- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

The US Department of Justice is out of control!

#51

@ThunderClap said in #46:

@ThunderClap said in #48:

www.youtube.com/live/L2fJaBI5lQw?si=fqYkbSDH9xI68FD8
Did you even watch the video? Do you know the difference between the EB-1 and the H-1B? I’m not an expert in immigration, but I do understand some of different visa avenues.

@ThunderClap said in #46: > @ThunderClap said in #48: > www.youtube.com/live/L2fJaBI5lQw?si=fqYkbSDH9xI68FD8 Did you even watch the video? Do you know the difference between the EB-1 and the H-1B? I’m not an expert in immigration, but I do understand some of different visa avenues.
#52

regarding #50
imposter mode ON

Noble Clousems,

As you know, I deeply respect you and you have every right to believe your opinion holds some truth although my various sources (I do not link to my sources out of principle, Ulysses S. Grant never used internet links either) tell me otherwise.
You asked me to question my assumptions but, WHY would I want to question my assumptions when I do not want to know the answer to said questioning in the first place ?
No, let me rephrase that : THAT is why there is no reason to question my assumptions in the first place.
That's obviously true as you of course will understand with all your nobleness and sh*t.
I mentioned NPR for No Particular Reason and Biden is stupid.

Now, excuse me. I have to go give my poodle a bath.

regarding #50 *imposter mode ON* Noble Clousems, As you know, I deeply respect you and you have every right to believe your opinion holds some truth although my various sources (I do not link to my sources out of principle, Ulysses S. Grant never used internet links either) tell me otherwise. You asked me to question my assumptions but, WHY would I want to question my assumptions when I do not want to know the answer to said questioning in the first place ? No, let me rephrase that : THAT is why there is no reason to question my assumptions in the first place. That's obviously true as you of course will understand with all your nobleness and sh*t. I mentioned NPR for No Particular Reason and Biden is stupid. Now, excuse me. I have to go give my poodle a bath.
#53

tl/dr: If a summary is thought necessary, it's best not to read this brief post at all, in my intermittently humble opinion. So no, these first two lines do not provide a summary.

@clousems writes, in #50: " Unless I'm mistaken, it's perfectly legal not to be friendly to an ICE agent."

Who disagrees with that?

So, do you really think President Trump thinks about sending troops to assist because people are not being "friendly" ?

The problem is ... a lack of neighborly hospitality, is it? If that's not the problem, why deflect with such a gentle assessment?

Well, perhaps a bit of research might clear up the situation. Although at this point, I doubt a continuing debate will lead to any useful change in understanding.

Here's BUT ONE quick headline, easily found from a few months back: "Attack on ICE facility in Portland leaves 4 agents injured."

Here's further quotation, in pertinent part: "Four police officers were injured Saturday night during a violent riot at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland, Oregon. A mob threw fireworks, rocks, and smoke grenades at law enforcement, smashed windows and forced their way into the building,"

I could continue to pour in more information -- indeed, even as I type this there is STILL MORE fresh news today about still more stupid violence toward law enforcement (this time, in Illinois) -- but that one bit should be sufficient to make something obvious.

The administration doesn't think about sending troops to cure "unfriendliness." Troops aren't needed because ICE agents aren't being invited to birthday parties.

@clousems also writes: "It IS whataboutism to point out various flaws in the prior administration and say "what about that?" as a deflection"....

No, friend, it was not my intent to point out flaws in the prior administration per se. My writing wasn't an attempt to win some past election, or deflect from what I was trying, myself, to get across. It was consistent with, and given in support of, the point I was trying to make, which apparently is still not being understood.

I apparently still haven't managed to make myself clear to you, despite the fact that you are among those on this forum whom I most respect and whose intellect I generally trust. Let me try again: I listed many now-questionable beliefs about "facts" in an effort to point out how, in retrospect, SO MANY PEOPLE heard from their FAVORITE NEWS SOURCES things that, ultimately, proved to be quite MISTAKEN even though it was "what everybody knew" and what relatively few would dare to question.

And that goes on still, today. And it is still hardly comfortable to dispute "what everybody, like, knows..." -- although, apparently, it's a great way to get a silly new nickname from a few in the forum! Scroll up to confirm!

THAT was my point. Clinging to favorite news sources, without working to get other opinions ALSO, can lead us down a garden path that we don't even realize we are on, until much, much later. Like believing that there's "nothing to see here" and that President Trump's concerns about law enforcement are really somehow trivial or intended, at best, to deal with mere disagreement or with "unfriendliness."

To this day, I recall a television news report made of "mostly peaceful" protests even as a large building appeared burning in the background.

Let us all on the forum -- and I certainly include myself -- never try so hard to win an argument, or even maintain our comforting and familiar sense of understanding, that we fail to notice when our usual sources of information may not REALLY be informing us to a sufficient extent, even if that means we must disappoint some others or risk their displeasure.

Admittedly, it is uncomfortable to resist a crowd. And sometimes, one has to wonder if anything is really being gained by doing so.

So as for me, I'm done with the off-topic (note) forum for at least a short time. Not forever, I assume (although I am not privy to the plans of God and can never be certain about the future), but I'm going to concentrate on chess -- which isn't a bad idea in a great chess server, I suppose.

Writing in an echo chamber feels too much like swimming against the current of the Mississippi sometimes. And sometimes it's better to just float downstream if there's nothing really to be gained upstream. I will continue to hope, however, that more and more often, some will take the bold -- if easily performed -- step of considering media sources and other opinions that might not comfort their preconceptions, even if habits are, indeed, painful to break.

As I've written before, however: I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

Some may take this as a bit of a victory. That's okay with me; I don't dislike any of you and have enjoyed the give and take. I wish you all well. Honestly.

Adiós por un tiempo corto, y buena suerte también.

tl/dr: If a summary is thought necessary, it's best not to read this brief post at all, in my intermittently humble opinion. So no, these first two lines do not provide a summary. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- @clousems writes, in #50: " Unless I'm mistaken, it's perfectly legal not to be friendly to an ICE agent." Who disagrees with that? So, do you really think President Trump thinks about sending troops to assist because people are not being "friendly" ? The problem is ... a lack of neighborly hospitality, is it? If that's not the problem, why deflect with such a gentle assessment? Well, perhaps a bit of research might clear up the situation. Although at this point, I doubt a continuing debate will lead to any useful change in understanding. Here's BUT ONE quick headline, easily found from a few months back: "Attack on ICE facility in Portland leaves 4 agents injured." Here's further quotation, in pertinent part: "Four police officers were injured Saturday night during a violent riot at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland, Oregon. A mob threw fireworks, rocks, and smoke grenades at law enforcement, smashed windows and forced their way into the building," I could continue to pour in more information -- indeed, even as I type this there is STILL MORE fresh news today about still more stupid violence toward law enforcement (this time, in Illinois) -- but that one bit should be sufficient to make something obvious. The administration doesn't think about sending troops to cure "unfriendliness." Troops aren't needed because ICE agents aren't being invited to birthday parties. @clousems also writes: "It IS whataboutism to point out various flaws in the prior administration and say "what about that?" as a deflection".... No, friend, it was not my intent to point out flaws in the prior administration per se. My writing wasn't an attempt to win some past election, or deflect from what I was trying, myself, to get across. It was consistent with, and given in support of, the point I was trying to make, which apparently is still not being understood. I apparently still haven't managed to make myself clear to you, despite the fact that you are among those on this forum whom I most respect and whose intellect I generally trust. Let me try again: I listed many now-questionable beliefs about "facts" in an effort to point out how, in retrospect, SO MANY PEOPLE heard from their FAVORITE NEWS SOURCES things that, ultimately, proved to be quite MISTAKEN even though it was "what everybody knew" and what relatively few would dare to question. And that goes on still, today. And it is still hardly comfortable to dispute "what everybody, like, knows..." -- although, apparently, it's a great way to get a silly new nickname from a few in the forum! Scroll up to confirm! THAT was my point. Clinging to favorite news sources, without working to get other opinions ALSO, can lead us down a garden path that we don't even realize we are on, until much, much later. Like believing that there's "nothing to see here" and that President Trump's concerns about law enforcement are really somehow trivial or intended, at best, to deal with mere disagreement or with "unfriendliness." To this day, I recall a television news report made of "mostly peaceful" protests even as a large building appeared burning in the background. Let us all on the forum -- and I certainly include myself -- never try so hard to win an argument, or even maintain our comforting and familiar sense of understanding, that we fail to notice when our usual sources of information may not REALLY be informing us to a sufficient extent, even if that means we must disappoint some others or risk their displeasure. Admittedly, it is uncomfortable to resist a crowd. And sometimes, one has to wonder if anything is really being gained by doing so. So as for me, I'm done with the off-topic (note) forum for at least a short time. Not forever, I assume (although I am not privy to the plans of God and can never be certain about the future), but I'm going to concentrate on chess -- which isn't a bad idea in a great chess server, I suppose. Writing in an echo chamber feels too much like swimming against the current of the Mississippi sometimes. And sometimes it's better to just float downstream if there's nothing really to be gained upstream. I will continue to hope, however, that more and more often, some will take the bold -- if easily performed -- step of considering media sources and other opinions that might not comfort their preconceptions, even if habits are, indeed, painful to break. As I've written before, however: I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. Some may take this as a bit of a victory. That's okay with me; I don't dislike any of you and have enjoyed the give and take. I wish you all well. Honestly. Adiós por un tiempo corto, y buena suerte también.
#54

Just out of curiosity, does anyone in this thread either:

  1. currently live in Portland OR
  2. have business associates that have relocated out of Portland OR
  3. have previously lived in or within 100 miles of Portland OR
Just out of curiosity, does anyone in this thread either: 1) currently live in Portland OR 2) have business associates that have relocated out of Portland OR 3) have previously lived in or within 100 miles of Portland OR
#55

@HerkyHawkeye said in #54:

Just out of curiosity, does anyone in this thread either:

  1. currently live in Portland OR
  2. have business associates that have relocated out of Portland OR
  3. have previously lived in or within 100 miles of Portland OR

What the f is that?

Out of curiosity, can you or any apologist of Trump answer yes to any of those?

@HerkyHawkeye said in #54: > Just out of curiosity, does anyone in this thread either: > 1) currently live in Portland OR > 2) have business associates that have relocated out of Portland OR > 3) have previously lived in or within 100 miles of Portland OR What the f is that? Out of curiosity, can you or any apologist of Trump answer yes to any of those?
#56

@notsoneutral said in #55:

What the f is that?

Out of curiosity, can you or any apologist of Trump answer yes to any of those?
Yes.

@notsoneutral said in #55: > What the f is that? > > Out of curiosity, can you or any apologist of Trump answer yes to any of those? Yes.
#57

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-portland-oregon-protests-antifa-203826406efb7420911ae756b4331f60
KRISTI NOEM, Homeland Security Secretary: “I was in Portland yesterday and had the chance to visit with the governor of Oregon, and also the mayor there in town, and they are absolutely covering up the terrorism that is hitting their streets.”

THE FACTS: Noem did visit Portland on Tuesday and met with Kotek and Mayor Keith Wilson. Both officials disagree with Noem’s narrative.

Not officially confirmed but rumor has it that Noem shot and killed several small dogs during her visit.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-portland-oregon-protests-antifa-203826406efb7420911ae756b4331f60 KRISTI NOEM, Homeland Security Secretary: “I was in Portland yesterday and had the chance to visit with the governor of Oregon, and also the mayor there in town, and they are absolutely covering up the terrorism that is hitting their streets.” THE FACTS: Noem did visit Portland on Tuesday and met with Kotek and Mayor Keith Wilson. Both officials disagree with Noem’s narrative. Not officially confirmed but rumor has it that Noem shot and killed several small dogs during her visit.
#59

So we only have one apologist who can answer yes. What's next? This conversation will be a monologue?

So we only have one apologist who can answer yes. What's next? This conversation will be a monologue?
#60

@wowbagger said in #57:

Not officially confirmed but rumor has it that Noem shot and killed several small dogs during her visit.

As long as she's not eating the dogs the apologists won't blame her.

@wowbagger said in #57: > > Not officially confirmed but rumor has it that Noem shot and killed several small dogs during her visit. As long as she's not eating the dogs the apologists won't blame her.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.