Now now now.......we've forgotten about Gitmo holding enemy combatants without due process
#2 | Posted by eberly

It's just so very on-message
for a Republican
to equate a journalist
with an order for release
with an Enemy Combatant.

This is the level of dialogue we should expect from Republicans for the rest of our lives.

My point is that he used the word "now" when referring to republicans and ignoring the rule of law.
Do you agree with him? It's "now"?
#6 | Posted by eberly

You're a Republican, so feel free to set the record straight on what date is more agreeable to you.
Thanks.

"I remember over and over and over posts like this....."The US is dead. We are finished, etc." over that stuff."

So apparently you didn't understand what that meant.
Imagine an Iranian woman saying "Iran is dead" after the Islamic Revolution.
Now imagine Eberly telling this woman she's wrong, Iran is still there.
Not understanding her whole point is Iran has changed so much as to be unrecognizable from the Iran she grew up in.

"My point is that he used the word "now" when referring to republicans and ignoring the rule of law.
Do you agree with him? It's "now"?"

Show us some other times a Republican led law enforcement agency refused to release someone who had posted bond. Someone who had NOT committed any crime in the first place.
Like Republicans are doing "now."
Thanks!

It's the rants about how this country is finished over it.
#11 | Posted by eberly

The only person who said any of that stuff in this thread is Eberly.

You chose to remember it, and whine about it, because you are so primed to be a victim of liberals your brain reminded you of that time decades ago when liberals made you sad for similar reasons as today.

"You're weak. You have no constitution. No stomach."

If I'm weak then who is strong, because you have the same opinion about all this that I have: "This is not good"
#2 | Posted by eberly

"the country is strong."

By what measure?

When the police ignore the law, as is happening in this story, does it make the country stronger, weaker, or no impact?

"The only person who said any of that stuff in this thread is Eberly."
I'm just reminding of you of your past pants ------- rants.
and Donner shows up right on cue to prove it.
#16 | Posted by eberly

Do you not understand you're actually reminding yourself, so you can wallow in how bad liberals made you feel that one time?

One of your first clues should have been that I don't even go on those kinds of rants.

The important lesson here for Eberly in all this is: Liberals.

This isn't an argument about liberal vs conservative.
#19 | Posted by eberly

You haven't made an argument at all.

You're just filling out a very detailed Hurt Feelings Report at us. Literally dating back to 2003 and Gitmo.

Regardless, the facts clearly demonstrate it's Republicans ignoring the law, and other Republicans saying it's not that big deal.

This is about hysterics from children, such as yourself and donner...and zed.
#19 | Posted by eberly

I guess only children think police should follow the law.

we've been here before. Hopefully this will be addressed.
#23 | Posted by eberly

Stop being hysterical, woman!

You got a better term for when you respond to valid complaints of today with memories of how similar complaints flustered you in the past?

Let's face it.
It's time to change your tampon, Eberly.

The guy was never given legal residency so you can't blame anyone but himself.
#45 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Guevara, who has lawfully resided in the U.S. for over 20 years, was placed in ICE custody on June 18, where he remains, despite being in the country legally since April 2004.

You people are absolutely dumb as dirt, and relentless liars.
And you choose to live your life that way, lying and being stupid.
Because it gives you all the rationalizations you need to deliberately harm people.

#67. That bill was a piece of crap because if codified over a million illegal crossings every year before triggering a modicum of enforcement. It was rightly rejected and as we've seen enforcing existing laws can minimize illegal entry.
#70 | Posted by BellRinger

That doesn't actually explain why the bill is a piece of crap.

It doesn't explain why Trump's policy is better. Also, it's a lie to say Trump's policy is simply enforcing existing laws. Trump's policy is the result of hundreds of Executive Orders, not existing laws.

It doesn't explain why e.g. a quota of one million is worse than what Trump is doing.

Your claim certainly isn't supported by any economic analysis.

Taken as a whole, you can't possibly argue Trump's approach to migrants is better for the economy, or the country, or Americans. You're already seeing that with inflation and declining trade and tourism.

The only reason to support Trump's policy against migrants is White Nationalism.

Why do you continue to support and defend non violent migrants being deported en masse? What benefits do you see?

Now , blue states can't artificially inflate their numbers before the 2030 census which is why these people were being brought in.
#70 | Posted by BellRinger

^
Look how he found a way to be a victim of Democrats.

They always do.

They are trained to understand the seemingly bad things Trump is doing, they are being done to protect America from Democrats.

You will hear this from them every time. Watch for it.

"Illegal crossings are down 95%"

We are going to hear this claim forever as well.
How about legal crossings, how are those doing?
How about trade, is that down too?

What value do you place on illegal crossings being down 95%, that offsets international tourism being down 10%?

You don't think about it that way.
This isn't economics.
This is hate.

Biden can bring them in by the millions in 4 short years with at best minimal vetting and all of thx pathologies (trafficking) baked into illegal entry.
#54 | Posted by BellRinger

Biden was promoting human trafficking, according to JeffJ.

Biden and the Dems were flooding America with trafficked children.

We're still here.....and we're still electing people like Trump.
#6 | Posted by eberly

Any idea how to fix that?

I've never witnessed you criticizing Team Biden over their border influx in any way.
#104 | Posted by BellRinger

Define "border influx."
Which policy or policies was that?

I've never witnessed you criticizing Team Biden over their border influx in any way.
#104 | Posted by BellRinger

What's for us to criticize?
You are the one who needs to criticize it.
You are so sure Biden harmed America.
Surely you have evidence?

Show us where the harm from Biden's border policy are being mitigated by Trump, quantify the costs for both, and I will be happy to criticize it.

"why are you all sorts of pissed off that illegal border entries have been almost shut off?"

I am not mad about it, per se.

But it's a bad sign for the American economy, and American liberty, that migrants do not want to come here to work. Especially the illegal ones.

And then there's this:

You people always said come here legally and that's okay.

But now you are not saying that anymore.

"An open economy can and will quickly adjust to a removal of underpaid under the table illegal alien labor."

That's not really saying anything.

Just exactly what sort of "adjustments" do you envision when we remove 40% of agricultural workers?

undocumented has always been the correct term.

Illegal implies conviction in a court of law, and you are lying if you say that's what has happened here.

And you know that but you hate the browns so you do you.

In fact, the court has explicitly called for his release, making him a legal immigrant.

Fight me, -----.

Republicans keep insisting they're "Exploited Workers."
But they've yet to take action against their abusers.
Instead, they send the exploited victims to camps.

"Illegal Alien is what appears in INA 274a, referring to unlawful entry and penalties."

^
Never could figure out why you Drink The Kool-Aid,
I guess it's because you're trying to "assimilate" with us Whites.

"Also a conundrum of Democrat politics."
Not at all.

"Are we for rounding up all the employers for having that massive illegal workforce?"
Not particularly.
Democrats aren't the "rounding up people and sending them to camps" party.

"White people don't work the fields like they used to."

John Steinbeck, welcome to the Drudge Retort.

"We make them stay in camps in mexico lol."

And then Republicans saw a way to loot the Treasury by making them stay in American camps.
The very people they promised to deport, they are actually deliberately keeping them here.
And Republicans love everything about it.

I've been told that raising the minimum wage doesn't have any effect on inflation. So how would replacing illegal laborers with higher wage legal workers be any different?
#167 | Posted by BellRinger

Why doesn't a minimum wage increase cause inflation?
Usually because the number of people on the minimum wage is so small.

But in this case, about 40% of workers will be affected. Not "small."

Of course increasing the cost of labor will result in higher prices. Econ101. I'm pointing out that when progressives advocate for increasing minimum wage they argue against econ101
#178 | Posted by BellRinger

So now who's arguing against econ 101?
Republicans.

And now you agree with them.
What changed?

Let's hear from a Republican why Trump's inflationary immigration policy is good.

This will be highly informative I'm sure!

remember the argument about the $.10 cents it would add to the cost of a hamburger if we raised the wages of food service workers to a "living wage"?
LOL
#194 | Posted by eberly

When I worked in fast food, labor cost was about 15% of the total cost of operations.

I don't know what the number is for picking crops but I suspect it's more than 15%: