Is a joke on shooting illegal immigrants acceptable from our government?

[Infohawk]

LoL

1) Since when is violence against the oppressors necessary for a revolution? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution

Sometimes it's necessary sometimes it's not though.

2) Having a 'revolution' (in YOUR definition) against wall street would mean overthrowing the government.

I think i've stated a bunch of times that i'd like to send bankers to GITMO, semi-humorously.

"generally a nonviolent revolution is characterized by simultaneous advocacy of democracy, human rights and national independence in the country concerned"

You've already made it clear in other threads you don't believe in democracy and the rule of law. You run crying to vigilante organizations like anonymous when elections don't go your way. That's exactly how democracy DOES NOT work. So I'm curious how you see your pipe-dream revolution panning out if you're not going to use violence and you don't believe in democratic change.

 

[Jaskalas]

I'm saying you're dumb because you say really stupid things without following their logical conclusions.

My estimate for the segregated Spanish speaking population in the United States by the turn of the century is ~100 million. Having 1/4th of our population consist of this group has many logical conclusions and you seem perfectly happy to turn the other cheek.

Yet you spend effort decrying people saying shoot/deport the illegals. There's only one way to shut them up WITHOUT getting your hands dirty and that is MY way. Your way is going to be a blood bath.

 

[Nebor]

Except, 1) This isn't a war you idiot. "Supply train"? Are you shitting me? 2) "Securing the boarder" would go into perpetuity. At least we've withdrawn from Iraq so far. 3) Motivated border jumpers will find a way. Kidnaps/murders/lawlessness and extreme poverty are a powerful motivator. 4) You'd probably have to stop the flow of goods between Mexico and the US.

I'm saying you're dumb because you say really stupid things without following their logical conclusions.

Our sovereignty is being violated on a daily basis. It may not be a war, but it is a threat to national security. Yes "supply train." Those are the kind of things that adults consider when they want to undertake a large scale operation. They don't just throw their hands up in the air and say "Oops! Can't be done! Those rascally messicans would just find a way through anyway!" And yes, securing the border is a perpetual operation, and that means we would get very, very good at it. Oh, and FYI, there will be at least 15,000 US soldiers in Iraq for the next 20 years at least.

You just don't have a realistic view of how security is implemented. You don't have to shut down trade to shut down illegal immigration, you just have to be thorough and vigilant.

Can you tell me about your experience in security, logistics or even real life large scale problem solving? Because I've participated in all of the above. The fact is that Iraq has a better secured border than the United States, and WE taught them how to do it!

If we deployed ~50,000 active duty US Army soldiers to the border for 1 year, followed by rotating deployments by the National Guard in perpetuity, we could easily establish and maintain a secure, functional southern border. Furthermore, the National Guard could be pulled away from international deployments and return to (what I perceive to be) their originally intended mission: securing the homeland.

 

[Phokus]

You've already made it clear in other threads you don't believe in democracy and the rule of law. You run crying to vigilante organizations like anonymous when elections don't go your way. That's exactly how democracy DOES NOT work. So I'm curious how you see your pipe-dream revolution panning out if you're not going to use violence and you don't believe in democratic change.

Hahahaha, holy fuck, you're equating Anonymous hacking to advocating violence now? Get the hell out of here. I was wondering where you got this 'violent revolution' nonsense now... now i know you're on crack.

P.S. Democracy is impossible without transparency.

 

[Phokus]

My estimate for the segregated Spanish speaking population in the United States by the turn of the century is ~100 million. Having 1/4th of our population consist of this group has many logical conclusions and you seem perfectly happy to turn the other cheek.

Yet you spend effort decrying people saying shoot/deport the illegals. There's only one way to shut them up WITHOUT getting your hands dirty and that is MY way. Your way is going to be a blood bath.

Not really, if there's that many hispanics, then good luck with that. However much you or conservatives dislike illegals, the government isn't going to tolerate randomly shooting people, even if they're brown.

 

[Nebor]

Not really, if there's that many hispanics, then good luck with that. However much you or conservatives dislike illegals, the government isn't going to tolerate randomly shooting people, even if they're brown.

Alright, you're clearly not familiar with our role in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Phokus]

Our sovereignty is being violated on a daily basis. It may not be a war, but it is a threat to national security. Yes "supply train." Those are the kind of things that adults consider when they want to undertake a large scale operation. They don't just throw their hands up in the air and say "Oops! Can't be done! Those rascally messicans would just find a way through anyway!" And yes, securing the border is a perpetual operation, and that means we would get very, very good at it. Oh, and FYI, there will be at least 15,000 US soldiers in Iraq for the next 20 years at least.

You just don't have a realistic view of how security is implemented. You don't have to shut down trade to shut down illegal immigration, you just have to be thorough and vigilant.

