• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Muslim ban already having effect

MysteryMen said:
I think all of you missed my point (and the point of that quote). I was saying that it was a myth that in the Obama Administration, ICE officers were forced to leave anyone who wasn't a gang member or violent criminal alone.

The Obama Administration deported more people than Bush and Clinton did. And he deported a lot of people who were not gang members or violent criminals. That said, the administration invested more of its resources on focusing on gang members and violent crimes, I think properly. There are limited resources, and you can't deport everybody.

ELC, you seem to be assuming that the Obama Administration could have deported a lot more people and chose not too. I'm not sure the data really bears that out given the resource constraints. If the Trump administration can remove the same number of gang members and violent criminals, while also increasing the number of non-gang members, etc. then I'm generally ok with that. But I hope that the current "unshackled" approach doesn't burn a bunch of resources on people who aren't causing problems while leaving criminals untouched.

Also, I think it's easy to say that illegal aliens should be removed from the country, but having work on some deportation/asylum cases, it's really sad how dehumanizing our immigration laws are. We're talking about people who have lived in this country for 20+ years, have families here, have lived the American dream, and you're going to pick them up and throw them out when they often did nothing wrong other than come here in the first place (and maybe they came as kids when they didn't even have a choice in the matter).

It's cruel honestly. And I wish more on the right would be sensitive to the actual human element here, rather than just viewing it as a class of illegals who need to be purged from the country.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the late response.

I'm telling you from a policy and reality boots on the ground POV that the Obama administration absolutely could have deported more people and chose not to. This was evident early on when they were instructing DHS attorneys to drop cases in court, in front of the IJ, on their court dates. Everything was ready to go, but if they weren't a criminal, we were just dropping it. All that was left was to shackle them up and bus them back, basically. There were articles going back probably 7-8 years in the Houston Chronicle that talked about this.

I know that some asylum cases are rough, although if they're claiming asylum after 20 years of living in the US, it's obviously a bullshit claim. But one thing that struck me as ridiculous that was later changed was the "providing material support for terrorism" disqualifier in asylum cases. AQ could come to your house, hold a gun to your kid's head, and demand water, and if you got them a glass of water, that was deemed material support and tough titty. That was just stupid policy.

I also know somebody who can't be with his family in the US because when he was young he freaked out when apprehended at the border and told the BP officer he was a USC. You can be a rapist or a murderer, but you can't represent yourself as USC because there is no waiver for that. He's fucked, basically. Did I mention that he actually waited 10 years since his last illegal entry to try to come in legally? He thought the 10 year penalty would apply (which it did), but wasn't aware of his statutory bar due to a false claim to US citizenship. He tried to come back illegally a while back but was apprehended again and won't be making another trip. His wife and kids are USCs. That is also stupid.

As far as removing people who have been here 20 years, they know the rules. It doesn't help that the government has given many a unilateral pass for 8 years, thus misleading them, but the amnesties absolutely have to stop and the permissive policies have to as well since they only encourage more illegal immigration. If we were not talking about yet another amnesty and had been deporting people the last 8 years with the same approach that Clinton or Bush took (meaning deporting for all offenses and having some semblance of interior enforcement), we would not find ourselves in the current pickle, and I'd be fine. Instead, we get a blowhard like Trump who is more dogmatic about the issue and people will inevitably get screwed at some point. That doesn't mean the solution is to let them skate another 4-8 years or make them legal. We wouldn't have people freaking out about all these yahoos getting deported who should've been deported years ago.
 
I think there should be a statute of limitations on removal just like there is on everything else. If you've lived here illegally for 10 or 15 years without committing any other removable offenses then you should be allowed to stay.

Right now, even green card holders can be deported if the government somehow discovers that 35 years ago they got convicted of a relatively minor drug offense. Even if they've done nothing since then. That's wrong.
 
MysteryMen said:
:jfk:
Click to expand...

what are you trying to say with that? tell me exactly what you don't agree with or are not understanding. You take issue with my assessment of MDs? What is it?

You know i've shown you plenty of respect, i suggest you come at me correct or you don't come at all. You've misrepresented me, misquoted, misunderstood, and now, apparently, disrespected. I went out of my way to explain to you some things I know that really are not that difficult because you asked me to.

I should send you an invoice, but i'll content myself with you having read and now understand that when you prohibit something that there is a demand for among a certain subset of people, suppliers will organize and meet the demand in one way or another. And, that and if you criminalize it you can also discredit the users and the suppliers, and keep them in their place, so to speak.

Keep in your field, and keep working on trying to open your third eye, as my fourth eye has been open for some time now. If you can't help me with opening my fifth with constructive posts, then don't direct garbage at me.
 
