Sanctuary - what really happens when your bluff is called.

[BIGUN 1,053]

20 hours ago, jakee said:

opposed to him commenting on a foreign political situation? I'm pretty sure you said something along those lines quite recently. I'd hate to think you were being some kind of hypocrite.)

The hypocrisy comes when one from another country tells someone in another country how they ought to be running policy in their country. And, that rule extends more to you and others from foreign lands in SC who think they know how the US ought to run their affairs at the state or national level whilst not even taking care of cleaning up your own houses. The hypocrisy here was in the social experiment conducted by those with in their own country about their own countrymen. Turtle just passed it along. Nice try, though.  

[jakee 1,255]

4 hours ago, BIGUN said:

The hypocrisy comes when one from another country tells someone in another country how they ought to be running policy in their country. 

Bullshit. I didn't say anything about policy, I commented on a moral stance which applies no matter what country you're in.

 

Quote

And, that rule extends more to you and others from foreign lands in SC who think they know how the US ought to run their affairs at the state or national level whilst not even taking care of cleaning up your own houses.

Why does it extend more to foreigners talking about the US than Americans talking about foreigners? That's blatantly hypocritical.

 

Quote

The hypocrisy here was in the social experiment conducted by those with in their own country about their own countrymen. Turtle just passed it along.

Why did he pass it on - because the principle involved can be applied across national borders, perhaps?

 

By the way, I did notice that you completey dodged the part where I asked you what you think his point was anyway. Nice try though.

[BIGUN 1,053]

16 minutes ago, jakee said:

Bullshit. I didn't say anything about policy, I commented on a moral stance which applies no matter what country you're in.

I'm pretty sure I can go back and find the mass shootings thread where you and some Canadians were telling us what we needed to do to improve our "gun laws." 

Quote

Why does it extend more to foreigners talking about the US than Americans talking about foreigners? That's blatantly hypocritical.

Thank you for making my point.

21 minutes ago, jakee said:

Why did he pass it on - because the principle involved can be applied across national borders, perhaps?

He was merely showing how liberals in a sanctuary place are real quick to suggest how things ought to be for everyone else until it becomes time to man up. But, I'll give you half-credit on this one.

Perhaps the better social experiment was performed recently in California - "Let them in!!!" Wait, you want to send illegal immigrants here?!?!?!? Oh wait... the President is playing politics with our state laws by sending them here!!! Make him stop!!! Get an injunction!!! Typical NIMBY-ism. 

Quote

I did notice that you completely dodged the part where I asked you what you think his point was anyway.

His point was to share an observation about hypocrisy from liberals. 

[yobnoc 142]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Perhaps the better social experiment was performed recently in California - "Let them in!!!" Wait, you want to send illegal immigrants here?!?!?!? Oh wait... the President is playing politics with our state laws by sending them here!!! Make him stop!!! Get an injunction!!! Typical NIMBY-ism.

Let's do a simple line of questioning here so you can understand the backlash on the president's* threat to send aliens to sanctuary states/cities, because it has nothing to do with NIMBY.

Do you believe that the President actually believes that the alien population poses a clear and present danger to the American Public?

If no, then the president* illegally declared a state of emergency for his wall funding under false pretenses and should be removed from office for dereliction of his oath of office.

If yes, then the president's* threat to send what he (and you) believes are dangerous people to cities and states that tend to vote for Democratic policies is an example of the president* intentionally placing American citizens in harm's way, and he should be removed from office for dereliction of his oath of office.

Remember: this has nothing to do with whether he's right or not.  It's simply his stated positions and policies he's enacted, and the natural logic that follows.

 

[turtlespeed 212]

4 hours ago, yobnoc said:

Let's do a simple line of questioning here so you can understand the backlash on the president's* threat to send aliens to sanctuary states/cities, because it has nothing to do with NIMBY.

Do you believe that the President actually believes that the alien population poses a clear and present danger to the American Public?

If no, then the president* illegally declared a state of emergency for his wall funding under false pretenses and should be removed from office for dereliction of his oath of office.

If yes, then the president's* threat to send what he (and you) believes are dangerous people to cities and states that tend to vote for Democratic policies is an example of the president* intentionally placing American citizens in harm's way, and he should be removed from office for dereliction of his oath of office.

Remember: this has nothing to do with whether he's right or not.  It's simply his stated positions and policies he's enacted, and the natural logic that follows.

 

Is that how you see it?  Do you always look for the worst case scenario?  Is this how you viewed the previous presidents intentions? 

I see it as he is saying this is what you shouted for.  This is what you protested for.  This is what you screamed that you wanted - 

Here it is - Be careful what you wish for.

 

I have seen that technique teach children to think before they act for almost 50 years. 

I have understood it working for far, far, far longer than that.

 

Maybe its time the brats get whats coming to them.

France did.

[yobnoc 142]

6 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Is that how you see it?  Do you always look for the worst case scenario?  Is this how you viewed the previous presidents intentions? 

I see it as he is saying this is what you shouted for.  This is what you protested for.  This is what you screamed that you wanted - 

Here it is - Be careful what you wish for.

 

I have seen that technique teach children to think before they act for almost 50 years. 

I have understood it working for far, far, far longer than that.

 

Maybe its time the brats get whats coming to them.

France did.

I took my oath seriously and with the gravity that it represents. It is not malleable based on some shifting sense of morality. Also, your phrasing is dangerously analogous to how a petulant king would justify exacting punishment on his subjects. And yes, this is how I view it. The presidency should be the pinnacle of our representation; the paramount of what America stands for. Yet here we are with President* Joffrey, taking the oath of office with his fingers crossed behind his back. 

[turtlespeed 212]

3 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

I took my oath seriously and with the gravity that it represents. It is not malleable based on some shifting sense of morality. Also, your phrasing is dangerously analogous to how a petulant king would justify exacting punishment on his subjects. And yes, this is how I view it. The presidency should be the pinnacle of our representation; the paramount of what America stands for. Yet here we are with President* Joffrey, taking the oath of office with his fingers crossed behind his back. 

So did I.  But that has nothing to do with Trump.

OK - so that I'm clear here:

The towns and city's that self identify and publicize to be Sanctuary Cities . . .  (who are knowingly, willingly, and intentionally, even spitefully, breaking the laws at worst, or refusing to enforce them at least) [Is refusing least?] . . . Say that they will accept illegal immigrants.

You are OK with that?

When the president says, "Ya know, I'm really tired of trying to help you avoid the bad shit you insist on bringing down on yourself", and "This is what you want - fine - see how it works for you."  You are NOT OK with that. 

You cite that your oath, the one you took seriously, "is not malleable based on some shifting sense of morality"

(I'm not 100% sure what your oath has to do with Trump - but lets let it roll)

 

I firmly believe that it is the long term best interest of the sanctuary cities to be able to witness first hand what they are asking for.

This is not dissimilar to the situation in the video that I posted in another thread showing that the very best intentions, and "feely goody"(TM) sentiments about what other people should be doing with refugees, is now being realized in a very real and impactful way.

 

If a child hears you say - Don't do THAT!  The child doesn't understand WHY.

 

Sometimes you just have to let people learn the hard way.  He tried the easy way.  A LOT Of us tried to convince others the easy way.

That fell on deaf ears - ( well - yeah - But even Billy Vance understood the reality of it.)

So - now its down to being a little spiteful maybe - Like a drill instructor might be, or a LPO might be when counseling a subordinate.

 

Its not the teacher who is failing here - its the petulant student that doesn't like the consequences of the demands when they are finally given into.

 

 

 

 

 

[turtlespeed 212]

On 4/17/2019 at 8:07 AM, BIGUN said:

Wow. That's exactly what happened. You ever been in the right and pointed out as being wrong by so many before? 

Trolling. Give me a break. 

Only here.

 

It seems that anyone that has anything to say that doeant have the proper feels, has to travel through the gauntlet.

The ideal is great - The reality - not so much.

I can't think of anyone here that wouldn't prefer it, (albeit in a perfect world), where the nice downtrodden people that are pure, and innocent, and worthy of all your help, who would never take advantage of the system, are ushered into a program that is over funded and under burdened, and run by responsible bureaucrats.  (Almost got through that with a straight face) 

 

I live in reality though. I don't live in "Feely Goody"(TM) land

 

Everyone in that video knew what they were being asked.

Everyone in that video had logical responses.

The surprise introduction of the supposed refugee had to be startling.

My guess is that it was the same feeling as getting caught misbehaving, or caught in a white lie.

It has been my experience that your true reaction, belief, and instinct comes out when you are reacting while being startled.

It may have been an AH-HA - Gotcha moment - but nonetheless, they knew what they were advocating (Refugees being placed in homes) and they also knew that they didn't want to be the one to make that dream a reality.

I believe their answer to the question was "Absolutely".

ab·so·lute·ly

/ˈabsəˌl(y)o͞otlē,ˌabsəˈl(y)o͞otlē/

adverb

1.  

   with no qualification, restriction, or limitation; totally.

   "she trusted him absolutely"

    
2. independently; not viewed in relation to other things or factors.

   "white-collar crime increased both absolutely and in comparison with other categories"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jakee 1,255]

8 hours ago, BIGUN said:

I'm pretty sure I can go back and find the mass shootings thread where you and some Canadians were telling us what we needed to do to improve our "gun laws." 

Go for it, but the comments in question weren't in the mass shootings thread, so I guess that means you just lied about your reasons for saying 'foreigners can't comment', and you're still being a hypocrote for seeing no problem with Turtle jumping into other nations' political issues.

 

Quote

He was merely showing how liberals in a sanctuary place are real quick to suggest how things ought to be for everyone else until it becomes time to man up. But, I'll give you half-credit on this one.

But he's not. First no-one that I'm aware of, outside this 'gotcha' video where the leading questions are begging for the response the interviewer wants, is suggesting that other people should have to take illegal immgrants into their homes. The entire video is railing against a position that doesn't exist in any meangful way.

 

And it isn't about sabctuary places. In fact, Turtle has avoided questions about any other form of sanctuary place by pointing out that the video is very specifically and only about sanctuary houses. The point does not apply to sanctuary cities or anything else of that type. The two of you can't have it both ways. Zero credit for you.

 

Quote

Perhaps the better social experiment was performed recently in California

Hang on a mnute, we were just talking about Sweden, now your bringing California into it? You couldn't possibly be saying that political and ethical concepts can apply across national borders, could you? Sure sounds like it - so how about you go back and answer the questions you were hiding from by saying they didn't?

Quote

His point was to share an observation about hypocrisy from liberals. 

A handful of Swedish liberals who were cleverly lead into a trap over a policy that doesn't exist in the real world, either in Sweden or the US. So again, what was the point?

 

So far you've done a lot of highlighting your own hypocrisy, but I really don't see what you were actually hoping to achieve?

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

And it isn't about sabctuary places. In fact, Turtle has avoided questions about any other form of sanctuary place by pointing out that the video is very specifically and only about sanctuary houses. The point does not apply to sanctuary cities or anything else of that type. The two of you can't have it both ways. Zero credit for you.

That isn't true at all - You sound like Trump as he makes stuff up along the way. <Eyeroll> 

I never said, or referred to  "Sanctuary Houses"

Its pretty simple - it is about the opinion of, and the mind set of those that advocate for "Sanctuary Places".

 

[jakee 1,255]

45 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

That isn't true at all - You sound like Trump as he makes stuff up along the way. <Eyeroll> 

I never said, or referred to  "Sanctuary Houses"

Its pretty simple - it is about the opinion of, and the mind set of those that advocate for "Sanctuary Places".

 

Bullshit. You specifically pointed out, several times, that they were talking about their own homes. And let’s face it, private homes are a very different thing to public communities. Talking about who can come to your community has nothing to do with who can live under your roof. Trying to equate the two is frankly pathetic.

 

So how about you actually answer the question posed earlier - would you welcome any random American who came to your city into your house? 

Edited April 19, 2019 by jakee

[turtlespeed 212]

5 hours ago, jakee said:

So how about you actually answer the question posed earlier - would you welcome any random American who came to your city into your house? 

Fuck no!

But I'm not the one saying we should "Absolutely" do that.

Maybe you are not paying attention to the questions being asked in the video - 

Go back and rewatch it - the questions are specific.

I don't understand why the obvious is so hard for you to get your head around.

It is almost like dealing with a flat earther.

 

[jakee 1,255]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

Fuck no!

But I'm not the one saying we should "Absolutely" do that.

But surely you're not saying that you woud prevent any legal American citizen from coming to your city? Therefore, there is no equivalence whatsoever between sanctuary in someone's home and sanctuary in someone's community.

 

Even if it wasn't just a dumb 'gotcha' setup with leading questions, the video would still have absolutely no relevance to sanctuary cities, countries or anything else except a person's own private dwelling.

 

Quote

Go back and rewatch it - the questions are specific.

Yes, that's exactly the point - the questions are specific. They are specifically about something which bears no relation to any policy being asked for or pushed for in the real world.

Do you understand that, or do I have to kindergarten it even further for you?

Edited April 19, 2019 by jakee

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

But surely you're not saying that you woud prevent any legal American citizen from coming to your city? Therefore, there is no equivalence whatsoever between sanctuary in someone's home and sanctuary in someone's community.

 

Even if it wasn't just a dumb 'gotcha' setup with leading questions, the video would still have absolutely no relevance to sanctuary cities, countries or anything else except a person's own private dwelling.

 

Yes, that's exactly the point - the questions are specific. They are specifically about something which bears no relation to any policy being asked for or pushed for in the real world.

Do you understand that, or do I have to kindergarten it even further for you?

You have trouble with the concept of ideals and intentions.  I get it.

They weren't leading questions - it really is simple.

If someone is asked if the public should allow refugees into their houses and homes, and then when confronted with the opportunity to do just that, it is hypocritical to back out for inconvenience.

 

 

Edited April 19, 2019 by turtlespeed
Spellings and grammers

[jakee 1,255]

4 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

You have trouble with the concept of ideals and intentions.  I get it.

