|
Not to mention the menial jobs which illegals do. If you get rid of illegals, look forward to prices on everything skyrocketing. You also don't mention the taxes which they pay (property tax in the form of rent and sales tax on purchases).
Also, being illegal, they don't receive any benefits, such as unemployment or medicare. Tell me where these "billions spent on illegals" are being spent?
|
|
|
|
It isn't. Widespread abuse is a myth, especially for SNAP.
You are delusional and out of touch with reality. There is no point trying to talk to people like you. Undocumented workers can't receive SNAP benefits unless they have stolen a SOC number. Less than 5% of snap benefits are used by non citizens. ~1% of snap benefits are traded and or are fraud related. Abuse is a myth. In most states illegal immigrants can't receive Snap Benefits, however in my state over $500 million is paid yearly in welfare benefits to those that are here illegally, in a state that is already, billions in debt. Those that come here illegally, often have children, who are US born, and then the parents receive benefits on their behalf. In this case the illegal immigrants receive full benefits based on the size of their family. Your only focus seems to be on welfare benefits here though, how much money do you think it costs this nation to provide schooling and medical care for illegal immigrants? |
|
|
|
Like most liberal causes, it is a myth. Neither the cost of college nor student loan burdens are increasing beyond inflation.
Liberal cause? Lol you are so fixated on politicizing every issue that you find political motivation in everything. I would say the hardest hit demographic is middle class or upper middle class, most of whom would vote republican. You can bury your head as deep in the sand as you want, but the truth is tuition is on the rise everywhere. And the only people that can afford t hem are either the rich kids or the poor kids on aids and scholarships |
|
|
|
Really?
"Time for the FBI to go back to law enforcement imo."
Were you not actually trying to say something there? Or were you just in need of a cocky one liner for purely stylistic purposes?
Yes, really. Your hypocritically cocky riposte here fails miserably. I was not suggesting that the FBI's focus on national security has been to the detriment of national crime rates. I'm not even sure how anyone would interpret it that way. It's very clear that I'm saying that it's "time for the FBI to go back to law enforcement" because it is not very good at national security. Its idea of national security is fabricating terrorist plots and preying on mentally ill people. The many paragraphs that precede my "cocky one-liner" serve as clear evidence that this is what I meant. Only an intellectually dishonest shitbag (read: "a liar") would fail to read it in this context. So to reiterate: Yes, really. And you are a liar. Deal with it. |
|
|
|
"FBI IS 50% of TERRORIS TATTAKS11"
thats an extraordinary claim, requiring more evidence than excerpts from some (unsourced) article you found on the internet It's sourced. If you can make it ~5 words into the first sentence of the first post, you'll find the report. Good luck! "fbi is focusing on terrorism to the detriment of national lawfulness"
has interstate criminal enterprise grown since the fbi has reprioritized? where are the stats? This is irrelevant to the discussion. I made no claims about whether their focus on terrorism was "to the detriment of national lawfulness." You're a liar. sorry, missed that. like i said, your presentation begs for disregard. but lol @ lending authority to a 200 page document of liberal law student propaganda. on the first page of a document ostensibly about the treatment of terrorism, there's a picture of an ashamed black guy being led into a cop car. this shit is amateur, and if you bothered to actually skim the literature you cite instead of re-pasting the juicy paragraphs you find on libertarian support forums, you'd see that the entire document is basically a whinefest about torture and abusive judicial practices, not evidence on the efficacy of fbi procedures. that part was tacked on so faggots like you could make headlines out of it. I did read it. My first post takes a one-sentence jab at the 50% success rate "of actual domestic terrorism plots." The rest of it highlights prosecutorial misconduct, mistreatment of prisoners, and other abuses. I even put the parts I found interesting in bold. |
|
|
|
|
I'm glad that you find the qualifier to be interesting. I thought it was interesting too. So did one of the largest human rights watchdog groups in the world. In fact, they thought it was so interesting that they wrote about it in a 200+ page report on human rights abuses in US terrorism prosecutions. As usual, you're wrong. The report closely examines 27 cases with 77 total defendants.
|
|
|
|
"FBI IS 50% of TERRORIS TATTAKS11"
thats an extraordinary claim, requiring more evidence than excerpts from some (unsourced) article you found on the internet It's sourced. If you can make it ~5 words into the first sentence of the first post, you'll find the report. Good luck! "fbi is focusing on terrorism to the detriment of national lawfulness"
has interstate criminal enterprise grown since the fbi has reprioritized? where are the stats? This is irrelevant to the discussion. I made no claims about whether their focus on terrorism was "to the detriment of national lawfulness." You're a liar. you brought up an additional point about white collar crimes being investigated less (the horror!!!), and i responded to that. the main point you were trying to make ("FBI is investigating fewer overall criminal cases") is misguided for the same reason i explained above. it doesn't matter how they file their paperwork. a hundred or a million cases closed, who gives a fuck. the proper metric to be concerned with is 'number of people killed' or 'damages incurred by criminal activity.' again, where are these stats? to illustrate why your metric doesn't work, consider that a shitfuck of people in california are trading/ingesting a schedule i substance (the marijuanas). the fbi can send swat teams to bash down their doors and shoot their dogs; open and close a fuck ton of cases, but the country won't be better off, and only an idiot would be impressed by that 'law enforcement' The "main point" I was making was that you were wrong: the FBI has in fact changed its primary function from law enforcement to national security. Look, the FBI themselves are saying that they shifted their focus from law enforcement to national security. You are saying that they didn't. The onus is on you to prove your point. Don't go shitting your pants and crying about how I'm providing you with insufficient data or whateverthefuck. I showed where the FBI has said in no uncertain terms that their primary function is now national security whereas it used to be law enforcement. If you think they're lying, prove it. I've given you 3 metrics so far that show that the FBI has shifted its focus. Here is another one: more than 40% of the FBI's operating budget of $3.3 billion is now devoted to counterterrorism. - http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/pu...11com_0404.pdf- http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/FBI/a0537/final.pdf- http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2013summa...ud-summary.pdf |
|
|
|
|
I'm (roughly) throwing around two numbers.
"All of the high-profile domestic terrorism plots of the last decade, with four exceptions"
And
"four exceptions"
The 50% stems from the fact that of those four exceptions, two were successfully carried out.
|
|
|
|
"FBI IS 50% of TERRORIS TATTAKS11"
thats an extraordinary claim, requiring more evidence than excerpts from some (unsourced) article you found on the internet It's sourced. If you can make it ~5 words into the first sentence of the first post, you'll find the report. Good luck! "fbi is focusing on terrorism to the detriment of national lawfulness"
has interstate criminal enterprise grown since the fbi has reprioritized? where are the stats? This is irrelevant to the discussion. I made no claims about whether their focus on terrorism was "to the detriment of national lawfulness." You're a liar. |
|
|
|
to more precisely address your other points:
"boohoo the fbi only stops 50% of terrorist attacks"
the data used to make this conclusion is completely fabricated bc you wouldnt know about any terrorist attacks the fbi has successfully helped prevent
"FBI IS 50% of TERRORIS TATTAKS11"
thats an extraordinary claim, requiring more evidence than excerpts from some (unsourced) article you found on the internet
"fbi is focusing on terrorism to the detriment of national lawfulness"
has interstate criminal enterprise grown since the fbi has reprioritized? where are the stats?
we still have the cia whose overt mission has always been what you're complaining the fbi is doing. for your own emotional wellbeing, just pretend theyve merged together.
unless your problem is not that the fbi is inefficient, but that you inherently dislike terrorism prevention
are you muslim and why do you hate freedom?
As usual, you're wrong here too. The FBI is not shy when it comes to bragging about stopping terrorist plots. The report I cited shows that every single high profile terrorist plot in which the FBI has been involved was a plot that was fabricated by the FBI themselves -- with the exception of four incidents, and of those 4, the FBI only stopped 2. |
|
|
|
my guess is that their function hasnt rlly changed, just how they present themselves superficially
a cop is a cop, and calling yourself 'special agent' doesn't get you blown or respected any more often (as many special agents only realize after becoming one.)
by appealing to a greater cause like 'national security' ppl in the fbi can pretend theyre more than toe-the-line drones, all while actually being toe-the-line drones.
its actually quite brilliant imo. getting people to deal with societies degenerates for 30k/yr is a skillful art
you need to work on your presentation. i feel like i just read an article on why bigfoot is real and why he was chosen as the main actor in the fabricated moon landing. re: the actual argument, my local police department can be described in a similar manner. the police have always been fascist corrupt kunts with special authorities over citizens I don't know what "the actual argument" is supposed to be at this point because you're kinda all over the place. So let's just focus on the FBI calling its primary function national security instead of law enforcement. Your argument is that this is just a superficial change. You are wrong because... - FBI has doubled the amount of agents it has dedicated to counterterrorism. - FBI is investigating fewer overall criminal cases, primarily fewer white collar crimes. - FBI was (erroneously) training its agents that FBI "has the ability to bend or suspend the law and impinge on the rights of others." These are just a few very significant material differences that have been observed to coincide with the FBI's change to its primary function. over what time frame? the north american population has doubled within some living people's lifetimes, and us military spending nearly doubled the 10 years after 9/11. everything is getting bigger. who decided that violent criminals raping/killing/robbing/deton8ing ppl are less of a threat than rich white collared pricks skimming cash from other rich fucks? you should find this fact comforting. and for someone who so vocally opposes redundancy between goverment agencies, you should look into what the Secret Service does (hint: it investigates white collar crimes) this mentality is exactly what you'd expect from a regular old 'law enforcement' officer. please see: burning reds and shooting niggers without penalty (getting reassigned to a desk job doesnt count as a penalty), stop & frisk and wiretapping (unconstitutional ieo), slamming ppl with frivolous charges so they plea bargain down to the original charge, etc etc You can put forth some effort in reading my posts if you want to know the time frame. I already said what it was. This is irrelevant. You claimed that the FBI's focus on counterterrorism was nothing more than superficial. I showed that you were wrong. This mentality is something that the FBI wasn't taught prior to its primary function being national security. So again, you were wrong. |
|
|
|
my guess is that their function hasnt rlly changed, just how they present themselves superficially
a cop is a cop, and calling yourself 'special agent' doesn't get you blown or respected any more often (as many special agents only realize after becoming one.)
by appealing to a greater cause like 'national security' ppl in the fbi can pretend theyre more than toe-the-line drones, all while actually being toe-the-line drones.
its actually quite brilliant imo. getting people to deal with societies degenerates for 30k/yr is a skillful art
you need to work on your presentation. i feel like i just read an article on why bigfoot is real and why he was chosen as the main actor in the fabricated moon landing. re: the actual argument, my local police department can be described in a similar manner. the police have always been fascist corrupt kunts with special authorities over citizens I don't know what "the actual argument" is supposed to be at this point because you're kinda all over the place. So let's just focus on the FBI calling its primary function national security instead of law enforcement. Your argument is that this is just a superficial change. You are wrong because... - FBI has doubled the amount of agents it has dedicated to counterterrorism. - FBI is investigating fewer overall criminal cases, primarily fewer white collar crimes. - FBI was (erroneously) training its agents that FBI "has the ability to bend or suspend the law and impinge on the rights of others." These are just a few very significant material differences that have been observed to coincide with the FBI's change to its primary function. |
|
|
|
|
my guess is that their function hasnt rlly changed, just how they present themselves superficially
a cop is a cop, and calling yourself 'special agent' doesn't get you blown or respected any more often (as many special agents only realize after becoming one.)
by appealing to a greater cause like 'national security' ppl in the fbi can pretend theyre more than toe-the-line drones, all while actually being toe-the-line drones.
its actually quite brilliant imo. getting people to deal with societies degenerates for 30k/yr is a skillful art
|
|
|
|
My all time favorite is and always will be the B52. The BUFF (Big Ugly Fat Fucker) is the longest serving military aircraft in use today, the first models flying 62 years ago and in combat service 59 years ago. They have evolved and morphed into whatever the strategic and tactical needs of the battlefield have been. They flew nuclear airborne alert surrounding the USSR in Operation Chrome Dome, massive carpet bombing over SE Asia in Operation Linebacker, and ground hugging as well as high altitude bombing in Operation Desert Storm. I watched flights launch with water injection into the exhaust to create enough steam propulsion to get the fully loaded planes off the ground that the sky would darken to nearly night time even at noon. They were so heavy from fuel and weapons that 8 engines were not enough to get airborne. They also did precision attacks with laser guided weapons and Tomahawk missiles during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi freedom. The plane has been declared obsolete several times but is always resurrected in a new role that can't be done by any other plane. When bombing Iraqi Republican Guard emplacements a buddy said he felt the ground shake over 100 miles away near the Kuwait border. They would drop leaflets the day before warning what was coming so the smarter guys would run off. They saved countless lives. They are not BUFFs, they are beautiful.
B52s are still awesome. I love watching them take off. With that nose pitched down. So amazing. Very efficient bomber. Probably the best of all time. |
|
|
|
People that watch the news are unemployed and/or have too much time on their hands .
People who engage in recreational activities are unemployed or have too much time on their hands? That's probably why NPR listeners are more informed. They all have jobs and are listening to it on the way to work. They're also listening to NPR instead of morning shock jocks or radio music, which is another indicator that they're intellectually superior. |
|
|
|
Illegals exist all over the world, why only americans can vote?
For me all illegals that are not political refugees are liable to be deported, because most of them are linked to crime.
because this issue you find it more in USA than in other countries.....i will change the poll so you can vote too . |
|
|
|
Vote if you agree or not.
This topic is dumb - why can't I vote that? 'muricans' only come here to bitch about shit like that because they were offended by something they see or something they are dealing with (ie loud neighbors| annoying neighborhood) Seriously - did the native americans sit around like 'these damn immigrants, WE need to deport them!'? See my point...YOU'RE probably a descendant of an immigrant  Disclaimer: I am am from USA This topic is dumb - why can't I vote that? no one force you to read this topic or to wrote on it.....which means you like it.....you "I am am from USA" i bet your an native American and your so pissed off my immigrant ancestors that reduce your people to almost 0.......see my point? |
|
|
|
what about retrospective deportation of all families and relations not native to america, who once sailed in from some foreign land, like those mayflower fuckers for a start ...
The original colonists weren't breaking any laws since the indigenous tribes hadn't developed laws in the first place. The indigenous peoples of this continent couldn't even read or write until 200 years ago. Genocide is okay if they can't read. The Holocaust was genocide. Traveling to another country with a cold isn't genocide. You probably think the colonists committed genocide because you're racist and uneducated. |
|
|
|
what about retrospective deportation of all families and relations not native to america, who once sailed in from some foreign land, like those mayflower fuckers for a start ...
The original colonists weren't breaking any laws since the indigenous tribes hadn't developed laws in the first place. The indigenous peoples of this continent couldn't even read or write until 200 years ago. |
|
|
|
|
For example, when I left, which is about 10 years ago, my school was about 27k/year. Now it's close to 37k. And my school is nowhere near the top schools. Employment compensation (at least in my field) hardly increased.
No wonder students are running into trouble with student loans everywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
