|
|
Post by freecharlie on Mar 8, 2018 4:23:18 GMT
I found that to be divisive and not helping to actually discuss the issues. Why so many insults? How was the Vegas shooter in a gun free zone? He doesn’t sound like he wants to discuss anything. Just listen to himself talk. I didn't hear any insults, I only heard a list of insults used by the anti-gun side and objections to them. And no divisiveness, only objections to the divisive statements used by the anti-gun side. Since it would seem we are seeing very different things in the very same video, maybe it would help if you would point out the exact statements that were insulting and divisive so we could see what you see. It might go a long way in one side understanding the other since we interpret and see differently. eta: I was arguing against him wanting to actually debate, not that he was flinging insults just listening to the first bit, he is laying blame without using the facts that he proposes we look at. Unfortunately there are too many variables to be able to isolate just one imo. But to lay blame on broken homes, the welfare state and abortion seems way off the mark, especially since many of the shooters come from intact, middle to upper class homes and were obviously not aborted. He talks about the stricter gun laws around the told and then only mentions cities here in the us. His stats are biased to a fault. You can't estimate between 100,000 and 1,000,000 and claim thatvwas a statistical fact I don't believe he actually knows a lot about history if he thinks that the atrocities of late are worse than those pre-enlighenment Then he goes to the slippery slope argument (which I understand the fear) And then to lay the blame of past misdeeds of this country at the foot of a party that resembles the party of that time In name only I would have agrees with him on the nra and the money thing until he brought up planned parenthood. As that isn't the topic at hand, it diminishes his argument |
|
|
|
Post by megop on Mar 8, 2018 4:54:01 GMT
According to dh, another issue with the tariffs is that it may make other countries cut back on buying grain from the US (probably other commodities as well). That could kill the grain market and many small farms. Sorry if this was mentioned. It's getting hard to sift through the regular posts vs the arguments. Absolutely correct. A trade war would have devastating effect on agricultural trade. |
|
|
|
Post by megop on Mar 8, 2018 5:07:35 GMT
My opinion on the Nick Freitas video ... while the gun free zones may have been put into place for different reasons, I believe they are still necessary today. It's just one of the number of reasons why I'm against arming teachers because I believe it is short sighted. I work in an identified gun free zone by law and yes, we've had issues with firearms within the walls over the years. To be honest, I would probably have agreed with Freitas on the gun free zone aspect just a few years ago, but have been educated by our head of security whom I think is just a freaking amazing brave and level-headed person. Former drug strike force officer who during a conversation about his reality, spoke of the escalation of difficulty it would present for his team to respond to an active shooter situation if we allowed employees to be armed. So much harder to quickly identify friend or foe.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 22:58:12 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2018 5:09:04 GMT
I didn't hear any insults, I only heard a list of insults used by the anti-gun side and objections to them. And no divisiveness, only objections to the divisive statements used by the anti-gun side. Since it would seem we are seeing very different things in the very same video, maybe it would help if you would point out the exact statements that were insulting and divisive so we could see what you see. It might go a long way in one side understanding the other since we interpret and see differently. eta: I was arguing against him wanting to actually debate, not that he was flinging insults just listening to the first bit, he is laying blame without using the facts that he proposes we look at. Unfortunately there are too many variables to be able to isolate just one imo. But to lay blame on broken homes, the welfare state and abortion seems way off the mark, especially since many of the shooters come from intact, middle to upper class homes and were obviously not aborted. He talks about the stricter gun laws around the told and then only mentions cities here in the us. His stats are biased to a fault. You can't estimate between 100,000 and 1,000,000 and claim thatvwas a statistical fact I don't believe he actually knows a lot about history if he thinks that the atrocities of late are worse than those pre-enlighenment Then he goes to the slippery slope argument (which I understand the fear) And then to lay the blame of past misdeeds of this country at the foot of a party that resembles the party of that time In name only I would have agrees with him on the bra and the money thing until he brought up planned parenthood. As that isn't the topic at hand, it diminishes his argument I don't see suggesting things to study in order to find causes and solutions as laying blame, it's interesting how we see that so differently. I also have been reading that most of the schools shooters are from fatherless homes, so I'm not sure how we have such different ideas that most come from intact vs. broken homes. When we're talking about shooter problems and gun laws in the US why wouldn't he mention only cities in the US? I'm not understanding the objection to that, I must be misunderstanding your point. As far as the party blame, I think that's in response to pro 2nd amendment people being accused of horrible things because they don't agree with solutions that won't be effective in accomplishing the objective that we all want, but WILL strip the rights of law abiding citizens. It does seem to show "only our solution or else" type thinking from the anti-gun side. I must have missed the "bra and the money thing" as I have no idea what you're talking about and now I need to know.  