RE: SHADES OF THE PAST.

RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

CaptR -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (2/28/2017 11:00:39 PM)
Trump isn't "gagging" anyone. He's simply not inviting them into press conferences. They can print/ broadcast whatever they like using shared information from other media sources. Contrary to Dems foreboding "Kristallnacht" and the iron fist strangling media are not on the horizon in the good old US of A. Also, the definition of; de·port dəˈpôrt/ verb past tense: deported; past participle: deported 1. expel (a foreigner) from a country, typically on the grounds of illegal status or for having committed a crime. If they cross the border illegally they are "deported." "Return" is just a nice way of saying we're kicking your ass back out.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/1/2017 9:21:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri How is a return a deportation? Deportation is any non-national individual expelled from a country. Returns are technically a 'deportation' however, when we commonly talk about deportation we are talking specifically about Forced Removal. Interesting point there. Clinton Removals: 869,646 Bush 43 Removals: 2,012,539 Obama Removals: 3,094,208 All time low, eh? So are you retarded or something? I ask because this statistic has been genuinely debunked and has been proven several times over to be completely misleading because Obama has been intentionally flagging 'returns' as 'removal'. With changes to what constitutes a priority one threat, the horrendously low interior deportations, and the 'return' statistics is abysmally low. So either you are mentally incompetent and we can properly response to your statements or you are being selective in exactly what you want to hear and just ignore the facts and data which scream you're wrong... LMMFAO! You put out a data table. I used your data table. You even said that returns aren't really deportations. You even said that the way deportations were counted was changed by Bush43. So, if you add returns and removals (which is what counts as deportations), Obama turns out to be Fifth on the list of Presidents with the most deportations. Fifth. Considering we've had more than 5 Presidents, Obama being 5th means his deportation stats aren't "all time lows," as you claimed.

WhoreMods -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/1/2017 10:10:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri How is a return a deportation? Deportation is any non-national individual expelled from a country. Returns are technically a 'deportation' however, when we commonly talk about deportation we are talking specifically about Forced Removal. Interesting point there. Clinton Removals: 869,646 Bush 43 Removals: 2,012,539 Obama Removals: 3,094,208 All time low, eh? So are you retarded or something? I ask because this statistic has been genuinely debunked and has been proven several times over to be completely misleading because Obama has been intentionally flagging 'returns' as 'removal'. With changes to what constitutes a priority one threat, the horrendously low interior deportations, and the 'return' statistics is abysmally low. So either you are mentally incompetent and we can properly response to your statements or you are being selective in exactly what you want to hear and just ignore the facts and data which scream you're wrong... LMMFAO! You put out a data table. I used your data table. You even said that returns aren't really deportations. You even said that the way deportations were counted was changed by Bush43. So, if you add returns and removals (which is what counts as deportations), Obama turns out to be Fifth on the list of Presidents with the most deportations. Fifth. Considering we've had more than 5 Presidents, Obama being 5th means his deportation stats aren't "all time lows," as you claimed. When you're making excuses for a president who campaigned on something, admitting that the socialist wuss who he's replaced was doing what he spent his whole campaign blathering about at great and tiresome length (and is now backtracking on) is probably a no no.

InfoMan -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/1/2017 10:30:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri LMMFAO! You put out a data table. I used your data table. You even said that returns aren't really deportations. You even said that the way deportations were counted was changed by Bush43. and exactly where did i say that "way deportations where counted was changed by Bush" exactly? Oh wait... I Didn't... I specifically said: quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan This change in language was introduced During the Obama administration, between 2010 and 2014... and has again, distorted the facts as before then Individuals caught at the border where "Not a Priority". This is why if you look up the 'deportation via priority' over obama's presidency you notice this weird and oddly drastic shift between the two fields... [image]http://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/source_images/PB-Jan2017-T2.png[/image] And to this... nonsense... quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So, if you add returns and removals (which is what counts as deportations), Obama turns out to be Fifth on the list of Presidents with the most deportations. Fifth. Considering we've had more than 5 Presidents, Obama being 5th means his deportation stats aren't "all time lows," as you claimed. If you Mathed out those numbers in comparison with the standing population to produce a Rate - you would find that he comes far far worse. Because, you know with population growth and everything, it is kind of silly to directly compare simply the Raw Number of Obama's Deportations to say Cleveland's Deportations - because during Cleveland's presidency, 4 Million deportations was literally 1/6th the Total Population of Mexico at the time. Even jumping back 50-60 years - The population has Doubled since the presidencies of Eisenhower and Truman... Being unable to understand that just kinda proves your incompetence.

BoscoX -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/1/2017 12:15:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri How is a return a deportation? Deportation is any non-national individual expelled from a country. Returns are technically a 'deportation' however, when we commonly talk about deportation we are talking specifically about Forced Removal. Interesting point there. Clinton Removals: 869,646 Bush 43 Removals: 2,012,539 Obama Removals: 3,094,208 All time low, eh? So are you retarded or something? I ask because this statistic has been genuinely debunked and has been proven several times over to be completely misleading because Obama has been intentionally flagging 'returns' as 'removal'. With changes to what constitutes a priority one threat, the horrendously low interior deportations, and the 'return' statistics is abysmally low. So either you are mentally incompetent and we can properly response to your statements or you are being selective in exactly what you want to hear and just ignore the facts and data which scream you're wrong... DS is pretty slow sometimes, refuses to see. Determined to be a mealy-mouthed moderate, thinks it is a badge of honor to be wrong half of the time or whatever Deliberately overlooks the obvious to, I guess, get along with lying radical alt left haters for some unknowable reason

DesideriScuri -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/1/2017 11:27:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri LMMFAO! You put out a data table. I used your data table. You even said that returns aren't really deportations. You even said that the way deportations were counted was changed by Bush43. and exactly where did i say that "way deportations where counted was changed by Bush" exactly? Oh wait... I Didn't... I specifically said: quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan This change in language was introduced During the Obama administration, between 2010 and 2014... and has again, distorted the facts as before then Individuals caught at the border where "Not a Priority". This is why if you look up the 'deportation via priority' over obama's presidency you notice this weird and oddly drastic shift between the two fields... [image]http://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/source_images/PB-Jan2017-T2.png[/image] My error. I admit it. You are correct that you never said the change in the way deportations were counted was started by Bush. However..... https://newrepublic.com/article/117412/deportations-under-obama-vs-bush-who-deported-more-immigrants quote: But in the second half of the Bush administration, DHS decided to up the number of “removals” and limit the number of “returns.” The government hoped to deter immigrants from sneaking back into the country by making it clear that the U.S. knew who they were—and could punish them more harshly if they showed up again. Under Obama, DHS has stuck with this policy. Between 2009 and 2012, the number of deportations and informal returns was roughly the same—about 1.6 million each. [Bold mine] http://www.vox.com/2014/4/11/5602272/removals-returns-and-deportations-a-very-short-history-of-immigration quote: During the Bush administration, the thriving economy drew a lot of unauthorized migration. Many of these people were apprehended at the border. Still, many slipped through and the unauthorized population grew significantly. At the time, many critics derided the Bush administration's returns as a "catch-and-release" system — the administration was turning away people at the border who would then come back and try again. So, in response, the Bush administration decided to ramp up the number of formal orders of removal (and criminal charges) for people who would previously have been returned, says Theresa Brown of the Bipartisan Policy Center, who was a Customs and Border Protection and Department of Homeland Security official at the time. Bush officials figured that relying more heavily on removals would deter people from repeatedly trying to cross the border. This system has persisted under Obama, and is now part of what's called the Consequence Delivery System. [Bold Mine] So, Bush started the practice of treating more returns as removals. quote: And to this... nonsense... quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So, if you add returns and removals (which is what counts as deportations), Obama turns out to be Fifth on the list of Presidents with the most deportations. Fifth. Considering we've had more than 5 Presidents, Obama being 5th means his deportation stats aren't "all time lows," as you claimed. If you Mathed out those numbers in comparison with the standing population to produce a Rate - you would find that he comes far far worse. Because, you know with population growth and everything, it is kind of silly to directly compare simply the Raw Number of Obama's Deportations to say Cleveland's Deportations - because during Cleveland's presidency, 4 Million deportations was literally 1/6th the Total Population of Mexico at the time. Even jumping back 50-60 years - The population has Doubled since the presidencies of Eisenhower and Truman... Being unable to understand that just kinda proves your incompetence. So, here's the funny thing about your screed... Your Post #16 quote: Every country deports people. I know it might be a shocker because during the Obama administration Deportations where [sic] at an all time low and many of the border agencies saw massive cuts to their budgets so they couldn't actually deport people if they wanted to. Did you see where you said the "deportation rate" was at an all time low? Yeah. Neither did anyone else. You've probably figured me incorrectly. I'm absolutely not a fan of Obama. I'm not a fan of the Democrat/Progressive/Liberal agenda. I just don't believe proper discussions and debates should include misleading statements. Your own table shows Obama has more removals than his predecessor. Your complaint that Obama is fudging those numbers (not verbatim) is arguably true, but Obama's number fudging actually started under Bush, so even his numbers are fudged.

ResidentSadist -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/2/2017 12:27:18 AM)
A Brit posting US political troll bait at this time... well, it's the best laugh I had all day.

thompsonx -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/2/2017 4:48:26 AM)
ORIGINAL: InfoMan Crossing the border denotes that they physically walked across a land based International Line which divides countries. This is why in the language of the law there is a distinction 'Port of Entry' which describes any water based landing which may offload passengers and immigrants. 9/11 attackers obtained Tourist and Student Visas. They flew into respective airports legally went through just about as much trouble as the average business man goes through when exiting an airport. Both of the above are your statements re: the "border". In your world do Ocean liners dock at airports? Does a 747 land in the ocean? Jesus you are phoquing stupid. Still waiting

InfoMan -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/2/2017 9:33:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Both of the above are your statements re: the "border". In your world do Ocean liners dock at airports? Does a 747 land in the ocean? Jesus you are phoquing stupid. Still waiting Okay - lets give context - something which you dispise apparently. it was in response to this: quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx The were not born here nor did they magically appear. They crossed the border into amerika. Your question did not reference legality. I am not paid to read your mind. Which was your response to the questions i posed: quote: Let me pose this question to you, if you think you can answer it... Did the 9/11 bombers come across the border? Yes. How about the Boston Bombers? Yes San Bernideno Shooters? The san bernardino shooters also came across the boarder. Which was a point in arguing what defines a 'Priority 1' immigrant: individuals apprehended at the border while attempting to enter unlawfully (cite: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/12/30/dhs-releases-end-year-fiscal-year-2016-statistics ) Now - The point, which you have avoided and argued around. Did the above mentioned Terrorists which i have outlined 'apprehended at the border while attempting to enter unlawfully?' The answer is - No - They did not 'cross the border' in a traditional sense in which they walked across a land immaginary line. Instead - they arrived at one of the specific Ports of Entry. The term originating from actual literal ports (water based transport hubs intentionally designed to offload passengers and immigrants rather then cargo and resources). In time this term has expanded to include Airports - In fact, they where intentionally changed to 'Air Ports' to reflect this as originally they where called either Air Fields or AeroDomes. So while you continue to skirt around the point trying to disprove me - know that you're just missing the point and proving that you know nothing. Also - If you want an honest Answer. Norfolk. Norfolk Naval station can land 747s as well as receive 'Ocean Liners', and is actually used to do exactly that... except for only the President of the United States.

bounty44 -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/2/2017 9:58:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: InfoMan Crossing the border denotes that they physically walked across a land based International Line which divides countries. This is why in the language of the law there is a distinction 'Port of Entry' which describes any water based landing which may offload passengers and immigrants. 9/11 attackers obtained Tourist and Student Visas. They flew into respective airports legally went through just about as much trouble as the average business man goes through when exiting an airport. Both of the above are your statements re: the "border". In your world do Ocean liners dock at airports? Does a 747 land in the ocean? Jesus you are phoquing stupid. Still waiting troll, are you that incredibly dense that you cannot think in the abstract or recognize colloquialisms? as infoman's pointing out, in the context of the conversation "crossing the border" does not refer to people coming by ship, or by plane. it refers to illegals walking across undetected.

thompsonx -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/5/2017 7:25:43 AM)
ORIGINAL: bounty44 troll, are you that incredibly dense that you cannot think in the abstract or recognize colloquialisms? I am fluent in english not gobblydegook. That you choose to speak gobblydegook and manufacture meanings to suit your purpose is 'your misfortune and none of my own' now get along lil' dogie. Jesus you are phoquing stupid

thompsonx -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/5/2017 7:33:35 AM)
ORIGINAL: InfoMan ORIGINAL: thompsonx Both of the above are your statements re: the "border". In your world do Ocean liners dock at airports? Does a 747 land in the ocean? Jesus you are phoquing stupid. Norfolk Naval station can land 747s as well as receive 'Ocean Liners', and is actually used to do exactly that... except for only the President of the United States. Nas norfolk (refered to many who have been there as 'no phoque') Is not a port of entry nor an international airport but it does represent a rather well guarded portion of the border. For a three legged dawg you do not dance well at all. Still waiting

InfoMan -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/5/2017 8:15:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: InfoMan ORIGINAL: thompsonx Both of the above are your statements re: the "border". In your world do Ocean liners dock at airports? Does a 747 land in the ocean? Jesus you are phoquing stupid. Norfolk Naval station can land 747s as well as receive 'Ocean Liners', and is actually used to do exactly that... except for only the President of the United States. Nas norfolk (refered to many who have been there as 'no phoque') Is not a port of entry nor an international airport but it does represent a rather well guarded portion of the border. For a three legged dawg you do not dance well at all. Still waiting You didn't ask if Norfolk was a Port of Entry. You said: In your world do Ocean liners dock at airports? Does a 747 land in the ocean? And Norfolk Naval Station is exactly that. Also - if you want to continue to nit pick. Yes it IS an international airport as it handles C-130 and Boeing 747 aircraft (Air Force One) which routinely fly across international lines. It is not an International Public Transit Hub - because it only handles the logistics of US Military, but it does handle and ship Internationally. Of course - as always - What is the point of this string of questioning? You've already proven yourself stupid and wrong many times over...

