"In Today's News..." Discussion Thread


Feb 2, 2014
485
43
#1
Because there have been a few debates sparking in the news thread, I've decided to open this thread to effectively steer those otherwise fruitful debates away from that thread and allow it to sustain its primary focus with minimal distraction. I mean, people gonna shitpost and shit, but y'know...

So, anyways, let's start this one off with a fiery topic, shall we?

Trump vs the Migrant Caravan. This isn't so much a "who will win?" style issue so much as the options the current US President has available to him, the outcomes, etc. I would chalk it up to 3 options at this point:

1) He issues a "kill or be killed" order to the military, in which the majority open fire on migrants who don't "turn back" from the border. This could result in upwards of possibly 1,000 deaths on the US/Mexico border, which would likely spark a significant outrage which then saw to his immediate impeachment and possibly a trial for committing mass murder, or, at the very least, being an accessory to.

2) He lets them in willy-nilly, and loses his base. The Democrats win a significant majority, and Trump's last 2.5 years in office are railroaded to a "big nothing" finish. He doesn't get re-elected, Republicans are lauded as ineffective, etc.

3) He sets up a strong military presence at the border and encourages them migrants to participate in a one-time "sign here, go to a camp for x months/years, we'll do what we can to make you legal if we think it's in our interest" option. Migrants who refuse and demand entry without consequence are subsequently turned away. The ones who attempt to "hoodwink" the military and/or government are turned away with no chance for later consideration.

Honestly, it's a tough sell. You could argue option 3 is the best option, but there comes some consequences with it that you can't faithfully predict. All you can do is assume that there is a significant backing to any of the 3, and hope it doesn't bite you too hard.

I am open to alternatives and discussion. No idea is dumb, and I'll hold my tongue if I feel someone is being "dumb" or otherwise lacking intelligence. My opinion on an individual does not factor into a debate, ergo I will forgo the personal attacks in favor of attacking points stated instead.
 

XSI

Lurker
Nov 10, 2008
2,242
83
#2
They could just put them in makeshift prisons and then deport them to wherever they came from without any fanfare involved
Greet them with the military, process them all, then send them right back home

Problems solved
When is that wall coming anyway?
 
Feb 2, 2014
485
43
#3
Eh.... Pretty sure we already rode that train this past year with children caught in the crossfire. Granted, it didn't go as poorly as the media would like you to believe, but it was still a shit-storm. I also love the part where it was "forgotten" when Obama did the same thing. I think one of the issues you have with that idea, though, is how do you prioritize the usage of your resources? What takes priority with 10k+ migrants trying to illegally enter the country vs the however hundreds of soldiers you dispatch to the border to handle the processing and return trip? Also, these are apparently relief migrants escaping tyranny, so how do you justify sending them back?

It's a good idea, don't get me wrong. It has its holes, though. Even putting aside the issue of them leaving a terrible situation, there comes the logistics question.
 

XSI

Lurker
Nov 10, 2008
2,242
83
#4
If they were escaping tyranny they wouldn't be traveling through multiple countries, including safe ones, to get there
It's not like the US isn't spending a shitload on military so why not actually put those resources to good use? They already funded the troops multiple times over and now there's an opportunity for them to actually be useful in a constructive way

I'd also support a permanent military presence on the US southern border just because of the cartels. Those tend to be incredibly violent and well armed, and they make their business all about getting into the US with contraband. They're also literally an armed force. It's really more of a question why there aren't already soldiers on the US border than needing to justify sending them
 
Nov 13, 2013
64
8
#5
Something no one addresses is the involvement of all those pro migrant groups who would rather break the laws of a country in order to export slave tier workers from the 3th world, when they should be pushing for fair work arrangements like the defunct bracero program.Instead they keep cheaping labour by flooding the market. For example 10 years ago you could make a shitton of money in construction work as an illegal but today it´s harder. but I guess it´s easier to blame the evil racist wh*te gringos.
There´s also the matter of those violent individuals within the migrant train who have been attacking the mexican police, only god knows what´s going to happen when they try to do the same against the north american soldier boys.
 
