'?!? If they had such a stupid plan there is no need to go down there because Obama is...he has been...his team even took out ads on Mexican TV to let the new voters know where to sign up for government programs, food stamps etc.. and to let them know using these programs wont effect their immigration status.
Sounds pretty inviting to me.

tunnelcat wrote:Then they can blame the whole mess on Obama, which they're currently doing. I wouldn't put it past them they hate Obama so much.

Only if they are stupid (OK, I'll give you that part...) but nothing gets blamed on Obama if the media doesn't approve of it.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:16 pm

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/04/is_obam ... _mexicans/

Edit: Countdown to "Just another willing media accomplice." or similar dismissal. 3... 2... 1...
See also: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=21413

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 7:35 pm

Does what you posted refute the fact that the Obama administration was advertising on Mexican TV the information that illegal immigrants can receive social services like food stamps without causing themselves any immigration or other legal concerns?

Does it refute the assertion that I made that doing so is an inviting bit of news to an immigrant thinking of coming here not a deterent?

I don't think it does.

The statements by Obama that he is doing all he can to deter the influx is a lie. He isn't even trying to be neutral, he is increasing the incentives and blaming the Repubs/Bush for the changes he has implemented.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:43 am

tunnelcat wrote:I'll pass this by slick. I've come up with a conspiracy theory about this uptick in child immigrants. My "theory" is that Republican operatives have gone down to Central America and are spreading rumors that Obama is welcoming all children with open arms and to come on up. Then they can blame the whole mess on Obama, which they're currently doing. I wouldn't put it past them they hate Obama so much.

I really think folks need to look at the real conditions which have worsened over the past 5 years in Central America. A lot of former west coast US gang bangers got deported, set up shop, and now the region is essentially under criminal mob control. Those kids and mothers are coming here merely for safety and the desperate hope for a better life. Not seeing or sensing any real conspiracy to get them here. It's happened before, and this nation should view most of them as refugees.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:44 am

Will Robinson wrote:Does what you posted refute the fact that the Obama administration was advertising on Mexican TV the information that illegal immigrants can receive social services like food stamps without causing themselves any immigration or other legal concerns?

I'll refute that. It's yet another right-wing zombie lie. No such thing EVER occurred. EVER. You are merely repeating a lie you've been fed by your handlers. Go ahead, prove I'm wrong, and I expect real facts.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:59 am

Yes…real facts, not those phony ones people tend to use around here.

I heard something about some people handing out flyers and posting on buildings giving instructions on how to sign up to get social services once you cross the border, this was a legit news source, but the story was a little vague.

Then after that I heard it was our government…

To me, this is just typical of the distorted “news” we all get in this day and age, and the only “facts” are…nobody really knows the facts.

And no…I don’t watch FOX or any other news sources I consider biased. (unless they are posted here…and I take all of that crap with a grain of salt)

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 8:26 am

callmeslick wrote:

I really think folks need to look at the real conditions which have worsened over the past 5 years in Central America. A lot of former west coast US gang bangers got deported, set up shop, and now the region is essentially under criminal mob control. Those kids and mothers are coming here merely for safety and the desperate hope for a better life. Not seeing or sensing any real conspiracy to get them here. It's happened before, and this nation should view most of them as refugees.

Yes it is our fault for sending M13 gang members back to where they came from. We should of kept them here to prevent such deplorable condition arising in their home country. We should also not be deporting guys like this:

PARKER COUNTY (CBSDFW.COM) – Authorities in Parker County have arrested a man suspected of molesting a 9-year-old girl as she slept in her home. The man, 35-year-old Israel Andrade, has been deported from the United States on four different occasions.

We should keep people like him here so he doesn't molest children in his home country. Better to let him molest our children. Slick, you have some of the most twisted logic I have ever seen.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 8:44 am

callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:Does what you posted refute the fact that the Obama administration was advertising on Mexican TV the information that illegal immigrants can receive social services like food stamps without causing themselves any immigration or other legal concerns?
I'll refute that. It's yet another right-wing zombie lie. No such thing EVER occurred. EVER. You are merely repeating a lie you've been fed by your handlers. Go ahead, prove I'm wrong, and I expect real facts.

"Last year Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions complained in writing to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack that, 'It defies rational thinking for the United States – now dangerously $16 trillion in debt – to partner with foreign governments to help us place more foreign nationals on American welfare.'"

And then we have the letter that judicial watch got a hold of

“SNAP” (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program),

Advertisement to Mexican consulates for free webnar showing how to collect benifits:

there's more but you can look it up for yourselves

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 9:28 am

Slick I have posted it before after the last time you got all puffed up and declared it never happened....then you disappeared as you always do when your bluff is called.
Woody has some of it there and you could find the rest if you really wanted to know.

So here's some of the motive to consider.

“We reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters,” stated Medina, then the SEIU’s international executive vice-president.

Medina said that in the 2008 elections, Latinos and immigrants “voted overwhelmingly for progressive candidates,” with Obama winning “two out of every three voters that showed up.”

Medina is one of the people advising Obama on reform. Do you really think they want to stem the tide?!? Lol
I know you want people to believe he is trying but his policy choices don't support that even inspite of your bluster