Last edited:
You've posted about how there's no rational reason for drug laws and how doctors are quacks essentially. You can't understand why someone would see that as the tinfoil hat brigade?
 
i said medical doctors are quacks? so we're back to misrepresenting what i've said?

I said they're sophomoric in their understanding of life, society, and the world, and they're the ultimate drug dealers and push many of the same drugs you think would destroy society if not made illegal.

i have implied drug laws are superfluous but i also already gave you the counterarguments to my position and admitted they (probably) had some merit.

Most MD's were born into high SES status homes with racially homogenous upbringings and though have worked very hard, the studies were in natural sciences (which do not train a manner of thinking--pourdeac is perfect example) and tend to focus on things narrowly because that's what a specialist does. Can you not see how they frequently behave as learned idiots from someone who takes a more comprehensive viewpoint? Especially when i've seen and know for well over a decade how they all grab their ankles for the almighty dollar.

I can see how someone who lived in flatland or in plato's cave would pull out a tinfoil hat. But i'm a sphere. I'm still open to notion that you're a sphere as well.

Rolling eyes or extreme distress are natural reactions to the truth when a human hears it. Noam Chomsky is the polymath's polymath, but he isn't ever on mainstream media, because he's too smart and knows too much. Most people hearing him for the first time are not able to even understand the level he is on.

i've not asked you to rep or rock my point of view, only to respect it (and also don't twist it).
 
Last edited:
i posted a lot of sentences and we've only debated one of them really lol
 
Last edited:
I mean, look, we're way off topic here, but you started from the premise that drug laws are irrational, ergo the only explanation for them is racism. And regardless of whether you're right or wrong, you have to admit that that view is wayyyyy outside the mainstream. People think drug laws are good for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with racism
 
MysteryMen said:
I mean, look, we're way off topic here, but you started from the premise that drug laws are irrational, ergo the only explanation for them is racism. And regardless of whether you're right or wrong, you have to admit that that view is wayyyyy outside the mainstream. People think drug laws are good for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with racism
Click to expand...

we can agree to disagree. you need to add several more "ys" to most all my views to white middle class people. The beginning of the boondocks comes to mind, linked below. Circumstances have given me the opportunity to philosophize on this shit for many years and disease drove my quest to understand psychology and the start of history.

i believe all drugs should be legalized and the actual, real effects with honest data sharing, will lead to self imposed prohibition against actual threats. cigarettes in US perfect example.

i will list some of my personal experiences with doctors i've had as a patient later but in the meantime consider doctors have a hierarchy of priorities:

their life
their professional rep
Cover their ass
pay medical debt

you are (at best) 4th to 10th priority to your physician. As a 17 year patient, three time survivor, nearly acutely died 3 times too but details may be TMI, been under the knife over 15 times. have double knee and hip replacements you don't think i have enough info accumulated to slam them? i been in the hospital for such durations the seasons changed. when the physical therapist comes to train me with crutches as a requirement for dischagre they're the ones who learn something.

doctors are not quacks, but they are naive to many other things.

white people reacting to the truth:

 
Last edited:
Seems you were dealt a shitty hand and need to understand why. In your quest to somehow rationalize why you were given a shitty hand, where no answer exists, you do what humans do best and search for someone to blame, in this case it appears your distaste for doctors. The conversation can end pretty quickly with one simple question, would you be alive without the help of these self serving shills known as doctors. No, the end.
 
You can think what you want, but you're basically arguing that the Earth is flat and asking me to tell you why you're wrong
 
Louis Gossett Jr said:
Seems you were dealt a shitty hand and need to understand why. In your quest to somehow rationalize why you were given a shitty hand, where no answer exists, you do what humans do best and search for someone to blame, in this case it appears your distaste for doctors. The conversation can end pretty quickly with one simple question, would you be alive without the help of these self serving shills known as doctors. No, the end.
Click to expand...

first sentence up to the word "blame" is 100% right. but me being alive today is not even close to the end of the story. googled "do doctors refuse heroic medicine?," 42,000,000 results.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...emotherapy-despite-recommending-patients.html

https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/questions-before-chemotherapy-treatment/

http://io9.gizmodo.com/most-doctors-would-refuse-their-own-aggressive-end-of-l-1583165034

google: do doctors refuse end of life care? 3,500,000 results:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1492577/

some of these may not be the best websites, but it should prove there is an issue you're unaware about without me writing another novel that'd also be partially TMI. but ive seen before many times other charts and whatnot from surveys... the only end of life care MDs universally choose to accept are the pain meds.

this is called the principal-agent problem, and has to do with confict of interests, differences in priorities, and disproportionate risks and rewards among the relevant parties. this is framed economically but applies to Dr/patient dynamics; i'm sure there is a more specific academic term for this as well.

my gripe with MDs is a real thing.
 