I'm torn on him bringing up abortion. On one hand it has nothing to do with guns and he should have left it out, on the other, the arguments are so often parallel. For one thing the lobbying by PP out spends the lobbying by the NRA by millions and it seems if you object to politicians being bought by one group, you ought to object to politicians being bought by ANY group. Also the difference in attitude we have now about abortion vs. the attitude we used to have, could point to a change in society and the way we think of human life. So, while I might say abortion has nothing to do with guns, it just might show a change an important change to take a look at. I don't know that it was necessary in this talk. |
|
|
|
Post by megop on Mar 8, 2018 5:16:05 GMT
For one thing the lobbying by PP out spends the lobbying by the NRA by millions Hmmmm....where are you getting your figures for this because this statement isn't congruent with my understanding. Are we talking direct to politicians or consumer lobbying? |
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Mar 8, 2018 5:16:50 GMT
eta: I was arguing against him wanting to actually debate, not that he was flinging insults just listening to the first bit, he is laying blame without using the facts that he proposes we look at. Unfortunately there are too many variables to be able to isolate just one imo. But to lay blame on broken homes, the welfare state and abortion seems way off the mark, especially since many of the shooters come from intact, middle to upper class homes and were obviously not aborted. He talks about the stricter gun laws around the told and then only mentions cities here in the us. His stats are biased to a fault. You can't estimate between 100,000 and 1,000,000 and claim thatvwas a statistical fact I don't believe he actually knows a lot about history if he thinks that the atrocities of late are worse than those pre-enlighenment Then he goes to the slippery slope argument (which I understand the fear) And then to lay the blame of past misdeeds of this country at the foot of a party that resembles the party of that time In name only I would have agrees with him on the bra and the money thing until he brought up planned parenthood. As that isn't the topic at hand, it diminishes his argument I don't see suggesting things to study in order to find causes and solutions as laying blame, it's interesting how we see that so differently. I also have been reading that most of the schools shooters are from fatherless homes, so I'm not sure how we have such different ideas that most come from intact vs. broken homes. When we're talking about shooter problems and gun laws in the US why wouldn't he mention only cities in the US? I'm not understanding the objection to that, I must be misunderstanding your point. As far as the party blame, I think that's in response to pro 2nd amendment people being accused of horrible things because they don't agree with solutions that won't be effective in accomplishing the objective that we all want, but WILL strip the rights of law abiding citizens. It does seem to show "only our solution or else" type thinking from the anti-gun side. I must have missed the "bra and the money thing" as I have no idea what you're talking about and now I need to know. I'm torn on him bringing up abortion. On one hand it has nothing to do with guns and he should have left it out, on the other, the arguments are so often parallel. For one thing the lobbying by PP out spends the lobbying by the NRA by millions and it seems if you object to politicians being bought by one group, you ought to object to politicians being bought by ANY group. Also the difference in attitude we have now about abortion vs. the attitude we used to have, could point to a change in society and the way we think of human life. So, while I might say abortion has nothing to do with guns, it just might show a change an important change to take a look at. I don't know that it was necessary in this talk. I'm not ignoring you, but it will be easier respond on my computer which I won't get to until Saturday, hopefully I will remember to come back |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 22:58:12 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2018 5:51:53 GMT
For one thing the lobbying by PP out spends the lobbying by the NRA by millions Hmmmm....where are you getting your figures for this because this statement isn't congruent with my understanding. Are we talking direct to politicians or consumer lobbying? Aaron Williams from the Washington Post put together a graphic showing how the NRA has contributed $4.2 million to current members of Congress, primarily Republicans, since 1998 and Planned Parenthood spent $38 million on the 2016 election alone. |
|
|
|
Post by cade387 on Mar 8, 2018 6:07:16 GMT
Hmmmm....where are you getting your figures for this because this statement isn't congruent with my understanding. Are we talking direct to politicians or consumer lobbying? Aaron Williams from the Washington Post put together a graphic showing how the NRA has contributed $4.2 million to current members of Congress, primarily Republicans, since 1998 and Planned Parenthood spent $38 million on the 2016 election alone. You are not comparing apples to apples. You have to look at outside spending (spent on the election but directly to one candidate). That is where the 38M for PP is and it is 57M for NRA. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 22:58:12 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2018 6:34:56 GMT
