Florida173
SOF Support
National Protest and 'disband the cops' discussion (and now ICE)
- Thread starter Ooh-Rah
- Start date
The Quartermaster
Verified Military
- Joined
- May 3, 2020
- Messages
- 1,597
Fair is no one being protected who is causing the recent problems, was already banned for doing the same things, and we'd all be equally able to speak our minds here. I can't even call an actual scumbag who's not a member here, a scumbag not even in their name as a play with words.
This person is very aggressive, does hit and run tactics when challenged back, won't respond, has confirmation biases and doesn't fact check before posting or asking to be fact checked to be truthful without any spinning, and reddit is full of all of that from both sides.
I should not have to deal with this over here as well. And as I later found out from another member here, it was that same person who was a mod here that was the reason I logged out after I first joined here all because I said Obama was trash and a horrible person, and I know that telling off a mod on any board is a no go at this station so I left.
If we have beef with someone, do it the adult way and take it to DM. Sure it may devolve, it may surprisingly not, and it may be ad nauseam back an forths with F you's and insults, but it would stay off from here.
Last edited:
Topkick
Verified Military
There have been left leaning members, including you, whom I've enjoyed conversing with and learned from. I had some good discussions both PM and in threads with @IIduce and I'm sad he's no longer here. Its really a lot about presentation. You have the ability to make your point without the passive aggressive, superior attitude, IMO, other liberals often show.
The Quartermaster
Verified Military
- Joined
- May 3, 2020
- Messages
- 1,597
Exactly this and what Marauder06 had said.
The Quartermaster
Verified Military
- Joined
- May 3, 2020
- Messages
- 1,597
Failure404
Unverified
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2015
- Messages
- 31
That is what would have triggered a state of emergency to close the border. I don’t believe that’s 4,000 acceptable illegal immigrants per day or anything like that, simply what volume triggers the border getting closed until we could clear the backlog. Those people would still be in the system being processed, having their cases reviewed and either approved or rejected (with an even stricter standard). That was in addition to billions in funding for CPB, ICE, USCIS, etc, which means we would have had more agents, more judges, more everything, in order to work through the influx of migrants.
I’m definitely not pretending to be an expert on this issue, but as I read through everything that was in the bill, it all seems pretty reasonable to me. Could you give me specific examples or the “pork”, please?
No disrespect felt.
I could stand to learn more about the history of immigration enforcement. Is there a particularly takeaway you want me to get? I suppose we can’t really control where people come from, only what we do with them once they reach our border.
I’m not following what you’re getting at with the bolded section, though. I’m not saying it is a loophole, just that this bill had good things in it. Increased budget, legal teeth that required a state of emergency be declared if those thresholds were met, revision of asylum standards to be more strict, etc. Many Dems decried the bill saying it was too strict, in fact.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 13,600
@The Quartermaster et al’
Pro-Trump membership is the dominant paradigm here, so yes, I may occasionally offer a bit more leeway to opposing views -
All are welcome to and encouraged to use the report-post function if you are feeling personally attacked. Just because I don’t publicly respond does not mean conversations are happening behind the scenes.
Regarding mods:
Nothing is off limits other than discussions of my Marine related perversions and any discussion of Rabbits.
Pro-Trump membership is the dominant paradigm here, so yes, I may occasionally offer a bit more leeway to opposing views -
All are welcome to and encouraged to use the report-post function if you are feeling personally attacked. Just because I don’t publicly respond does not mean conversations are happening behind the scenes.
Regarding mods:
You may call any public official a “scumbag” all you want here, but is it really asking too much to use their real names? Just a modicum of professionalism.
I’m fair game, publicly or via PM. I get plenty of comments about my mod-ability (or lack there of). Good thing I’m paid so well for my time!
Nothing is off limits other than discussions of my Marine related perversions and any discussion of Rabbits.
The Quartermaster
Verified Military
- Joined
- May 3, 2020
- Messages
- 1,597
That wasn't you whom I was referring to.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 13,600
I realize that…but it was about time to remind folks. All good.
This is from the link you provided:
- Provide about $18 billion in supplemental funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and $2.3 billion in assistance for newly arrived refugees.
- Include adjustment of status for Afghan allies, protections for most “Documented Dreamers,” and an additional 250,000 immigrant visas.
"Newly arrived refugees," "Ukraine," "Israel," "Indo-Pacific," and "USAIAD" are not US border security.
I'd say spend a long while reading the immigration thread on this forum. We spent weeks and months arguing the finer points about this bill and other little tricks the last administration tried to pull.
To the average citizen who isn't into politics, there's no reason for them to deep dive into laws and regulations to figure out what's really going on. Most of us rode the government merry go round and had our chains pulled a few times. Right or wrong, putting your life and well being on the line for the U.S. as most of us have, makes one feel as if you have a bigger stake in politics.
Here is the rub. Loophole because that is the reality of how the asylum program has been used. Not how I think you view it, but how it is playing out in real-time.
Ask yourself: Why has there been a monumental drop in illegal border crossings since the current administration started without a brand new, multi billion dollar, taxpayer funded, bipartisan bill being passed??
Answer: We have had the same laws on the books for decades....Same funding for the Federal agencies responsible for immigration and border security. There was 0 need for a bill of any type. We already have laws and agencies to enforce them. Everyone involved in pushing that bill should have already known that better than me. In essence, they were lying through their fucking teeth.
Failure404
Unverified
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2015
- Messages
- 31
@Marauder06
That’s fair. I am old enough to remember when passing bipartisan bills was not so unheard of lol. This bill was worked on for months and was good enough to pass in the house. These kinds of conciliatory offerings are not so surprising and I don’t expect everyone to agree with every part of the bill. That’s just how things go when you are trying to get parties with competing interests to come together. That said, I wish our representatives in Congress could focus on specific issues and not turn every bill into an opportunity to get their pet issue codified into law. If you are working on a border bill, keep it focused and to the point.
Counterpoint: this was the Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act. Most of those things could be argued as related to national security in some way, no?
@BlackSmokeRisinG
I agree that the asylum process has been used as a loophole. I guess my main gripe is that I don’t think Biden did as bad of a job as people say. I was reading this CATO series of articles that goes into the numbers. I don’t agree with every decision he made, but I can acknowledge he was faced with unique challenges and probably did about average in terms of previous administrations. I will say, he tried to go about things proper way (through Congress), and he did enforce many of the laws that were on the books, including some from Trump’s first term (title 42).
And I also have to say, at what cost is Trump accomplishing his immigration objectives? I’m all for strong immigration enforcement, but I don’t think the ends justify any means, especially if we must trample over some constitutional rights in the process. Not saying this is your view, just expressing some thoughts I’ve had stuck in my head over the last several months. I’ve had too many conversations with friends recently who seem to have selective memory when it comes to parts of the Constitution.
Anyways, I’ll have to go read the immigration thread before commenting further, but I’m interested in continuing the discussion sometime.
That’s fair. I am old enough to remember when passing bipartisan bills was not so unheard of lol. This bill was worked on for months and was good enough to pass in the house. These kinds of conciliatory offerings are not so surprising and I don’t expect everyone to agree with every part of the bill. That’s just how things go when you are trying to get parties with competing interests to come together. That said, I wish our representatives in Congress could focus on specific issues and not turn every bill into an opportunity to get their pet issue codified into law. If you are working on a border bill, keep it focused and to the point.
Counterpoint: this was the Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act. Most of those things could be argued as related to national security in some way, no?
@BlackSmokeRisinG
I agree that the asylum process has been used as a loophole. I guess my main gripe is that I don’t think Biden did as bad of a job as people say. I was reading this CATO series of articles that goes into the numbers. I don’t agree with every decision he made, but I can acknowledge he was faced with unique challenges and probably did about average in terms of previous administrations. I will say, he tried to go about things proper way (through Congress), and he did enforce many of the laws that were on the books, including some from Trump’s first term (title 42).
