Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

The Mollie Tibbetts Murder — Political Version


Juxtatarot

Recommended Posts

Just now, jonessed said:

For millions of people?  Yes.  There’s no infrastructure to support suddenly dumping millions of people in rural areas.

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were talking about.  You're right, one state alone could not handle that but there's plenty of area to spread out that amount of people.  Lots of space from the Mississippi River heading West.  Plenty of opportunities if they wanted to make it happen.  Infrastructure is already an issue and would continue to be.  At least there would be plenty of people to work the jobs that require the labor to make it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

I think letting only people born here vote to be a ridiculous take though

Disagree.  The policy of having open borders, that is, the current immigration law in the USA was a policy enacted by the Democrat Party.  This was a deliberate policy decision put in place to essentially import voters to bring in and keep the Democrats in power.  How to fix this corruption?  Keep it to people born here, Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, timschochet said:

So matttyl, rather than worry about my idealistic positions which will never happen, lets discuss what President Trump wants to happen, which is at least possible. His response to the death of this girl is:

1. Full funding for the proposed wall on our southern border so that it will be constructed ASAP.

2. An end to what he calls "chain migration"- the ability of legal immigrants to invite certain close family members to apply for citizenship.

3. An end to our current immigration lottery system, and replace it with a merit based system, where we decide the type of immigrant we want based on need, with an emphasis on college educated professionals.

4. A large crackdown on undocumented immigrants already here, including mass deportations, with the cooperation of ICE and local law enforcement (which means an end to the practice of "sanctuary cities.")

 

It will come as no surprise to you that I am STRONGLY opposed to each and every one of these proposals.  But what is your position?

Honestly, I'm not as knowledgeable about the specifics of all of this as I should be.  So my admittedly uninformed answer here is likely not what you are looking for.  That said, my answer in general would be to have an immigration policy that keeps our economy moving forward, at a stable rate.  I think this is more important now with Americans choosing in general to have fewer children, and to have them later in life - and with the aging baby boomer generation we have on our hands.  I mean our birth rate per 100k people is roughly half of what it was in 1990, less than 30 years ago - and dropping. 

So I look at your specifics with that background.  I'm also with you on full vetting of the immigrants that we do allow into this country, I think that's obvious to anyone.  But so long as we have a vetting process, there will be people who don't, or can't pass.  Some of those may try to come into our country anyway, illegally.  Will a "wall" of some sort prevent/discourage/lower the amount that do so?  Can we quantify that, both in terms of fewer number who make it, and how much less strain on the economy we'd have because of them?  Will their be ancillary benefits like fewer drugs and illegal weapons making it into our country?  Can we quantify that? 

How have "chain migrants" assimilated into our country?  Have them been a net positive or negative?  How do they compare vs the legal immigrants who invited them?  How do they compare against the next legal "non-chain" migrant that we could have allowed in? 

I think from above you can see how I'd feel on a lottery vs merit based system.  I think about 50k people come into the US each year from this system (so like 3% of total immigrants).  Not really worth fighting over really, but possibly a better vetting process of the ~1.5m annual applicants for those spots? 

Crackdown yes - but I'd be ok with your idea above of just having them pay a fine, perhaps a hefty one.  Either lump sum or a tax on earnings for a period of time.  They don't do that, or are paid under the table - what would you suggest?  They came here legally, they remained here legally, they've been given a chance to remain legally by way of a fee/tax/fine - and choose not to pay it (kinda like the ACA fee for not having coverage that so many didn't pay).  At that point, can they be deported?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, matttyl said:

Honestly, I'm not as knowledgeable about the specifics of all of this as I should be.  So my admittedly uninformed answer here is likely not what you are looking for.  That said, my answer in general would be to have an immigration policy that keeps our economy moving forward, at a stable rate.  I think this is more important now with Americans choosing in general to have fewer children, and to have them later in life - and with the aging baby boomer generation we have on our hands.  I mean our birth rate per 100k people is roughly half of what it was in 1990, less than 30 years ago - and dropping. 

So I look at your specifics with that background.  I'm also with you on full vetting of the immigrants that we do allow into this country, I think that's obvious to anyone.  But so long as we have a vetting process, there will be people who don't, or can't pass.  Some of those may try to come into our country anyway, illegally.  Will a "wall" of some sort prevent/discourage/lower the amount that do so?  Can we quantify that, both in terms of fewer number who make it, and how much less strain on the economy we'd have because of them?  Will their be ancillary benefits like fewer drugs and illegal weapons making it into our country?  Can we quantify that? 

How have "chain migrants" assimilated into our country?  Have them been a net positive or negative?  How do they compare vs the legal immigrants who invited them?  How do they compare against the next legal "non-chain" migrant that we could have allowed in? 