Can you tell me about your experience in security, logistics or even real life large scale problem solving? Because I've participated in all of the above. The fact is that Iraq has a better secured border than the United States, and WE taught them how to do it!

If we deployed ~50,000 active duty US Army soldiers to the border for 1 year, followed by rotating deployments by the National Guard in perpetuity, we could easily establish and maintain a secure, functional southern border. Furthermore, the National Guard could be pulled away from international deployments and return to (what I perceive to be) their originally intended mission: securing the homeland.

Yeah... the US did a 'fantastic' job of securing Iraq's border. *Ignores all the terrorists that invaded and blew themselves up*.


Again, a highly motivated person is going to get into the country if they're desperate enough.l

 

[Phokus]

Alright, you're clearly not familiar with our role in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yeah, that's outside the US you dimwit.

 

[Nebor]

Yeah... the US did a 'fantastic' job of securing Iraq's border. *Ignores all the terrorists that invaded and blew themselves up*.


Again, a highly motivated person is going to get into the country if they're desperate enough.l

Foreign terrorists weren't typically involved in suicide bombings, but were instead dedicated fundamentalists from Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran who typically were leaders & trainers. The suicide bombers were usually brainwashed Iraqi nationals. And our immediate focus wasn't to secure their borders, and in fact that wasn't our job. But we've trained them to secure their own borders (IBP) and they're doing a better job of it there than we are in America.

But wait, you say they're not? You've been to the US southern border and the Iraqi border right? What about Afghanistan, been there too? Because I have.

And no one is saying that border policing is a 100% solution. Like I said earlier, it's a 90% solution. You'll never stop every single person. But then, you're just a kid talking about ideals; you have no grasp of realistic solutions to problems.

 

[Nebor]

Yeah, that's outside the US you dimwit.

How old are you? What do you do for a living?

 

[Infohawk]

Hahahaha, holy fuck, you're equating Anonymous hacking to advocating violence now? Get the hell out of here. I was wondering where you got this 'violent revolution' nonsense now... now i know you're on crack.

P.S. Democracy is impossible without transparency.

No I'm equating supporting anonymous hacking with not respecting democracy and the rule of law. So you don't respect democracy (which is necessary for non-violent revolution) and you claim you don't support violent revolution. So, again, it sounds like your view of a revolution doesn't really exist. That or you do advocate violent revolution.

 

[Phokus]

No I'm equating supporting anonymous hacking with not respecting democracy and the rule of law. So you don't respect democracy (which is necessary for non-violent revolution) and you claim you don't support violent revolution. So, again, it sounds like your view of a revolution doesn't really exist. That or you do advocate violent revolution.

Gahahaha, holy shit, shut up dude, you're making me laugh like crazy at work. You're drawing so many conclusions from something that's completely unrelated, it's embarrassing.

Statement> "Yeah, i'm glad anonymous hacked BOA/the government/whatever to give us some transparency"

Conclusion> DOES THAT MEAN YOU SUPPORT VIOLENT REVOLUTION!?!?!?!?

P.S. Again, Democracy is impossible without transparency. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Anonymous hacking into someone exposing wrongdoing (and note: the HBGary hack revealed a conspiracy to attack civil liberties/liberal journalists and threaten their livelihoods) is not 'anti-democratic'.

 

[Phokus]

How old are you? What do you do for a living?

31, corporate finance. What does that even matter.

 

[Infohawk]

Gahahaha, holy shit, shut up dude, you're making me laugh like crazy at work. You're drawing so many conclusions from something that's completely unrelated, it's embarrassing.

Statement> "Yeah, i'm glad anonymous hacked BOA/the government/whatever to give us some transparency"

Conclusion> DOES THAT MEAN YOU SUPPORT VIOLENT REVOLUTION!?!?!?!?

P.S. Again, Democracy is impossible without transparency. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Anonymous hacking into someone exposing wrongdoing (and note: the HBGary hack revealed a conspiracy to attack civil liberties/liberal journalists and threaten their livelihoods) is not 'anti-democratic'.

Anonymous runs counter to the rule of law. You can't have a democracy without the rule of law and you don't believe in the rule of law. You believe in vigilante justice. So again, what kind of revolution are you talking about? Because it sure isn't the non-violent kind that you were alluding to before.

 

[Nebor]

31, corporate finance. What does that even matter.

You seem very sheltered and idealistic for someone your age. Also immature.

 

[Infohawk]

You seem very sheltered and idealistic for someone your age. Also immature.

Yup, my favorite was when he was so excited about drawings of badgers dressed up as laborers and teachers. He's clearly very impressionable.