And I also have to say, at what cost is Trump accomplishing his immigration objectives? I’m all for strong immigration enforcement, but I don’t think the ends justify any means, especially if we must trample over some constitutional rights in the process. Not saying this is your view, just expressing some thoughts I’ve had stuck in my head over the last several months. I’ve had too many conversations with friends recently who seem to have selective memory when it comes to parts of the Constitution.
Anyways, I’ll have to go read the immigration thread before commenting further, but I’m interested in continuing the discussion sometime.
The "Biden Administration" immediately tried to repeal Title 42 which would have saved us from much of this mess. It was eventually lifted in 2023, only after court battles. That administration also got rid of Rodney Scott who was the head of BP during Trump's first term. The immediate aftermath was essentially a free for all at the border. Specifically not following the law and expelling migrants that crossed illegally and allowing millions who have no legal claim to asylum to claim asylum at the border of the U.S., and not in a third safe country. Those things in and of themselves show that no, they were not "following the law", they were sidestepping the law to let their constituents into the country. No study or paper can prove otherwise.
When you say things like "he tried to go about things the proper way (through Congress)" you are not being objective. That is a form of dishonesty here. Nobody cares about feelings, mine or yours. What right is right, what's not is wrong. What you are doing is repeating the party line, we have to have some new deal on immigration and the border because our current laws are not adequate. They are. If you want the laws to change (bring millions of random foreigners who vote socialist until this is a socialist country) then vote for politicians who will repeal current policy. Otherwise, we are stuck following the law as it is already. The border is not a mystery. Immigration and asylum cases are not a mystery. It's like saying we need a series of articles to study bank fraud, or trespassing. I remember the studies on Obamacare that predicted healthcare costs would drastically fall over the next decade. When I was a kid studies showed the rainforest was going to be gone by 2020, sea levels were going to rise to the point our coastal areas would be underwater. Studies and articles don't mean anything.
The reason I put "Biden Administration" in parentheses is because an objective person should be able to tell by watching him speak that he was not coherent. Biden did not know what was going on. Others behind the scene were clearly pulling the strings. Plenty of stories about that on the internet too.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 13,600
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
1. Not sure why the VA Secretary needs to have a tweet on this.
2. Guy was pretty liberal, like really liberal, 47 different Act Blue donations
I say that as a guy who has 0 political donations to his name. He was choosing to be in the wrong place with a firearm. As @amlove21 says, if I think I'm going to have to use it, it stays home. Want to "protest" do it at the Federal building with a sign, and actually do it peaceful like.
3. I'm expecting to see his personnel file with all sorts of weirdness next week, because clown world.
Topkick
Verified Military
The democrats own a big part of this, IMO. In 2015, Obama awarded Tom Homan for deporting more people than Trump has. What has changed? The answer is Trump. A big part of this is politics and TDS causing the mayor and governor to keep this stirred up, which is encouraging people to obstruct justice. They could assist with immigration instead of getting in the way.
I'm a little skeptical of the colored vest angle. They aren't wearing them in DC, but I can easily see an angle where someone decided they should be worn for "safety" vice being told who not to target. I wouldn't even think this if I hadn't seen so much blatantly stupid reasons and uses of PT belts in Afghanistan.
I could easily be wrong, but I don't trust initial reporting on this entire incident from shooting to the present.
I could easily be wrong, but I don't trust initial reporting on this entire incident from shooting to the present.
If those ideas and arguments could stand on their own, they wouldn't need an thumb on the scale. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the same standards from people who post in the minority as we do from the majority.
If the people who keep engaging in that behavior respected you, or your responsibilities as the sole admin, or the community we all built here, they wouldn't keep causing the same problems all of the time and putting you--and us--in the middle of it.
Public misbehavior calls for public corrections. If people see the behavior but don't know that corrective action is being taken, then as far as they're concerned it didn't happen. That drives vigilantism, and creates all kinds of other problems down the road.
Similar threads
