|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Wow, would you look at That!? /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1529936740 Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 06/25/18 at 07:25:40 |
|
Title: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/25/18 at 07:25:40 Huffing and Puffington Post says https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/25/parents-deportation_n_5531552.html But TRUMP is the bad guy. Why weren't you lefties going crazy about the inhumane treatment THEN? Kinda makes All your outrage look a bit fake. |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by Eegore on 06/25/18 at 07:28:05 I heard about it all the time. Obamas secret mass deportations etc. A lot of it depends on what research you do, who you communicate with and how often you clean your internet browser. |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/25/18 at 07:37:07 How do you do that? The QUESTION IS WHERE WAS THE FUKKING OUTRAGE OVER THE HORRORS OF SEPARATION OF FAMILIES WHEN IT WAS OBAMA? |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by Eegore on 06/25/18 at 07:45:47 I saw outrage. I heard about it all the time. Many articles, hundreds about the raids in CA especially down in LA and San Diego. Issues about low-level crimes separating parents from their innocent children were in the news daily. I don't know why the coverage is different, maybe its the sources we use. |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/25/18 at 07:53:17 You saw concern You saw disagreement You didn't see BUTTHURTEDNESS and Outrage Lefties have gone fricking apeshitt. Refusing service and harassing people in public, but that is not what they did when Obama did it. But Trump, and by extension, his staff, are evil incarnate. The stupidity will bring more Trump. Dear Lefties Please continue your insanity. |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by Eegore on 06/25/18 at 07:59:38 While in Coronado I had to be flown into the base because so many people blocked the bridge the combination of SDPD and US MP's couldn't disperse the crowds. Hundreds of vehicles and homes were damaged because of the effects of immigration reform. I saw people spit on, rocks thrown at them, looting and gunfire in Orange County after ICE setup checkpoints. All this was in the news. Migrant workers burned part of a clinic in CO that we worked with (they conducted the DUI bloodwork that sent about 12 of them back). I agree its not the same but to say nobody was assaulted, refused service or outraged at the last administrations immigration policy is inaccurate from my personal observations. |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/25/18 at 08:02:56 I didn't see that. I'd like others to weigh in. |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by Eegore on 06/25/18 at 08:58:28 Maybe part of it has to do with social media and the wildfire effect. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/24/red-hen-eateries-feel-heat-after-sarah-sanders-booted-from-virginia-restaurant-with-same-name.html For instance look how fast these unaffiliated restaurants received Facebook backlash. Threats of violence quickly follow but are rarely completed, its part of a predictable pattern though. |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by MnSpring on 06/25/18 at 09:10:43 It is FAR, from being, ’the same’. When ‘it’, happened under Obama, their were 20% of stations/news/information, saying, ‘what’, had happened. Now, when, ‘it’ happens, under Trump, their are, 80% of stations/news/information, 'SPINNING’, what had happened. Just like the ‘Golf Nut’, who knows the remotest details of different Golf Clubs. People here, KNOW, the difference, in the ’news’. Some point that out, and some, do everything they can to ‘hide’ the truth. And some do everything they can to, 'Spin', the Truth. |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by LostArtist on 06/26/18 at 12:05:13 I saw reports and concern for this under Obama too. The difference is, Obama didn't make a policy FORCING child separation to be a deterrent. Under Obama the system was overwhelmed and they handled it badly, under Trump, Trump's zero tolerance policy forced the system to be overwhelmed and they handled it badly. it was a self-inflicted wound by Trump wanting to be "tough" on immigration. and yeah, a lot of the media is really pushing this heavy, I'm kind of sick of it, there has to be other news, like Harley Davidson going overseas... or something... |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by MnSpring on 06/26/18 at 16:31:10 52716D6A5F6C6A776D6A1E0 wrote:
Trump didn't ether ! The Difference was, then, 20% of Media, told the TRUTH, about Obama's Fail. Today 80% of the Media, are Lying/Spinning, about Trump. To make Anything and Everything, bad. |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by Eegore on 06/26/18 at 19:40:00 What percentage of illegal immigrants were allowed to keep their children at the detention centers for the prosecution phase? |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/26/18 at 21:57:40 E asks a question that matters |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by MnSpring on 06/27/18 at 08:06:36 426260687562070 wrote:
To answer that question accurately, one must First, determine, what is classified as a child. And make note of what the Country the child comes from, as each country will have a different definition of, child. Next determine, if that child has parents that have also crossed illegally. Next determine, if the adults, who say, (so & so) is their child/children, is really True. As to the rest, what is the policy, (you would know what it is), for children, do they get, ’things’, they never got before? What is the Policy for adults, as the time lines for this and that, again you would know what the, ‘policy’ is. |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by LostArtist on 06/27/18 at 08:50:44 5B784566647F7871160 wrote:
