Lawmakers held a hearing on white nationalism. On YouTube ...

[Obscurity]

You support building a wall?

No. I support fixing immigration legally, and stopping congress from abdicating its responsibility to the executive.

 

[apdst]

No. I support fixing immigration legally, and stopping congress from abdicating its responsibility to the executive.

How is it broken?

What's your solution? Same day citizenship?

 

[Obscurity]

How is it broken?

What's your solution? Same day citizenship?

It's very clearly broken. The entire visa system needs an overhaul. Same day citizenship?

I am for the following; immediate deportation of all illegals, from entrants to visa overstays. Implementation of a strict merit based immigration system with expedited pathways to citizenship for those who offer something of rare benefit to the US, and a zero tolerance policy for those who come in illegally. Don't jail them, just deport them immediately. they are not us citizens and don't have rights to representation in my mind.

 

[apdst]

It's very clearly broken. The entire visa system needs an overhaul. Same day citizenship?

I am for the following; immediate deportation of all illegals, from entrants to visa overstays. Implementation of a strict merit based immigration system with expedited pathways to citizenship for those who offer something of rare benefit to the US, and a zero tolerance policy for those who come in illegally. Don't jail them, just deport them immediately. they are not us citizens and don't have rights to representation in my mind.

That's something President Trump would go along with. Myself, as well.

 

[Obscurity]

That's something President Trump would go along with. Myself, as well.

If he would I'd support that platform. Instead, he wants a solution that doesn't fix the problem. The wall will not stop visa overstays nor will it stop the legal asylum process.

It's a nonsense fix for a nonsense problem. The issue is congress does not want to do anything that threatens their re-election and thus they are abdicating to the executive branch.

 

[apdst]

If he would I'd support that platform. Instead, he wants a solution that doesn't fix the problem. The wall will not stop visa overstays nor will it stop the legal asylum process.

It's a nonsense fix for a nonsense problem. The issue is congress does not want to do anything that threatens their re-election and thus they are abdicating to the executive branch.

A president can't change immigration law.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It's very clearly broken. The entire visa system needs an overhaul. Same day citizenship?

I am for the following; immediate deportation of all illegals, from entrants to visa overstays.

The impact on the US economy arising from:

1. the removal of 30,000,000(ish) people from the US workforce will NOT be pleasant;
2. the impact of the sudden burdening of the US economy with the upkeep of the dependants of those 30,000,000(ish) people who are NOT, themselves, "illegal immigrants" will NOT be pleasant;
3. the financial impact on the US economy by the sudden cessation of all payments to banks and financial institutions that those 30,000,000(ish) people had been making on mortgages, loans, and/or credit cards will NOT be pleasant.

other than that, your first point sounds really __[fill in the blank]__.

Implementation of a strict merit based immigration system with expedited pathways to citizenship for those who offer something of rare benefit to the US,...

Absolutely, the US should officially set itself up as the drainer of all talent that other countries need to grow and progress.

...and a zero tolerance policy for those who come in illegally.

I can agree with that one.

Don't jail them, just deport them immediately. they are not us citizens and don't have rights to representation in my mind.

Obviously what is NOT in your mind are the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.

 

[Obscurity]

A president can't change immigration law.

I'm aware. Congress won't do it, so they're abdicating to trump, to make declarations. Congress won't do it because theyre too worried about re-election.

 

[dixon01767]

You support building a wall?

No. I support fixing immigration legally, and stopping congress from abdicating its responsibility to the executive.

Nothing illegal about building a wall

 

[dixon01767]

A president can't change immigration law.

DACA shows thats not true.

 

[apdst]

DACA shows thats not true.

DACA isn't legal.

 

[Oborosen]

Translation: You still cant support your claims with any facts or rational honest intellectual reason so you deflect. Yep things haven't changed one bit!
Let me know when your nutcase conspiracy theories become true!

You do know the difference between a claim and postulating something that might happen, correct?

What am I talking about, of course you don't. I guess that childishness is all you actually do know.

Still good to see you run once again J.

 

[Oborosen]

You're right, I don't care, as when I put the hypothetical I told you you couldn't pick none.

It's ok, we all recognize the color yellow when we see it.

Hah, calling me a coward when you're the one bowing to one extremist on preference to the other.

You might want to stop looking in that mirror now.

 

[Oborosen]

You drew the conclusion that because I said (in effect) "Is A then B." that what I had said "If and only if A then B.".

I didn't.

If the original statement had been "White Nationalists are NOT a threat." and I had responded "If you are a Black Nationalist, they are.", would you have concluded that I had said "White Nationalists are threat ONLY IF you are a "Black Nationalist"?

It's funny. You just mentioned weasel wording in your last post and now I'm getting fed this.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) You do know the difference between a claim and postulating something that might happen, correct?
What am I talking about, of course you don't. I guess that childishness is all you actually do know.

