Raider5678

It might sound grand to those of you living in a world of riches where you make more than a thousand or so a month, but it's a stupid idea to the majority of people because we can't simply afford to go out and buy a $30,000 car simply because the government decided to shut down all the gas stations. But whatever. It's not like any of us could use the next two years worth of wages for anything. Like food. Or housing. Or water. Or clothes. Or electricity. But wait, I forgot, it doesn't matter that we're living pay-check to pay-check already, we can just take out a $30,000 loan for those electric cars that we can't afford. It's just an extra 20% in interest rates. Who needed that extra $6,000 to put towards paying some of our kid's college? Great! Now we can 2 $30,000 loans to the checkbooks. That $12,000 used to pay interest wouldn't have covered the cost of our kid's new cars anyways since they have to be electric. Because having a second electric car isn't an "expensive powerful accumulator". $30,000? Pocket change. It's not like we could just buy a solar battery for $2,000 to power our solar roof that cost us $30,000 more, on top of the two cars. $18,000 in interest? That's nothing. Must be nice living in a world where the idea of throwing away $100,000 is nothing, and the common sense to think before you buy isn't necessary, or the idea that there are those of us who simply can't afford to just switch over to electric cars because the government decided to just shut down all the gas stations. It's not like it employed anybody anyways. Who need's a job when you're as rich as Sensei?

It was a joke about America thinking it's awesome because they supply all the weapons. Don't think too deeply in between the lines man.

I'm implying that it's not wrong for Mr. Tyson to say that they should have evidence, and the idea that Ten Oz believes he'd never resort to bringing that up if people were accusing him of something without evidence, is hard for me to believe. Obviously, I'm not implying that no evidence is = to evidence.

Well, that's good to know and doesn't address anything that I said. Where did I blame the victim? If you're going to accuse me of victim blaming, then you better have more evidence then me saying a guy changed his opinion.

If you say so.......

I don't. Tyson has his reputation, that's about it. If he said nothing, people would find it troubling. If he said what he did, people like you would find it troubling. There is virtually nothing he could have done in his situation where people wouldn't find it troubling and say it makes him look guilty. I don't see how it's diminishing his accuser's voice. Do we not need evidence? He pointed out there is no evidence, and that people should have evidence of something happening before assuming he's guilty. Do you really intend to imply that if you were in the situation of someone accusing you of things and they didn't have evidence, that you would never bring up the idea that maybe your accusers should have to have evidence? Is that seriously what you'd do? Firstly, I don't get what you do by just jumping into discussions, saying some line, and then stopping there. Where did I blame the victim? Very simply I said he changed his position. He could be guilty, he could be innocent. Either way, he changed his position. If that's what you consider victim blaming I think you really need to reevaluate your definition. In terms of a response that can actually mean things, rather then him expressing his personal view on the situation disappointing you, he did welcome an investigation. Welcoming an investigation, while not automatically proving you're innocent, is, in my opinion, the right thing to do, and didn't disappoint me.

I knew a guy that was very big on believing the accuser until the accused proved himself innocent. Then a girl accused him of something and he changed his position in about 2 seconds flat once he lost his job. Sounds reasonable to me. It's a great way to lose your job in every company I've worked for. Which admittedly, is only 4. Well, since we're in the business of reading deeply between the lines of what people say...... I don't really like how you brought up the Kavanaugh incident. I don't think it changes the course of this discussion, and I think it was a crude attempt by you to muddy the waters here. Clearly, those are two completely different situations, they aren't related other than by the general area of the accusations, and I generally think it's a Red Herring.

When it really comes down to it, it's hard to seem like a dumbass when you're the one holding the rifle.... Just saying....

Ah, okay.

Well, theoretically, we moved our selves around the earth. So it was natural. I thought invasive species showed up unnaturally?

Well that's a good way to just ignore everything he said. Say something completely off topic, completely random, completely unrelated, and completely opinionated.

Are you referring to more liberal positions as Pro and more Con as conservative? I.E. Pro progress Con conservative? Or just pro/con debate in general?

For a self-proclaimed liberal, you sure are pretty conservative compared to the majority of people on here.

Don't be ridiculous. You can't expect them to cite their sources to be taken seriously, that's a ridiculous idea. Being labeled as racist is objective, mainly because there is no clear-cut thing that defines someone as racist. Obviously, if you run around advocating the extermination of all nonwhites, you're considered racist. But I also know a large number of people who openly say that everyone who voted for Donald Trump is a woman-hating racists. Steve Bannon, at a speech, said: "Wear the label of racist as a badge of honor." Immediately it was taken out of context, just him saying that, and was used to say he's proud of being a racist. Here and about 15 other news organizations, including CNN, BBC, etc. Then you look into it, and he's basically saying that once people call you a racist, homophobic, etc when you're talking to them, you know they have no answer to what you're actually saying. Essentially, character arguments don't make you right. So does saying "wear the label of a racist as a badge of honor" make him racist? It's objective.

I was thinking he meant the planet the whole time, and I'm sitting here like "Hmmmm...... No...... That doesn't make sense. .....What's he talking about there? ....Why would that do that?....What?...... That drawing better not be to scale......." It's not really anti-gravity if you want to make it float with magnetism. Then it's just magnetism, so let's refer to it like that. So you want to spin it with magnetism but not by spinning it with magnetism? I feel like that's contradictory.

