Complete border meltdown

[The Barbarian]

fzappa askes:

How does one prepare for an ideologue?

Facts worked pretty well on you. Next time, do some research. Or at least know what you're talking about before commenting.

 

[Nazaroo]

This problem will solve itself when Yellowstone blows.

When half the USA is uninhabitable, Mexicans will return to Mexico.

 

[The Barbarian]

Too many nuggets...not enough kitty litter or time to bury them.

Well, let's take a look...

According to current figures from Immigration and Customs Enforcement -- the federal agency responsible for deportations -- Obama has removed 1.4 million people during his 42 months in office so far. Technically, that's fewer than under George W. Bush, whose cumulative total was 2 million. But Bush’s number covers eight full years, which doesn’t allow an apples-to-apples comparison.

If you instead compare the two presidents’ monthly averages, it works out to 32,886 for Obama and 20,964 for Bush, putting Obama clearly in the lead. Bill Clinton is far behind with 869,676 total and 9,059 per month. All previous occupants of the White House going back to 1892 fell well short of the level of the three most recent presidents.

We wondered whether there might have been a surge of undocumented immigrants that explained the increase, but there wasn’t. During the first two years of Obama’s tenure, the Pew Hispanic Center estimated the illegal immigrant population nationwide at 11.2 million, compared to an average during Bush’s eight-year tenure of 10.6 million. And illegal immigration actually peaked late in Bush’s second term, at which point the recession hit and the numbers declined under Obama. Such patterns do not explain the 57 percent bump in monthly deportations that we found under Obama.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...rack-obama-deported-more-people-any-other-pr/

So, I'm sorry to have to tell you that those weren't chicken nuggets they were feeding you, rocket. lain:

 

[rocketman]

Well, let's take a look...

According to current figures from Immigration and Customs Enforcement -- the federal agency responsible for deportations -- Obama has removed 1.4 million people during his 42 months in office so far. Technically, that's fewer than under George W. Bush, whose cumulative total was 2 million. But Bush’s number covers eight full years, which doesn’t allow an apples-to-apples comparison.

If you instead compare the two presidents’ monthly averages, it works out to 32,886 for Obama and 20,964 for Bush, putting Obama clearly in the lead. Bill Clinton is far behind with 869,676 total and 9,059 per month. All previous occupants of the White House going back to 1892 fell well short of the level of the three most recent presidents.

We wondered whether there might have been a surge of undocumented immigrants that explained the increase, but there wasn’t. During the first two years of Obama’s tenure, the Pew Hispanic Center estimated the illegal immigrant population nationwide at 11.2 million, compared to an average during Bush’s eight-year tenure of 10.6 million. And illegal immigration actually peaked late in Bush’s second term, at which point the recession hit and the numbers declined under Obama. Such patterns do not explain the 57 percent bump in monthly deportations that we found under Obama.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...rack-obama-deported-more-people-any-other-pr/

So, I'm sorry to have to tell you that those weren't chicken nuggets they were feeding you, rocket. lain:

:blabla: You are wrong....again.

 

[The Barbarian]

Naz writes:

This problem will solve itself when Yellowstone blows.

You probably have that right. But it could happen year after next, or 100,000 years from now. But we should get warnings a year or two in advance from substantial quakes and realignments, not the usual little quakes or swarms that happen every year. It will be an amazing event, no question.

 

[The Barbarian]

The Evil Barbarian resorts to facts, again:

According to current figures from Immigration and Customs Enforcement -- the federal agency responsible for deportations -- Obama has removed 1.4 million people during his 42 months in office so far. Technically, that's fewer than under George W. Bush, whose cumulative total was 2 million. But Bush’s number covers eight full years, which doesn’t allow an apples-to-apples comparison.

If you instead compare the two presidents’ monthly averages, it works out to 32,886 for Obama and 20,964 for Bush, putting Obama clearly in the lead. Bill Clinton is far behind with 869,676 total and 9,059 per month. All previous occupants of the White House going back to 1892 fell well short of the level of the three most recent presidents.

We wondered whether there might have been a surge of undocumented immigrants that explained the increase, but there wasn’t. During the first two years of Obama’s tenure, the Pew Hispanic Center estimated the illegal immigrant population nationwide at 11.2 million, compared to an average during Bush’s eight-year tenure of 10.6 million. And illegal immigration actually peaked late in Bush’s second term, at which point the recession hit and the numbers declined under Obama. Such patterns do not explain the 57 percent bump in monthly deportations that we found under Obama.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-any-other-pr/

So, I'm sorry to have to tell you that those weren't chicken nuggets they were feeding you, rocket.lain:

You are wrong....again.

Something I read today:

Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." Under Fact-check Syndrome, I want to show people why they were wrong. If they post something wrong, I will respond to them, saying something along the lines of "No, no, that isn't correct, this link shows you why that isn't correct."

This process leads, at a greater than 90% rate, to failure. Because greater than 90% of wrong people online don't want to be corrected. They believe they are correct, and they do not care about anything that does not agree with them. And this high failure rate occurs regardless of whether my response is nice and plaintive, or angry and dismissive.

Don't know what reminded me of that just now, but...

 

[bybee]

The Evil Barbarian resorts to facts, again:

According to current figures from Immigration and Customs Enforcement -- the federal agency responsible for deportations -- Obama has removed 1.4 million people during his 42 months in office so far. Technically, that's fewer than under George W. Bush, whose cumulative total was 2 million. But Bush’s number covers eight full years, which doesn’t allow an apples-to-apples comparison.

If you instead compare the two presidents’ monthly averages, it works out to 32,886 for Obama and 20,964 for Bush, putting Obama clearly in the lead. Bill Clinton is far behind with 869,676 total and 9,059 per month. All previous occupants of the White House going back to 1892 fell well short of the level of the three most recent presidents.

We wondered whether there might have been a surge of undocumented immigrants that explained the increase, but there wasn’t. During the first two years of Obama’s tenure, the Pew Hispanic Center estimated the illegal immigrant population nationwide at 11.2 million, compared to an average during Bush’s eight-year tenure of 10.6 million. And illegal immigration actually peaked late in Bush’s second term, at which point the recession hit and the numbers declined under Obama. Such patterns do not explain the 57 percent bump in monthly deportations that we found under Obama.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-any-other-pr/

So, I'm sorry to have to tell you that those weren't chicken nuggets they were feeding you, rocket.lain:



Something I read today:

Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." Under Fact-check Syndrome, I want to show people why they were wrong. If they post something wrong, I will respond to them, saying something along the lines of "No, no, that isn't correct, this link shows you why that isn't correct."

This process leads, at a greater than 90% rate, to failure. Because greater than 90% of wrong people online don't want to be corrected. They believe they are correct, and they do not care about anything that does not agree with them. And this high failure rate occurs regardless of whether my response is nice and plaintive, or angry and dismissive.

Don't know what reminded me of that just now, but...

I was told that the present administration counts those turned back at the border as deportees? Any truth to that?

 

[The Barbarian]

I was told that the present administration counts those turned back at the border as deportees? Any truth to that?

In one case, they could be. In 2008, Bush signed the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, requiring that children from Central America entering the United States illegally, could not be deported without an extensive and time-consuming legal procedure. If they get caught at the border, they have to be housed, granted legal counsel, and then deported if they lose appeals. So technically, turned away at the border, but they still get to stay until appeals run out.

Otherwise, a person has to actually enter the United States in order to be considered deported.

 

[fzappa13]

Anyone around these parts remember what Sam Clements said about statistics?

 

[fzappa13]

According to current figures from Immigration and Customs Enforcement -- the federal agency responsible for deportations -- Obama has

Okay, stop right there ... when you get to write your own report card ... well, there's just that little credibility thing to be considered don't you think?

Evidently not. :chuckle:

 

[The Barbarian]

Pretty much the same as the same people did under Bush. At the end of the rope, the loser's plaintative whine:

"But they are all lying."

Sad.

BTW, Mark Twain never said what you attributed to him. In fact, Twain once attributed that to Disaraeli.

 

[bybee]

Pretty much the same as the same people did under Bush. At the end of the rope, the loser's plaintative whine:

"But they are all lying."

Sad.

There is nothing new under the sun....
Liberals crucified Bush and now some Conservatives are crucifying Obama.
Obama had a red carpet rolled out for him.
Bush was under the gun from day one.
I have not forgotten.

 

[The Barbarian]

There is nothing new under the sun....
Liberals crucified Bush and now some Conservatives are crucifying Obama.
Obama had a red carpet rolled out for him.
Bush was under the gun from day one.
I have not forgotten.

Nevertheless, it's telling that fzappa was certain that the INS was telling the truth when Bush was president, and the same people were lying when Obama became president.

With no evidence whatever. And that's an issue.

 

[Tinark]

This problem will solve itself when Yellowstone blows.

When half the USA is uninhabitable, Mexicans will return to Mexico.

That's really random:

The odds of that happening are thankfully pretty low. The Yellowstone supervolcano — thousands of times more powerful than a regular volcano — has only had three truly enormous eruptions in history. One occurred 2.1 million years ago, one 1.3 million years ago, and one 664,000 years ago.

And despite what you sometimes hear in the press, there's no indication that we're due for another "super-eruption" anytime soon. In fact, it's even possible that Yellowstone might never have an eruption that large again.

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/5/6108169/yellowstone-supervolcano-eruption

 

[Tinark]

Nevertheless, it's telling that fzappa was certain that the INS was telling the truth when Bush was president, and the same people were lying when Obama became president.

With no evidence whatever. And that's an issue.

Why is that an issue? Partisan hacks will be partisan hacks, and the sun will rise in the east and set in the west.

 

[fzappa13]

Nevertheless, it's telling that fzappa was certain that the INS was telling the truth when Bush was president, and the same people were lying when Obama became president.

With no evidence whatever. And that's an issue.

Look you twit ... if you had been paying any attention whatsoever to what I have been posting here for the last 11 years you would know that I see the left/right paradigm as an extension of the Hegelian Dialectic used to manipulate those not smart enough to see the trap they have fallen into. For the most part, politicians choose their one of two choices as to what to be called as a matter of expediency.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Nevertheless, it's telling that fzappa was certain that the INS was telling the truth when Bush was president, and the same people were lying when Obama became president.

With no evidence whatever. And that's an issue.

Look you twit ...

Calling names when one runs out of arguments is sometimes emotionally satisfying, but it really damages one's credibility.

if you had been paying any attention whatsoever to what I have been posting here for the last 11 years you would know that I see the left/right paradigm as an extension of the Hegelian Dialectic used to manipulate those not smart enough to see the trap they have fallen into.

Sorry, that has always seemed like a pretentious dodge to me. Tell it to Mark and Engels. They loved that stuff.

 

[fzappa13]

Sorry, that has always seemed like a pretentious dodge to me. Tell it to Mark and Engels. They loved that stuff.

Yes, Marx and Engels were followers of Hegel. Review the ten planks of the communist manifesto and you will see it is the same thing we got here at around the same time for the same purpose. Control via the mechanism of thesis v. anti-thesis = synthesis ... with synthesis being the thing desired in the first place. That is why you will always see any third party crushed because it fowls up the math of the Hegelian dialectic.

The two party system in this country is the result of following Hegel's model to control change. It works but only as long as the general populace doesn't see the nature of the way in which they are being manipulated with this staged Mid South Wrestling called two party politics. As long as you view events through the filter of the left/right paradigm you will forever be blinded by it for the benefit of those wielding this tool.

Like people, reality is not so neatly categorized by any but the foolish.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, Marx and Engels were followers of Hegel.

And now, you, it seems.

Review the ten planks of the communist manifesto and you will see it is the same thing we got here at around the same time for the same purpose. Control via the mechanism of thesis v. anti-thesis = synthesis ... with synthesis being the thing desired in the first place. That is why you will always see any third party crushed because it fowls up the math of the Hegelian dialectic.

Ironically, not long after Marx visited the United States and praised it's social system, a third party (republicans) rose up and eventually supplanted the Whigs.

Oops. I'm thinking that a knowledge of history would be as important as ideology, if you're going to make arguments like that.

The two party system in this country is the result of following Hegel's model to control change. It works but only as long as the general populace doesn't see the nature of the way in which they are being manipulated with this staged Mid South Wrestling called two party politics. As long as you view events through the filter of the left/right paradigm you will forever be blinded by it for the benefit of those wielding this tool.

Since I generally vote for libertarians or other third party candidates, that's particularly risible that you bring up such an idea.

Like people, reality is not so neatly categorized by any but the foolish.

Which is why dialectic is such a failure as a way of understanding reality. It's tuned to the idea of left/right, republican/democrat, etc.

The real is far more complex and nuanced than your ideology would permit.

 

[fzappa13]

My bad ... I have once again been lured into attempting to communicate with a troll. Maybe one day I will learn better ...