Oade

Disingenuous. You know what he's pointing out. Rather than speak to the point, this attempts to deflect it. That's not anymore disingenuous than him. I know that every law that he pointed out needs to be enforced. So does he. What he's pointing out is that they aren't always enforced, and you know that. It's disingenuous for you to intentionally miss the point of his post and deflect it to something else. I suppose that could be interpreted as a point well made. It's not refutable, hence the deflection. What is disingenuous about it? I honestly didn't deflect to anything that hadn't already been mention by someone else..... Yes I pointed out the hypocrisy of his post, and then I ended by asking specifically why not support the enforcement of immigration laws. If anything, he's the one who deflected the point of topic by bringing up other laws that, I assume, he also believes need to be enforced - regardless of how anyone personally views said enforcement. You were being disingenuous by pretending to think he condoned those things when you knew very well he was pointing out existing laws that are not strictly enforced. We're not children. Let's stop pretending. I did not pretend that he condoned those things. I rhetorically asked if he did, because I know that nobody approves of those crimes. However the way he presented his post makes it seem as if the lack of enforcement of those laws or any laws, justifies the lack of enforcement of immigration laws. Which is not true. Its disingenuous and hypocritical. I agree, lets not be children. Lets not act as if our own personal crimes of speeding or underage drinking justifies the lack of enforcement of those laws or any other laws.

Disingenuous. You know what he's pointing out. Rather than speak to the point, this attempts to deflect it. That's not anymore disingenuous than him. I know that every law that he pointed out needs to be enforced. So does he. What he's pointing out is that they aren't always enforced, and you know that. It's disingenuous for you to intentionally miss the point of his post and deflect it to something else. I suppose that could be interpreted as a point well made. It's not refutable, hence the deflection. What is disingenuous about it? I honestly didn't deflect to anything that hadn't already been mention by someone else..... Yes I pointed out the hypocrisy of his post, and then I ended by asking specifically why not support the enforcement of immigration laws. I'm not claiming that he did or meant to , but if anything, he's the one who deflected the point of topic by bringing up other laws that I assume he also believes need to be enforced - regardless of how anyone personally views said enforcement.

Disingenuous. You know what he's pointing out. Rather than speak to the point, this attempts to deflect it. That's not anymore disingenuous than him. I know that every law that he pointed out needs to be enforced.

No, you can make that claim of literally every president. Certainly to varying degrees, but that same statement and sentiment can be painted onto any past/current politician. Obama would have us all believe that Obamacare is a good thing. Which is not true. Current dems (and maybe even a few Repubs) would want us all believe that an adjusted/improved/less-republican-tweeked version of Obamacare would be a good thing, which is not true. Obama & Bush would have us believe that the Auto and Bank bailouts were good things, not true imo. Obama said that the Russians were a non-issue, not a major concern, and that "the Cold War is over, Mr. Romney" - not true imo. Bush had us believe that there were WMDs. Bill Clinton didn't inhale or have sexual relations. If I was older, or if I cared to look it up, I'm sure I could remember more falsehoods from any and every former president. 20 million people who can go to the doctor instead of suffering along or dying might disagree with you. I'll never understand why people just point blank say "Obamacare is bad." As someone in healthcare, it just doesn't compute. Most folks in the field love it and want to keep it, although we admit it needs tweaked. All things equal, what do you believe would be a better option? And Moiriane is correct, IMO. Comparing the way Trump vomits on the truth every single day is a disservice to any of those other presidents, even if they did lie. I would say it's the wrong course for the government to take. I would call it an unfair tax and an unconstitutional tax in a lot of ways. I would say the intention behind Obamacare is nice and well intended, but that government insurance of any sort ignores the real issues. Yes everyone should have fair and equal access to health care, but the better option of addressing unfair costs (including unfair insurance costs, which will surely continue to rise until things addressed properly) would be to fix the value of the dollar. If a healthy currency doesn't fix the unfair costs on its own, then the government should work to make sure pharmaceutical prices are fair ($600 epi-pen comes to mind), not insure them. Although it's well intended, 50 years from now, people are going to look back and see that programs like Obamacare only helped to nosedive the economy even further, which drive costs and expenses up, which only continues to make health care unaffordable for everyone, not just the people on Obamacare, private health insurance prices will rise too. What I don't understand is why people think insurance is necessary at all. If the cost of health care is fair and true, and if the value of the dollar is fair and true, then what purpose does insurance serve?..... I can understand doctors like it because it probably saves them from being screwed over on payments.... I have several doctors & therapists in my family and extended family, and although I've never heard them speak against it, I have yet to hear them speak highly of it either, so I'm sure that's situational as well.

LOMS, are you condoning underage drinking, pirating music, driving at unsafe speed, or anything else on that list? Do you not support the enforcement of those laws? Why not support the enforcement of this law?

No, you can make that claim of literally every president. Certainly to varying degrees, but that same statement and sentiment can be painted onto any past/current politician. Obama would have us all believe that Obamacare is a good thing. Which is not true. Current dems (and maybe even a few Repubs) would want us all believe that an adjusted/improved/less-republican-tweeked version of Obamacare would be a good thing, which is not true. Obama & Bush would have us believe that the Auto and Bank bailouts were good things, not true imo. Obama said that the Russians were a non-issue, not a major concern, and that "the Cold War is over, Mr. Romney" - not true imo. Bush had us believe that there were WMDs. Bill Clinton didn't inhale or have sexual relations. If I was older, or if I cared to look it up, I'm sure I could remember more falsehoods from any and every former president.

That's the big problem. He's convinced so many people that his lies are the truth and everyone else's truths are lies. You can make the same exact claim about literally every president ever. The big problem in my eyes is that people on the left are not really doing anything to gain the votes that they need to win the next election. I didn't vote for Trump or Clinton, I am exactly the demographic that Democrats should be targeting, and as of today, I still have no incentive to vote for them. Its as if the Dems are expecting the Trump administration to implode, which is possible, but they act as if things will be back to business as usual after that. People voted for Trump for good reason though, and so far, the logic behind not voting for Hillary still stands. The idea of the Dems building a successful campaign around nothing more than (failed) knee-jerk policies or twitter rants by Trump is a good way for the Dems to lose to Trump again. And that's just as sad and out of touch as blindly supporting Trump imo.

Isn't Ivanka Jewish? Converted for marriage as I understand it. Unless that's fake news.... I can't imagine Trump ever acting too out of line in regards to the Jewish community.

It's funny/sad to me that how 60 years later many of his concerns are still issues today, and seemingly without a real end in sight. Except for the part about landing on the moon - or did we lol. Full transcript: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600

That's an interesting topic to me. I wish I could be walked through the process by (several) people who have gone through it. I recently looked into the process of gaining Canadian citizenship out of curiosity. Just trying to wrap my head around if/why people might enter Canada illegally. What the legal and/or illegal incentives are when choosing.... I eventually gave up because I was on my phone, so it was difficult to sort out and navigate. Definitely an interesting subject though. Ultimately I got fed up trying to navigate in my phone and decided that of I ever left this country I would do so legally regardless of the process, so ijust can't wrap my head around why illegal immigration is a problem to begin with. It makes no sense to me.

And their religious up bringing...

The current wall is only 700 miles long, only about 1/3 of the length of the border. The proposed wall would run the entire length on the US/Mexico border. Well this isn't true, because many parts of the border are in the middle of a river, or running through the middle of a town, or even through the middle of people's houses. What part isn't true? The current wall is only about 700 miles long, or 1/3 of the length of the US/Mexico border, regardless of other geographical barriers. How many houses are built directly upon the border? Do those home owners pay taxes to both countries?

The current wall is only 700 miles long, only about 1/3 of the length of the border. The proposed wall would run the entire length on the US/Mexico border. In terms of cost, for comparison, last week France approved the construction of a $22 million "barrier" (What that mean, IDK, but that's the same term Hillary used when discussing her plans for the US/Mexico border) to run around the perimeter of the Eiffel Tower..... France is building a 2 mile long barrier for the same estimated price that the US is going to build a 1300 mile long wall/fence. Either their is a huge difference in the quality of wall and technologies used for both countries, or there is huge lie in terms of the cost from one or both countries. Clinton, specifically, didn't say she would build a wall. As a Senator she was among those who voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which caused sections of wall and fence to be built along the entire length of the border. That's done, at a cost of about $2.4 billion for a little more than 600 miles of new barrier. You're right, I was using the "2 mile" term loosely, 2 miles being a rough estimated maximum on my part. I can imagine two or three levels of wall/security around the Tower. Just last year Clinton used the term "technology and barriers" when asked to describe her plan for securing the border. She definitely avoided using the specific wording of a Wall or Fence because she's a veteran politician, but its impossible to say what she wanted because I don't think she ever expanded upon her comment of a "barrier". That's all beside the point though. This wall will be more expensive than it should be, and a lot of people are going to hate it regardless of cost.

Lol you're right. Thank you. Don't mind me, I'll just be over here eating popcorn....

Exactly right. Unless you've encroached upon another persons rights, then our culture is about doing whats best for yourself/family. American Culture or freedom or anything in those terms cannot be described by a few laws, benefits, religions, foods, cities, ect... Our culture and our freedom is a state of mind. It cannot be taken away by politicians, laws, or force - and it cannot be given to other countries/cultures by politicians, laws, or force. Each individual must make their own choices to define their own freedoms (with respect to others' individual rights).

Yeah, but does that mean "Our" Football or European Football, Changa didn't distinguish between the two, you've gotta distinguish between that stuff.

The current wall is only 700 miles long, only about 1/3 of the length of the border. The proposed wall would run the entire length on the US/Mexico border.

No chance. He needs them to win the next election.... They dedicate enough air-time to him, regardless of the tone of coverage, for him to undercut that. In terms of the election race, Trump probably received 70% or 80% of "on-air" coverage over the past two years. Maybe it wasn't praiseworthy coverage, but it undercut his opponents air time all the same. On-air coverage is free, his campaign didn't have to spend a dime on it, all Trump had to do was post an outlandish tweet every 24 hours and it would keep his name at the top of the news ticker. He received more benefit from that type of coverage than what any other candidate received from 30-second paid ads.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article131227599.html The Senate Judiciary Committee letter - PDF: http://www.miamiherald.com/latest-news/article131327329.ece/binary/ICE_Letter.pdf Of course none of that info justifies an immigration ban, but to say no crimes or murders have come at the hands of immigrants is just not true.

Yeah thats really creepy. I can't imagine any cops who would want to be a part of that. Hopefully that doesn't gain any momentum.

The death penalty is not designed to be a deterrent, and nothing more than a deterrent - if it was it would be enforced at a much higher rate..... Its supposed to be justification/defense for an otherwise defenseless victim. If that fact gives potential murders pause before killing someone, then that's just icing on the cake.

It's extremely hard to recruit an 18 year old kid to replace a 22 year old kid who has spent 4+ years in the s&c program, and being coached by college level coaches. Most 18 year olds arent going to walk in and from day 1 be able to hang then one would hope they arent just recruiting kids to start for 4 yrs at a time. if you are recruiting players equal to or better than the players you have, redshirting them to keep them for another year becomes a moot point. you're not going to just have a two-deep at every position. take lamar jackson, some say we should have redshirted him. no, they just signed a lamar jackson to replace him and are actively recruiting another lamar jackson to replace him. so even if he plays limited downs it doesn't matter because you have the replacement ready. and truthfully, we should only expect players to be here for 3-4 yrs. if they are good enough they'll be heading to the nfl in that time frame. While this is true for skill players, are there really that many OL that leave early for the NFL? Is it common for OL underclassmen being in the draft? I'm speaking without looking it up, just thinking back to NU's good OL's of the past, but I would say its far less common to see a Junior OLman enter into the NFL (let alone successfully) than it is to see 3 or 4 RS Juniors and RS Seniors OLman starting for the teams playing for the National Title.

I think I already did. I can fix them if it helps you.

The death penalty is supposed to be a deterrent. It doesn't work. The wall is supposed to be a deterrent. Why will it work? Anything used at less than a 1% rate can hardly be referred to as a deterrent imo. Life in Prison would be a better example of a deterrent, because that is actually used at a respectable rate..... However looking at Texas' murder numbers, nothing seems to have greatly disrupted the pattern in Texas' murder rate since 1994. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm ---- By comparison, to date and since 1819, 1,295 individuals have been executed in the state of Texas. 1,295 people have been executed by the state in a 200 year time-span, yet that number of murders happens regularly in one year alone. That's a poor example of a deterrent imo. What happened in 1994? The Federal Death Penalty Act & Federal Assault Weapons Ban..... AKA: The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, H.R. 3355, originally written by Senator Joe Biden, presented to congress by Texas Congressman Jack Brooks, and passed by Bill Clinton. Was that Death Penalty Act a perfect answer? No. Did it help? Clearly. Will a wall solve the entire issue? No. Will it help? That is yet to be determined, but I can see the potential benefit.

I won't disagree with the point you make. That's a fair view. But to the point about Texas' "frequent' death penalty.... I'd just point out that less than 1% of all of Texas' murder cases end with an execution, both historically speaking and at the current rates. That's debating schematics though, and not relevant, a moot point.