|
Post by #notLauren on Mar 23, 2018 15:41:59 GMT
I suggest you look at the article I posted and use your own critical thinking skills.
|
|
inkedup
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,837
Jun 26, 2014 5:00:26 GMT
|
Post by inkedup on Mar 23, 2018 16:52:53 GMT
Because it's good to know who we're dealing with. You have a long history here. And you've always been the first to put down new posters, accuse people of being someone else, and jugular insults aimed to hurt posters because you know their histories. Believe me, however, no one is "consumed" by this. Please stop giving yourself that much credit. You are dealing with lovetocolor. That is who I am regardless of who you "think" I am. If you think I'm Lauren, deal with me as you would Lauren but the silly non-stop posts about "oh, I know it's Lauren. Or "hi Lauren" are childish and show that you are indeed consumed by it. If you weren't you wouldn't take the time to make such an issue of me being Lauren every time I post. ETA, here's a tip: you never "know who you're dealing with" on the internet or on anonymous boards. There are more than a few peas who discovered this to their detriment when Peas crossed the line into real life to destroy them. So stop believing you have some sense of security in knowing who any particular poster is. If you haven't met a poster personally, you don't know who you're dealing with. Now, can we get back to the actual topic of the thread rather than my identity? If you aren't Lauren, you're doing a bang up job of impersonating her. You've got that je ne sais quoi that Lauren has; it's a unique mix of small mindedness, arrogance and ugliness that I've only encountered in one other person online. It matters if you're Lauren because you hairflipped out of here for the umpteenth time and you came waltzing back for the umpteenth time. If it doesn't matter, be honest. But you won't be honest because you can't even stand yourself. You're too ashamed to come here under the avatar you used to torture the peas for over a decade. I used to think you were an asshole who at least stood by her words. Now, you're just another troll. Guess that law practice and husband aren't keeping you too busy these days.
|
|
RosieKat
Drama Llama
PeaJect #12
Posts: 5,535
Jun 25, 2014 19:28:04 GMT
|
Post by RosieKat on Mar 23, 2018 17:23:18 GMT
Wanted to add there's also a GoFundMe for Esperanza Herrera, who was seriously injured. link
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:16:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2018 18:45:04 GMT
Is notifying ICE that a criminal is about to be released from jail really doing ICE's job though, or just an excuse not to comply with immigration laws? Serious question. I believe that in some sanctuary cities, they do notify ICE about an upcoming release. But, they won't hold the person if ICE does not get there before the person's release date/time. I just don't see it as doing ICE's job. I would think it's part of your job to protect and serve your community.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Mar 23, 2018 20:16:01 GMT
I believe that in some sanctuary cities, they do notify ICE about an upcoming release. But, they won't hold the person if ICE does not get there before the person's release date/time. I just don't see it as doing ICE's job. I would think it's part of your job to protect and serve your community. Exactly. But as tucker Carlson keep saying, politicians in the cities and states are more interested in the rights of illegal immigrants than they are in the safety of their own citizens
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:16:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2018 20:25:11 GMT
I just don't see it as doing ICE's job. I would think it's part of your job to protect and serve your community. Exactly. But as tucker Carlson keep saying, politicians in the cities and states are more interested in the rights of illegal immigrants than they are in the safety of their own citizens Bullshit. Quit repeating lies.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Mar 23, 2018 20:36:09 GMT
Gee, a liberal who's offended; who'd have though?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:16:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2018 20:44:05 GMT
Gee, a liberal who's offended; who'd have though? Offended because you lied? I can live with that.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Mar 23, 2018 20:51:03 GMT
She's offended because I said New York would give sanctuary. That's not a lie. Cuomo has stated NY is a sanctuary state and Bloomberg has declared NYC a sanctuary city.
If anyone is "offended" by that; oh well.'
And I haven't lied about anything. You think I'm Lauren. That doesn't make it fact nor does it mean I lied. It's simply what you think is true. And at this point, I really don't care who thinks I'm Lauren and who doesn't. I still believe that the bitches here who call me Lauren do it just because they think it bothers me. It also allows them to justify saying vicious things because they consider it acceptable to say them to "Lauren". So they'll insist I'm her so that they don't feel bad about themselves. They also think I'll leave and take my undesirable conservative opinions with me. Not happening.
|
|
inkedup
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,837
Jun 26, 2014 5:00:26 GMT
|
Post by inkedup on Mar 23, 2018 21:03:42 GMT
She's offended because I said New York would give sanctuary. That's not a lie. Cuomo has stated NY is a sanctuary state and Bloomberg has declared NYC a sanctuary city. If anyone is "offended" by that; oh well.' And I haven't lied about anything. You think I'm Lauren. That doesn't make it fact nor does it mean I lied. It's simply what you think is true. And at this point, I really don't care who thinks I'm Lauren and who doesn't. I still believe that the bitches here who call me Lauren do it just because they think it bothers me. It also allows them to justify saying vicious things because they consider it acceptable to say them to "Lauren". So they'll insist I'm her so that they don't feel bad about themselves. They also think I'll leave and take my undesirable conservative opinions with me. Not happening. Oh, it bothers you that we know you're Lauren. It bothers you a great deal, which is why you waste so much space claiming you're not her and inventing weird scenarios where we're all somehow jealous of you 😂😂😂 And we know you won't leave. Like herpes and glitter, you show up right when we thought we were rid of you.
|
|
twinsmomfla99
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,066
Jun 26, 2014 13:42:47 GMT
|
Post by twinsmomfla99 on Mar 23, 2018 21:04:09 GMT
I just don't see it as doing ICE's job. I would think it's part of your job to protect and serve your community. Exactly. But as tucker Carlson keep saying, politicians in the cities and states are more interested in the rights of illegal immigrants than they are in the safety of their own citizens If an undocumented person is being held for a local crime and has reached the end of the time limit for holding him or her under local law, they are no more of a threat to the safety of the community than a documented person would be. If there is no justification for holding that person under local statute, then continuing to hold past the deadline IS doing ICE’s job. Without reimbursement. If there is justification to continue holding, they do in compliance with local law, and if ICE shows up, I believe they have to turn them over. Sanctuary cities do comply with the requirements to notify ICE, at least in all the examples I have seen. I’m sure if there are exceptions, you will point them out to us. By refusing to hold past the local limit, sanctuary cities force ICE to put up or shut up. If ICE really wants this person, ICE can come and get them before release, and the city’s participation (and expense) in detention ends. If ICE chooses not to take custody, that’s on ICE. Undocumented people who are arrested for breaking local law are treated the same as those who are documented, with the exception of the ICE notification. The more violent the crime, the higher the bail or the likelihood of no bail being granted due to flight risk. Those who commit violent crimes are far less likely to be released prior to ICE getting there than those who are taken in for more minor crimes. The second group is the group that is really being protected under sanctuary laws. Well actually, those people and the ones who aren’t breaking any laws other than immigration law. The federal government would prefer that local officials round them up and hold them until ICE arrives. Local law enforcement, on the other hand, would prefer to focus on enforcing the laws enacted by state and local government. It’s sort of like the states that didn’t want to enforce federal speed limits and won the right to ignore them when they appealed to the Supreme Court. Even though there was plenty of evidence that the 55mph speed limit saved lives (and conserved energy), they apparently cared more about the right to drive like a bat out of hell than the lives of those killed in high speed accidents. Or the states who didn’t want to be forced to use local resources to do federal background checks. Apparently they were more interested in gun dealers being able to make quick sales than keeping guns out of the hands of criminal or mentally unstable hands. The blue states that are passing sanctuary laws are just following the red state playbook on the 10th amendment.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:16:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2018 21:28:48 GMT
She's offended because I said New York would give sanctuary. That's not a lie. Cuomo has stated NY is a sanctuary state and Bloomberg has declared NYC a sanctuary city. If anyone is "offended" by that; oh well.' And I haven't lied about anything. You think I'm Lauren. That doesn't make it fact nor does it mean I lied. It's simply what you think is true. And at this point, I really don't care who thinks I'm Lauren and who doesn't. I still believe that the bitches here who call me Lauren do it just because they think it bothers me. It also allows them to justify saying vicious things because they consider it acceptable to say them to "Lauren". So they'll insist I'm her so that they don't feel bad about themselves. They also think I'll leave and take my undesirable conservative opinions with me. Not happening. 1. I personally don’t give a shit who you are. 2. “I simply said”. Phooey. This is what you said “Exactly. But as tucker Carlson keep saying, politicians in the cities and states are more interested in the rights of illegal immigrants than they are in the safety of their own citizens”. You are repeating lies which makes you lying. Then when you are called on it you try squirm your way out of it. And let’s don’t forget your first post on this thread which is another lie. “ If the bomber was a Muslim or an illegal Immigrant, California or New York would be giving him sanctuary. ETA...or tipping him off when the police are closing in.” And now you are lying about not lying.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:16:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2018 22:11:14 GMT
Care to enlighten me...what exactly is a sanctuary city/state and why are people unhappy with sanctuary cities/states? What are the facts? I'm interested in your take on it.
Based on posts after the one above I think you have a pretty good idea of how various people see sanctuary cities and what they do or don’t do. Living in the San Francisco Bay Area I’m surrounded by sanctuary cities and until trump was elected president I was pretty ambivalent about them. On one hand I was annoyed that these folks were breaking the law by coming here illegally and on more than one occasion I heard some of the more activists ones claim it was their right to be here. And on the other hand I was annoyed because the feds didn’t fully enforce the 86 Immigration Reform Act especially since I remembered the government telling us they solved the problem. But time passes and trump was elected president and started these indiscriminate sweeps of undocumented folks. In some cases tearing apart families. It was then that it hit me that we have been allowing these folks to stay in this country for decades. And by not enforcing the employer mandate of the law we aided them in breaking the law. So while I want this issue resolved, there is a right way and a wrong way of doing it and trump is doing it the wrong way. That is made me look at sanctuary cities differently. And I now find myself defending them. That is why when those who take great delight in slamming sanctuary cities/states with misinformation I say something. And this notion that cops in sanctuary cities/states will not hold someone who committed a crime if the are undocumented is just not true. San Francico 2008 a undocumented gang member of the M-13 gang killed a father and 2 of his sons. Mistaken identity. He is now serving three life sentences. While the shooter was undocumented, the guy in the car with him, another gang member, was a US citizen. This was a case of gang violence not undocumented folks gone wild. Gang violence, something that happens a lot in this country unfortunately. The undocumented shooter was not released by the police. Below is a good description of what I understand sanctuary cities do. “I think there is widespread misunderstanding about what sanctuary cities are. In general, all the designation of “sanctuary city” means is that local law enforcement officials are given instructions not to assist immigration officials in apprehending illegal immigrants who are not crime suspects (aside from the crime of crossing the border illegally). Sanctuary cities are not, in fact, violating any law by establishing this policy. Enforcement of immigration law is the responsibility of federal and not local officials. Any help that local police might give is extended to ICE as a courtesy, and sanctuary cities have simply chosen not expend their local police resources on that courtesy. Local police are, of course, always responsible for investigating and arresting people suspected of committing crimes in their area so no, sanctuary cities are not protecting violent criminals. “ Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I've learned something. 🙂
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:16:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2018 22:24:49 GMT
I've given a lot of thought to this entire thread and my conclusions are: 1) Conditt was a terrorist. I'm not sad that he's dead. 2) I am sad for those that he killed, injured and the families that are grieving. 3) unrelated to the original thread, but on topic to which it has led in discussion, I feel that laws are LAWS. Be it traffic laws (See the Back in thread and my post on Traverse City😉), immigration laws, or noise ordinance, etc... and I respect the law, follow the law and feel that said laws should be enforced.
|
|
|
Post by redhead32 on Mar 23, 2018 22:53:22 GMT
Based on posts after the one above I think you have a pretty good idea of how various people see sanctuary cities and what they do or don’t do. Living in the San Francisco Bay Area I’m surrounded by sanctuary cities and until trump was elected president I was pretty ambivalent about them. On one hand I was annoyed that these folks were breaking the law by coming here illegally and on more than one occasion I heard some of the more activists ones claim it was their right to be here. And on the other hand I was annoyed because the feds didn’t fully enforce the 86 Immigration Reform Act especially since I remembered the government telling us they solved the problem. But time passes and trump was elected president and started these indiscriminate sweeps of undocumented folks. In some cases tearing apart families. It was then that it hit me that we have been allowing these folks to stay in this country for decades. And by not enforcing the employer mandate of the law we aided them in breaking the law. So while I want this issue resolved, there is a right way and a wrong way of doing it and trump is doing it the wrong way. That is made me look at sanctuary cities differently. And I now find myself defending them. That is why when those who take great delight in slamming sanctuary cities/states with misinformation I say something. And this notion that cops in sanctuary cities/states will not hold someone who committed a crime if the are undocumented is just not true. San Francico 2008 a undocumented gang member of the M-13 gang killed a father and 2 of his sons. Mistaken identity. He is now serving three life sentences. While the shooter was undocumented, the guy in the car with him, another gang member, was a US citizen. This was a case of gang violence not undocumented folks gone wild. Gang violence, something that happens a lot in this country unfortunately. The undocumented shooter was not released by the police. Below is a good description of what I understand sanctuary cities do. “I think there is widespread misunderstanding about what sanctuary cities are. In general, all the designation of “sanctuary city” means is that local law enforcement officials are given instructions not to assist immigration officials in apprehending illegal immigrants who are not crime suspects (aside from the crime of crossing the border illegally). Sanctuary cities are not, in fact, violating any law by establishing this policy. Enforcement of immigration law is the responsibility of federal and not local officials. Any help that local police might give is extended to ICE as a courtesy, and sanctuary cities have simply chosen not expend their local police resources on that courtesy. Local police are, of course, always responsible for investigating and arresting people suspected of committing crimes in their area so no, sanctuary cities are not protecting violent criminals. “ Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I've learned something. 🙂 Me too.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:16:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2018 22:54:25 GMT
Exactly. But as tucker Carlson keep saying, politicians in the cities and states are more interested in the rights of illegal immigrants than they are in the safety of their own citizens If an undocumented person is being held for a local crime and has reached the end of the time limit for holding him or her under local law, they are no more of a threat to the safety of the community than a documented person would be. If there is no justification for holding that person under local statute, then continuing to hold past the deadline IS doing ICE’s job. Without reimbursement. If there is justification to continue holding, they do in compliance with local law, and if ICE shows up, I believe they have to turn them over. Sanctuary cities do comply with the requirements to notify ICE, at least in all the examples I have seen. I’m sure if there are exceptions, you will point them out to us. By refusing to hold past the local limit, sanctuary cities force ICE to put up or shut up. If ICE really wants this person, ICE can come and get them before release, and the city’s participation (and expense) in detention ends. If ICE chooses not to take custody, that’s on ICE. Undocumented people who are arrested for breaking local law are treated the same as those who are documented, with the exception of the ICE notification. The more violent the crime, the higher the bail or the likelihood of no bail being granted due to flight risk. Those who commit violent crimes are far less likely to be released prior to ICE getting there than those who are taken in for more minor crimes. The second group is the group that is really being protected under sanctuary laws. Well actually, those people and the ones who aren’t breaking any laws other than immigration law. The federal government would prefer that local officials round them up and hold them until ICE arrives. Local law enforcement, on the other hand, would prefer to focus on enforcing the laws enacted by state and local government. It’s sort of like the states that didn’t want to enforce federal speed limits and won the right to ignore them when they appealed to the Supreme Court. Even though there was plenty of evidence that the 55mph speed limit saved lives (and conserved energy), they apparently cared more about the right to drive like a bat out of hell than the lives of those killed in high speed accidents. Or the states who didn’t want to be forced to use local resources to do federal background checks. Apparently they were more interested in gun dealers being able to make quick sales than keeping guns out of the hands of criminal or mentally unstable hands. The blue states that are passing sanctuary laws are just following the red state playbook on the 10th amendment. Some of those that avoided ICE because of the Oakland Mayor warning them have been arrested again for violent crimes.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:16:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2018 23:01:03 GMT
If all laws could be enforced w/no limitation of resources, I'd agree.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO ENFORCE ALL LAWS ALL THE TIME - because we need to ensure the billionaires get tax breaks.
So, as we're dealing w/limited resources of employees, holding space, court dockets, etc - LET'S GET REAL ABOUT WHO IS REALLY A DANGER TO SOCIETY.
Someone who bombs random innocent people!?! YES. Someone who is here illegally and in a gang shooting or injuring others? YES. Someone who is here illegally to work and provide for a family?!? WAY WAY FU#$(ING DOWN ON THE PRIORITY LIST!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:16:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2018 23:14:11 GMT
If all laws could be enforced w/no limitation of resources, I'd agree. BUT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO ENFORCE ALL LAWS ALL THE TIME - because we need to ensure the billionaires get tax breaks. So, as we're dealing w/limited resources of employees, holding space, court dockets, etc - LET'S GET REAL ABOUT WHO IS REALLY A DANGER TO SOCIETY.Someone who bombs random innocent people!?! YES. Someone who is here illegally and in a gang shooting or injuring others? YES. Someone who is here illegally to work and provide for a family?!? WAY WAY FU#$(ING DOWN ON THE PRIORITY LIST!You're arguing a point no one is making.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:16:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2018 23:29:33 GMT
Some of those that avoided ICE because of the Oakland Mayor warning them have been arrested again for violent crimes. Where are your sources or are you making things up like your buddy?
|
|
|
Post by slkone on Mar 23, 2018 23:33:52 GMT
She's offended because I said New York would give sanctuary. That's not a lie. Cuomo has stated NY is a sanctuary state and Bloomberg has declared NYC a sanctuary city. If anyone is "offended" by that; oh well.' And I haven't lied about anything. You think I'm Lauren. That doesn't make it fact nor does it mean I lied. It's simply what you think is true. And at this point, I really don't care who thinks I'm Lauren and who doesn't. I still believe that the bitches here who call me Lauren do it just because they think it bothers me. It also allows them to justify saying vicious things because they consider it acceptable to say them to "Lauren". So they'll insist I'm her so that they don't feel bad about themselves. They also think I'll leave and take my undesirable conservative opinions with me. Not happening. Oh, it bothers you that we know you're Lauren. It bothers you a great deal, which is why you waste so much space claiming you're not her and inventing weird scenarios where we're all somehow jealous of you 😂😂😂 And we know you won't leave. Like herpes and glitter, you show up right when we thought we were rid of you.I'd just like to point out that she never answered any of my questions about how she found this board, too.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Mar 23, 2018 23:37:14 GMT
She's offended because I said New York would give sanctuary. That's not a lie. Cuomo has stated NY is a sanctuary state and Bloomberg has declared NYC a sanctuary city. If anyone is "offended" by that; oh well.' And I haven't lied about anything. You think I'm Lauren. That doesn't make it fact nor does it mean I lied. It's simply what you think is true. And at this point, I really don't care who thinks I'm Lauren and who doesn't. I still believe that the bitches here who call me Lauren do it just because they think it bothers me. It also allows them to justify saying vicious things because they consider it acceptable to say them to "Lauren". So they'll insist I'm her so that they don't feel bad about themselves. They also think I'll leave and take my undesirable conservative opinions with me. Not happening. [/quote Someone is losing her shit. LMAO at the “so we don’t feel bad about ourselves” that is flipping hilarious!! So is the saying vicious shit—so what’s your excuse? Just that you’re a miserable bitch? Me thinks she doth protest too much. Sure—keep lying and the liberals will keep calling you out on your bullshit! You and your coven of gaslighting conservatives!
|
|
scrappinmama
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,000
Jun 26, 2014 12:54:09 GMT
|
Post by scrappinmama on Mar 23, 2018 23:43:42 GMT
She is either Lauren or someone posting in a manner that mimics Lauren. Either way, she is a troll trying to stir up trouble.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:16:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2018 0:03:31 GMT
linkWhat you have here are the DOJ, ICE and trump lying. Do I agree with what the mayor did? No, but I’m sick and tired of trump and company lying to the American people about what their intent is when it comes to immigration. From NPR... “ICE Spokesman Quits Over Leaders' Use Of 'Misleading Facts' To Discuss Calif. Arrests”
From the article... James Schwab has resigned from his job as a Department of Homeland Security spokesman, saying he didn't agree with Trump administration officials' use of "misleading facts" to attack Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf after the mayor issued a warning about an immigration sweep in late February. " I quit because I didn't want to perpetuate misleading facts," Schwab told the San Francisco Chronicle. "I asked them to change the information. I told them that the information was wrong, they asked me to deflect, and I didn't agree with that. Then I took some time and I quit."
In that four-day sweep through Northern California, Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation officers arrested 232 people — but high-level federal officials, including President Trump, said Schaaf was to blame for 864 more people not being arrested. They pointed to her public warning of a pending raid, which she issued on Feb. 24, just as the operation was about to begin. ICE agents had targeted more than 1,000 people in the sweep. After the raid, a Homeland Security official said it's common for a large-scale immigration sweep to net about a third of its targets, as member station KQED reports.
Trump called what Schaaf did "a disgrace," saying her warning was the sole reason that hundreds of people escaped arrest. His remarks amplified attacks by Attorney General Jeff Sessions and acting ICE Director Thomas D. Homan. Their claims were questioned by critics — and now by Schwab, a veteran public affairs officer who had worked at the Defense Department and NASA. I didn't feel like fabricating the truth to defend ourselves against [the mayor's] actions was the way to go about it," Schwab told the Chronicle. "We were never going to pick up that many people. To say that 100 percent are dangerous criminals on the street, or that those people weren't picked up because of the misguided actions of the mayor, is just wrong."
In his attack on Schaaf, Trump said 85 percent of the targeted immigrants had criminal records. But when KQED asked ICE to explain why the targeted people had been classified as threats to public safety, a spokeswoman cited only five, of the 864, who had been convicted of serious crimes.
From KQED: " Of the 232 people arrested, ICE stated that 115, or just under half, had 'prior felony convictions for serious and violent offenses' or past convictions for 'significant or multiple misdemeanors.' The other half had no criminal history." When asked to specify how many arrestees were felons, spokeswoman Danielle Bennett would only respond, 'all of those arrested were arrested for being in violation of immigration law.' "
In addition to sparking criticism from the Trump administration, the case also prompted the government to look into whether Schaaf may have broken any laws by sounding the alarm about the pending raid — another front in the clash between federal officials and the leaders of sanctuary cities. Schwab has now quit his job as a Homeland Security spokesman in San Francisco — but that shouldn't be taken to mean that he agrees with what Schaaf did. "Personally I think her actions were misguided and not responsible," Schwab told CNN. "I think she could have had other options. But to blame her for 800 dangerous people out there is just false. It's a false statement because we never pick up 100 percent of our targets. And to say they're a type of dangerous criminal is also misleading." Of the battle over how to properly characterize the events, Schwab said, "I've never been in this situation in 16, almost 17 years in government where someone asked me to deflect when we absolutely knew something was awry — when the data was not correct." After the raid, Homan accused Schaaf of creating a dangerous situation for ICE agents. And when he announced the immigration arrests last month, Homan included this jab at the Oakland mayor: "However, 864 criminal aliens and public safety threats remain at large in the community, and I have to believe that some of them were able to elude us thanks to the mayor's irresponsible decision. Unlike the politicians who attempt to undermine ICE's critical mission, our officers will continue to fulfill their sworn duty to protect public safety." On March 7, Sessions extrapolated on Homan's remarks, converting the ICE leader's rough estimate that "some of" the 864 targets had escaped because of Schaaf into a statement that 800 failed arrests lay at the mayor's feet: According to Acting Director Homan, ICE failed to make 800 arrests that they would have made if the mayor had not acted as she did. "Those are 800 wanted aliens that are now at large in that community —most are wanted criminals that ICE will now have to pursue with more difficulty in more dangerous situations, all because of one mayor's irresponsible action."