Last edited:
MysteryMen said:
You can think what you want, but you're basically arguing that the Earth is flat and asking me to tell you why you're wrong
Click to expand...

not exactly. I'm saying in the broadest sense that your third eye isn't all the way open. But i'll try not bother you so long as you don't misrepresent, misquote, or disrespect me. Plato said just what the sphere was made to realize: there is no sense in trying to explain larger, more fundamental truths to the vast majority of people when it's so far out of anything they can contextualize it with.

putlocker.ch just went down, but i'm trying to find the 20 minute version of the 2007 flatland movie. It's important to get the condensed version not the feature length. I'd consider it a favor if you watched it. it's as eye opening as cosmos 1 & 2 but in 25 mins. the movie will go over point land and line land as well. Creatures confined to these dimensions have their minds chained to those universes. there is also a sphereland/flatland2 that goes even further.

edit: trailer https://vimeo.com/ondemand/flatlandthemovie

synopsis: FLATLAND: THE MOVIE is an award-winning animated film inspired by Edwin A. Abbott's classic 1884 novel, “Flatland.” Set in a world of only two dimensions inhabited by sentient geometric shapes, the story follows Arthur Square (Martin Sheen) and his ever-curious granddaughter Hex (Kristen Bell). When a mysterious visitor arrives from Spaceland (Michael York), Arthur and Hex must come to terms with the truth of the third dimension, risking dire consequences from the Circles that have ruled Flatland for a thousand years.
------------------------
the circles are priests of flatland by the way, but they can be made to represent any authorit(ies) that want to constrain your mind. people in flatland can't tolerate the notion of a spherical shape, it's illegal and heretical.

it's actually 35 minutes, and it's the best version, find or buy the movie to that trailer and you'll at least get on a philosophical level that there are more levels, and that means you'll give more allowance to seemingly radical arguments and ideas. the framework for your mind can be expanded in an elemental way in 35 minutes. that also means there are probably creatures in real life that can operate in four (up to infinite) spatial dimensions... to us that sort of creature would appear to be god.

edit again: you can torrent it if you know how https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/51..._(2007)_-_the_short_film_not_the_feature_leng I promise it's an excellent use of one's time. it'll take five mins to torrent and you'll be thinking about it for the rest of the day, and it'll change your thought processes and mind forever.

if after that you still wanna put ur tinfoil hat on go ahead. I tried and you listened and just don't agree. Unfortunate because you'll most likely always be a sheeple then, but so is everyone else so it isn't like you're in bad company; you're just normal but not an einstein (and neither am I, i'm something in between, not sure what)
 
Last edited:
An Afghan Family, With Visas in Hand, Is Detained in Los Angeles

The father had arrived on Thursday with his wife and three children, ages 7, 6 and 8 months, on Special Immigrant Visas, according to the lawyers’ habeas corpus petition filed on Saturday in Federal District Court in Los Angeles. Those visas were created by Congress for citizens in Iraq and Afghanistan who have helped the United States military or government as drivers, interpreters or in other jobs — work that often makes them targets in their home countries.

But instead of being allowed to enter the United States, the family has been detained, according to the court papers.
Click to expand...

According to Ms. Heller, the father was being held Saturday night at a men’s immigration detention facility in Orange County, Calif. His wife and children were taken to a detention center in downtown Los Angeles.
Click to expand...
 
EatLeadCommie said:
New EO is out, sensibly constructed and with details to fight the court challenge.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
Click to expand...

I don't see how this defeats the legal concerns. The claim made in the first round of challenges was that the EO was enacted with discriminatory intent. The Seattle judge, at least, seemed to largely accept this argument, and the Ninth Circuit indicated that it was open to it too, even though it didn't rule on that point. This is a ban by the same President, who said the same things about Muslims before the election, that does largely the same thing as the first ban. While they tried to take the obviously discriminatory things out (the religious provision), nobody has forgotten what the first EO said. It's hard for me to see how anyone can say that there isn't the same intent behind this one as there was behind the first one
 
[h=1]Khizr Khan claims travel privileges under review[/h]
Gold Star father Khizr Khan’s “freedom to travel abroad” is reportedly under review, and he says he doesn’t know why.
Khan was scheduled to speak at a luncheon in Toronto on Tuesday “on what we can do about the appalling turn of events in Washington — so that we don’t all end up sacrificing everything.” The two-hour event was to include a presentation and then a question-and-answer session.



But Khan was told late Sunday that his traveling privileges were under review, according to Ramsay Talks, which organized the luncheon.
“As a consequence, Mr. Khan will not be traveling to Toronto on March 7th to speak about tolerance, understanding, unity and the rule of law,” it said in a statement. “Very regretfully, Ramsay Talks must cancel its luncheon with Mr. Khan. Guests will be given full refunds.”
Click to expand...
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/khizr-khan-travel-privileges-toronto-235727
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top