Trump didn't ether ! The Difference was, then, 20% of Media, told the TRUTH, about Obama's Fail. Today 80% of the Media, are Lying/Spinning, about Trump. To make Anything and Everything, bad. [/quote] Trump's ZERO Tolerance policy forced the law to be upheld in such a way that child separation was a KNOWN result. They even touted it as a feature for deterrence when they were proposing the Zero Tolerance policy. and that's the straight hard fact. Obama only separated children when they had no choice but to follow the law to the letter. that law, btw, was signed in 2008 by BUSH, so calling it a democrat law is misleading. I haven't researched it, but knowing how the legal sausage is made, by making all these deals "hey put this in and we'll sign it" kind of crap, it's reasonable to be suspect of pretty much every law ever passed and signed, in a divided government (congress controlled by one party, and the presidency by the other) that there's some compromise given and neither side is fully in control of what they are getting. |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by LostArtist on 06/27/18 at 09:02:40 4464666E7364010 wrote:
that's hard to know apparently, this isn't a bad article on it, but doesn't offer many hard answers like you're looking for. Did the Obama Administration Separate Families? https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/did-the-obama-administration-separate-families/ |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by Eegore on 06/27/18 at 10:27:41 "To answer that question accurately, one must First, determine, what is classified as a child." Any human under the age of 18. If a human is 12 and considered an adult in Country X, they can not come to the US and be considered an adult by US law. US states have laws allowing under 18 to be considered a consenting adult but the person must be a legal resident of that state, thus immigrants can not be considered under such laws. DNA and other paternity testing is not conducted prior to the prosecution phase and should not be considered part of the equation to a question asking about events prior to said phase. So what percentage of humans are allowed to be with their claimed parents in detention centers during the prosecution stage? Zero. How many immigrants were to be prosecuted under zero tolerance policy? 100% If 100% of adults are prosecuted and 0% children are allowed to be present during the prosecution phase then the number of children separated from parents would be 100%. |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by MnSpring on 06/27/18 at 11:23:59 0C2C2E263B2C490 wrote:
IF, and a very big, IF. The children, Were, the children of those prosecuted. (Of Course, NON, of those, 'sneaking' in, would ever Lie) |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by LostArtist on 06/27/18 at 11:51:07 5B784566647F7871160 wrote:
IF, and a very big, IF. The children, Were, the children of those prosecuted. (Of Course, NON, of those, 'sneaking' in, would ever Lie) [/quote] see, this is where you lose. you think that's a "very big IF" . you don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt, you assume the worst. you don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty" are you even American? |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by Eegore on 06/27/18 at 14:28:36 That and I directly stated that since there are no paternity tests prior to the prosecution phase then the components are not part of the posed question. If all red cars are not allowed at car dealerships for sale then how many red cars are at dealerships? We have to define red, and car, and then prove that its a car. If we can even prove that its a car. |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by MnSpring on 06/27/18 at 17:09:36 694A56516457514C5651250 wrote:
A Yep, sure do, for, Citizens, NOT for ’sneak’, Illegal Aliens. One could stand in the street, with a 100 witnesses, Street cam video, and audio, and shoot and kill someone, and it is, “innocent until proven guilty”, (Which in that case would be a slam dunk), yet it still stands, that one is, “innocent until proven guilty”. On the OTHER hand. The statement: “innocent until proven guilty”, does NOT apply, with the BATFE, or the IRS, or the States ‘DNR’ Department of Natural Resources, Fish and Game, (or what ever the State calls it). With those agencies, it is, “Guilty until, YOU, prove yourself, Innocent”. |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by MnSpring on 06/27/18 at 17:31:38 2505070F1205600 wrote:
Well with the dialogue I have had, with you. That is the Exact thing, you have requested. Every time, you disagree with me, it is, I, am not precise enough. In fact, their is another recent post, where you say, just that. Again, 'Which Is It ?" Now you say: “…We have to define red, and car, and then prove that its a car. If we can even prove that its a car. …” in a way, that mocks me. Then their is this statement, which you stated, which certainly, ‘implied’, a agreement with the previous posters post and statement. “…That and I directly stated that since there are no paternity tests prior to the prosecution phase then the components are not part of the posed question….” So, because their is no DNA test.. A B.P. person, Has to take the word of the, Illegal Alien’, as to: ’those are my kids’. Because a, ‘Illegal Alien’ would, NEVER lie. But, ’Never Mind’, the 79.5%, (it has gone up a bit), of the main stream media, will soon get tired, and move on to something else, they can Lie about, just to Talk Trash about Trump. |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by Eegore on 06/27/18 at 18:01:36 If the question is what percentage of immigrants can take children to the prosecution phase with them. Child