I think from above you can see how I'd feel on a lottery vs merit based system.  I think about 50k people come into the US each year from this system (so like 3% of total immigrants).  Not really worth fighting over really, but possibly a better vetting process of the ~1.5m annual applicants for those spots? 

Crackdown yes - but I'd be ok with your idea above of just having them pay a fine, perhaps a hefty one.  Either lump sum or a tax on earnings for a period of time.  They don't do that, or are paid under the table - what would you suggest?  They came here legally, they remained here legally, they've been given a chance to remain legally by way of a fee/tax/fine - and choose not to pay it (kinda like the ACA fee for not having coverage that so many didn't pay).  At that point, can they be deported?

I like your responses, I think they're very thoughtful, and form the basis for a reasonable discussion. Unfortunately this sort of discussion is almost impossible right now, as people on all sides have thrown down the gauntlet on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, matttyl said:

Honestly, I'm not as knowledgeable about the specifics of all of this as I should be.  So my admittedly uninformed answer here is likely not what you are looking for.  That said, my answer in general would be to have an immigration policy that keeps our economy moving forward, at a stable rate.  I think this is more important now with Americans choosing in general to have fewer children, and to have them later in life - and with the aging baby boomer generation we have on our hands.  I mean our birth rate per 100k people is roughly half of what it was in 1990, less than 30 years ago - and dropping. 

So I look at your specifics with that background.  I'm also with you on full vetting of the immigrants that we do allow into this country, I think that's obvious to anyone.  But so long as we have a vetting process, there will be people who don't, or can't pass.  Some of those may try to come into our country anyway, illegally.  Will a "wall" of some sort prevent/discourage/lower the amount that do so?  Can we quantify that, both in terms of fewer number who make it, and how much less strain on the economy we'd have because of them?  Will their be ancillary benefits like fewer drugs and illegal weapons making it into our country?  Can we quantify that? 

 

One aside here- it's true that if you had an immigration policy that allowed in anyone who wanted to come after vetting there would still be people attempting to enter illegally.  But there would be far fewer of them, so existing border patrol resources would be far more effective in stopping them.  Just one of many reasons we should actually have that figurative "big beautiful door" Trump talked about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dawgtrails said:

To: xzins

To be fair - it wasn’t just politicians that killed Mollie.

You must add in the Educrats and our school systems that filled her little head with mush.

She was no different than any 20 year old taught in America. Indoctrinated to believe in the goodness of muzzies, illegals and other dangerous types.

 

7 posted on 8/23/2018, 9:57:00 AM by Responsibility2nd

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

I can't imagine coming across a post like this and thinking "This is such a great post that I'm going to steal it and copy/paste it across the internet"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I like your responses, I think they're very thoughtful, and form the basis for a reasonable discussion. Unfortunately this sort of discussion is almost impossible right now, as people on all sides have thrown down the gauntlet on this issue.

Aren't you and I having this sort of discussion right now?  Not totally directed to you, at least on purpose, but I think people are looking at reasons to disagree and thus not talk far more these days rather than simply finding the things that they do actually agree on. 

Anyone else read what I wrote above and have a response similar to Tim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, butcher boy said:

Disagree.  The policy of having open borders, that is, the current immigration law in the USA was a policy enacted by the Democrat Party.  This was a deliberate policy decision put in place to essentially import voters to bring in and keep the Democrats in power.

Guess which party controls both houses of congress and the executive branch?

Hint: It rhymes with "reschmublican".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, butcher boy said:

Disagree.  The policy of having open borders, that is, the current immigration law in the USA was a policy enacted by the Democrat Party.  This was a deliberate policy decision put in place to essentially import voters to bring in and keep the Democrats in power.  How to fix this corruption?  Keep it to people born here, Americans.

Open borders is not the current immigration law, Obama’s law, or proposed law.

Quit lying...even if you are again plagiarizing from elsewhere.

Your post is a blatant lie. Stop

Edited by sho nuff
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it's just two of the worst posters here, but we still shouldn't let people redefine the phrase "open borders" to mean "relaxed enforcement policies for undocumented immigrants already in the United States" or something similar. That's not what open borders means at all, not even close. Open borders means literally not guarding your borders, or at most it means manning them but letting anyone who wants to cross them and does some paperwork come through. That's it. Nobody has ever used the phrase to mean anything else in good faith.

Words have to have meanings.  Otherwise people could just say "the Trump administration murders and eats puppies," or "Obama is a Kenyan Muslim" and nobody could prove either statement wrong. I know that abandoning truth and reality serves one side of the aisle better than the other at the moment but presumably nobody wants to live in a world like that, right? Hopefully?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hawkeye21 said:

We have tons of schools pushing liberal agendas in rural Iowa.  You know how rural Iowans love their liberal agendas. :loco:  I'm not sure how butcher boy is allowed to post on here with the terrible content he provides.

