Net Neutrality being overruled. please god tell me its a joke.

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

A. Sounds about right. It's always nice when nature does some of the work for us. If only there was such a natural structure that could aid in bordering Texas and Mexico. Like, for instance, the Rio Grande. It's a lovely sight, really should see it someday.

Nature does not naturally produce cement, refined bitumen and steel.

B. Never said it was going up over night, it's still going to be a huge undertaking, but it's not the ridiculous, insurmountable task that some would have you believe. Those some having no knowledge of construction.

Okay ... no, given that we have schematics of what he said he was going to build, and then we have details of how long it took to build something as flimsy as the Secure Fence Act (which, thank you for bringing up the Rio Grande, doesn't even manage to properly cross that) ...

C. Slave labor was a bit of a common thing back in the day, but I highly doubt Trump plans on utilizing slave labor in 2017. He was elected by people who want the wall, it's not the whim of some maniacal tyrant. Of course, that's how some people like to paint it.

That's precisely the point. You can't just have slaves building this thing. You have labourers ... who will demand standard occupational health and safety regs, who will demand a labourer's wage. The Great Wall of China would not have been built if by then equivalency to current equivalency, each labourer will be getting roughly 750g of gold bullion each year. And that's just labourers ... engineers would be demanding 3 to 4 kilos of gold bullion each year.

D. I refer you back to point C. Not to mention that any construction job is dangerous. Tons of people die every year in oil rigs, but I don't see the outcry about that. Besides, the wall will provide a lot of jobs to Texans that are sorely needed. You know, because unemployment has been so bad under Obama.

But it's not sustainable work. It doesn't go anywhere. You're just making pointless busywork and there's a billion other things you can do with the money that COULD provide real, longterm work. The companies hired to build the wall in each state will be different companies.

You could spend money on public works, public housing projects, improving schools, building dams, and a million other construction projects with the money you're spending. And the wall is provably not going to work.

E. Of course there will be challenges when trying to undertake something so big, but that doesn't mean it's not worth it. And there were domain problems with the chain link fence that went up years ago, so those should mostly be out of the way now. It certainly shouldn't be a reason not to move forward.

Putting aside the fact, no ... governments shouldn't whimsically implement things like eminent domain for no real reason. This is people's farms, homes, and livelihoods ... they're private property. That is a sign of a government that at best doesn't know what it's doing and at worst is fucking insane....

Putting aside that. The pouint is that the project's completion will not be met in his presidency. Not without outright theft of land and forced labour and disregarding any legal challenge made for people's constitutional rights. Hell, if anything ... there's no reason for any other president to respect what little will be done on it by the time his term is up.

It's 2017 now and they still haven't finished the fence proposed back in 2007. And that was just Texas. And that's just a set of steel poles bolted together ... that don't even cross the Rio Grande...

Build a steel and cement wall through all of that ... and that's just West Texas ... it's not even the funnest part of the stretch you'll have to fineagle.

 

[Just Ebola]

@Ebola_chan: Your views on Mexicans and Muslims says all I need to know.

And that you think "the majority decided" says more. There is literally no way that is true. Popular vote? Nope, Clinton won more. And even then less than half the country even voted. No, a minority of a minority decided and everyone is suffering for it.

And what do you know about my views on Muslims and Mexicans? You're suffering from the delusion that anyone who doesn't despise Trump is a horrible xenophobe. I haven't said anything bigoted about either group, but again, you seem to pick and choose which parts of my argument you latch onto. I've lived in Texas all my life and have actually been to Mexico. I'm guessing I've met more illegals and undocumented immigrants than you'll ever lay eyes on, but you can't comprehend that I might have a bit of perspective you lack. You need to believe that anyone who agrees with some of Trump's policies comes from a place of hate.

Again, a few lines of dismissive, throwaway text and absolutely no substance. Your persecution complex is preventing you from seeing anything beyond your own preconceived notions. And do you care to point out anything I said that was hateful towards muslims? Because I don't remember any such thing. What I do remember is you melting down and spouting off about Nazis and confederate flags out of nowhere.

You're views are so entrenched and misguided they seem to be causing you real distress. I already said it before (funny how often I have to repeat myself) but I think you need to seek help. And that's not a dig at you, I genuinely think it would be healthy for you.

As far as the popular vote- Trump won the majority of states, so the idea of a popular vote gets a bit blurry. And the only reason Hillary won as many as she did is because place like LA and NY, those smog factories I mentioned earlier are hiveminds of far-left thinking that have proven they'll vote democrat regardless of how shitty the candidate is.

As for the people who did cast a ballot? I guess more people should've pokemon GOne to the polls. Here's a fun fact that might surprise you: I didn't vote for Trump. And I was too young to vote in the 2012 election.

What are you on about? I'm not gonna type out a short novella just so you can add 2 or 3 sentences saying what amounts to "lol, nope".

Maybe flesh out whatever argument you're trying to make and try again.

Novellas are fiction, funnily enough. But to explain: you said that the sentiment behind 'sending' was not literal. Throughout the election campaign, people excused Trump's less normal statements by saying 'He doesn't mean literally' (for example, the wall). But he did! Even though it's ridiculous, like you said. Any clearer?

Re: your comment on people living in urban centres being unhappy about pollution. Unpleasant though densely populated urban centres are, urban living is much more efficient and environmentally friendly than a series of smaller populations (of the same total amount) spread over a much larger area. Infrastructure and all that.

I was always under the impression that the wall was always literal, since he campaigned on it so heavily. Again, do you honestly believe the government of Mexico is literally sending people over? Or are they coming over because they want to due to the horrible state that Mexico is in? Because I certainly think it's the latter.

And secondly, when did that become true? Here you go, and as a bonus, Cali, the example I listed is on the list. A lot. Fancy that. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/29/isis-finds-success-infiltrating-terrorists-into-re/

 

[Saelune]

@Ebola_chan: You keep proving my point. Really read the things you say. You pass ignorant judgement on Mexicans, and New Yorkers and others. You show a lack of understanding of the political sphere, and you twist and misrepresent me.

Nazis and Confederates out of nowhere? You need to go to the R&P section. It is not out of nowhere. One currently active topic is explicitly about the Confederate Flag.

 

[KaraFang]

I know you're under the impression that you're under threat/suffering, which you very well may be. But not from our government. Don't lose sight of the fact that we live in one of the greatest Democracies in the world. We're immensely lucky, but this just goes to show that you're very out of tune with how gays are treated in other parts of the world. You're sick of it? Imagine what you're feeling magnified by 1000 and then being pushed off a building, and remember how great life in America can be.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

I cannot help but feel that America stopped watching... became complacent.

Now you have a very, very unpredictable, short fused and dangerous man in power. Make sure your "Greatest Democracy" doesn't slowly get undermined until it's something VERY different.

 

[Just Ebola]

A. Sounds about right. It's always nice when nature does some of the work for us. If only there was such a natural structure that could aid in bordering Texas and Mexico. Like, for instance, the Rio Grande. It's a lovely sight, really should see it someday.

Nature does not naturally produce cement, bitumen and steel.

B. Never said it was going up over night, it's still going to be a huge undertaking, but it's not the ridiculous, insurmountable task that some would have you believe. Those some having no knowledge of construction.

Okay ... no, given that we have schematics of what he said he was going to build, and then we have details of how long it took to build something as flimsy as the Secure Fence Act (which, thank you for bringing up the Rio Grande, doesn't even manage to properly cross that) ...

C. Slave labor was a bit of a common thing back in the day, but I highly doubt Trump plans on utilizing slave labor in 2017. He was elected by people who want the wall, it's not the whim of some maniacal tyrant. Of course, that's how some people like to paint it.

That's precisely the point. You can't just have slaves building this thing. You have labourers ... who will demand standard occupational health and safety regs, who will demand a labourer's wage. The Great Wall of China would not have been built if by then equivalency to current equivalency, each labourer will be getting roughly 750g of gold bullion each year. And that's just labourers ... engineers would be demanding 3 to 4 kilos of gold bullion each year.

D. I refer you back to point C. Not to mention that any construction job is dangerous. Tons of people die every year in oil rigs, but I don't see the outcry about that. Besides, the wall will provide a lot of jobs to Texans that are sorely needed. You know, because unemployment has been so bad under Obama.

But it's not sustainable work. I doiesn't go anywhere. You're just making pointless busywork and there's a billion other things you can do with the money that COULD provide real, longterm work. The companies hired to build the wall in each state will be different companies.

You could spend money on public works, public housing projects, improving schools, building dams, and million construction projects with the money you're spending. And the wall is provably not going to work.

E. Of course there will be challenges when trying to undertake something so big, but that doesn't mean it's not worth it. And there were domain problems with the chain link fence that went up years ago, so those should mostly be out of the way now. It certainly shouldn't be a reason not to move forward.

Putting aside the fact, no ... governments shouldn't whimsically implement things like eminent domain for no real reason. This is people's farms, homes, and livelihoods ... they're private property. That is a sign of a government that at best doesn't know what it's doing and at worst is fucking insane....

Putting aside that. The pouint is that the project's completion will not be met in his presidency. Not without outright theft of land and forced labour and disregarding any legal challenge made for people's constitutional rights. Hell, if anything ... there's no reason for any other president to respect what little will be done on it by the time his term is up.

It's 2017 now and they still haven't finished the fence proposed back in 2007. And that was just Texas. And that's just a set of steel poles bolted together ... that don't even cross the Rio Grande...

1. Never said it did, just that they should let the environment do some of the work for them. I think incorporating the Rio Grande into the barrier would be a great way to cut corners and save time/money.

2. Just... what? What are you saying no to? You said it like you were saying something contrary to my point, and then started in on something unrelated.

3. Of course the laborers will want to be compensated, and compared to how the US government spends, it won't be a drop in the bucket. And you seem to be making 2 contrary points, you argue about how temporary the work will be and then turn around and argue about how long it'll take so which is it? And not to mention, we don't operate on gold doubloons, so your point is kind of void.

4. There's nothing whimsical about it, I don't think anyone is taking the relocation lightly. And again, I'm a Texas native, I have a pretty good grasp on how it's going to affect the surrounding areas, and it's completely worth it. And of course it won't be complete in the next 4 years, how many times must I say that it's going to take awhile before it sinks in?

You realize the walls going up regardless, so what are you trying to accomplish? I'll still be happy about it and you'll still be unhappy about it.

 

[Baffle]

I was always under the impression that the wall was always literal, since he campaigned on it so heavily.

Said an awful lot about sending Hillary to prison too. She still at large?

Again, do you honestly believe the government of Mexico is literally sending people over? Or are they coming over because they want to due to the horrible state that Mexico is in? Because I certainly think it's the latter.

No, I don't think they're sending people over, Trump thinks they're sending people over. It's exactly what he said. Campaigned heavily on it.

And secondly, when did that become true? Here you go, and as a bonus, Cali, the example I listed is on the list. A lot. Fancy that. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/29/isis-finds-success-infiltrating-terrorists-into-re/

I don't even know what you're referring to with this. When did what become true? Are we not talking about the wall now?

 

[Just Ebola]

@Ebola_chan: You keep proving my point. Really read the things you say. You pass ignorant judgement on Mexicans, and New Yorkers and others. You show a lack of understanding of the political sphere, and you twist and misrepresent me.

Nazis and Confederates out of nowhere? You need to go to the R&P section. It is not out of nowhere. One currently active topic is explicitly about the Confederate Flag.

I'm not proving your point, nothing you've said has been of any substance. And when I said "out of nowhere" I meant it had nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Of course there are racists in the world. And again, way to not address anything I've said and just respond with "I'm right, I just don't feel the need to prove it.. trust me."

I'm passing judgment but not blindly, and again (again) I asked you to pinpoint something bigoted I said, and surprise, there's nothing. You're the one pointing fingers in every direction, seeing shadows of hatred and persecution everywhere, lumping me and others in with groups that preach hate and division.

And I'm the one blindly judging? You're crossing the line into delusion at this point. Your refusal to address my points and instead write a few lines proclaiming how righteous you are is not convincing me. This level of close-mindedness is just mindboggling.

 

[Just Ebola]

I was always under the impression that the wall was always literal, since he campaigned on it so heavily.

Said an awful lot about sending Hillary to prison too. She still at large?

Again, do you honestly believe the government of Mexico is literally sending people over? Or are they coming over because they want to due to the horrible state that Mexico is in? Because I certainly think it's the latter.

No, I don't think they're sending people over, Trump thinks they're sending people over. It's exactly what he said. Campaigned heavily on it.

And secondly, when did that become true? Here you go, and as a bonus, Cali, the example I listed is on the list. A lot. Fancy that. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/29/isis-finds-success-infiltrating-terrorists-into-re/

I don't even know what you're referring to with this. When did what become true? Are we not talking about the wall now?

Again, we're just over 2 weeks in, give it a minute. But if he did throw her in jail, how long until you claimed he was a fascist dictator, imprisoning his detractors? I'm guessing not long.

If Trump thinks that, good for him. Who knows what goes on under that hairstyle. Again, I don't agree with everything he says/thinks.

And apparently not, You said something that sounded untrue so I looked it up. I'm not digging this rabbit hole, I'm just following it ever downwards.

 

[Saelune]

@Ebola_chan:

I think the crossed wire here is that "sending" denotes that Mexico is intentionally rounding up their undesirable onto a party bus or something and shipping them over here to spite the US. I guess I misremembered the part about him not saying sending, but the sentiment behind it isn't literal. That would be ridiculous.

As far as the wall, nothing else has worked, illegals still pour over unchecked, why not try something new? keep in mind that it won't just be a wall, it's going to be staffed, patrolled, likely equipped with CCTV and might even employ drones. You can cite the price all you want, but compared to the existing national debt (You know, the one Obama increased more than any other president in history, but nobody seems to bring that up?) that's barely a drop in the bucket. You can act like the idea of a wall is preposterous, but walls have a pretty good fucking track record.

The Great Wall of China is 5,503.3 miles long, and was constructed without the benefit of modern technology. The entirety of the Texas/Mexican border is 1,254 miles long. Feel free to roll your eyes until they pop out of your skull, but it's a very feasible undertaking. And like I said, even if it doesn't stop all illegals, it will make a massive dent in the amount of drugs that are being trafficked over, and that's the primary reason I support that wall. The US doesn't owe it to you, or to anyone else to keep it's borders open, it's a free country and the people have spoken. Not to mention the fact that it's a great deterrent, even if it isn't 100% impregnable. If you knew there was a wall around your local Starbucks, even if you knew you could scale it- let's be honest. You'd probably just go to Dunkin' instead. That is, assuming you even live in the US, I'm starting to get the impression you don't.

And yea, as a Texas citizen (who's actually been to parts of Mexico and the border, and have seen it with my own eyes) I'd be glad to see my taxes go to the wall rather than shipped to Palestine, like the last president was fond of doing. I am such a big believer after all.

Right, I suppose it doesn't matter to you that of most of the terrorist attacks in the US (that have been growing in frequency at an unprecedented rate) were committed by people radicalized by these terror groups that are [/I] based[/I] out of some of the countries that are on the "ban"? And let's not pretend that extremists haven't tried to use legal immigration to infiltrate the US and other countries. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/29/isis-finds-success-infiltrating-terrorists-into-re/

This whole post pretty much.

 

[Baffle]

And apparently not, You said something that sounded untrue so I looked it up. I'm not digging this rabbit hole, I'm just following it ever downwards.

What did I say that sounded untrue? I honestly don't know what you're referring to, but if you've looked it up, please do say because I'm befuddled. If you mean the environmental thing, your response was nothing to do with that.

Re: Hillary. She hasn't really been a detractor since the election, so it wouldn't be a fair claim to make. And don't guess what I'd do, it's rude. At least keep it to yourself.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

[
1. Never said it did, just that they should let the environment do some of the work for them. I think incorporating the Rio Grande into the barrier would be a great way to cut corners and save time/money.

Oh great, the one place we won't wall off being one of the biggest corridors of drugs into the continental U.S?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/30/rio-grande-is-hot-spot-for-pot-smugglers/7066181/

2. Just... what? What are you saying no to? You said it like you were saying something contrary to my point, and then started in on something unrelated.

No, it is precisely the ridiculous task that you keep downplaying its ridiculousness. You have provided no real commentary to suggest otherwise.

3. Of course the laborers will want to be compensated, and compared to how the US government spends, it won't be a drop in the bucket. And you seem to be making 2 contrary points, you argue about how temporary the work will be and then turn around and argue about how long it'll take so which is it? And not to mention, we don't operate on gold doubloons, so your point is kind of void.

Airports and highways generate revenue. They also generate industries associated. You encourage greater industrial use of land in the surrounding area. The wall won't. Once a section of it that one construction firm has been contracted to provide labour for has been finished, that's it. Secondly, neither were Chinese labourers paid in U.S. dollars, to make it comparable to what you can imagine some conscripted workforce in the ancient world might have been paid, gold bars seems like a pretty good comparison of receivership of wealth ... as in, wow this is going to be a hell of a lot more expensive than your ridiculous comparison of the Great Wall.

4. There's nothing whimsical about it, I don't think anyone is taking the relocation lightly. And again, I'm a Texas native, I have a pretty good grasp on how it's going to affect the surrounding areas, and it's completely worth it. And of course it won't be complete in the next 4 years, how many times must I say that it's going to take awhile before it sinks in?

Then why do you expect any other president to complete it?

You realize the walls going up regardless, so what are you trying to accomplish? I'll still be happy about it and you'll still be unhappy about it.

Citation needed. Really, I need a good laugh. I mean no one completed the Secure Fence Act but apparently the Wall is totally going to be built.

 

[Just Ebola]

This whole post pretty much.

This is a joke, right? I point out how unsubstantiated your arguments are, and you respond by contributing even less. Literally anyone can point to something and say "this". This has gotten to the point of being ridiculous, and I'm going to take this as you realizing that your arguments don't have a leg to stand on.

I've been compassionate, I've tried to be encouraging and make you feel better about the future of the country and in return I get... well, "this". My opinions differ from yours, so therefore I must be a bad guy, right? There's literally no other explanation.

You've clearly tuned out of this, so I'm going to do the same. You're obviously not going to say anything of value, so we're done. You're dead-set on being miserable about the future of America, and that's your choice, though it makes me sad to see.

Have a nice life and enjoy the next 4 years.

And apparently not, You said something that sounded untrue so I looked it up. I'm not digging this rabbit hole, I'm just following it ever downwards.

What did I say that sounded untrue? I honestly don't know what you're referring to, but if you've looked it up, please do say because I'm befuddled. If you mean the environmental thing, your response was nothing to do with that.

Re: Hillary. She hasn't really been a detractor since the election, so it wouldn't be a fair claim to make. And don't guess what I'd do, it's rude. At least keep it to yourself.

You said something to the effect of big cityscapes more eco-friendly than less densely populated areas. I looked it up, and of course it's untrue. But I honestly don't care, this thread has been derailed enough as it is.

As far as Hilary.. what? She's doing everything in her power to delegitimize the Trump presidency. She's called for recounts to pathetic results, after throwing a fit about how Trump needs to "accept the results of the election". But I guess she meant only if she won, of course.http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/26/politics/clinton-campaign-recount/

[
1. Never said it did, just that they should let the environment do some of the work for them. I think incorporating the Rio Grande into the barrier would be a great way to cut corners and save time/money.

Oh great, the one place we won't wall off being one of the biggest corridors of drugs into the continental U.S?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/30/rio-grande-is-hot-spot-for-pot-smugglers/7066181/

2. Just... what? What are you saying no to? You said it like you were saying something contrary to my point, and then started in on something unrelated.

No, it is precisely the ridiculous task that you keep downplaying its ridiculousness. You have provided no real commentary to suggest otherwise.

3. Of course the laborers will want to be compensated, and compared to how the US government spends, it won't be a drop in the bucket. And you seem to be making 2 contrary points, you argue about how temporary the work will be and then turn around and argue about how long it'll take so which is it? And not to mention, we don't operate on gold doubloons, so your point is kind of void.

Airports and highways generate revenue. They also generate industries associated. You encourage greater industrial use of land in the surrounding area. The wall won't. Once a section of it that one construction firm has been contracted to provide labour for has been finished, that's it. Secondly, neither were Chinese labourers paid in U.S. dollars, to make it comparable to what you can imagine some conscripted workforce in the ancient world might have been paid, gold bars seems like a pretty good comparison of receivership of wealth ... as in, wow this is going to be a hell of a lot more expensive than your ridiculous comparison of the Great Wall.