They weren't leading questions - it really is simple.

If someone is asked if the public should allow refugees into their houses and homes, and then when confronted with the opportunity to do just that, it is hypocritical to back out for inconvenience.

So it really is that simple - your post IS purely about sanctuary houses and homes, and has absolutely nothing to do with sanctuary cities, countries, or any other real world political proposal.

[Coreece 190]

On 4/19/2019 at 3:31 PM, turtlespeed said:

If someone is asked if the public should allow refugees into their houses and homes, and then when confronted with the opportunity to do just that, it is hypocritical to back out for inconvenience.

It was a fun little trick, but I think you're taking it a bit too seriously.

The analogy might be slightly broken, but you could just as easily produce the same effect by asking if the public should allow orphaned children into their houses and homes?

"Well of course, don't be ridiculous!"

"Ok, Great!  Meet little Allie Olsen here.  Would you mind taking her home with you?  Her parents were killed by illegal aliens."

"oh. . .Oh.  Well, um, you know, with work, and um, I haven't had the apartment checked for lead yet, and um. . ."

"Gotcha! fuckin' hypocrite. . ."

 

Also, what's the takeaway from this, that if you can't personally provide shelter for a refugee that you should be against immigration?

[DJL 232]

On 4/19/2019 at 1:16 AM, turtlespeed said:

The towns and city's that self identify and publicize to be Sanctuary Cities . . .  (who are knowingly, willingly, and intentionally, even spitefully, breaking the laws at worst, or refusing to enforce them at least) [Is refusing least?] . . . Say that they will accept illegal immigrants.

There are many situations in which one law enforcement will not do the work of another.  Sometimes a police officer won't take action on a drug use issue even though they may witness drug use or possession.  You could say that they're refusing to enforce federal laws and you're right about that but the reality is that they have bigger fish to fry.  Local police need the help of the local population in many instances and a lot of the time they come into contact with those people in the course of basic law enforcement.  They need witnesses in murder and gang activity cases and if the immigrant community is hiding from the law then those issues will only get worse and worse.  In the grand scheme being illegal isn't a big deal and they need their jail space and resources to protect the population against real threats.

[turtlespeed 212]

On 4/22/2019 at 10:34 AM, DJL said:

There are many situations in which one law enforcement will not do the work of another.  Sometimes a police officer won't take action on a drug use issue even though they may witness drug use or possession.  You could say that they're refusing to enforce federal laws and you're right about that but the reality is that they have bigger fish to fry.  Local police need the help of the local population in many instances and a lot of the time they come into contact with those people in the course of basic law enforcement.  They need witnesses in murder and gang activity cases and if the immigrant community is hiding from the law then those issues will only get worse and worse.  In the grand scheme being illegal isn't a big deal and they need their jail space and resources to protect the population against real threats.

Whom is it that you think is mostly in those gangs that are doing the killing and murdering?

I am SOFA KING relieved that illegalities are not a big deal.

[billvon 2,400]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Whom is it that you think is mostly in those gangs that are doing the killing and murdering?

US citizens.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

8 hours ago, billvon said:

US citizens.

Shhhh...

You're ruining his fantasy.

[jakee 1,255]

11 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Whom is it that you think is mostly in those gangs that are doing the killing and murdering?

Americans. Who do you think it is?

[DJL 232]

13 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Whom is it that you think is mostly in those gangs that are doing the killing and murdering?

I am SOFA KING relieved that illegalities are not a big deal.

The others have already responded above but who do YOU think are in US based gangs?  Next question, if you're so concerned about gangs then do you want illegal immigrants working with the police or working with the gangs to solve their problems?

[turtlespeed 212]

9 hours ago, DJL said:

The others have already responded above but who do YOU think are in US based gangs?  Next question, if you're so concerned about gangs then do you want illegal immigrants working with the police or working with the gangs to solve their problems?

I believe that a significant amount are illegal immigrants.

More than likely, an amount that is way underestimated

https://cis.org/Report/Examination-US-Immigration-Policy-and-Serious-Crime#III.

[DJL 232]

13 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I believe that a significant amount are illegal immigrants.

More than likely, an amount that is way underestimated

https://cis.org/Report/Examination-US-Immigration-Policy-and-Serious-Crime#III.

Maybe you can help me out, you linked to a point in the article that talks about a tendency of Hispanic victims to not report their crimes to the police.  This sounds more like you agree that a better relationship with the police would help police find criminals.

Edited April 25, 2019 by DJL

[kallend 1,623]

26 minutes ago, DJL said:

Maybe you can help me out, you linked to a point in the article that talks about a tendency of Hispanic victims do not report their crimes to the police.  This sounds more like you agree that a better relationship with the police would help police find criminals.

He's just making a non causa pro causa fallacial argument, hoping to distract.