was defined as a human under the age of 18. Since no DNA or paternity test exists prior to the prosecution phase how does it apply since it hasn't happened? Yes people will lie about their children, about asylum etc. but how does that answer the question? The question is how many, not how accurate. How many children are allowed to stay with their claimed parents during the prosecution phase? Zero. How many people lie? Unknown, but it does happen. Those are two different questions, and paternity verification happens after prosecution, if at all. If it makes anyone feel better then we can restructure the question: How many immigrant adults that claim children, biological or otherwise, are allowed to have the claimed children, biological or otherwise, present during the prosecution phase consisting of 100% of adult immigrants? The answer is still zero. "So, because their is no DNA test.. A B.P. person, Has to take the word of the, Illegal Alien’, as to: ’those are my kids’. Because a, ‘Illegal Alien’ would, NEVER lie." They do not. They are free to believe that all humans are capable of duplicitous statements. They can not however allow children into the prosecution phase, which was the question, not how accurate the information is, or if immigrants are capable of lying. |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by Eegore on 06/27/18 at 18:23:09 "Every time, you disagree with me, it is, I, am not precise enough." "Now you say: “…We have to define red, and car, and then prove that its a car. If we can even prove that its a car. …” in a way, that mocks me." I do not intend to mock you, nor do I track who is posting in what area. In many cases I'm not actually reading or typing this myself, if my comments appear targeted or denigrating in any way it is not intentional and I can implement methods to mitigate this. |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by MnSpring on 06/27/18 at 18:31:47 5676747C6176130 wrote:
Perhaps have the people that , "...In many cases I'm not actually reading or typing this myself..." Look at this post. http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1529943077/15#20 |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by Eegore on 06/27/18 at 18:35:24 I will have it framed and posted on the wall. |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by MnSpring on 06/27/18 at 19:00:03 2404060E1304610 wrote:
Excellent ! I am sure that the Revelation, “…In many cases I’m not actually reading or typing this myself…” , will certainly influence minds. |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/27/18 at 23:34:58 In many cases I'm not actually reading or typing this myself, Really, E? |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by Eegore on 06/28/18 at 03:43:53 382721263B3C0D3D0D35272B60520 wrote:
Yes. I use an auto-reader and a program called Dragon a lot, also with Grammarly, where I speak and it translates the audio into typed messages. Sometimes I will just ask someone to do it for me while we are working, but not all the time. I'm pretty sure that's why some of the topics get confused on my end, or I ended up asking a question like HRC repeatedly. |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/28/18 at 10:29:33 You sure have it rough, dude. Now I understand a few things.. |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by Eegore on 06/28/18 at 10:34:39 Yeah I've built a really rough life for myself. Automated dictation has been in use for a decade at my old job, our phones do it now as a standard, its not even an app anymore. |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by MnSpring on 06/29/18 at 08:33:42 0727252D3027420 wrote:
4060626A7760050 wrote:
Is that comment, “Live or Memorex” ? 0727252D3027420 wrote:
Then 6C4C4E465B4C290 wrote:
I personally believe the words, “In Many Cases’, and ’Sometimes’, convey, (Although not 'precisely' accurate as to 'particular' numbers) two completely different meanings.. In the TT, Just, about ‘everything’ goes. (Like calling members, and non members, all sorts of names, even some very rude) Very unfortunate, that it seems this, ‘mindset’ is now, ‘drifting’, over to other areas of this great Forum. Where, stating something, which is out of the ordinary, and then, NEVER providing proof, even after asked for it several times. (For the Panty in a Bunch people) Staying someone saw a dead raccoon on the road yesterday, and Not providing a photo or a link, just is NOT the same thing !!!! |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by Eegore on 06/29/18 at 08:48:50 Is that comment, “Live or Memorex” ? We don't use Memorex, I thought that went away decades ago. I personally believe the words, “In Many Cases’, and ’Sometimes’, convey, (Although not 'precisely' accurate as to 'particular' numbers) two completely different meanings.. I agree, however in this case they are not talking about the same thing. In many cases I do not read with my eyes, or write (type) the responses on here. Sometimes I will ask someone to do it for me, but not all the time. Sometimes I use Dragon, sometimes the phone or computer does it. So "in many cases" I am not reading the phone, tablet, monitor etc. with my eyes but instead am having the content read by said device, or a person. Many cases would be most of the time, but I do not use a person most of the time, just sometimes. All of these mediums are used but only sometimes is a person involved. |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by verslagen1 on 06/29/18 at 09:47:45 Your voice is now that of Stephan Hawkings. |
|
Title: Re: Wow, would you look at That!? Post by Eegore on 06/29/18 at 09:51:04 I'm ok with that. My first GPS had a "Sean" setting that sounded like a poorly digitized Sean Connery, I kind of wish I could get that back over Siri, Alexa and similar. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |