Anarchist/“Anti-Fascist” Attacks Detention Center - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15019399
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am not concerned about what he said. I am concerned about whether or not he attacked anyone.

Apparently, he did not. Since he never attacked anyone, it is dishonest to portray him as violent.


Oh bullshit.

If I take a baseball bat to a car you own and beat the shit out of it, are you going to not consider me violent? Because it would be the height of stupidity not to...

This does not change the fact that most asylum claims are not fraudulent. The vast majority of people are fleeing violent persecution, bt your government has made itself loopholes so it can deny these people.


If someone from Honduras is standing at our southern border requesting asylum, he's already successfully escaped the persecution in his home country. There's no reason to give him asylum here.

I applaud the President's efforts to amend our asylum laws so that they serve US more than those who would abuse those laws...

Either way, it is still your government that is failing to do the right thing.


The "right thing" is, first and foremost, what's right for the United States. Period.

Trump has been continually changing asylum laws to make them more restrictive.


EXCELLENT!

And Trump is deliberately changing laws to make it harder for asylum seekers, and he is doing it to get support from his racist supporters.


Stupidly calling Trump's supporters "racist" simply demonstrates that you have no valid arguments or points of intelligence to offer. He's not doing it to get support from anyone. He's doing it because it makes sense and is best for the United States.

Anyone who doesn't like it can piss off...
#15019400
BigSteve wrote:If I take a baseball bat to a car you own and beat the shit out of it, are you going to not consider me violent? Because it would be the height of stupidity not to...


So you also have no evidence that he attacked anyone.

If someone from Honduras is standing at our southern border requesting asylum, he's already successfully escaped the persecution in his home country. There's no reason to give him asylum here.

I applaud the President's efforts to amend our asylum laws so that they serve US more than those who would abuse those laws...

The "right thing" is, first and foremost, what's right for the United States. Period.

EXCELLENT!

Anyone who doesn't like it can piss off..


No one cares what you think. Unless you can provide a logical or empirical argument to support your feelings, this is irrelevant.

Stupidly calling Trump's supporters "racist" simply demonstrates that you have no valid arguments or points of intelligence to offer. He's not doing it to get support from anyone. He's doing it because it makes sense and is best for the United States.


Many Trump supporters are racist. The evidence has already been presented in this thread.
#15019404
Pants-of-dog wrote:So you also have no evidence that he attacked anyone.


You have no evidence that he didn't.

That's how you libs approach debates, right?

You're intentionally dodging my point. You said "Since he never attacked anyone, it is dishonest to portray him as violent."

My point is that a person doesn't have to attack someone to be violent. Believing otherwise is stupid...

No one cares what you think. Unless you can provide a logical or empirical argument to support your feelings, this is irrelevant.


These are not my "feelings". This is something that most non-thinking libs don't comprehend. It's a thing called "simple logic". If someone from Honduras is standing at the Mexican border, he's already fled whatever it was in Honduras that compelled him to leave...

Many Trump supporters are racist. The evidence has already been presented in this thread.


"Evidence"?

"Nonsense" is more like it.

You've provided exactly nothing...
#15019405
BigSteve wrote:You have no evidence that he didn't.


Actually, we do.

The evidence we have all indicates he attacked buildings and cars only.

If someone from Honduras is standing at the Mexican border, he's already fled whatever it was in Honduras that compelled him to leave...


Not if that person is fleeing gang violence committed by cartels trying to control smuggling routes into the USA. That violence is also in Mexico.

The rest of your post was your usual feelings. I ignored it.
#15019409
Pants-of-dog wrote:Actually, we do.

The evidence we have all indicates he attacked buildings and cars only.


So, do you believe that a person can only be considered violent if he attacks another person?

Not if that person is fleeing gang violence committed by cartels trying to control smuggling routes into the USA. That violence is also in Mexico.


Fine. Let them demonstrate that to be the case.

If we required that, the number of asylum requests would, I believe, plummet...

The rest of your post was your usual feelings. I ignored it.


More accurately, it contained things which you're ill-prepared to address, so you dodged it...
#15019411
BigSteve wrote:So, do you believe that a person can only be considered violent if he attacks another person?


I am addressing how others on your side have described him.

He has been described as a murderer, for example. You really should read the thread.

Fine. Let them demonstrate that to be the case.

If we required that, the number of asylum requests would, I believe, plummet...


Um sure?

That bit of writing seems to make no sense.
#15019415
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am addressing how others on your side have described him.

He has been described as a murderer, for example. You really should read the thread.


I asked you a very simple question, one which, apparently, is beyond your ability to offer an intelligent response.

Let's try it again: Do you believe that a person can only be accurately characterized as violent if that person attacks another person?

Um sure?

That bit of writing seems to make no sense.


Sure it does, at least to people who don't want to be thick.

If someone is claiming that they're fleeing cartel violence, great. Let them prove that.

Why is that a problem?
#15019418
BigSteve wrote:Do you believe that a person can only be accurately characterized as violent if that person attacks another person?


I am addressing how others on your side have described him.

He has been described as a murderer, for example. You really should read the thread.

If someone is claiming that they're fleeing cartel violence, great. Let them prove that.

Why is that a problem?


I see why your comment seemed to make no sense.

First if all, this is already the case, so when you hope it becomes reality, you are incorrectly wishing for something that is already true.

Secondly, this does not contradict my point that the asylum seekers have not arrived at a location where they are safe and need to continue to the USA.
#15019422
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am addressing how others on your side have described him.

He has been described as a murderer, for example. You really should read the thread.


Why are you so afraid to answer my question? I never referred to him as a murderer, so I don't really feel inclined to address that; ask someone who thinks he's a murderer. You'll probably stand a better chance of getting an answer from someone who thinks he's a murderer than from someone who doesn't.

You, on the other hand, have said it's unfair to call him violent since he didn't attack anyone.

For the third time, do you believe that a person can only be considered violent after he has attacked another person?
#15019547
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please see the link I already referenced. Thank you.

The point is that the government should never have been solely responsible for the children. And it is logical to assume that the children would have received medical care sooner if they had been allowed to apply for asylum in a humane manner.

I note the switch from your accusations that people who work in detention centres deliberately kill or let children die to a complaint that the government is expecting them to implement existing law. It still looks like you are not prepared to support the former accusations in any way.

It's not logical to assume that the children would have received medical care sooner, but if we go by that logic adults who take children on a dangerous and arduous journey, where medical facilities are not always easily accessible, should also be accused of "killing the children" if a child dies. In fact, taking this argument to its asinine conclusion, nobody would be allowed to take their kids out to places where it may be hard to quickly come by medical treatment without being charged with murder or manslaughter.

Pants-of-dog wrote:By creating a distraction (e.g. blowing up a propane tank) then shooting the locks off the doors (with a rifle he brought for that purpose) while the guards are distracted.

Like in the movies. :lol:

The guy was clearly prepared to injure or kill people, and actually could have killed the very people he wanted to save according to you. That is, if there were unaccompanied minors at the facility which has apparently been the denied by the company who runs it.
#15019643
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I note the switch from your accusations that people who work in detention centres deliberately kill or let children die to a complaint that the government is expecting them to implement existing law. It still looks like you are not prepared to support the former accusations in any way.


I think you got confused about my original argument. I always argued that the person was rational in his attack because he (correctly) believed that children were being taken from their parents and were dying in the custody of US government forces who may or may not be responsible for their deaths.

I have explained this several times, including to you. I am now done repeating it.

It's not logical to assume that the children would have received medical care sooner, but if we go by that logic adults who take children on a dangerous and arduous journey, where medical facilities are not always easily accessible, should also be accused of "killing the children" if a child dies. In fact, taking this argument to its asinine conclusion, nobody would be allowed to take their kids out to places where it may be hard to quickly come by medical treatment without being charged with murder or manslaughter.


If they had been allowed to apply for asylum at a point of entry, and there were no waiting lists or metering policy, the children would have received medical attention right away.

But since asylum seekers are no longer allowed to do so, the parents are forced to risk the lives of their children, all so some ideologues can pat themselves on the back for being racist.

Like in the movies. :lol:

The guy was clearly prepared to injure or kill people, and actually could have killed the very people he wanted to save according to you. That is, if there were unaccompanied minors at the facility which has apparently been the denied by the company who runs it.


So we agree that he could have freed families without ever shooting anyone.
#15019758
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think you got confused about my original argument. I always argued that the person was rational in his attack because he (correctly) believed that children were being taken from their parents and were dying in the custody of US government forces who may or may not be responsible for their deaths. I have explained this several times, including to you. I am now done repeating it.

It's not confusion on my part to note that you switch between different accusations when it suits you. Here's one of your earlier claims from my exchange with you.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Because ICE is killing children or allowing them to die, either intentionally or through family separation and neglect.


Pants-of-dog wrote:If they had been allowed to apply for asylum at a point of entry, and there were no waiting lists or metering policy, the children would have received medical attention right away.

Speculation, and still
if we go by that logic adults who take children on a dangerous and arduous journey, where medical facilities are not always easily accessible, should also be accused of "killing the children" if a child dies. In fact, taking this argument to its asinine conclusion, nobody would be allowed to take their kids out to places where it may be hard to quickly come by medical treatment without being charged with murder or manslaughter.


Pants-of-dog wrote:But since asylum seekers are no longer allowed to do so, the parents are forced to risk the lives of their children, all so some ideologues can pat themselves on the back for being racist.

People are allowed to apply for asylum.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So we agree that he could have freed families without ever shooting anyone.

So we agree he was prepared to use violence against people or risk their lives, including potentially those who you argue he wanted to "save" (if they were actually there).
#15019763
Pants-of-dog wrote:So, the evidence seems to indicate that he never attacked anyone.


Dodges like yours are pathetic.

You know for a fact the man was violent. You just don't possess the level of character which you'd need to exhibit a degree of honesty.

The man was violent and I'm glad the police stopped him...

[KS mod edit: Rule 2]
#15019770
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:People are allowed to apply for asylum.


No. People who arrive at a legal point of entry and wish to apply for asylum cannot currently do so.

Instead, they can get on a waiting list and expect to wait 4 months while presumably living on the streets in Mexico.

So we agree he was prepared to use violence against people or risk their lives, including potentially those who you argue he wanted to "save" (if they were actually there).


Since you and the other people who claimed he was murderous or violent towards people have yet to provide evidence that he attacked anyone or had serious intention to do so, I have no idea why anyone would agree to that claim.
#15019771
@BigSteve

As opposed to American and Israeli soldiers bombing Syria or policemen killing unarmed innocent black people or ICE officers raping children?

There is nothing injust about saving children from concentration camps. The institution of the state is inherently violent. Shying away from using violence to defend yourself and your fellow man is cowardly.

[KS mod edit: Rule 2]
#15019773
Palmyrene wrote:@BigSteve

As opposed to American and Israeli soldiers bombing Syria or policemen killing unarmed innocent black people or ICE officers raping children?


You clearly have focus issues.

Sure, instances of cops killing black people certainly occur. If we believed the idiots on the left in this country, we would believe they are the rule as opposed to being the exception...

There is nothing injust about saving children from concentration camps. The institution of the state is inherently violent. Shying away from using violence to defend yourself and your fellow man is cowardly.


We doon't have concentration camps, so spare me the drama queen act...

[edited]


See, in order for an insult to have its desired effect, the target of that insult has to care about the person using it.

I assure you, I do not...
#15019779
BigSteve wrote:You clearly have focus issues.


This is the first time I've responded to you on this thread.

Sure, instances of cops killing black people certainly occur. If we believed the idiots on the left in this country, we would believe they are the rule as opposed to being the exception...


They are the rule. Statistics prove this.

We doon't have concentration camps, so spare me the drama queen act...


Concentration camp survivors call them concentration camps. Jewish historians call them concentration camps.

If you have an issue with me you have an issue with them.

See, in order for an insult to have its desired effect, the target of that insult has to care about the person using it.


Then you won't mind if I do continue insult you.
#15019794
Palmyrene wrote:This is the first time I've responded to you on this thread.


And your first response was nonsense and unrelated to the discussion...

They are the rule. Statistics prove this.


Compare the number of black people who interact with police and get killed by them to the number of black people who interact with police and don't get killed by them.

It's the height of ignorance and stupidity to call it the norm. I challenge you to provide the statistics to prove your argument...

Concentration camp survivors call them concentration camps. Jewish historians call them concentration camps.

If you have an issue with me you have an issue with them.


Okay, then I have an issue with them. I have issues with anyone who calls them concentration camps, because they're not concentration camps...

Then you won't mind if I do continue insult you.


I think you should do and say exactly whatever you feel is appropriate..
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 15
Trump and Russiagate

Evidence please Surely you must have heard about[…]

The Popular Vote...

:O USA is just another "great" country[…]

http://marxistupdate.blogspot.com/201[…]

Trump is being schooled by the likes of North Kore[…]