4. There's nothing whimsical about it, I don't think anyone is taking the relocation lightly. And again, I'm a Texas native, I have a pretty good grasp on how it's going to affect the surrounding areas, and it's completely worth it. And of course it won't be complete in the next 4 years, how many times must I say that it's going to take awhile before it sinks in?

Then why do you expect any other president to complete it?

You realize the walls going up regardless, so what are you trying to accomplish? I'll still be happy about it and you'll still be unhappy about it.

Citation needed. Really, I need a good laugh. I mean no one completed the Secure Fence Act but apparently the Wall is totally going to be built.

Wow, you're determined to misconstrue my words. I never suggested that the Rio Grande should be a huge blind spot, so maybe don't put words in my mouth. I'm suggesting that they take advantage of the natural landscape to maybe not use as many resources.

What makes you think the wall is going to be abandoned when it's construction is complete? If anything, it'll be bustling for year and years to come, the patrols, labor and families who will likely move close by to be with their family members will see to that. Of course I'm just assuming that families won't want to go 6 months at a time without seeing family that's working on the wall. In a few generations there could be a decently sized town near the border wall.

And the reason I drew a comparison to the Great Wall was to prove that massive wall aren't as impossible as people might think. You're the one who burrowed into antiquated specifics, making it a "ridiculous" argument.

I'm confident that it's going to happen because it was the biggest lynch pin of Trump's campaign and he seems to want to pursue the idea still. After being elected is when most politicians (Hillary) would've started back peddling, but that hasn't happened yet. I'm sorry if you can't see which way the wind is blowing, but I would start getting used to the idea if I were you. Remember how everyone said that Trump would never win the election in a million years? Yea, maybe brush up on your pattern recognition skills, because change is coming.

Not Obama's change, but actual change.

 

[Zhukov]

I think the crossed wire here is that "sending" denotes that Mexico is intentionally rounding up their undesirable onto a party bus or something and shipping them over here to spite the US. I guess I misremembered the part about him not saying sending, but the sentiment behind it isn't literal. That would be ridiculous.

Haha.

"Trump said X"
"I don't think he did, that would be ridiculous."
"No, he really did. Look."
"Well... he doesn't mean it!"

Strong argument. I'm convinced!

As far as the wall, nothing else has worked, illegals still pour over unchecked, why not try something new? keep in mind that it won't just be a wall, it's going to be staffed, patrolled, likely equipped with CCTV and might even employ drones. You can cite the price all you want, but compared to the existing national debt (You know, the one Obama increased more than any other president in history, but nobody seems to bring that up?) that's barely a drop in the bucket. You can act like the idea of a wall is preposterous, but walls have a pretty good fucking track record.

Yeah, it's almost like Obama had to deal with a little thing called the Global Financial Crisis right at the start of his term. I hear those tend to be kinda expensive.

You think that's a good reason to throw good money after bad? That's your argument?

The Great Wall of China is 5,503.3 miles long, and was constructed without the benefit of modern technology. The entirety of the Texas/Mexican border is 1,254 miles long. Feel free to roll your eyes until they pop out of your skull, but it's a very feasible undertaking.

Buddy, is that really a comparison you want to be making? The Great Wall of China took literal centuries to build and used unpaid labour (slaves, essentially).

Don't you worry buddy, my eyes are a-rollin'.

If you knew there was a wall around your local Starbucks, even if you knew you could scale it- let's be honest. You'd probably just go to Dunkin' instead.

Oh good God. That analogy.

See, you're implying that Mexican drug suppliers have an alternative nearby wealthy nation with a huge demand for drugs to sell to. A Dunkin' Donuts to the Starbucks of the US. That isn't the case.

The drugs will flow, not because your border is unsecured but because your nation is wealthy and thirsty as fuck for drugs. Where there is a demand, a supply will follow.

That is, assuming you even live in the US, I'm starting to get the impression you don't.

Nope, Australian.

My laughter comes to you all the way across the Pacific Ocean.

Right, I suppose it doesn't matter to you that of most of the terrorist attacks in the US (that have been growing in frequency at an unprecedented rate) were committed by people radicalized by these terror groups that are [/I] based[/I] out of some of the countries that are on the "ban"?

"Growing in frequency at an unprecedented rate?"

Hahaha.

Yeah, no. Here's an article with a nice little graph [http://www.ibtimes.com/terrorism-attacks-911-have-involved-us-citizens-not-immigrants-despite-gop-debate-2228202]. Here's the dense date if you want to look deeper [http://www.start.umd.edu/research-projects/terrorism-and-extremist-violence-united-states-tevus-database]. Although we both know that you won't.

The short version is that incidents of terrorism in the USA have declined remained relatively steady since declining from their heyday in the 70s. The vast majority, about 80%, of terror perpetrators in the US are US-born. And those are split about half-half between Jihadists and Right-Wing Extremists.

And let's not pretend that extremists haven't tried to use legal immigration to infiltrate the US and other countries. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/29/isis-finds-success-infiltrating-terrorists-into-re/

Oh dear. Are you aware of the difference between immigrants and refugees?

And look, a source!

...

A source which doesn't mention any attacks being carried out in the US by immigrants. It refers to cases of US born citizens being radicalized and cites attacks that took place in Europe.

