Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

The Mollie Tibbetts Murder — Political Version


Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

I don't agree that the border and immigration policy beliefs of the vast majority of liberals would fit under the Wikipedia definition of open borders.  Frankly, if you do think it does, it makes me think you are viewing this in a highly partisan way.

I didn't say vast majority, but it is a hell of a lot more than a "tiny percentage" which is what you said.

The point I am trying to make is that you cant say you don't support open borders but then get all pissy when people are deported, oppose the wall(although if you oppose the wall from a purely cost/benefit position I would say that is different), want less money spent on border security, and want to abolish (or severely hamstring) ICE.   

We both know there are a lot of people on this very board that make those arguments and say they don't support open borders. 

Edited by parasaurolophus
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 430
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Please stop...a young girl is dead. I have 2 daughters in their early 20s..I don`t give a #### who controls both houses.

Just a sad story. 

It's gross when both "sides" do it.  It's gross when the left turns every school mass shooting into a gun debate, and it's gross that the right is making this all about illegal immigration. 

8 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

 

The point I am trying to make is that you cant say you don't support open borders but then get all pissy when people are deported, oppose the wall, want less money spent on border security, and want to abolish (or severely hamstring) ICE.   

Yes you can. I do. Though your phrasing “get all pissy” is entirely inaccurate- I don’t get pissy, I get angry, because I firmly believe that to be anti-immigration, including undocumented immigration, is to be anti-American. It’s part of what defines us and makes this country unique and the greatest nation in human history, and I don’t want to see that given up because of what I believe to be irrational fear and ignorance. 

I am for open immigration. I am not for open borders. The two are not the same. I have never met anyone for open borders. Your argument is designed to paint your opponents as extreme. It’s a lie. Even my position of open immigration does not represent the vast majority of Democrats on this issue. They want a path to citizenship for those already here and more humane treatment of those who come here. They want DACA. They are not opposed to tighter border restrictions but they are opposed to a stupid wall and they’re especially opposed to President Trump’s hateful and bigoted rhetoric on this issue. You and others try to depict them as extreme in order to hide the fact that 99% of the extremism on this issue stems from the right. But you can’t hide that fact very well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Yes you can. I do. Though your phrasing “get all pissy” is entirely inaccurate- I don’t get pissy, I get angry, because I firmly believe that to be anti-immigration, including undocumented immigration, is to be anti-American. It’s part of what defines us and makes this country unique and the greatest nation in human history, and I don’t want to see that given up because of what I believe to be irrational fear and ignorance. 

I am for open immigration. I am not for open borders. The two are not the same. I have never met anyone for open borders. Your argument is designed to paint your opponents as extreme. It’s a lie. Even my position of open immigration does not represent the vast majority of Democrats on this issue. They want a path to citizenship for those already here and more humane treatment of those who come here. They want DACA. They are not opposed to tighter border restrictions but they are opposed to a stupid wall and they’re especially opposed to President Trump’s hateful and bigoted rhetoric on this issue. You and others try to depict them as extreme in order to hide the fact that 99% of the extremism on this issue stems from the right. But you can’t hide that fact very well. 

Is this country based on laws? How could undocumented immigration be anti-American?

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Is this country based on laws? How could undocumented immigration be anti-American?

It is. But certain laws we don’t enforce as strongly as others. If I were to say to you, this country is based on jaywalking being illegal you would rightfully scorn that argument. 

Coming here without documents is a misdemeanor. Yes it should be punishable, but like all miademeanors the punishment should be no more than a slap on the wrist. To label an undocumented person as “illegal”, to use that term to define the person for the rest of their lives in this country, to threaten them with the severe penalty of deportation, to act as if they are criminals no different from violent felons (and in fact to associate them with violent felons) are fundamentally anti-American acts IMO. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

It is. But certain laws we don’t enforce as strongly as others. If I were to say to you, this country is based on jaywalking being illegal you would rightfully scorn that argument. 

Coming here without documents is a misdemeanor. Yes it should be punishable, but like all miademeanors the punishment should be no more than a slap on the wrist. To label an undocumented person as “illegal”, to use that term to define the person for the rest of their lives in this country, to threaten them with the severe penalty of deportation, to act as if they are criminals no different from violent felons (and in fact to associate them with violent felons) are fundamentally anti-American acts IMO. 

Does immigration evolve? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Matthias said:

Why are we talking about one death in Iowa when hundreds die to drunk drivers every day?

Given there is no safe amount of alcohol (or weed, for that matter), the smart thing to do here is to ban both of those permanently.  Caffeine should probably be the strongest drug we allow in society without a prescription.

Ok, done.  We can now get back to discussing why someone who never should have been here has taken the life of a citizen and how we should handle these horrific cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Matthias said:

Why are we talking about one death in Iowa when hundreds die to drunk drivers every day?

Because society has determined that the number of deaths each day from drunk drivers is acceptable.

For every one time I have brought up drunk driving deaths, others have brought it up 10 times. You're my minions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Sand said:

  We can now get back to discussing why someone who never should have been here has taken the life of a citizen and how we should handle these horrific cases.

Because the supposed price of having him not be here, which apparently you’re in favor of, is one that I never will be. 

And we handle these horrific cases the same way we always have- convicting the perpetrators and punishing them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

I suspect I know where you’re going with this question but I’d rather have you clarify what you mean before I respond. 

I don't know that it needs clarification. I think everything evolves based on changing variables over time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Because the supposed price of having him not be here, which apparently you’re in favor of, is one that I never will be. 

And we handle these horrific cases the same way we always have- convicting the perpetrators and punishing them. 

Is this how we handle mass shooters.

 :sarcasm:(added for Scooter)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

I don't know that it needs clarification. I think everything evolves based on changing variables over time. 

Everything but principles. Murder will always be evil. Rape and child abuse, same. That doesn’t evolve for me. 

The United States is based on the principle, among a few others, that we are a haven for the the suffering people of the world to come here and start a new life in “the new world”. That will never evolve for me either. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Everything but principles. Murder will always be evil. Rape and child abuse, same. That doesn’t evolve for me. 

The United States is based on the principle, among a few others, that we are a haven for the the suffering people of the world to come here and start a new life in “the new world”. That will never evolve for me either. 

This is not sarcasm. Is this written in the Constitution? It may be a principle or a mission, but those things can change over time. (not that it has to change for people individually) But, it does beg the question how immigration should protected by principle, but guns laws shouldn't? (which is written in the Constitution)  As it pertains to this thread, they both lead to loss of life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, timschochet said:

Because the supposed price of having him not be here, which apparently you’re in favor of, is one that I never will be.

The price of him not being here has been shown to be one vibrant life.

Simple statement of fact. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, timschochet said:

Yes you can. I do. Though your phrasing “get all pissy” is entirely inaccurate- I don’t get pissy, I get angry, because I firmly believe that to be anti-immigration, including undocumented immigration, is to be anti-American. It’s part of what defines us and makes this country unique and the greatest nation in human history, and I don’t want to see that given up because of what I believe to be irrational fear and ignorance. 

I am for open immigration. I am not for open borders. The two are not the same. I have never met anyone for open borders. Your argument is designed to paint your opponents as extreme. It’s a lie. Even my position of open immigration does not represent the vast majority of Democrats on this issue. They want a path to citizenship for those already here and more humane treatment of those who come here. They want DACA. They are not opposed to tighter border restrictions but they are opposed to a stupid wall and they’re especially opposed to President Trump’s hateful and bigoted rhetoric on this issue. You and others try to depict them as extreme in order to hide the fact that 99% of the extremism on this issue stems from the right. But you can’t hide that fact very well. 

You just proved my exact point better than I ever could.

You literally just said that you aren't in favor of open borders, but being against undocumented immigration is anti american and that you support "open immigration". 

Its almost like I predicted your post...

Quote

Sure they may say that they dont want open borders, but they essentially just wordsmith. 

@Juxtatarot Tim's post is what I was getting at. Thats why I stressed the point about de facto open borders and also said...

