Immigration Ban

Landlord said:
The irony is knife-cutting thick.

Reality is, this is a ban. How do we know that? Because Trump and everyone else that came up with it has called it as much. Several times. On record.

Further, this isn't about illegal immigration by itself. This is about a lot of things, including suspending any new applicants for legal migration. It's also about fear-mongering. Trump and Co. have cited terrorism as an impetus for this several times, yet the data shows that we have a 99.9% success rate in screening potential future terrorists trying to immigrate into this country (hint, terrorists aren't trying to use this incredibly effective and painstaking and long process to try and get into this country - there are much easier ways).
Click to expand...




not as thick as you think.. I clearly stated "correct me if I am wrong". I didn't assign a position for the purposes of discrediting him. THAT is a straw man argument..

 
Bornhusker said:
Yes, seriously! I have been on forums like this to know from this point forwarding it is nothing but a pissing match. You are solid in your beliefs, correct me if I am wrong, that government should regulate everything. I am firm in my belief it shouldn't. Everything between that will be a pissing match.

Can you tell me what has changed since it's removal? Also, how bad was the internet before it? Did anything, that you know of personally, change for the better after it was put in place?
Click to expand...
False I believe that the government should step in to regulate issues as a last resort when necessary. Glad you like to hypocritically paint with a broad brush.

I would I invite you to educate  yourself by visiting the net neutrality thread in this forum to better understand the actual issues at steak. Net neutrality was keeping the status quo be eliminating loopholes the telecom companies had found it was not really adding any regulations. There are already plenty of cases of companies violating net neutralit, such as T-Mobile at giving you unlimited data for Netflix only access. However the Trump Administration has chose not to pursue those issues. AT&T and Comcast have been in court a few times over violating net neutrality under previous Administrations. But all this is not on topic for this thread.

 
It's also quite revealing and hilarious to me when posters insist, "I'M NOT HAVING THIS CONVERSATION", and then they just can't stop being in the middle of it over and over and over.

 
ZRod said:
False I believe that the government should step in to regulate issues as a last resort when necessary. Glad you like to hypocritically paint with a broad brush.

I would I invite you to educate  yourself by visiting the net neutrality thread in this forum to better understand the actual issues at steak. Net neutrality was keeping the status quo be eliminating loopholes the telecom companies had found it was not really adding any regulations. There are already plenty of cases of companies violating net neutralit, such as T-Mobile at giving you unlimited data for Netflix only access. However the Trump Administration has chose not to pursue those issues. AT&T and Comcast have been in court a few times over violating net neutrality under previous Administrations. But all this is not on topic for this thread.
Click to expand...




exactly what I was talking about.. Not sure why I even stuck around. Here you tell me you are in favor of the government stepping in only when needed but yet you think the only option here is for the government to step in. Free market can regulate this.. Who cares if unlimited data is only offered for Netflix? Don't use either and enough people will force change. Why can't a company offer special incentives for things like this?

If I am an ISP, why do you think it is ok for the government to tell me I can't have specials like you mentioned? If you don't like it don't use that company/service.

This happens in everything we do today.. special offers to get you to use a certain product.

Kiyoat Husker said:
Thanks for exposing the Left's myth!  That doesn't even come close to answering my question, though.  I was asking why any Norwegian would want to emmigrate from Norway to the US today, given the fact that they have universal healthcare and much lower rates of gun violence. 

Are you going to now tell me that they don't have those things?
Click to expand...


They also have the highest tax rates, as well as suicide rates.. maybe that would be why?

 
$hitholes wasn't the first offensive thing our racists POTUS has said in public about other countries:

“Why are we having all these people from s#!thole countries come here?” he told lawmakers during a meeting in the Oval Office on Thursday
Click to expand...


“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Click to expand...


“What can be simpler or more accurately stated? The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.”
Click to expand...


RE: Syria:  Trump accused Syrian refugees of being “young, strong men” who could potentially have ties to the Islamic State, despite data that most refugees from the country are women and children.
Click to expand...


Trump also attacked the Diversity Visa Program, also known as the green-card lottery.  “They give us their worst people, put them in a bin... they're picking the worst of the worst, congratulations you're going to the U.S.," Trump said.
Click to expand...


RE: Haiti:  Haiti had sent 15,000 people. They "all have AIDS,” he grumbled, according to one person who attended the meeting and another person who was briefed about it by a different person who was there.
Click to expand...


RE: Nigerians: Forty thousand had come from Nigeria, Mr. Trump added. Once they had seen the United States, they would never 'go back to their huts' in Africa, recalled the two officials, who asked for anonymity to discuss a sensitive conversation in the Oval Office.
Click to expand...



 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bornhusker said:
Do you know how many leave each year?
Click to expand...


No, I couldn't find that.  Only a site offering asylum to Americans in Norway.

Here's something:

http://www.who.int/gho/mental_health/suicide_rates/en/

The World Health Organization reports a 19.5 per 100k suicide rate for the United States.  Norway was 12.9.  I'll link the studies on the link between more guns and higher suicide rates a little later, if you like.  There is a 90% success rate with a gun, vs. much lower with other methods.  Gotta feed the kids, so I'll be back later...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bornhusker said:
Off the top of my head net neutrality. Of course if I don't produce info from the appropriate liberal approved site it won't matter what I use to back my claim.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/why-ajit-pais-decision-killing-obamas-net-neutrality-fcc-regulation-is-good/article/2641528

is this to right wing nut job? I have no clue, honestly.
Click to expand...




It's not Obama's. Net Neutrality started years and years before Obama was even a senator. All I need to know about that article is that the link has "Obama's Net Neutrality" in it. That is enough to know that it's an enormous pile of crap attempting to mislead by name-dropping the "enemy."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder what Trump would have to do for people to admit it to themselves. I feel like the people who don't believe he's racist must be racist themselves. Maybe he does the things they do/think? So they think if they do those things, and they think they aren't racist, then clearly Trump isn't either.

Would calling people the N word be enough or does he have to do it a certain number of times?

I mean, clearly that audio tape wasn't enough to prove to people he's a sexist pig. I've heard the argument several times that "it was 10 years ago!"

HE WAS 60!

 
Bornhusker said:
Off the top of my head net neutrality. Of course if I don't produce info from the appropriate liberal approved site it won't matter what I use to back my claim.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/why-ajit-pais-decision-killing-obamas-net-neutrality-fcc-regulation-is-good/article/2641528

is this to right wing nut job? I have no clue, honestly.
Click to expand...
It's not just that it was a thing people were talking about needing in the tech industry years before Obama ever went into politics, which it was as Moriaine rightly points out.  In that ridiculous article it basically say it is a good thing, except the free market will take care of it and its just another Obama regulation.  Then gives an example of "telemedicine" which frankly would never apply, because they aren't going to do that over your s#!tty comcast cablemodem.  Any business that needs internet connectivity like that will 1) have a leased business quality line with a SLA where they can work out with their provider(s) - (because they'd need redundancy in the case of telemedicine like surgery) - what traffic to prioritize.  They'd also have business grade networking equipment to do that themselves as the traffic enters and exits their network.

So basically it lies about two things, first it assumes there's a free market where actually exists an oligopoly, and second it states that businesses like your hospital need to be able to pay for fast lanes but pretends that they are using the same consumer internet that we all do.  They need fast lines but aren't buying comcast/cox consumer internet.  They need them to be business quality lines that aren't oversold because they need a vastly superior level of service and an SLA that comes with business quality internet lines and for telemedicine I'd assume also redundancy.  They also need business class equipment where they can set their own policy on traffic, and if they want their ISP to change the priority on certain traffic they can either do it themselves or specify that in their contract.

So its lying, because it knows that 1) many republican's blindly hate Obama, so if you throw his name at something they obviously see red and believe anything you say he was for is some attack against them personally and merica in general.  2) most people that will so blindly hate someone are pretty stupid and will believe anything you can throw in there to scare them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top