Apr 3, 2018
806
93
#6
I'm slightly confused nowadays.
Are migrant criminals? That's what Trump says so that must be true that they're bad guys I guess.
But Saudi Arabia did murder that journalist and thus qualify as criminals... but Trump says they are okay.
So murderers are fine but criminal migrant aren't? :unsure:
I say Trump ought to treat migrants like proper murderers.
Or maybe Saudi Arabia are actually bad guys and must be treated as migrants but if they're not then they're not murderers.

:poop:

The US just ought to do what they always did at the border. You can't stop desperate migrants anyway. It won't be the end of the world either and the some companies will take them in as cheap labor. The majority won't have a great live in the US.

What Trump can do is just turn this whole thing onto a farce. Having migrants camps inside the US would be a catastrophe. The only thing to do IMO is just wait and see and deal with extraordinary measures only when extraordinary event occurs. What you really don't want is a single massive crowd along the border or incidents are sure to happen--but I'm not sure how to actually prevent that if that becomes necessary. After that, migrants will know better than to cause trouble once they cross the border, and those that don't aren't that hard to be dealt with.

1) and 3) are both impossible. Trump won't stay still for sure but he has no mean to actually stop the migrants. Unfortunately, the option to deal with the migrants using diplomacy with Mexico is no longer possible--not without a loss for the US.

2) won't happen. Trump will most likely pressure Mexico and then put the blame on them (+democrats +those that disagree with the wall). He'll also send troops along the border to not appear to be doing nothing.
 
Feb 2, 2014
485
43
#7
@XSI : The whole of South America is a shit-show, recall? And Mexico isn't exactly an improvement, even if it's marginally better and therefore just as an valid option as the US (lol). Hence, I'm skeptical about the caravan. Too many questions that are raised, and while the counter-arguments to those questions are valid, still require some willingness to accept the "A Priori Argument" as gospel.

I wouldn't be opposed to a military presence at any border, honestly. Hell, put them in the airports if you're convinced that, barring land travel, migrants will try alternative routes to enter the country illegally. Unfortunately, it runs into 2 issues at that point, cause all you need is a migrant/native and/or a gung-ho soldier to fuck things up. First issue is, if people feel like the boot is stomping down on their neck every time they leave/enter the country, how long until they express discontent and eventually call for a removal? Second issue is, how far do you go to secure the border before you do start stomping necks?

I get the point about the cartels, though. It's an issue, though, that I think requires more than a few marines standing guard on the wall. Cartels have money and greed has been proven to be a motivator to betray one's own duties. Eventually, you find a pilot or customs guy who doesn't mind turning a blind eye for a fat paycheck. That doesn't mean we can't punish those people or establish stronger regulations and such surrounding import/exports, but that's as much an economy thing as a judicial matter. How many airports and warehouses want to sign mountains of paperwork for a pallet of pepsi? Hell, I've worked in receiving for a grocery store and the few papers that came across "my desk" resulted in me filling out double that.

Believe me, paperwork is a bitch, and adding to that will only frustrate the system further.

@dudes_tractor_yeah : I mean, it's been talked to death, bitched about, etc to the extent that Southpark has a running gag about it. Believe me, everyone-even those pro-migrant supporters-know the economic ramifications of a sudden population explosion and are solely committed to undermine everyone to push their narrative even if it ends in disaster. Why confront the uncertainty you might be experiencing at the eleventh hour when you've already fully committed to a point-blank trainwreck policy?

Part of the problem with pro-migration supporters isn't that they blindly believe their bullshit, but that they believe they know better than you do. Arguably, sure, maybe. But, talking down policy to the majority that knows is disastrous is the height of arrogance, and these people have it in spades. They're the university-graduated, pro-feelings "brainiacs" that their professors molded rather than simply providing an openness towards perspectives that differed and cultivating that mindset. Unfortunately, that's not all of them, since people are nuanced. That is, however, the course of the ones with the most influence, sadly.

@Lv1VillagerA : I think you're taking in too much mainstream media. They'll often unfavorably cut clips or intentionally misquote something if it directs their narrative. Most people have caught on nowadays and (rightly) disregard the majority of what is said. "Die hard" holdovers have started to say less and temper themselves better, but only just enough as to not expose themselves in a crowd... yet.

You're also trying to compare two separate issues against each other when one does not preclude the other. Saudi Arabi has been morally bankrupt for quite some time, even if it's only recently had the spotlight cast upon it. There is a significant difference between migrants coming from a supposed tyrannical dictatorship and seeking asylum in a nation whose majority government and populace has already stated in no uncertain terms that they will find none, and a morally bankrupt ideology-driven nation murdering a famous critic of their behavior and then attempting to feign ignorance of the matter.

One involves people who can be considered an invading force and a potential detriment, but still allegedly in need of help. The other is a brutal nation run by a toxic ideology in need of reform and what might be a (possibly) equally toxic dictatorship deciding to bring harm to another Human being for criticizing their ideology. Neither have anything in common currently.
 
Aug 29, 2016
949
93
#8
I don't know if killing would make the "reward" disappear for some shooters--I may underestimate the influence of a death row inmate.
Again, you are not listening[reading] and focusing only on one thing like a broken record. I will say you do it out of convince, because you don't want me to say other possible reason.
We do simple report on the shooting and don't talk about it, thus removing the reward. Then with death penalty we remove the problem from society.
I get the idea to convince/persuade them they're just wasting their life.
You do not. Good luck trying to convince this type of mental disorder.
I would approve of a society that managed to do that. However I'm not sure about how to get to that point without having conflicts with human rights (death penalty) and freedom of speech (media censorship). Media is something you can't control (for the better of for the worse) while death penalty is. But just because you can only act on the latter doesn't mean you have to risk doing so.
Considering their actions, doesn't sound to me like they need human rights. You are saying this now, but you would quickly change tune if it affected you in person, that's how weak it is. As for media censorship, kinda true. We still let them report but not talk about it over and over and over. Wrong, media is something you can control, they are not outside of the law, same with death penalty. Now, if you sentence him to 200 years in prison, it will be like death penalty, just very long and sucking up people's money to keep him around.
As for Trump not saying more guns were needed. You are correct, he didn't say that, but you're also nitpicking.
I am not going to ignore things because they are convenient to you. This is not how it works.
He spoke of guards, borrowing an old NRA idea that if you have someone armed you're safe(r)--with that "someone" being a guard.
Again, not aware of NRA ideas. Now, did they made this out of thin air? Are you less safer if there is armed guard around? It's stupidly basic logic and I don't see your counterargument to it, only "it's wrong!". I already see few counterarguments to this and some supporting/disagreeing ones to those. We are not children, saying something "is dumb" does not work.
I made the shortcut this was about having more guns because you suggested the debate was going to be about having less guns in America (which is, I agree, a pointless debate over something that will not necessarily benefit the US) and that I wanted to stop you there.
Wrong. I made a general statement, you assumed what it's going to be. This is what you get for not reading or ignoring what we call reading comprehension with then being certain you are correct anyway.
Now if you're honest, you know that when it starts with a NRA argument it ends if the need for more guns.
If I will start being honest with you, this will end up with you crying. Now, I said two times already, I do not know their arguments, I have my own. By what I learned so far, seems they support some of my own arguments. Will it end in more guns argument? No idea, but I see you really want it to.
You also know that those guards will need guns and that those guns will be more guns.
Based on what? Just because it's said so? You could at least give some logic to this. Easiest one would be: supply and demand - more guards means need of more guns as one citizen now may require two, one for work, second one for private use. That's however a basic economy. Now, this raises a question: What's the problem? Just because there are too many of them? Well, there are 10 million more phones than citizens in US, should the country stop bringing more phones from China? You do have to provide some fundamentals to your argument, otherwise you are just saying random words.
You really like nitpicking do you? Because if I was concerned about false positives, i-e guards killing innocent, you seemed concerned about true-negatives, the guards actually failing to protect with a hostage situation. But I still think you understood if you used the same talent to find fault to actually understand the point that was being made.
Yes, but you are the one letting me to do it. Not sure how a guard killing innocent is a false POSITIVE but let's roll with it. Well, if a guard does some crap, company that hired him will have it's image torn to shreds, that's why they do screen potential employees. It's not 100% sure method, but removes a lot of unwanted elements. My example showed that even with an armed guard, there are cases where they won't help.
Well, you said yourself, "I made the shortcut", you are assuming everyone has the same points and views. Again, "assuming" as you do it a lot. This is what fails you. Either be clear right away what you want to suggest or don't just say things without supporting them. Just because you say things, doesn't make them an argument.
I'm not a fan of Trump but I don't have the same point of view on him than you. You are ready to defend him and I understand that it's not because you like him but because you think the end justifies the means: even if he has bad judgment he can make good decisions.
Yup, you hate/dislike him, I don't care about him. No, I had to correct you because you weren't telling what he actually said. You made things up because you don't like someone. It's a shit thing to do. He did it so people like you talk about him in this exact way. You know why? Because it actually makes him look better. He wanted a reaction and he got one, that's why I don't bother with what politicians say, but with what they actually do, as not even half of their words turn into action.
Based on the video, he didn't seem to have a proper reasoning as he went straight up with the flow, borrowing ideas here and there (Armed guard: one of the most popular and widespread NRA pro-gun argument; death/pay the ultimate price: any grumpy old man about any murderer that should be killed on spot if not fed to the dogs). This was essentially Trump acting like himself.
I could say the same about you. You just went straight up with the flow, borrowing ideas here and there without providing any reason to those. He says things to get controversial reaction, you fell for it.
Well, you are paying for every single prisoner with your taxes. Many of those mass killers will not change, no matter how much therapy and fixing you try to apply, real world is not some fairy tail. But, majority of society agreed to keep them in tiny room until they are dead to have their hands clean, this is basically it. They just have to wait much longer for their death penalty. But boy oh boy, it soothes the conscience.
I might have also be tempted to let it go if I approved of a more systematic death penalty. It just happens that he proposes to stiffen up the death penalty for a reason I can't approve (disgust) and that completely fails to convince me. Of course, you see it another way with a very different reasoning (you didn't need to see the video) that leads you to perceive a benefit (prevention).
You are aware, that even if stiffening death penalty will be a thing, it won't be based on disgust, this is not how law works. Disgust can be a spark, but actual changes will take tons of time and adjustments as not every crime is, well, good enough to get ultimate prize. So yeah, in the end it will be systematic. Then again, he just blabs out things for people who want to hear it, nothing more until it becomes a thing.
You might think you're pragmatic but having a proper reason is, IMO, as important as making a correct decision. We already exposed our point of view about death penalty for mass shooters so I won't talk about it again. Just know that things will always evolve. You'll look back at the reasons you wanted it to be that way to begin with. If the reason for death penalty is to punish rather to dissuade, then you'll walk a wrong path. There is a man that just wants a punitive death penalty, he didn't consider how to dissuade murders, and if he leads change with his point of view you can't expect your current attitude to serve your interests.
"You might think you're pragmatic"
"If the reason for death penalty is to punish rather to dissuade"
I laughed a bit. If I am pragmatic, then my reason for death penalty can't be punishment. And it isn't. If I wanted to punish someone, it would require for them to be alive. Now, semantics game. While word punishment can and is used for death penalty, my reasoning is not to punish but to remove rotten apple that proved it can't function in society and is a danger to others. Keeping such vermin for next 20-60 years is just going to be a strain for society. In California, one prisoner costs around $70'000 each year. Let's say he lives in prison for next 50 years. That's $3'500'000. This money could be spent on building parks, playgrounds and things like that. I am aware that idea for you may seem horrific, but that guy is not going to get fixed. It's not some dude that got into argument with another one and went too far, it's not some robber that fucked up and tried to get away. It's someone who was ready to die and take as many as he can with him, don't expect any remorse, they are incapable of doing so.
Maybe this time it will click:
Death penalty is not to stop such extreme elements from popping out in society but to remove a strain they would bring. Prevention is done by not talking so much about it and not creating a reward for such people.
Death penalty can work as prevention method in some cases. In example of copycat crimes such as one that started this discussion, it's not going to work.
So yeah, good thing if you know ideas to make mass shooters lose motivation, bad point on nitpicking though. For the rest, I understand you better now and don't think you are more of a jerk that me. Then, I understand but I disagree with your way to be unbiased to politicians by just looking at their results.
You know... You are bothered by nitpicking because your so called "arguments" are full of holes. Do you know what it really is? Pointing out certain inability that bothers you but it's still a "you-problem", not mine.
Considering words you are using, methods of "arguing" and saying "understand you better" with "less of a jerk than me"... Well, you do not understand better, what you do have is need of guilt which is a reason for that last sentence. If you wish, I can show you what a real dickhead looks like and it's nothing like you can imagine.
Next, I am not unbiased, there is no such thing as unbiased human. I am looking at the results, because politicians say whatever is need to be said to gain voters. Their words are worth shit most of the time. Want example? Trump used death penalty many times in the past, yet I don't see drug dealers being sentenced to death. He is literally throwing shit and you are picking it up to play with it. If you honestly believe that whatever he says will become a reality, because he said it, you have no damn idea how things work. Or do you want me to go through every of his promise and idea that didn't happen?
Before you will even try saying that what he says could become reality or we shouldn't ignore what he says. Until it's actually being worked on, it's just an empty promise, often not even that much. Commenting on it is a normal thing to do, but assuming it's going to happen right away is just a proof that one lacks understanding of how things work.
And to poke a little bit of fun, so what about me or topic on hand will you assume next without any fundamental reasoning behind it? Or maybe we will go with "I'm offended, bye!"?
 
Last edited:
Apr 3, 2018
806
93
#9
Then how exactly are you going to control the media? I assumed you ruled it out of the equation because that's not exactly possible to do it in the US because of laws and really hard to do because of how information spreads in with modern day technology.
Now you're telling me I missed your point because I only went with the death penalty side of the issue. Well, you didn't exactly gave me any reason to go deeper into the media thing, even telling it's kinda difficult. I'm not going to do you the favor of complementing that kind of lazy argumentation. You can't blame on me your broken logic of Media->???->Media that doesn't speak of mass murderers -> ??? -> More peaceful society. Sorry but your idea is not going to work. I tried to see if there was something bigger behind it, but apparently it's just:
-you distrusting politicians and not listening to them
-you blaming the media and human curiosity
-you considering death row inmates as wastes that should be disposed of
Maybe you want a purge? I don't care at this point. Trying to understand you is not being a broken record but I might have been a fool for believing you had anything to say on the subject at hand.

And just an illustration of you not being honest. I'm not going to them all because I don't want to undermine your great confidence in your judgment.
"You might think you're pragmatic"
"If the reason for death penalty is to punish rather to dissuade"
I laughed a bit. If I am pragmatic, then my reason for death penalty can't be punishment. And it isn't. If I wanted to punish someone, it would require for them to be alive. Now, semantics game. While word punishment can and is used for death penalty, my reasoning is not to punish but to remove rotten apple that proved it can't function in society and is a danger to others.
What I said:
I might have also be tempted to let it go if I approved of a more systematic death penalty. It just happens that he proposes to stiffen up the death penalty for a reason I can't approve (disgust) and that completely fails to convince me. Of course, you see it another way with a very different reasoning (you didn't need to see the video) that leads you to perceive a benefit (prevention).

Of course if you start constructing your reply based on me being wrong and you being right you'll probably come up with another shenanigan to overturn my accusation. But meh, have your fun.
 
Last edited:
Aug 29, 2016
949
93
#10
Then how exactly are you going to control the media?
I assumed you ruled it out of the equation because that's not exactly possible to do it in the US because of laws and really hard to do because of how information spreads in with modern day technology.
Yes, you assumed, over and over. I already told you: report on the case without blowing it up. Can be enforced by law. Now, modern technology... Which ones? FB? Twitter? Google? Congratulations, we already have established big platforms that do censor content with good accuracy, so you are completely wrong on modern day technology. I am mainly talking about biggest ones with the biggest reach. There aren't that many. That's the fastest and easiest way, in some other countries there is no need as there aren't as many people with mental health issues. Again, it's not "do not talk" but "do not blow it up so much".
Now you're telling me I missed your point because I only went with the death penalty side of the issue. Well, you didn't exactly gave me any reason to go deeper into the media thing, even telling it's kinda difficult.
"Point is to get them out of society and forget, not talk about, because some retarded fucks with death wish hope for after-death fame."
"Some mass shooters do what they do to get remembered or "show the world". They see media talking so much about all those fucks and they want the same. Ever heard of term copycat crime?"
"To keep it most simple and not going too much into both elements: fame media gives [...] to all those killers and shooters is a damn reward. "
"You are very correct on media perversion with such stories just to have something to shout about."

Not a single reason, damn...
What exactly is difficult? Controlling media? Told you already how to. The whole topic of copycat crimes? Complicated when you are going to put it in simple words.
I'm not going to do you the favor of complementing that kind of lazy argumentation. You can't blame on me your broken logic of Media->???->Media that doesn't speak of mass murderers -> ??? -> More peaceful society. Sorry but your idea is not going to work. I tried to see if there was something bigger behind it, but apparently it's just:
Based on what? You have yet to give a single, logical argument. All you are saying is "because" without anything following that. And you have audacity to tell someone about lazy argumentation when you have none?
-you distrusting politicians and not listening to them
-you blaming the media and human curiosity
-you considering death row inmate as a waste that should be disposed of
Maybe you want a purge? I don't care at this point. Trying to understand you is not being a broken record but I might have been a fool for believing you had anything to say on the subject at hand.
1st - Says the guy that doesn't like a politician. Hypocrisy goes deep. Now, was that a proceeding? A conference? Or was that just a publicity stunt for people? Didn't knew that in US important statements are made in the middle of fucking road.
2nd - Yes, because they are the only ones able to create post-death fame, which is a fuel for mentally sick copycats. They have ability to tone it down, they don't care. Irony, they would rather have more mass shootings to talk about.
3rd - And what do you suggest? Having his death row taking 50 years to be finished? So you basically want to torture someone and pay for that. Types of people we are talking about can't be helped. I know that in your little fairy land everything is nice and dandy, but real world doesn't care.
A purge? Where did this one came from? Saying random things again to sound smarter?
I think you are just hurt that your lack of argumentation got you assblasted and you can't handle it. Well, you got only yourself to blame.
And just an illustration of you not being honest. I'm not going to them all because I don't want to undermine your great confidence in your judgment.

What I said:
I might have also be tempted to let it go if I approved of a more systematic death penalty. It just happens that he proposes to stiffen up the death penalty for a reason I can't approve (disgust) and that completely fails to convince me. Of course, you see it another way with a very different reasoning (you didn't need to see the video) that leads you to perceive a benefit (prevention).

Of course if you start constructing your reply based on me being wrong and you being right you'll probably come up with another shenanigan to overturn my accusation. But meh, have your fun.
You know, I will just go straight away into honesty. You just aren't as smart as you think you are. All you came with were headlines and slogans without any substance behind it, because you do not understand what you are even talking about. All you do is FEEL that what you are saying must be correct.
Well, of course you were wrong, you ASSUMED what I was thinking, you proved over and over that you don't even bother to read what other people write. Is your attention span that short? So I proved you wrong on that and how it doesn't matter if a disgust is a spark, because it's not what will be used as argument. And even now, you are dense enough to not realize my response was to your colored sentences, to both of them.
Honestly, boy, this is basically where it stands:
- You can't make a logical argument, because you can't think for yourself, just repeating random things you heard.
- You can't take someone proving you wrong, it's too much to handle.
- You start discussion with attacking the person, not an argument, typical of people that can't think, only consume. And you suck at it anyway.
- You got assblasted, grasping random straws and hoping one will work. Seems it didn't.
- You don't bother to read, first or two sentences is enough for you.

Now, it wasn't that hard to predict:
[...] so what about me or topic on hand will you assume next without any fundamental reasoning behind it? Or maybe we will go with "I'm offended, bye!"?
So we got both more assumptions and "I'm offended, bye!". Well, bye, nothing of value was lost.
 
Feb 2, 2014
485
43
#12
I just want to remind people to be civil with each other. If you feel yourself getting upset or otherwise bothered by what the other side is saying, I will insist on stepping back and returning when you feel a bit less "passionate" about your perspective. That said, if you're just being more expressive because you feel a stronger position needs stronger language, I'll argue that a strong position is strong on its own merits. That said, feel free to resume.

@dudes_tractor_yeah Don't know if sarcasm or not. But, yeah, South Park running gags aside (when was the last time Kenny died, btw? Aside the episode he was supposedly dead for good), it's been something of a commonality for right-wing politicians to attack immigration with the bias of "DER TURK ER JERRS" and, while it is more/less accurate, is also counter-productive. That said, giving immigrants the jobs that most American's could do is either the sign of an incredibly irresponsible majority leadership, or the utter discontent the populace has towards the positions available. It's generally less of a "immigration is bad because it means fewer jobs" and more of "these jobs are available and, for whatever reason, they're not being filled by American's."
 
Nov 13, 2013
64
8
#13
Don't know if sarcasm or not. But, yeah, South Park running gags aside (when was the last time Kenny died, btw? Aside the episode he was supposedly dead for good), it's been something of a commonality for right-wing politicians to attack immigration with the bias of "DER TURK ER JERRS" and, while it is more/less accurate, is also counter-productive. That said, giving immigrants the jobs that most American's could do is either the sign of an incredibly irresponsible majority leadership, or the utter discontent the populace has towards the positions available. It's generally less of a "immigration is bad because it means fewer jobs" and more of "these jobs are available and, for whatever reason, they're not being filled by American's."
Nah, man I was being serious. For a moment there I completely ignored how all those crappy jobs used to be for the North American nationals. Guess that´s what happens when all your life you only see illegals covering those positions,as for the why. I couldnt even beging to comprehend the reasons behind it.
As for Kenny dying,last time I saw him die was during the mysterion arc.
 
Aug 29, 2016
949
93
#14
Since there isn't much of a news other than "it's down".
http://gab.ai/ While I don't find it as shocking it's being under attack (and not only that site) what strikes me odd is the statement on their page atm.
In case it gets fixed and message is no longer visible, putting it in spoiler
Gab has spent the past 48 hours proudly working with the DOJ and FBI to bring justice to an alleged terrorist. Because of the data we provided, they now have plenty of evidence for their case. In the midst of this Gab has been no-platformed by essential internet infrastructure providers at every level. We are the most censored, smeared, and no-platformed startup in history, which means we are a threat to the media and to the Silicon Valley Oligarchy.

Gab isn’t going anywhere.

It doesn’t matter what you write. It doesn’t matter what the sophist talking heads say on TV. It doesn’t matter what verified nobodies say on Twitter. We have plenty of options, resources, and support. We will exercise every possible avenue to keep Gab online and defend free speech and individual liberty for all people.

You have all just made Gab a nationally recognized brand as the home of free speech online at a time when Silicon Valley is stifling political speech they disagree with to interfere in a US election.

The internet is not reality. TV is not reality. 80% of normal everyday people agree with Gab and support free expression and liberty. The online outrage mob and mainstream media spin machine are the minority opinion. People are waking up, so please keep pointing the finger at a social network instead of pointing the finger at the alleged shooter who holds sole responsibility for his actions.

No-platform us all you want. Ban us all you want. Smear us all you want.

You can’t stop an idea.

As we transition to a new hosting provider Gab will be inaccessible for a period of time. We are working around the clock to get Gab.com back online. Thank you and remember to speak freely.

Andrew Torba, CEO Gab.com
While I do agree with some statements made... In a way it does give this vibe of "we are the saviors of free speech and Internet", which is a dangerous view to have because that's how Google and Silicon Valley friends started as. Dunno, maybe I missed something while being out of the loop, but not sure if it's to create a reaction or fully believed views.
 
Feb 2, 2014
485
43
#15
Nah, man I was being serious. For a moment there I completely ignored how all those crappy jobs used to be for the North American nationals. Guess that´s what happens when all your life you only see illegals covering those positions,as for the why. I couldnt even beging to comprehend the reasons behind it.
As for Kenny dying,last time I saw him die was during the mysterion arc.
I mean, they were for anyone who was a legal citizen, except when customer service/lower food industry positions (like McDonald's) started seeing a sudden decrease in legal citizens working those positions, they bandwagon'd the "international worker" VISA thing. Unfortunately, like Power Rangers and New Zealand, those same employers didn't want to have to worry about paying decent wages after the first year and cycled out the "old" workers for newer ones. It's basically a scam at this point, but because it's federally-approved and run (at least, in Canada), nobody can really do anything about it. Hell, the government wants no part of doing anything about it (again, in Canada.). Trump is the only one with the balls to say "we don't want foreign markets taking our jobs and keeping us slaves to their economic whims." and the rest of his party followed suit.

Was Mysterion that alter ego of Butters? I usually hear about South Park stuff second-hand. When I was 8(?) it was a thing, but I didn't watch all that much.

@吉国大輝 (Seriously, that name won't @ on here wtf): I just have to laugh at that. What were service providers and social media thinking? I'm not even sure who they're talking about or what, but that's legitimately amusing. And when it comes back, are they planning to try and kill it, again? I feel like Gab will humor them for the time being if only because it gives them more ammunition in the long-run.

So, new topic for discussion? Honestly, I feel like a "3 topics/conversations per person" rule needs to be put in place so we don't get cross-conversation confusion. Use the @ function, people! And quotes.
 
Nov 13, 2013
64
8
#16
Was Mysterion that alter ego of Butters? I usually hear about South Park stuff second-hand. When I was 8(?) it was a thing, but I didn't watch all that much.
lol Same here, Dropped the series like 6 years ago,I think I was 13 at that time.
 
Feb 2, 2014
485
43
#17
lol Same here, Dropped the series like 6 years ago,I think I was 13 at that time.
I don't think it's really that bad of a series, but I just couldn't enjoy it the way other people did. I mean, I've caught some episodes here and there in the past couple of years and they weren't unwatchable. Unlike The Simpsons, it's still got some good moments intermixed with the mediocre plots. And, hey, at least they're not riding the Trump Train like it's going out of style like SNL did for a year, or every other night-time "talk show" host.

Can we take a moment to truly appreciate how Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel incidentally made themselves a good measurement for whether someone's sense of humor is garbage or not? Hell, toss John Oliver in there, too. And they said Trump isn't doing any good.
 
Aug 29, 2016
949
93
#18
@吉国大輝 (Seriously, that name won't @ on here wtf): I just have to laugh at that. What were service providers and social media thinking? I'm not even sure who they're talking about or what, but that's legitimately amusing. And when it comes back, are they planning to try and kill it, again? I feel like Gab will humor them for the time being if only because it gives them more ammunition in the long-run.

So, new topic for discussion? Honestly, I feel like a "3 topics/conversations per person" rule needs to be put in place so we don't get cross-conversation confusion. Use the @ function, people! And quotes.
I know it doesn't @, it's also a pain when you have to copy-paste it, I just use windows+spacebar :^)
Nah, you can completely ignore it as a topic of discussion, rather me asking initial questions before doing some actual digging, which I am not sure when will happen. Anyway, right now there is only one discussion going, so don't worry xP
 
Nov 13, 2013
64
8
#19
I don't think it's really that bad of a series, but I just couldn't enjoy it the way other people did. I mean, I've caught some episodes here and there in the past couple of years and they weren't unwatchable. Unlike The Simpsons, it's still got some good moments intermixed with the mediocre plots. And, hey, at least they're not riding the Trump Train like it's going out of style like SNL did for a year, or every other night-time "talk show" host.

Can we take a moment to truly appreciate how Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel incidentally made themselves a good measurement for whether someone's sense of humor is garbage or not? Hell, toss John Oliver in there, too. And they said Trump isn't doing any good.
Yeah, it´s an ok show, used to watch it religiously then one day I just stopped, so yea totally get what you mean.
Oh my god don´t get me started on zombie simpsons.I tried so hard to keep watching them but once it left me with a headache I knew it was time to stop.
I don´t really watch talk shows tbh, probably for the best.
 

Similar threads

2 pegatinas logo emblema BMW M Sport auto coche autocollants stickers tuning | Kingston Data Traveler DT50 USB 3.0 Flash Drive Memory Sticks 8-16-32-64-128GB | Айнура Салахидинова Азиза Роза Шакирова Эски достор Mp3