Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

YOU'RE FIRED!Follow

#27 Jun 18 2015 at 7:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Speaking of scripts, this site has been running for shit lately. I mean, more so than the average.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#28 Jul 13 2015 at 9:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Trump's building bridges to the Hispanic community. Then sending conquistadors over to wage war against them.
Quote:
During a speech to a conservative group, Donald Trump “said Iraq was a needed buffer against a hostile Iran and that it was wrong for the United States to have invaded Saddam Hussein’s fiefdom,” the LA Weekly reports.

Said Trump: “Instead, we should have invaded Mexico.”

“The remark was greeted with rousing applause, our source said.”
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#29 Jul 13 2015 at 10:11 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Trumps "always" been against the war in Iraq, so that's not surprising. And I guess he's spent too much time in his casinos if he thinks doubling down on his Mexico strategy is a good idea.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#30 Jul 13 2015 at 10:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Did Mexico refuse to let him build a factory there, or what?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#31 Jul 13 2015 at 10:42 AM Rating: Good
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
Samira wrote:
Did Mexico refuse to let him build a factory there, or what?



They probably didn't let him buy his way into the Presidency there.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#32 Jul 13 2015 at 10:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I think his numbers have only gone up since the Mexico thing so he's not stupid (politically) to keep talking about it.

He doesn't have a chance of winning of course, but if he wants to stay in the race and make big noises and news stories...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#33 Jul 13 2015 at 11:20 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
I imagine he'll be knocked out in the second or third round at this rate.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#34 Jul 13 2015 at 1:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Yeah, at this point I think he's more of a problem for the right than the left.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#35 Jul 13 2015 at 1:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Oh, easily. And he's being treated with kid gloves because the RNC's ultimate nightmare would be an independent bid. Trump says he won't run as an independent because it'd split the GOP vote but he might feel differently if the GOP was actively jacking him over. So they're just waiting and hoping for his numbers to go down and hoping he'll lose gracefully.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#36 Jul 13 2015 at 3:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Because losing gracefully is something he's well known for. Smiley: laugh

My bet is that he's angling for a Cabinet position. Interior, or some such, from all the racket he's making about immigration.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#37 Jul 13 2015 at 5:33 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Besides all the racism and xenophobia, he's at least put "sanctuary cities" out there as a campaign topic. I'd love to hear what 'ol Hill has to say about that one, especially given the recent events in San Fran.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#38 Jul 13 2015 at 5:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
I'm not a fan of the sanctuary city policy, myself. Of course violent felons are supposed to be excluded; but hey, if policies worked perfectly Dylann Roof would never have been able to buy a gun, so....
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#39 Jul 13 2015 at 6:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
I'd love to hear what 'ol Hill has to say about that one, especially given the recent events in San Fran.

She said
Quote:
"The city made a mistake, not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported," Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, said in an interview with CNN. "So I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on."

...but back in 2007, she said...
Quote:
Clinton said during an MSNBC debate that these policies exist to encourage people to report crimes. Without them, she said, "You will have people hiding from the police. And I think that is a real direct threat to the personal safety and security of all the citizens."

Asked if she would allow sanctuary cities to disobey federal law, Clinton said: "Well, I don't think there is any choice. The ICE groups go in and raid individuals, but if you're a local police chief and you're trying to solve a crime that you know people from the immigrant community have information about, they may not talk to you if they think you're also going to be enforcing the immigration laws. Local law enforcement has a different job than federal immigration enforcement."

Which has Fox and Breitbart and the rest of them all a-fluster.

I don't see a huge disparity there between her remarks. Yes, it can be helpful for local police if people don't clam up and refuse to speak to them because they fear deportation and don't want anything to do with cops. Knowing that the cops won't deport them makes that easier. Likewise, San Francisco was explicitly asked by the feds to hold this guy and they didn't. That's different from local cops casually playing federal immigration enforcement on the street. Clinton is correct that local law enforcement's job is different than that of immigration enforcement (unlawful presence, by itself, is not even a criminal act) and San Francisco erred when they blocked federal authorities from doing their job. However, nationwide, it sounds as though cities have a myriad of reasons for not holding suspects for immigration: cost of imprisonment, lawsuits for unlawful imprisonment, etc.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#40 Jul 13 2015 at 9:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
From a private citizen's point of view, it does seem like gang violence is down in general. Still some spikes, but nothing like it was in the 90s and 00s. I don't know how much the sanctuary policy plays into that, but I assume it has some effect.

In this particular instance, more rigorous patrols in areas where cars get broken into all the time might have kept this federal agent's pistol from being stolen, or might have resulted in the shooter being arrested for theft instead of murder.

Or, I dunno, don't leave your gun in your car. Either way.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#41 Jul 14 2015 at 7:36 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
The sanctuary city practice seems kind of dumb but a little understandable, but the whole 'cisco thing was more an issue of the city being retarded.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#42 Jul 14 2015 at 8:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
I don't disagree. It was a bureaucratic ****-up and it should never have happened.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#43 Jul 14 2015 at 6:36 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Samira wrote:
From a private citizen's point of view, it does seem like gang violence is down in general. Still some spikes, but nothing like it was in the 90s and 00s.

As a Chicago resident, I respectfully disagree. But that has nothing to do with the immigrants, so whatever.

Quote:
Clinton is correct that local law enforcement's job is different than that of immigration enforcement (unlawful presence, by itself, is not even a criminal act) and San Francisco erred when they blocked federal authorities from doing their job.

Here's where I'm maybe misunderstanding the concept. My thought was that cities regularly refuse to hold illegal immigrants for ICE to pick up as they're released from local jail, regardless of the reason ICE wants to deport them. So San Francisco didn't "err" in this case so much as they followed their established policy. Right?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#44 Jul 14 2015 at 6:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I don't see a huge disparity there between her remarks.


To be fair, it's because she didn't actually answer the question that was asked.

Quote:
Yes, it can be helpful for local police if people don't clam up and refuse to speak to them because they fear deportation and don't want anything to do with cops. Knowing that the cops won't deport them makes that easier. Likewise, San Francisco was explicitly asked by the feds to hold this guy and they didn't. That's different from local cops casually playing federal immigration enforcement on the street.


Precisely. The issue of whether cops are actively investigating people for violations of immigration law is one thing. A city policy that actively prohibits cops from arresting or detaining someone who is known to be in violation is something completely different. For the most part, opposition to "sanctuary cities" is about the latter one, not the former. In the question above, Clinton chose to pretend the entire issue was about just the former, while ignoring the issue most people really care about. Great political answer, I suppose, but still crappy policy.

Quote:
Clinton is correct that local law enforcement's job is different than that of immigration enforcement (unlawful presence, by itself, is not even a criminal act) and San Francisco erred when they blocked federal authorities from doing their job. However, nationwide, it sounds as though cities have a myriad of reasons for not holding suspects for immigration: cost of imprisonment, lawsuits for unlawful imprisonment, etc.


Obviously, a balance has to be struck. My issue with it is that it seems like some of these cities care more about protecting an illegal immigrant from deportation than they do about protecting legal citizens from criminal activity. That's the point where you've passed into nuttyville. Of course, this is San Fransisco, so that status is already well established.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#45 Jul 14 2015 at 7:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
As a Chicago resident, I respectfully disagree. But that has nothing to do with the immigrants, so whatever.


I should have specified that I meant here, sorry.

Quote:
Obviously, a balance has to be struck. My issue with it is that it seems like some of these cities care more about protecting an illegal immigrant from deportation than they do about protecting legal citizens from criminal activity. That's the point where you've passed into nuttyville. Of course, this is San Fransisco, so that status is already well established.


Or maybe not so much, although that won't stop you from making cheap shots.

Quote:
What is the Sanctuary Ordinance?
In 1989, San Francisco passed the "City and County of Refuge" Ordinance (also known as the Sanctuary Ordinance) which prohibits City employees from helping Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with immigration investigations or arrests unless such help is required by federal or state law or a warrant.


____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#46 Jul 14 2015 at 7:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
Here's where I'm maybe misunderstanding the concept. My thought was that cities regularly refuse to hold illegal immigrants for ICE to pick up as they're released from local jail, regardless of the reason ICE wants to deport them. So San Francisco didn't "err" in this case so much as they followed their established policy. Right?

Could be. I'll admit to not being an expert on the concept and most of my exposure to the story was in passing.

I was under the impression that he had a warrant for his arrest but it appears that the warrant was resolved prior to the feds asking for him. The feds did not obtain a fresh warrant for anything, just a detainer request which doesn't have the same force. Since Sanchez didn't have any felonies or violent crimes, he was released rather than holding him until ICE got around to getting him. So, yeah, it sounds like policy as usual. [Edit: I'll defer to Samira if I'm wrong here. I'm sure the story has been hashed out in more nuts & bolts details in SF than here]

I'm generally in favor of a strong top-down style of government so, if it were up to me, San Francisco would have held him at the fed's request. But it seems as though a big part of the "sanctuary" bit is really cities covering themselves from 4th amendment claims and the costs and liabilities of holding people without an actual warrant for their arrest. The whole system sounds as though it could use a bit of reworking.

Edited, Jul 14th 2015 8:24pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47 Jul 14 2015 at 7:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea is "wrong" anyway as a guy in Chicago. Well, "wrong" is in quotes since it was about perception but the reality is that the number of homicides in Chicago (avg 452 per year 2010-2014) is far lower than in the 90s (avg. 824 per year) and a little lower than in the 2000s (avg. 536 per year).

Of course, I make no claims that this is because of any singular policy, but the number of murders IS lower.

Edit: I called it "homicide rate" before which isn't accurate although I assume the per capita results would show a decrease along the same lines. I'm too lazy to look up historic populations and do the math though.

Edited, Jul 14th 2015 8:26pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#48 Jul 14 2015 at 7:28 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Come to the West side and see it for yourself, homie. Smiley: wink
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#49 Jul 14 2015 at 7:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Anecdotes > Data -- how very Republican of you Smiley: grin
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#50 Jul 14 2015 at 7:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Samira wrote:
Quote:
Obviously, a balance has to be struck. My issue with it is that it seems like some of these cities care more about protecting an illegal immigrant from deportation than they do about protecting legal citizens from criminal activity. That's the point where you've passed into nuttyville. Of course, this is San Fransisco, so that status is already well established.


Or maybe not so much, although that won't stop you from making cheap shots.


Of course not. We are talking about SF, right? Smiley: tongue

Quote:
Quote:
What is the Sanctuary Ordinance?
In 1989, San Francisco passed the "City and County of Refuge" Ordinance (also known as the Sanctuary Ordinance) which prohibits City employees from helping Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with immigration investigations or arrests unless such help is required by federal or state law or a warrant.


But in practice, this has meant that they actively work to release people they think might be illegal before the Feds can issue a warrant. That's what I see as backwards and where the problem can occur. It's one thing to say "We're not going to look at someone's immigration status at all when processing people", and quite another to say "We're going to look at their immigration status, and if they are here illegally, we'll expedite their release so as to prevent the federal government from deporting them. All hail Caesar Chavez!".

What SF does is closer to the latter side of the issue. Which puts them in the perverse condition of potentially looking the other way when crimes are committed by people they think are illegal because of pressure to prevent deportations. And that's a problem.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 Jul 14 2015 at 7:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If San Francisco manages to expedite anything, I'd call it model behavior among urban bureaucracies.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 144 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (144)