The puppy isn’t the reason-The puppy is the excuse…and if there was no puppy he would pretend there was a puppy.
Yes, but, whenever one wants to debate the former, you insist on only talking about the latter.
No, I’m happy to debate the former.
Okay, so do you think that we should loosen restrictions on immigration, giving people who want to come here a real and reasonable path to immigrate that does not involve having a decades long wait, assuming that they can even get into that line?
'Cause if we did that, then the vast majority of immigrants who come here unlawfully will be able to do so lawfully, and the question of what to do with those who still come here unlawfully becomes much easier to answer.
That sounds great. I suppose my question to you, in turn, would be: what sorts of things, if they turn up in the process that should take less than decades, do you think should produce a ‘no’ from us rather than a ‘yes’?
I’ll start. Virtually everyone agrees that a criminal background should produce a ‘no’. Like, everyone except poorly constructed straw men.
seems this is another wedge that’s going to kill the GOP There’s more to it as it goes on to show the general reaction of the moderate GOP members …
Yeah, the term “imported” is quite objectifying. Human beings migrate; objects are “imported”.
We sometimes speak of businesses “importing” foreign workers for specific tasks, but I don’t think that’s the type of immigration these guys are trying to get their constituents riled up about.
Wow. Freedom Caucus member and one of the most conservative members of congress Ken Buck can see it. I wonder why @The_Other_Waldo_Pepper can’t?
House minority leader Kevin McCarthy sees it. Somehow still a mystery to @The_Other_Waldo_Pepper.
…what, precisely, do you think I’m not seeing?
Ok. You see the hatefulness and ignorance of American history and values. Good to know that you’re getting all that and still find the need to defend parts of it as ‘sensible’.
You’re starting to come off, more than a bit, as a total piece of shit, FYI.
As you say: parts of it.
What kind of human garbage reads through a screed, that he recognizes as hateful and ignorant of American history and values, looking for parts to defend?
Do you really pick berries out of shit and eat them? Because that’s what you’re trying to do here, and then wondering why people think you stink.
Are the insults necessary?
Absolutely. Dipshit.
If you prefer that to discussion, you’re welcome to it; if you change your mind, I’m obliging.
Person A disagrees with me about whether the government should allow alcohol sales, at what exact percentage of income taxes should be levied, whether decisions about building a large bridge in my town should be made at least partially in my community or only at the state or Federal level, whether Facebook should be allowed to sell my info based on somebody else’s consent, and whether it’s a bright idea to have two or three large companies wind up owning almost all the genetic diversity of farm crops.
Person B agrees with me on all of that; but disagrees with me about whether they ought to be allowed to murder, exile, and/or enslave me and significant numbers of the rest of the human inhabitants of the country.
Do you really seriously think that it’s remotely rational for me to vote for Person B?
And do you really think I’m going to be happy about it if you say ‘four items of agreement are better than one, so I’m voting for B’?
Strawman.
Nobody’s saying that if you disagree overall with a racist statement, that you have to disavow everything that appears to be agreed with in that statement. That would indeed be absurd. But it’s not remotely the same thing as disavowing the people who made the statement, or the statement itself taken as a whole, because of the entirety of what they said.
What, precisely, do you mean by open borders?
He sees it. He’s just refusing to acknowledge the racism or talk about the racism. He is desperately trying to re-frame this whole thread into “policies about immigration”