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:16:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2018 0:16:37 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:16:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2018 0:46:51 GMT
Oh. My. God.
I've waded through all 5 pages of this and I just can't... don't... there are no words... nope... damn!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:16:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2018 0:59:23 GMT
Did you happen to read the NPR article I posted? Homan And Sessions lied. You may want to read that NPR article. I copy and pasted most of it. But pay particular attention to the part from KQED.
|
|
|
Post by nurseypants on Mar 24, 2018 3:21:58 GMT
You are dealing with lovetocolor. That is who I am regardless of who you "think" I am. If you think I'm Lauren, deal with me as you would Lauren but the silly non-stop posts about "oh, I know it's Lauren. Or "hi Lauren" are childish and show that you are indeed consumed by it. If you weren't you wouldn't take the time to make such an issue of me being Lauren every time I post. ETA, here's a tip: you never "know who you're dealing with" on the internet or on anonymous boards. There are more than a few peas who discovered this to their detriment when Peas crossed the line into real life to destroy them. So stop believing you have some sense of security in knowing who any particular poster is. If you haven't met a poster personally, you don't know who you're dealing with. Now, can we get back to the actual topic of the thread rather than my identity? If you aren't Lauren, you're doing a bang up job of impersonating her. You've got that je ne sais quoi that Lauren has; it's a unique mix of small mindedness, arrogance and ugliness that I've only encountered in one other person online. It matters if you're Lauren because you hairflipped out of here for the umpteenth time and you came waltzing back for the umpteenth time. If it doesn't matter, be honest. But you won't be honest because you can't even stand yourself. You're too ashamed to come here under the avatar you used to torture the peas for over a decade. I used to think you were an asshole who at least stood by her words. Now, you're just another troll. Guess that law practice and husband aren't keeping you too busy these days. I have a feeling that husband has peace’d out on her. Because who wouldn’t?
|
|
|
Post by gar on Mar 24, 2018 23:45:38 GMT
.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:16:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 0:10:59 GMT
If you aren't Lauren, you're doing a bang up job of impersonating her. You've got that je ne sais quoi that Lauren has; it's a unique mix of small mindedness, arrogance and ugliness that I've only encountered in one other person online. It matters if you're Lauren because you hairflipped out of here for the umpteenth time and you came waltzing back for the umpteenth time. If it doesn't matter, be honest. But you won't be honest because you can't even stand yourself. You're too ashamed to come here under the avatar you used to torture the peas for over a decade. I used to think you were an asshole who at least stood by her words. Now, you're just another troll. Guess that law practice and husband aren't keeping you too busy these days. I have a feeling that husband has peace’d out on her. Because who wouldn’t? Nothing constructive to contribute so you just resort to personal attacks. Says a lot about you.
|
|
Olan
Pearl Clutcher
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,050
Jul 13, 2014 21:23:27 GMT
|
Post by Olan on May 17, 2018 11:35:59 GMT
Right white men are more violent but less likely to be arrested. And when they do get arrested they don't get killed before booking even if they just shot up a church full of parishioners or a school full of children. "Today, the relationship between economics and racial violence still exists. For example, the Department of Justice (DOJ) completed a review of the Ferguson Police Department that revealed the police routinely harass black residents and exploit them as a source of revenue. “Many officers appear to see some residents, especially those who live in Ferguson’s predominately African American neighborhoods, less as constituents to be protected than as potential offenders and sources of revenue,” the report concluded. It found the disproportionate number of arrests, tickets, and use of force stemmed from “unlawful bias” rather than black people committing more crime. The DOJ report on Ferguson was met with widespread condemnation and surprise by the larger public. But, if we take the lessons from Wells seriously, we must always pay close attention to the dialectical relationship between anti-black violence and the accumulation of capital." Ida B. Wells article Remember that time I posted a study and everyone doubted the validity? Use those same critical thinking skills when someone tells you black men kill more people than anyone else save for the lone wolf who likes high powered weaponry or blowing up black people. Epigenetics as it relates to racial violence/school shootings would be a good trail to follow too. Olan is bumping an old thread. No re-hash needed
|
|