thompsonx -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/5/2017 12:47:03 PM)
ORIGINAL: InfoMan ORIGINAL: thompsonx Both of the above are your statements re: the "border". In your world do Ocean liners dock at airports? Does a 747 land in the ocean? Jesus you are phoquing stupid. Norfolk Naval station can land 747s as well as receive 'Ocean Liners', and is actually used to do exactly that... except for only the President of the United States. Nas norfolk (refered to many who have been there as 'no phoque') Is not a port of entry nor an international airport but it does represent a rather well guarded portion of the border. For a three legged dawg you do not dance well at all. Still waiting You didn't ask if Norfolk was a Port of Entry. You said: In your world do Ocean liners dock at airports? Does a 747 land in the ocean? And Norfolk Naval Station is exactly that. Not according to the faa dumbass https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/...stats/categories Yes it IS an international airport as it handles C-130 and Boeing 747 aircraft (Air Force One) which routinely fly across international lines. Norfolk international airport is about 9 miles from nas norfolk dumbass http://www.travelmath.com/drive-distance/from/ORF/to/NGU Jesus you are phoquing stupid

InfoMan -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/5/2017 1:42:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Not according to the faa dumbass https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/...stats/categories the FAA doesn't catagorize Military Air Bases... idiot. Do you see Andrews Air Force Base? 29 Palms Marine Corps Base? Simmons Army Airfield? quote: Norfolk international airport is about 9 miles from nas norfolk dumbass http://www.travelmath.com/drive-distance/from/ORF/to/NGU Jesus you are phoquing stupid Was English a second language to you? You have such a limited grasp on the language as a whole and just simply constantly fail to understand sentences and statements... Norfolk Naval Station handles Internationally Chartered Flights for Military Aircraft. Making it an International Air Base. What, you think if we want to send Tanks and Ammo to a distant part of the world, we do so through commercial air lines? That we fly our troops out to war torn nations on Coach airline tickets? how incompetent can you be?

thompsonx -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/5/2017 2:23:15 PM)
ORIGINAL: InfoMan ORIGINAL: thompsonx Not according to the faa dumbass https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/...stats/categories the FAA doesn't catagorize Military Air Bases... idiot. Yes it does dumbass...Advisory Circular: AC 20-169 Norfolk international airport is about 9 miles from nas norfolk dumbass http://www.travelmath.com/drive-distance/from/ORF/to/NGU Jesus you are phoquing stupid Was English a second language to you? You have such a limited grasp on the language as a whole and just simply constantly fail to understand sentences and statements... I speak english fluently...I am not interested in reading your mind. Norfolk Naval Station handles Internationally Chartered Flights for Military Aircraft. Making it an International Air Base. According to the faa, as I have cited previously, it does not classify nas norfolk as an interntional airport. Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

Aylee -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/5/2017 2:32:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Not according to the faa dumbass https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/...stats/categories the FAA doesn't catagorize Military Air Bases... idiot. Do you see Andrews Air Force Base? 29 Palms Marine Corps Base? Simmons Army Airfield? quote: Norfolk international airport is about 9 miles from nas norfolk dumbass http://www.travelmath.com/drive-distance/from/ORF/to/NGU Jesus you are phoquing stupid Was English a second language to you? You have such a limited grasp on the language as a whole and just simply constantly fail to understand sentences and statements... Norfolk Naval Station handles Internationally Chartered Flights for Military Aircraft. Making it an International Air Base. What, you think if we want to send Tanks and Ammo to a distant part of the world, we do so through commercial air lines? That we fly our troops out to war torn nations on Coach airline tickets? how incompetent can you be? There is a reason that so many have him on hide.

bounty44 -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/5/2017 2:41:00 PM)
its funny though aylee, I sometimes have this hope of that if he continues to get beaten up so badly in conversation, that he would have the wisdom to leave, and so I indulge the troll every so often in conversation to that end. that he keeps coming back for more is a testament to how strong the troll is in him or that he really is mentally challenged and just doesn't get it.

thompsonx -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/5/2017 2:57:05 PM)
ORIGINAL: bounty44 its funny though aylee, I sometimes have this hope of that if he continues to get beaten up so badly in conversation, that he would have the wisdom to leave, and so I indulge the troll every so often in conversation to that end. that he keeps coming back for more is a testament to how strong the troll is in him or that he really is mentally challenged and just doesn't get it. Keep telling yourself that comrade...it makes 'many' giggle.

thompsonx -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/5/2017 2:59:39 PM)
ORIGINAL: Aylee There is a reason that so many have him on hide. No one has me on hide. Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.2226563