Still good to see you run once again J.

Translation: You still cant support your claims with any facts or rational honest intellectual reason so you deflect. Yep things haven't changed one bit! i keep owning your failed posts.
Let me know when your nutcase conspiracy theories become true!

 

[Oborosen]

All true, and all equally not dealing with the substance of the question.



Still not dealing with the substance of the question.



Still not dealing with the substance of the question.

PS - I am well aware of the fact that laws that aren't needed get passed. That wasn't what I was asking about. I was asking if there WOULD BE A NEED for the law.

PPS - I a case where "no one would talk to anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__, and no one would sell anything to anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__, and no one would buy anything from anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__, and everyone completely ignored (except to insult) anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__," it would be incredibly difficult for anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__ to "network" with anyone else who owned __[fill in the blank]__ - wouldn't it?

I guess you missed the point where its established that society had accepted such a way of life. Not such law would be needed in that case, if no one was coming forward in full to have such a practice abolished.

You'd possibly get such an occurrence several decades down the line. But not in the immediate age.

 

[Oborosen]

Translation: You still cant support your claims with any facts or rational honest intellectual reason so you deflect. Yep things haven't changed one bit! i keep owning your failed posts.
Let me know when your nutcase conspiracy theories become true!

The owning will happen when you actually do it and stop playing such childish games.

Once again, something that I'm pretty sure will never happen. Given your history on this site.

Later J, I'm done with you now.

 

[AGENT J]

The owning will happen when you actually do it and stop playing such childish games.

Once again, something that I'm pretty sure will never happen. Given your history on this site.

Later J, I'm done with you now.

Translation: You still cant support your claims with any facts or rational honest intellectual reason so you deflect. Yep things haven't changed one bit! i keep owning your failed posts.
Let me know when your nutcase conspiracy theories become true!

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Not familiar enough with Judaism to know but a big NO in regards to Christianity. Only the written doctrine of Islam dictates the form of government and law to be applied. Christian doctrine doesnt concern itself with such matters.

What you don't know about fundamentalist Christianity is a LOT.

 

[dixon01767]

What you don't know about fundamentalist Christianity is a LOT.

"My kingdom is not of this world...", "Render unto Ceasar, that which is Caesars...", "Obey all authorities institutited among men" and all of that. Christianity simply doesnt concern itself with such matterss.

 

[OlNate]

Hah, calling me a coward when you're the one bowing to one extremist on preference to the other.

You might want to stop looking in that mirror now.

You know, if you respond to me one more time, you're going to owe me dinner, at minimum. You can eat with me, I suggest you try the chicken.

:lol:

(You understand when you respond days later, no one really cares anymore, except for the lolz, right? You can't even utter the reality that your president is white, and a nationalist, therefore a white nationalist...seemingly because you immediately, and perhaps correctly, I'm not sure, I wouldn't go this far with the knowledge I have, translate into White Nationalist. And then you get all mad and insulting about it. This is by far one of the funniest threads I've been in here in a while. Good on you, sir. :lol: )

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

"My kingdom is not of this world...", "Render unto Ceasar, that which is Caesars...", "Obey all authorities institutited among men" and all of that. Christianity simply doesnt concern itself with such matterss.

What you don't know about fundamentalist Christianity is a LOT.

 

[Oborosen]

You know, if you respond to me one more time, you're going to owe me dinner, at minimum. You can eat with me, I suggest you try the chicken.

:lol:

(You understand when you respond days later, no one really cares anymore, except for the lolz, right? You can't even utter the reality that your president is white, and a nationalist, therefore a white nationalist...seemingly because you immediately, and perhaps correctly, I'm not sure, I wouldn't go this far with the knowledge I have, translate into White Nationalist. And then you get all mad and insulting about it. This is by far one of the funniest threads I've been in here in a while. Good on you, sir. :lol: )

Ah still on that little tizzy are you?

Too bad you're spending so much time agreeing with the equivalence of domestic terrorist, to actually understand just what kind of position you're in. But if you want to run, then go ahead.

I was away for the weekend, so I really didn't see the necessity of having to speak to such an intellectually dishonest individual on my day off.

So run away again all you like. I don't really care what you do at this point.

 

[TheParser]

The moral of this story: The House committee should NEVER have held such a hearing in the first place.

When you open a can of worms, what in the world do you expect to emerge?

 

[OlNate]

Ah still on that little tizzy are you?

Too bad you're spending so much time agreeing with the equivalence of domestic terrorist, to actually understand just what kind of position you're in. But if you want to run, then go ahead.

I was away for the weekend, so I really didn't see the necessity of having to speak to such an intellectually dishonest individual on my day off.

So run away again all you like. I don't really care what you do at this point.

Yet you continue to respond. I think that's nice.