It bothers me more that people think it is funny to joke about. Im saying I don’t find it funny. Is that not allowed? As for if it could happen? While I think it unlikely, I think Republicans laid out “how” Obama could do it. Is it keeping me up at night? No. Cade387, I tend to agree with you. He was making one of those "joking not joking" jokes. My DH makes them all the time and I get annoyed because I have to go all "Kellyanne Conway" and always explain to people he is joking (but deep down know he is not 100% joking...maybe 60-95% joking). It just isn't that funny if someone has to explain your joke or that you were joking. I don't think it is going to happen, but I don't doubt he would accept it if given (holy cow I am having flashbacks to Julius Caesar right now) I also think you make a good point about seeing it from a different perspective, and it is a little concerning that your point can be brushed off as pointless speculation. That is probably one of the biggest issues we have with the dialogue today. We have to be able to see how our views look to others and see if our views stand up to critical self evaluation. If you would be offended or startled if Obama or a liberal said the same thing or if you thought it was plausible for Obama or Clinton or whatever boogyman you put in the blank, then it is certainly possible for Trump. This blindness to our own biases is what is creating more of a chasm and less ability to find common ground. Brava! I appreciate the validation and the civil discourse.  |
|
|
|
Post by megop on Mar 9, 2018 3:32:11 GMT
Hmmmm....where are you getting your figures for this because this statement isn't congruent with my understanding. Are we talking direct to politicians or consumer lobbying? Aaron Williams from the Washington Post put together a graphic showing how the NRA has contributed $4.2 million to current members of Congress, primarily Republicans, since 1998 and Planned Parenthood spent $38 million on the 2016 election alone. You really need to dig deeper because those figures are not accurate nor posted by Aaron Williams who posted only one side. I suggest doing your own research on Opensecrets. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 22:58:12 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2018 21:08:20 GMT
How do Conservatives feel about the Oakland Mayor warning illegal immigrants about ICE raids?
|
|
|
|
Post by cadoodlebug on Mar 11, 2018 22:13:35 GMT
How do Conservatives feel about the Oakland Mayor warning illegal immigrants about ICE raids? I think it's shameful. I admit my feelings about illegals are partially skewed by my personal friendship with Kate Steinle's family. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 22:58:12 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2018 22:26:48 GMT
How do Conservatives feel about the Oakland Mayor warning illegal immigrants about ICE raids? This is the kind of unlawful things we, as people that live in California, have to put up with. Our state is one of the most beautiful states in the country, but with elected officials doing things like that, it really takes a lot of the beauty away. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 22:58:12 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 0:17:19 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 22:58:12 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 3:55:46 GMT
I do too. If you don't like the laws, you work to change them. What you don't do is put agents and the community at risk by obstructing justistic and changing the laws on the fly to suit your social justice agenda and calling anyone who doesn't agree with following the laws, racist. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 22:58:12 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 11:33:35 GMT
If I were a resident of Oakland, I'd be furious. I'm halfway across the country from there and her actions make my blood boil. She says communities are safer when families stay together, yet she's willing to risk the safety of all to protect some. Not helping to apprehend the criminals (a lot of which are violent) is bad enough. For her to go a big step further and to actually warn them is unconscienable.
Good for Jeff Sessions, and I hope she's made an example of.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 12, 2018 12:05:26 GMT
If I were a resident of Oakland, I'd be furious. I'm halfway across the country from there and her actions make my blood boil. She says communities are safer when families stay together, yet she's willing to risk the safety of all to protect some. Not helping to apprehend the criminals (a lot of which are violent) is bad enough. For her to go a big step further and to actually warn them is unconscienable. Good for Jeff Sessions, and I hope she's made an example of.
Tough deportation enforcement actually makes us less safe
And finally - with local police departments already cash strapped and often under-manned, why must they do ICE's job for them? I would think conservatives would be in favor of localities deciding how to use their local resources rather than having the federal government decide for them. I'm curious about what you mean by "made an example of." |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 22:58:12 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 12:32:01 GMT
If I were a resident of Oakland, I'd be furious. I'm halfway across the country from there and her actions make my blood boil. She says communities are safer when families stay together, yet she's willing to risk the safety of all to protect some. Not helping to apprehend the criminals (a lot of which are violent) is bad enough. For her to go a big step further and to actually warn them is unconscienable. Good for Jeff Sessions, and I hope she's made an example of.