He implied that I was lacking in integrity by trying to misrepresent what he said inside of his clarification. I have the right to defend my integrity before I move on.

You used the words "cot" and "tent." For you to imply that cot doesn't mean sleep and tent doesn't mean house is completely absurd. I'm not here to perform the mental gymnastics of what you mean by getting them cots and tents other than the idea for them to sleep in cots and live in the tents. Additionally, while you didn't say months, I explained very clearly what could happen that might result with people being there for months. Your defense is lacking in reason. Additionally, I've been saying the same point the entire time. At any point, if this was your position the entire time, you could have said "Wait. I didn't mean sleep or house them" instead of saying that it's entirely possible to do so and I'm just looking for problems in your position.

You also suggested giving them a place to sleep. You also mentioned doing so with tents. Don't pretend you never said anything like that by saying you also said you should give them showers.

For Pete's sake man, what in God's name does saying we need apartment housing instead of tents for sanitary reasons makes me a terrible Christian? Fine. Forget it. You, the almighty Zapatos are always right, and the idea of using tents to house 1,000,000 people can't possibly go wrong in any way, and anyone who points out we should use actual housing is simply raising a strawman. Moving on from your rambling now.

I meant to put a "probably" in there somewhere. It does seem like I'm giving an absolute now.

Well, the soldiers have confessed their crimes. Guess it's obvious who instigated it. Anyways, this is bad. Very bad. Russia released that video of the sailors confessing, and it's quite obvious they were forced to. I doubt that force didn't include the threat of torture, or perhaps torture itself. Russia wouldn't do that unless they knew for a fact those sailors weren't going to go back to their home country and tell everyone about it. Even though we know about it, it'd be humiliating to Russia politically if they did that, the sailors went back and then said they were forced to confess by Russians. Those sailors are not going home. Ever.

100,000 people pass through that border a day. If you start housing them, there will be a backlog. Further, into this thread, you say "as long as it takes to rest their tired feet." What about when it becomes months? The backlog, if it lasts for just 10 days, could mean housing up to a million people. That is a major logistical concern, as it could me housing a relatively sized area like a city. Do you want to know what happens when you put more than a million people in tents? People die. Sanitary measures don't work so well living in tents. You know what else happens? Human trafficking. I don't know about you but I'd rather not see kids being taken out of tents to be trafficked because we couldn't secure it well enough. Tents don't stack. You're talking about thousands of acres of land if you want to do tents. That's not something that's simple to secure. Additionally, what about waste management? Millions of people can pose a serious risk of massive infection. You think it's bad shooting tear gas? Wait until they're dying by the thousands due to a rampant disease that we were not prepared to take care of. Showering isn't something simple either. You need to sanitize them to a degree that you would not believe to prevent the risk of things like foot fungus, etc, which will be especially prevalent due to your brilliant idea of tents. I brought up a valid point. If we want to house them, we need to do it right. You're free to treat me like some jackass who doesn't care about anyone and is just making up excuses, but frankly, that doesn't change the fact that if your idea is a stupid one I should point it out. You say we need to treat them better by giving them food, water, shower, and a place to rest. I point out that to give them a place to rest we're going to have logistical issues. Your immediate response is to say I'm just trying to search for problems rather than solutions and to become ridiculously defensive and say we should just screw them all because of me simply mentioning the fact that there will be logistical issues in doing that. Grow up. This is the real world. I'm sorry, but if your grand idea is to house them in tents it's a ridiculous one and I'm going to tell you. It'll kill and ruin the lives of far more people then it'll prevent from being tear gassed. I think it should be done. But quite frankly I don't care if it looks to you like I'm just searching for problems and it pisses you off that I don't automatically jump on board with your idea and say it's great without first working out some reasonable details. I'll continue to "search for problems" if it means doing it the right way, regardless of how much it may offend you that I do so. 50,000 people a month is much less than 1,000,000 people a day with hundred thousand leaving and a hundred thousand coming every day, with the backlog ever growing by thousands of people a day. A magnitude of 60,000% more people(total number of people and the difference in the time). And keeping large groups of people doesn't scale up linearly, it becomes exponentially more difficult. God forbid if I simply mention this fact without me suddenly becoming a naysaying trump loving immigrant racist.

Yes. Because the logistics of handing out food and water is the same as setting up and maintaining housing the equivalent of a small city. I did not say screw them, I did not even say we shouldn't do it, I simply said the logistics of trying to do it concern me.

Well, I'd be wary of saying it wasn't a proportional response. Rubber bullets can be lethal, and when shooting towards a crowd that could be incredibly dangerous, especially because of the diapered children. If they tried to catch them on foot there is a huge chance many of them would have gotten through, and that could have easily escalated the situation even further(I.E. people see some people make it past the guards, they decide to do the same thing, creates a loop, etc, etc, etc.) From my understanding as well, it was a long perimeter, so it wasn't like there was a narrow place to guard. A fence is not hard to climb, and in order to keep people from climbing the fence, they had to get people away from the fence, which involved firing tear gas at them. Essentially, there were two options that I can see. Either fire tear gas, or let a large number of immigrants through. And if a large number of immigrants got through, I can guarantee you the POTUS would have overseen a couple of job terminations.