 

[Phokus]

Foreign terrorists weren't typically involved in suicide bombings, but were instead dedicated fundamentalists from Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran who typically were leaders & trainers. The suicide bombers were usually brainwashed Iraqi nationals. And our immediate focus wasn't to secure their borders, and in fact that wasn't our job. But we've trained them to secure their own borders (IBP) and they're doing a better job of it there than we are in America.

But wait, you say they're not? You've been to the US southern border and the Iraqi border right? What about Afghanistan, been there too? Because I have.

And no one is saying that border policing is a 100% solution. Like I said earlier, it's a 90% solution. You'll never stop every single person. But then, you're just a kid talking about ideals; you have no grasp of realistic solutions to problems.

Groups like Al Qaeda in Iraq was mostly foreign born. Considering the casualties, it's not exactly a surprise that the attacks petered out later. In any case, you comparing the number of attackers coming from outside into Iraq to cause trouble vs. a whole population of people wanting to escape the poverty and violence of mexico into the US is dumb. The overwhelming majority of people from Syria/Iran/wherever wanting to go into Iraq is infinitesimly small. Again, use your almost non-existent brain.

 

[Phokus]

You seem very sheltered and idealistic for someone your age. Also immature.

Only you could call someone who owns his own house, has his own family and earns his own wage 'sheltered'.

 

[chucky2]

Yup, my favorite was when he was so excited about drawings of badgers dressed up as laborers and teachers. He's clearly very impressionable.

Haha, that was pretty funny, I laughed at the excitement level on that one too...haha, man, it's funny all over again...

 

[Phokus]

Yup, my favorite was when he was so excited about drawings of badgers dressed up as laborers and teachers. He's clearly very impressionable.

You can't even come up with a cogent logical explanation of... anything. It's embarrassing how you try to argue when you avoid facts and basic logic. Tell me again if Germany's taxes are higher than the US's?

*tries to obfuscate then runs away from argument*

 

[Phokus]

Anonymous runs counter to the rule of law. You can't have a democracy without the rule of law and you don't believe in the rule of law. You believe in vigilante justice. So again, what kind of revolution are you talking about? Because it sure isn't the non-violent kind that you were alluding to before.

You're embarrassing yourself. Hacking into a computer is not 'undemocratic' you imbecile. Hacking into a computer is not support for a 'violent revolution' you imbecile. You're just making shit up on the fly because you can't think logically and come to a logical conclusion.

 

[Infohawk]

You can't even come up with a cogent logical explanation of... anything. It's embarrassing how you try to argue when you avoid facts and basic logic. Tell me again if Germany's taxes are higher than the US's?

*tries to obfuscate then runs away from argument*

The debate was not whether Germany had higher taxes than the US moron. Don't be butthurt because people point out your immaturity. You come off as some kind of hipster douche that rails against the man and is naive enough to think people will be persuaded by some drawings of badgers.

 

[Phokus]

The debate was not whether Germany had higher taxes than the US moron. Don't be butthurt because people point out your immaturity. You come off as some kind of hipster douche that rails against the man and is naive enough to think people will be persuaded by some drawings of badgers.

I wasn't being persuaded by those drawings, but the art was fucking awesome and they're all over fire stations/police stations in Wisconsin.

YOU were implying that Germany cutting taxes was somehow responsible for their miracle, when it made no sense when their RELATIVE taxes were still MUCH higher than most everyone else's. Based on conservative arguments, capital should have fled because the 'high taxes' made them non-competitive (not to mention their much higher manufacturing wages). You didn't want to admit the fact that you just took the tax cuts at face value without even knowing what type of taxes they were paying before and after and you ran away like a little bitch because you KNEW you'd have to sound like a complete flipping moron to justify your conclusion. Not to mention that you were dishonest about how the article you were citing was portraying that argument.

 

[Infohawk]

You're embarrassing yourself. Hacking into a computer is not 'undemocratic' you imbecile. Hacking into a computer is not support for a 'violent revolution' you imbecile. You're just making shit up on the fly because you can't think logically and come to a logical conclusion.

Idiot, please read the wikipedia link you posted earlier. YOU don't understand what non-violent revolution really encompasses. As usual you think you can get by with your superficial analysis and seem to think that non-violent only means that violence was not used. Non-violent revolutions are implemented by people WHO BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW in formerly undemocratic countries. That doesn't apply to what you're advocating for in the US at all. We are already in a democracy, which you are too childish and immature to live respect the elections thereof.

Again, to get it through your thick skull, your vision of revolution is not what is referred to in the link you posted. So I ask you again, what kind of revolution do you really have in mind if it's not the kind you linked to and it's not violent? You have no idea do you?

 

[Munky]

Yes it is. Heaven forbid the illegals get offended and start making demands. Maybe we'll all have to pay them reparations too