Tough deportation enforcement actually makes us less safe
And finally - with local police departments already cash strapped and often under-manned, why must they do ICE's job for them? I would think conservatives would be in favor of localities deciding how to use their local resources rather than having the federal government decide for them. I'm curious about what you mean by "made an example of." Whether undocumented immigrants commit less crime or not isn't even the point. Our law enforcement goes out day in and day out serving warrants, picking up criminals that skipped out on court and are on the run, etc. Raids take place all.the.time in gang territories, drug houses, stolen property raids, gun and ammunition raids, and so on. There have even been instances where law enforcement will set up stings sending out "You've Won!" announcements to wanted criminals hoping to catch them. But now, going into certain areas to arrest the criminals evading police, including those wanted for some of the most heinous crimes, is a bad thing? If local law enforcement isn't going to help, step aside and let ICE do it then WITHOUT putting out a warning. If it's determined that Oakland's mayor's actions amount to obstruction and is illegal, then she should face the consequences, whatever they may be. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 12, 2018 13:48:07 GMT
Whether undocumented immigrants commit less crime or not isn't even the point. Our law enforcement goes out day in and day out serving warrants, picking up criminals that skipped out on court and are on the run, etc. Raids take place all.the.time in gang territories, drug houses, stolen property raids, gun and ammunition raids, and so on. There have even been instances where law enforcement will set up stings sending out "You've Won!" announcements to wanted criminals hoping to catch them. But now, going into certain areas to arrest the criminals evading police, including those wanted for some of the most heinous crimes, is a bad thing? If local law enforcement isn't going to help, step aside and let ICE do it then WITHOUT putting out a warning. If it's determined that Oakland's mayor's actions amount to obstruction and is illegal, then she should face the consequences, whatever they may be. I do think it's relevant whether undocumented immigrants commit less crime. The Trump administration's justification for these raids has been to paint the undocumented community as mostly made up of dangerous criminals. The data doesn't bear out this narrative. With regards to the laws passed in California, I think you and others are somewhat misinformed. Law enforcement is not going to stop enforcing local law. Violent criminals will continue to be apprehended and dealt with according to local statutes. People who commit very serious crimes would obviously be detained long enough for ICE to deal with them, without further undue cost to the local taxpayer. What the cities in California are not going to do is to detain people who are arrested for minor offenses past the time that they would normally be detained (which costs additional taxpayer money) to give ICE time to come around and deport them. They're not going to ask people for proof of citizenship when they're stopped for traffic violations or other minor incidents, and then detain those folks for ICE. They are going to continue to enforce state and local laws. Immigration violations fall under federal civil code, not local criminal code, so it's not even within the city or state police's jurisdiction to detain folks for immigration violations. If everyone who reports a crime or is witnesses a crime is questioned about their immigration status, cooperation with police will evaporate within this community. And then how safe are we? Libby Schaaf feels that the Trump administration's narrative about immigrants and its war on people who are living and working here peacefully is an attack on her community. And she didn't tell people to flee; she directed them to legal resources available to help should they need them. Whether you agree with her or not, she is standing on her principles and those of the community she was elected to represent. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 22:58:12 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 13:54:47 GMT
Local law enforcement isn't required to do ICE's job. That's one of those liberal talking points that keeps getting thrown around because, obviously, it works to get folks all riled up. Participation in the 287(g)program is voluntary and has been since its implementation under Clinton. Now, I'm sure the argument will be made that if federal funds are withheld from local agencies that don't participate in the program (or that choose to openly flout federal immigration laws in their sanctuary cities) causes them to be forced to participate because they rely on that money to operate, that's the choice their communities will have to make. The same arguments have been made for other federal laws like abortion and marriage equality (don't anyone start arguing about those two particular issues, please, this is a comparable law application discussion) This lays things out well: www.lawenforcementedu.net/2017/10/federal-immigration-laws-and-local-law-enforcement-whos-job-is-it-anyway/ |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 12, 2018 13:58:24 GMT
Local law enforcement isn't required to do ICE's job. That's one of those liberal talking points that keeps getting thrown around because, obviously, it works to get folks all riled up. Participation in the 287(g)program is voluntary and has been since its implementation under Clinton. Now, I'm sure the argument will be made that if federal funds are withheld from local agencies that don't participate in the program (or that choose to openly flout federal immigration laws in their sanctuary cities) causes them to be forced to participate because they rely on that money to operate, that's the choice their communities will have to make. The same arguments have been made for other federal laws like abortion and marriage equality (don't anyone start arguing about those two particular issues, please, this is a comparable law application discussion) This lays things out well: www.lawenforcementedu.net/2017/10/federal-immigration-laws-and-local-law-enforcement-whos-job-is-it-anyway/How is it a "liberal talking point" if the narrative on the right is that cities that decline to participate in a voluntary program are flouting federal law, as Jeff Sessions would have us believe? It seems to me that, in this case, liberals are just pointing out the actual law. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 22:58:12 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 14:10:51 GMT
You're mixing up two things. The liberal talking point is "why should local law enforcement do ICE's job?" They're not, conservatives aren't saying they are, so it's a liberal talking point.
|
|
|
|
Post by vpohlman on Mar 12, 2018 14:11:49 GMT
I'm pretty sure the problem here lies in the fact that Schaaf is actually informing illegals, that in itself should be illegal. It's already seriously unethical! Why on earth would someone who is supposed to uphold the law tell someone who is breaking the law how to get away?!? It doesn't matter if the illegal is a hardened criminal or not, they are still breaking the law!
|
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 12, 2018 14:11:49 GMT
You're mixing up two things. The liberal talking point is "why should local law enforcement do ICE's job?" They're not, conservatives aren't saying they are, so it's a liberal talking point. Hmmm. Disagree. I see conservatives saying that very thing. I guess it depends on what you think ICE's job is. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 12, 2018 14:13:58 GMT
I'm pretty sure the problem here lies in the fact that Schaaf is actually informing illegals, that in itself should be illegal. It's already seriously unethical! Why on earth would someone who is supposed to uphold the law tell someone who is breaking the law how to get away?!? It doesn't matter if the illegal is a hardened criminal or not, they are still breaking the law! Some people think it's unethical for the US to rely heavily on undocumented labor to boost our economy, while also making it all but impossible for unskilled labor to legally immigrate. |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862 
|
Post by lizacreates on Mar 12, 2018 14:27:09 GMT
This is only my viewpoint.
In this country, we are all obligated to follow the rule of law. If the laws that exist are deemed unfair to any community, it is up to citizens to demand changes in those, not to subvert them. We cannot and should not cherry-pick only those that serve our purpose or support our political beliefs.
In the same CNN article linked here, it states, “ Among the 150 people arrested by ICE in the past few days, include a fugitive and gang member who had been previously been deported four times and others with criminal convictions including assault, DUI and sex with a minor under 16 years old…”
What the mayor did is a violation of a federal code that states, “Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.”
One other thing to understand about California’s new laws that are currently being challenged by the Dept of Justice is that state sovereignty cannot be used as justification to override federal laws. The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution…[and] federal laws made pursuant to it…constitute the supreme law of the land.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 22:58:12 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 14:27:25 GMT
You're mixing up two things. The liberal talking point is "why should local law enforcement do ICE's job?" They're not, conservatives aren't saying they are, so it's a liberal talking point. Hmmm. Disagree. I see conservatives saying that very thing. I guess it depends on what you think ICE's job is. No one here has said that. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 22:58:12 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 14:40:30 GMT
You'd think the locals would be thrilled the criminals were arrested and removed (and maybe they are). I know I would be.
|
|
|
|
Post by vpohlman on Mar 12, 2018 15:01:12 GMT
I'm pretty sure the problem here lies in the fact that Schaaf is actually informing illegals, that in itself should be illegal. It's already seriously unethical! Why on earth would someone who is supposed to uphold the law tell someone who is breaking the law how to get away?!? It doesn't matter if the illegal is a hardened criminal or not, they are still breaking the law! Some people think it's unethical for the US to rely heavily on undocumented labor to boost our economy, while also making it all but impossible for unskilled labor to legally immigrate. Sure, but that's not the topic here, it's Schaaf and the fact that she's informing! |
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Mar 12, 2018 15:31:45 GMT
well some say it is like police posting announcements of drunk driving checkpoints. they tell you ahead of time. so libby is telling ahead of time what will happen. she wants all people to be able to report crime, etc. we are statistically safer when this can happen
|
|