They same way the rest of us are allowed to post here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, KCitons said:

They same way the rest of us are allowed to post here. 

Well, I got a one day ban Tuesday for saying it was stupid to politicize this in the FFA forum.  He gets away with basically plagiarizing here.  Almost everyone else is willing to have some kind of discussion here.  I don't agree with some of your views but at least you do a great job of discussing it and I know they are your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

No they don’t plagiarize and not offer a link.  And he has been told to stop multiple time.  Why would you choose to defend that?

Opinions are formed through lots of ways. I don't defend his opinion, but I defend his right to have one. Everybody's opinion is formed through outside sources. Whether you realize it or not, everyone plagiarizes things all the time. Original thoughts are rare these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Well, I got a one day ban Tuesday for saying it was stupid to politicize this in the FFA forum.  He gets away with basically plagiarizing here.  Almost everyone else is willing to have some kind of discussion here.  I don't agree with some of your views but at least you do a great job of discussing it and I know they are your own.

I think the bolded parts are different. One was calling someone stupid, the other was doing something stupid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Opinions are formed through lots of ways. I don't defend his opinion, but I defend his right to have one. Everybody's opinion is formed through outside sources. Whether you realize it or not, everyone plagiarizes things all the time. Original thoughts are rare these days.

Cutting and pasting someone else's written words and passing them off as your own is considered dishonest and is plagiarism. That is not the same as repeating someone else's thoughts.

You are conflating two different things. You could be sued for passing off someone else's written words as your own, you can't be sued for repeating someone else's thoughts or ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, squistion said:

If you have enough time to copy and paste an article, you also have the time to provide a link or attribution to the source. Only takes a few seconds longer.

There's a difference between posting an article and passing it off as your own and posting a post or a tweet someone wrote that you agree with.  That's essentially what I do. We're not writing thesis papers here or publishing material. 

When you're having a conversation with the guys at the watercooler and you repeat something you heard on the news, do you also include the network, reporter name, and other info when talking about it?  And if you don't, do your buddies call you out on it?  I dont think so.  That's essentially what we're doing here, having watercooler discussions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, squistion said:

If you have enough time to copy and paste an article, you also have the time to provide a link or attribution to the source. Only takes a few seconds longer.

Coming from someone that didn't want to spend two seconds yesterday ? :rolleyes:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Opinions are formed through lots of ways. I don't defend his opinion, but I defend his right to have one. Everybody's opinion is formed through outside sources. Whether you realize it or not, everyone plagiarizes things all the time. Original thoughts are rare these days.

He is entitled to his opinion.  The point is...he is plagiarizing other people opinions and passing th off as his own.  And he has been told by the mods not to do so.

Its one thing to form an opinion from another source...it’s another to copy and paste opinion from a nutjob site like free republic and pass it off as your own againstvthe wishes of those who run this board.

Again...why would you defend such behavior except to argue with me right now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

He is entitled to his opinion.  The point is...he is plagiarizing other people opinions and passing th off as his own.  And he has been told by the mods not to do so.

Its one thing to form an opinion from another source...it’s another to copy and paste opinion from a nutjob site like free republic and pass it off as your own againstvthe wishes of those who run this board.

Again...why would you defend such behavior except to argue with me right now?

but everyone posts anonymously on these and other boards?  Why the need to attribute a random username without any knowledge of who they really are anyway?  What value does it give if someone adds to their post "This was pasted from wildbill696969's post"?  Everything's anonymous anyway.

Edited by butcher boy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

He is entitled to his opinion.  The point is...he is plagiarizing other people opinions and passing th off as his own.  And he has been told by the mods not to do so.

Its one thing to form an opinion from another source...it’s another to copy and paste opinion from a nutjob site like free republic and pass it off as your own againstvthe wishes of those who run this board.

Again...why would you defend such behavior except to argue with me right now?

Holy crap that's funny.  :lol:  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

He is entitled to his opinion.  The point is...he is plagiarizing other people opinions and passing th off as his own.  And he has been told by the mods not to do so.

Its one thing to form an opinion from another source...it’s another to copy and paste opinion from a nutjob site like free republic and pass it off as your own againstvthe wishes of those who run this board.

Again...why would you defend such behavior except to argue with me right now?

I'm not arguing. I'm just pointing out the facts. How do you know that he didn't post that on the other site? Do you know responsibility2nd personally?

Also, take a look at the two posts side by side. Are they exactly the same? No. What percentage needs to be changed to eliminate plagiarism? Keep in mind the number of times posters here post something close to what someone else already said online. 

Ultimately, you don't agree with what he said and are going to concentrate on ways to silence his opinion.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, KCitons said:

I'm not arguing. I'm just pointing out the facts. How do you know that he didn't post that on the other site? Do you know responsibility2nd personally?

Also, take a look at the two posts side by side. Are they exactly the same? No. What percentage needs to be changed to eliminate plagiarism? Keep in mind the number of times posters here post something close to what someone else already said online. 

Ultimately, you don't agree with what he said and are going to concentrate on ways to silence his opinion.  

He has decided me or multiple times(not from the same user there)...he admits above he does it.

And yes...you are arguing seemingly for the sale of doing so because you are wrong about all of it and not pointing out any facts.

Ultimately...me not liking what he said is irrelevant to the objection about what he is done ng when he copies and pastes other peoples opinions as his own.  I’m not silencing his opinion...apparently it’s someone else’s.  And he has been told by the mods not to do so.

 

Again...there is zero reason to defemd

thos practice...it should be easy to just agree he shouldn’t do it given all of the facts.  But you won’t because of who has objected.  Very odd and now way past where I’m bored with it and you.

Good bye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ranethe said:

Wow people are really minimizing and defending plagiarism now?

Definitely a sign of the times.

Please give credit to where you heard the phrase "a sign of the times".  You didn't come up with it.  I know it's been used many times in pop culture.  songs, movies, etc.  Please give a reference to where you heard it instead of just plagiarizing the phrase.  

Also, that picture of Satan in your avatar?  What is it from?  Please provide the reference in each of your posts since you are using it to represent yourself.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

He has decided me or multiple times(not from the same user there)...he admits above he does it.

And yes...you are arguing seemingly for the sale of doing so because you are wrong about all of it and not pointing out any facts.

Ultimately...me not liking what he said is irrelevant to the objection about what he is done ng when he copies and pastes other peoples opinions as his own.  I’m not silencing his opinion...apparently it’s someone else’s.  And he has been told by the mods not to do so.

 

Again...there is zero reason to defemd

thos practice...it should be easy to just agree he shouldn’t do it given all of the facts.  But you won’t because of who has objected.  Very odd and now way past where I’m bored with it and you.

Good bye.

Does Lionel Ritchie know you're using his image as your avatar? If not, why did you plagiarize it from whatever the original source is?  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, butcher boy said:

Does Lionel Ritchie know you're using his image as your avatar? If not, why did you plagiarize it from whatever the original source is?  

Why would Lionel Ritchie care about a picture of Julius Carry?

Also, your comparisons are weak and not a defense of your actions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jobber said:

Don’t bother fellas. Arguing with the intellectually dishonest is an impossible task.

Set him to ignore.

Yeah, especially when someone doesn't even understand the concept of plagiarism. And :lmao: at "picture of Satan". Gawd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, sho nuff said:
Quote

 

14 minutes ago, butcher boy said:

Does Lionel Ritchie know you're using his image as your avatar? If not, why did you plagiarize it from whatever the original source is?  

 

Why would Lionel Ritchie care about a picture of Julius Carry?

Oof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call it what you want. The truth is that you don't like what he said much more than how it was posted. If he posted something that you agreed with, there would have been no problem. 

It's similar to a poster calling out my one of my avatars in the kneeling thread. It was in honor of fallen soldiers that contained the American Flag. He didn't like what I had to say, so he attacked whatever he could. You're doing the same here. Calling for a poster to be banned because you don't like what he said. It's weak sauce. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KCitons said:

Call it what you want. The truth is that you don't like what he said much more than how it was posted. If he posted something that you agreed with, there would have been no problem. 

It's similar to a poster calling out my one of my avatars in the kneeling thread. It was in honor of fallen soldiers that contained the American Flag. He didn't like what I had to say, so he attacked whatever he could. You're doing the same here. Calling for a poster to be banned because you don't like what he said. It's weak sauce. 

This is just utter nonsense. Pure nonsense. You get taught in grade school not to pass off content as your own for christs sake. If I plagiarized to make a point here I'd fully expect several "on my side" to call me out for it. It's dishonest. And it's absolutely a sign of the times. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ranethe said:

This is just utter nonsense. Pure nonsense. You get taught in grade school not to pass off content as your own for christs sake. If I plagiarized to make a point here I'd fully expect several "on my side" to call me out for it. It's dishonest. And it's absolutely a sign of the times. 

There in lies the problem. I don't see that happening. This place is all about sides. If you're on the right side, you're golden. 

Even if he plagiarized a quote from another forum, you guys are treating it like he stole it from Hemingway or Twain. 

How many movie quotes, music lyrics or other comments are stated here without giving reference to the original author? Make American Great should have credit given each time it's used on this board.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...