Quote

 

So sure they don't support 100% no questions asked borders where known international terrorists could walk right by a customs agent and enter the country, but that's not really what is being discussed because such a position is ridiculous and nobody supports it.


 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Juxtatarot said:

I don’t think even Tim’s idea of open immigration should be considered an open border.  Regardless, I don’t think even that is supported by many liberals. Although I’m guessing on that last part. I haven’t seen polls.

How can you be in favor of undocumented immigration(aka people sneaking across the border) and be against open borders? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sand said:

Given there is no safe amount of alcohol (or weed, for that matter), the smart thing to do here is to ban both of those permanently.  Caffeine should probably be the strongest drug we allow in society without a prescription.

LOFL this is the silliest thing I've ever read in the FFA. :lmao:

And I'm including all Studs n Duds posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

How can you be in favor of undocumented immigration(aka people sneaking across the border) and be against open borders? 

Perhaps he will clarify but I don’t think he’s in favor of that. He’s in favor of vetting them.

Edited by Juxtatarot
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

Perhaps he will clarify but I don’t think he’s in favor of that. He’s in favor of vetting them.

Saying being against undocumented immigration is unamerican doesnt leave room for a lot of grey.

Eta: "I don’t get pissy, I get angry, because I firmly believe that to be anti-immigration, including undocumented immigration, is to be anti-American"

Edited by parasaurolophus
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, timschochet said:

Everything but principles. Murder will always be evil. Rape and child abuse, same. That doesn’t evolve for me. 

The United States is based on the principle, among a few others, that we are a haven for the the suffering people of the world to come here and start a new life in “the new world”. That will never evolve for me either. 

I am not saying this will happen - but for the sake of argument - how many suffering people do we need to accommodate? If the answer is no limit - then at what point does the infrastructure needed to support unlimited immigration fail?  It is one thing to say the humanitarian thing is to allow free entrance to immigrants on the basis of their suffering in the country of origin.  This seems like the morally right thing to do.  But then they are here and have no basis from which to chase this American dream - so again we do the neighborly thing and provide them some basic necessities  - maybe some type of shelter, medical care and stipend for food. Those are all wonderful things in a vacuum.  How are these things paid for?  Well we are a wealthy country so maybe we could mandate some extra taxes to help pay for this humanitarianism.  All of this seems doable - but at what point does this break down and the value added surpass the ability to pay for the humanitarianism.  The right thing seems to be allow immigration - I just feel we need to do it in a manageable way and I am not sure what the right formula is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Mr. Know-It-All said:

I am not saying this will happen - but for the sake of argument - how many suffering people do we need to accommodate? If the answer is no limit - then at what point does the infrastructure needed to support unlimited immigration fail?  It is one thing to say the humanitarian thing is to allow free entrance to immigrants on the basis of their suffering in the country of origin.  This seems like the morally right thing to do.  But then they are here and have no basis from which to chase this American dream - so again we do the neighborly thing and provide them some basic necessities  - maybe some type of shelter, medical care and stipend for food. Those are all wonderful things in a vacuum.  How are these things paid for?  Well we are a wealthy country so maybe we could mandate some extra taxes to help pay for this humanitarianism.  All of this seems doable - but at what point does this break down and the value added surpass the ability to pay for the humanitarianism.  The right thing seems to be allow immigration - I just feel we need to do it in a manageable way and I am not sure what the right formula is.

1. As many as we can. 

2. Who knows? It’s never happened or even come close. When it does then we’ll talk. 

3. Again we’re not close to the point and never have been. There’s not one set of immigrants, including undocumented, who haven’t paid for themselves several times over. The issues you’re raising are imaginary. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sand said:

Given there is no safe amount of alcohol (or weed, for that matter), the smart thing to do here is to ban both of those permanently.  Caffeine should probably be the strongest drug we allow in society without a prescription.

Ok, done.  We can now get back to discussing why someone who never should have been here has taken the life of a citizen and how we should handle these horrific cases.

Totally. 

:under his eye:

Link to post
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...