You did read it before linking it right? You didn't just google "isis refugee terrorists" and then link the first thing that looked good, did you?

 

[Silvanus]

And the reason I drew a comparison to the Great Wall was to prove that massive wall aren't as impossible as people might think. You're the one who burrowed into antiquated specifics, making it a "ridiculous" argument.

"Antiquated specifics" being... the actual process of building it? The costs, methods, and death toll? Those details are the most relevant ones, bar none. If none of them are transferable to Trump's wall-- and they're not, at all, in any way-- then the analogy itself is pretty worthless, isn't it? It doesn't prove a thing if not a single one of the factors apply.

After being elected is when most politicians (Hillary) would've started back peddling, but that hasn't happened yet.

Yeah, no back-pedalling here! Certainly not on who is going to pay for that very wall!

 

[Saelune]

@Ebola_chan: You have shown no compassion. You have been rude and dismissive of my issues. I will put it plainly. You probably wont like it, you will probably dismiss it, but it need be said.

Check your privilege.

Meanwhile I will continue to worry as an LGBT person that I wont soon have to worry about being assaulted or kicked out of businesses or beat up for having to use the bathroom.

 

[Just Ebola]

I think the crossed wire here is that "sending" denotes that Mexico is intentionally rounding up their undesirable onto a party bus or something and shipping them over here to spite the US. I guess I misremembered the part about him not saying sending, but the sentiment behind it isn't literal. That would be ridiculous.

Haha.

"Trump said X"
"I don't think he did, that would be ridiculous."
"No, he really did. Look."
"Well... he doesn't mean it!"

Strong argument. I'm convinced!

As far as the wall, nothing else has worked, illegals still pour over unchecked, why not try something new? keep in mind that it won't just be a wall, it's going to be staffed, patrolled, likely equipped with CCTV and might even employ drones. You can cite the price all you want, but compared to the existing national debt (You know, the one Obama increased more than any other president in history, but nobody seems to bring that up?) that's barely a drop in the bucket. You can act like the idea of a wall is preposterous, but walls have a pretty good fucking track record.

Yeah, it's almost like Obama had to deal with a little thing called the Global Financial Crisis right at the start of his term. I hear those tend to be kinda expensive.

You think that's a good reason to throw good money after bad? That's your argument?

The Great Wall of China is 5,503.3 miles long, and was constructed without the benefit of modern technology. The entirety of the Texas/Mexican border is 1,254 miles long. Feel free to roll your eyes until they pop out of your skull, but it's a very feasible undertaking.

Buddy, is that really a comparison you want to be making? The Great Wall of China took literal centuries to build and used unpaid labour (slaves, essentially).

Don't you worry buddy, my eyes are a-rollin'.

If you knew there was a wall around your local Starbucks, even if you knew you could scale it- let's be honest. You'd probably just go to Dunkin' instead.

Oh good God. That analogy.

See, you're implying that Mexican drug suppliers have an alternative nearby wealthy nation with a huge demand for drugs to sell to. A Dunkin' Donuts to the Starbucks of the US. That isn't the case.

The drugs will flow, not because your border is unsecured but because your nation is wealthy and thirsty as fuck for drugs. Where there is a demand, a supply will follow.

That is, assuming you even live in the US, I'm starting to get the impression you don't.

Nope, Australian.

My laughter comes to you all the way across the Pacific Ocean.

Right, I suppose it doesn't matter to you that of most of the terrorist attacks in the US (that have been growing in frequency at an unprecedented rate) were committed by people radicalized by these terror groups that are [/I] based[/I] out of some of the countries that are on the "ban"?

"Growing in frequency at an unprecedented rate?"

Hahaha.

Yeah, no. Here's an article with a nice little graph [http://www.ibtimes.com/terrorism-attacks-911-have-involved-us-citizens-not-immigrants-despite-gop-debate-2228202]. Here's the dense date if you want to look deeper [http://www.start.umd.edu/research-projects/terrorism-and-extremist-violence-united-states-tevus-database]. Although we both know that you won't.

The short version is that incidents of terrorism in the USA have declined remained relatively steady since declining from their heyday in the 70s. The vast majority, about 80%, of terror perpetrators in the US are US-born. And those are split about half-half between Jihadists and Right-Wing Extremists.

And let's not pretend that extremists haven't tried to use legal immigration to infiltrate the US and other countries. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/29/isis-finds-success-infiltrating-terrorists-into-re/

Oh dear. Are you aware of the difference between immigrants and refugees?

And look, a source!

...

A source which doesn't mention any attacks being carried out in the US by immigrants. It refers to cases of US born citizens being radicalized and cites attacks that took place in Europe.

You did read it before linking it right? You didn't just google "isis refugee terrorists" and then link the first thing that looked good, did you?

I think the crossed wire here is that "sending" denotes that Mexico is intentionally rounding up their undesirable onto a party bus or something and shipping them over here to spite the US. I guess I misremembered the part about him not saying sending, but the sentiment behind it isn't literal. That would be ridiculous.

Haha.

"Trump said X"
"I don't think he did, that would be ridiculous."
"No, he really did. Look."
"Well... he doesn't mean it!"

Strong argument. I'm convinced!

As far as the wall, nothing else has worked, illegals still pour over unchecked, why not try something new? keep in mind that it won't just be a wall, it's going to be staffed, patrolled, likely equipped with CCTV and might even employ drones. You can cite the price all you want, but compared to the existing national debt (You know, the one Obama increased more than any other president in history, but nobody seems to bring that up?) that's barely a drop in the bucket. You can act like the idea of a wall is preposterous, but walls have a pretty good fucking track record.

Yeah, it's almost like Obama had to deal with a little thing called the Global Financial Crisis right at the start of his term. I hear those tend to be kinda expensive.

You think that's a good reason to throw good money after bad? That's your argument?

The Great Wall of China is 5,503.3 miles long, and was constructed without the benefit of modern technology. The entirety of the Texas/Mexican border is 1,254 miles long. Feel free to roll your eyes until they pop out of your skull, but it's a very feasible undertaking.

Buddy, is that really a comparison you want to be making? The Great Wall of China took literal centuries to build and used unpaid labour (slaves, essentially).

Don't you worry buddy, my eyes are a-rollin'.

If you knew there was a wall around your local Starbucks, even if you knew you could scale it- let's be honest. You'd probably just go to Dunkin' instead.

Oh good God. That analogy.

See, you're implying that Mexican drug suppliers have an alternative nearby wealthy nation with a huge demand for drugs to sell to. A Dunkin' Donuts to the Starbucks of the US. That isn't the case.

The drugs will flow, not because your border is unsecured but because your nation is wealthy and thirsty as fuck for drugs. Where there is a demand, a supply will follow.

That is, assuming you even live in the US, I'm starting to get the impression you don't.

Nope, Australian.

My laughter comes to you all the way across the Pacific Ocean.

Right, I suppose it doesn't matter to you that of most of the terrorist attacks in the US (that have been growing in frequency at an unprecedented rate) were committed by people radicalized by these terror groups that are [/I] based[/I] out of some of the countries that are on the "ban"?

"Growing in frequency at an unprecedented rate?"

Hahaha.

Yeah, no. Here's an article with a nice little graph [http://www.ibtimes.com/terrorism-attacks-911-have-involved-us-citizens-not-immigrants-despite-gop-debate-2228202]. Here's the dense date if you want to look deeper [http://www.start.umd.edu/research-projects/terrorism-and-extremist-violence-united-states-tevus-database]. Although we both know that you won't.

The short version is that incidents of terrorism in the USA have declined remained relatively steady since declining from their heyday in the 70s. The vast majority, about 80%, of terror perpetrators in the US are US-born. And those are split about half-half between Jihadists and Right-Wing Extremists.

And let's not pretend that extremists haven't tried to use legal immigration to infiltrate the US and other countries. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/29/isis-finds-success-infiltrating-terrorists-into-re/

Oh dear. Are you aware of the difference between immigrants and refugees?

And look, a source!

...

A source which doesn't mention any attacks being carried out in the US by immigrants. It refers to cases of US born citizens being radicalized and cites attacks that took place in Europe.

You did read it before linking it right? You didn't just google "isis refugee terrorists" and then link the first thing that looked good, did you?

We're really testing the lines of good taste here aren't we? Is there a particular reason you're latching onto a couple of words I already admitted to misremembering? I'm sure it's not because you're incapable of defending the other points I've made, that'd be (to use a word that's been thrown around a lot today) ridiculous.

It's funny how Obama gets a pass for inheriting problems but Trump gets slammed for inheriting and even worse US, thanks in no small part to Obama's many, many fuckups. Gotta love that hypocrisy that accompanies so many far left arguments. Turn a blind eye to what doesn't fit your narrative, it's worked so well that the US is trying to turn as far away from the democratic party.

It was supposed to be a bit of a popcorn analogy, I didn't expect you to latch onto it as super serious. My mistake. I was pointing out the fact that a wall can be really effective as a deterrent, way to take that one and run with it. I do enjoy the snide comments though. Besides, the point is to make it nigh impossible for them to bring drugs over, even though there are no good substitute to the American drug market nearby. That's kind of the point.

And speaking of drugs, they bring over a fuck ton. But having lived in the state that borders Mexico all your life, I'm sure you're familiar with all the nuances and ends-and-outs of the American/Mexican relationship, right? Oh wait, that's me. While we're pretending we know everything about each other's countries, is it true you have spiders that eat chickens over there?

I've seen the drugs and the effects they have on the people over here. Just how many friend's have you lost because they got some bad heroin from their cousin in Juarez? I promise it's not as many as I have. Or how many friends have lost family to cartel members? I wish I was making this up, but One of my closest friends had a niece who's head was found in a drink cooler south of the border. Forgive me for not wanting to see this kind of thing continue in my homeland.

Do you really think I'm some kind of monster who doesn't see this as a human issue? Whether you want to believe it or not, I know what I'm talking about. I've seen it first hand, you haven't. But yes, by all means continue to cast judgment from your place of superiority. On another continent.

A terrorist attack is a terrorist attack, I never said it was a US-exclusive problem. But thanks for presuming things about me that you have no business to. Even though I have an unpopular opinion, I've at least tried to stay civil. Maybe you should try to do the same, cause it kind of undercuts the whole big-hearted progressive thing you're going for.

And the reason I drew a comparison to the Great Wall was to prove that massive wall aren't as impossible as people might think. You're the one who burrowed into antiquated specifics, making it a "ridiculous" argument.

"Antiquated specifics" being... the actual process of building it? The costs, methods, and death toll? Those details are the most relevant ones, bar none. If none of them are transferable to Trump's wall-- and they're not, at all, in any way-- then the analogy itself is pretty worthless, isn't it? It doesn't prove a thing if not a single one of the factors apply.

After being elected is when most politicians (Hillary) would've started back peddling, but that hasn't happened yet.

Yeah, no back-pedalling here! Certainly not on who is going to pay for that very wall!

Antiquated specifics of building a centuries old wall. The labor and gold that was used has zero relevance to the discussion that's happening now. People are always talking about how building a border wall is implausible, so I used an example of a well-known and historic border wall to point out that it's not so far fetched after all. Pretty easy line of logic to follow, that's the beginning and end of the comparison I made.

@Ebola_chan: You have shown no compassion. You have been rude and dismissive of my issues. I will put it plainly. You probably wont like it, you will probably dismiss it, but it need be said.

Check your privilege.

Meanwhile I will continue to worry as an LGBT person that I wont soon have to worry about being assaulted or kicked out of businesses or beat up for having to use the bathroom.

No compassion? I've shown genuine concern for your well-being even though you've been callously writing me off and being insulting. Of course, I disagree so I'm practically a Saturday morning cartoon villain.

And what a Tumblr-tastic answer to everything I've said. That's much better than actually responding to anything I've said with tact, or real tangible arguments.

And I'll reiterate, I'm a member of the same LGBT community as you. Just because I'm not outraged I'm worthy of all the shit you've leveled at me? You truly are a testament to the belief that there's no talking to the entrenched far left. Spewing hatred will certainly heal the cripplingly divided country, I can't wait for 4 more years of it.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

And I'll reiterate, I'm a member of the same LGBT community as you.

And the Religious Freedom Protection Act being put through as an executive order doesn't make you nervous?

 

[Just Ebola]

And I'll reiterate, I'm a member of the same LGBT community as you.

And the Religious Freedom Protection Act being put through as an executive order doesn't make you nervous?

Not really. In my experience, homophobic assholes are going to be assholes regardless of whatever legal protections are in place. I can only speak for myself here, but if a business rejects me because of their misguided hangups- I don't want whatever they're shilling.

Gay marriage is legal, and we have equal protections under the law. Even though gay marriage being legalized is fairly recent, I feel like people forget how amazing that is. There are countries who murder and oppress their gays. So it's kind of hard for me to get bent out of shape over a few bills that will likely only affect the LGBT community tangentially, if at all.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

Not really. In my experience, homophobic assholes are going to be assholes regardless of whatever legal protections are in place.

But you're okay if they now have the law on their side?

I can only speak for myself here, but if a business rejects me because of their misguided hangups- I don't want whatever they're shilling.

Even if it's the only service of that type in your area? Even if it's your very housing situation? Your employer?

Better hope it never happens at a pharmacy or an auto body shop if you need it.

Gay marriage is legal, and we have equal protections under the law. Even though gay marriage being legalized is fairly recent, I feel like people forget how amazing that is.

And how tooth and nail conservatives fought it.

So it's kind of hard for me to get bent out of shape over a few bills that will likely only affect the LGBT community tangentially, if at all.

A bill completely legitimizing and legalizing discrimination against LGBT's is "tangentially"?

 

[Just Ebola]

Not really. In my experience, homophobic assholes are going to be assholes regardless of whatever legal protections are in place.

But you're okay if they now have the law on their side?

I can only speak for myself here, but if a business rejects me because of their misguided hangups- I don't want whatever they're shilling.

Even if it's the only service of that type in your area? Even if it's your very housing situation? Your employer?

Better hope it never happens at a pharmacy or an auto body shop if you need it.

Gay marriage is legal, and we have equal protections under the law. Even though gay marriage being legalized is fairly recent, I feel like people forget how amazing that is.

And how tooth and nail conservatives fought it.

So it's kind of hard for me to get bent out of shape over a few bills that will likely only affect the LGBT community tangentially, if at all.

A bill completely legitimizing and legalizing discrimination against LGBT's is "tangentially"?

You seem to forget that this is a freedom of religious practice bill, not an "It's ok to marginalize and beat up gays" bill. I realize that the Escapist has a particularly low opinion of religious people- well, mostly Christianity for some reason, but I don't share in that pessimism. The very case that spurred this on was Hobby Lobby not wanting to supply birth control, it has nothing to do with gay rights.

So yea, I don't imagine everyone with a hard-on for hating gays is a business owner just waiting for an excuse to bully gay Americans. But then again, I am a slave to whimsy, and a notorious optimist so maybe take that with a grain of salt.

And to answer your question- yes, even if it were my favorite Chinese takeout place. And yea of course some republicans fought it, but what does that matter? There's almost no bill that has unanimous bi-partisan support. If you want me to answer for every bone-headed move the republican party has made then... well I hate to disappoint. There are a lot of shitty republicans, just like there are a lot of shitty democrats.

Not to mention that I have enough faith in the judicial system that I believe they can see through people actually just practicing their religion, and people just using religion as a shroud to practice their homophobia.