The images Biden will not allow you to see very much longer

[RVonse]

I thought you wanted Biden to comply with the letter of the law. The law is these people are allowed to come here and apply for asylum.

Yes, give them their applications and then fly them back home until they get their court dates.

That is not what the law says. The asylum seeker is allowed to remain in the US until the case is adjudicated, under the doctrine of Defensive Asylum. Sending a person back to his country of origin, which he is fleeing for fear of persecution would be contrary to what the asylum process is about.

Then this is a law that should be changed. It is a law in name only if the government has no means to execute what it says. It is these kind of non sense laws that can not be executed that really make you wonder why we pay our legislators a 6 figure salary.

 

[Angry Floof]

And then when they bring that shit here and it gets debunked, then it's all, well, whooo can possibly tell what's true in this scary maelstrom of wordz 'n shit... Well, whoever debunked your bullshit had an inkling.

And they also get all indignant and accuse you of sticking your head in the sand because you won't give views to the YouTube video that misinformed them in them first place.

It's all misinformation and fake news!!!111!!!! (Except for this Joe Rogan video.)

 

[Angry Floof]

This is also all over "liberal" media as well. Does not appear that anyone is trying to hide it or ignore it. Also, the Biden admin has provided for 400 more agents at the border, plus some other resources to help.

But who knows? I mean, the world is so full of misinformation and fake news that you just can't tell anymore what's true or false these days. So you just gotta go with your prejudices, and if your prejudices say that people are hiding this and Dems don't care and "Biden doesn't want you to see!!!11!!11" then that is what is true.

Because of this:

Manning was arrested, in part, for allowing the world to see and hear the US military attack and kill civilians, even children, then blame the victims for being their victims.

Hiding things from the world is what the US government does.

Yes, yes, you've said before that because some news is fake and misinformation, therefore you can't tell what is true or not. You've posted complete hogwash that was debunked soon after and your excuse was that there is so much misinformation in the world that you can't tell.

But you can identify "liberal lies" or governments hiding stuff or whatever.

So, again, just like last time, I will ask you: What is your method of determining what is true or false?

You're just proving us right. When it suits you, there's just too much misinformation to know what's true or not. When it doesn't, suddenly you can pinpoint exactly what is fake news.

Unless you enlighten us as to how you tell true from false when you claim it's too hard to tell true from false, we can only conclude that you're just another right winger picking and choosing what's true based little more than your own prejudices.

Furthermore, there is this. How did I become the first to post about this news on this mostly liberal board if this news was being covered so well in the left stream media? I'm not a heavy poster and someone else would have surely talked about this days before I brought it up.

I don't know. It's not like border patrol is a bunch of liberals just because the new President is a Democrat.

 

[RVonse]

And then when they bring that shit here and it gets debunked, then it's all, well, whooo can possibly tell what's true in this scary maelstrom of wordz 'n shit... Well, whoever debunked your bullshit had an inkling.

And they also get all indignant and accuse you of sticking your head in the sand because you won't give views to the YouTube video that misinformed them in them first place.

It's all misinformation and fake news!!!111!!!! (Except for this Joe Rogan video.)

It is not so just the news they present but more important the news they don't bother to tell you. And it is not just one side doing this... its both sides.

You can not be informed about something you do not even know about.

 

[RVonse]

I don't know.

Finally an honest response and I will give you the credit for that.

 

[Angry Floof]

It's all misinformation and fake news!!!111!!!! (Except for this Joe Rogan video.)

It is not so just the news they present but more important the news they don't bother to tell you. And it is not just one side doing this... its both sides.

You can not be informed about something you do not even know about.

Okay, so all the news we do see and hear is misinformation and the real truth is hidden? But you can see it?

Once again, what is your method for discerning what's true or false? How do you determine if your sources, news, youtube, whatever, are using reliable methods for discerning truth?

I don't know.

Finally an honest response and I will give you the credit for that.

AR AR AR! So clever.

 

[KeepTalking]

And then when they bring that shit here and it gets debunked, then it's all, well, whooo can possibly tell what's true in this scary maelstrom of wordz 'n shit... Well, whoever debunked your bullshit had an inkling.

And they also get all indignant and accuse you of sticking your head in the sand because you won't give views to the YouTube video that misinformed them in them first place.

Its not just my opinion that media today sucks. Independent journalist's such as Matt Tabbi make this claim as well. Corporate media wants your money and they can care less whether or not you are really informed.

That may be true, but it does not mean that a random YouTube video is as reliable a source as ABC News. It also does not mean that someone who refuses to click on a link to that video is sticking their head in the sand, nor does it mean that they are ignorant.

 

[RVonse]

Okay, so all the news we do see and hear is misinformation and the real truth is hidden? But you can see it?

Once again, what is your method for discerning what's true or false? How do you determine if your sources, news, youtube, whatever, are using reliable methods for discerning truth?


.

The same way our courts do it.

I post about things such as this thread that I know will bring comments from another point of view. I am confident that you and others of the other political side will not let me down in this regard. The other side will always tell you either what is wrong with your opinion or what is wrong with the facts you think you have. And yes, that is a good thing. And yes, it may also make me look stupid. But in the end, the truth is advanced.

 

[atrib]

That is not what the law says. The asylum seeker is allowed to remain in the US until the case is adjudicated, under the doctrine of Defensive Asylum. Sending a person back to his country of origin, which he is fleeing for fear of persecution would be contrary to what the asylum process is about.

Then this is a law that should be changed. It is a law in name only if the government has no means to execute what it says. It is these kind of non sense laws that can not be executed that really make you wonder why we pay our legislators a 6 figure salary.

Now you are moving the goalposts. In the beginning you insisted that the Biden government should follow the law and deport asylum seekers immediately. When it was pointed out that the law allows petitioners to remain in the US while their application is processed, you state that the law should be changed. The law is being followed. That is the point. And you were wrong.

The asylum process is intended to provided a safe refuge to people who may be in danger in their place of origin. Sending these people back to their place of origin would place them in harm's way, which is why it makes sense to grant them permission to stay in the US until their case can be settled. Why is this so difficult to understand?

 

[Angry Floof]

Okay, so all the news we do see and hear is misinformation and the real truth is hidden? But you can see it?

Once again, what is your method for discerning what's true or false? How do you determine if your sources, news, youtube, whatever, are using reliable methods for discerning truth?


.

The same way our courts do it.

I post about things such as this thread that I know will bring comments from another point of view. I am confident that you and others of the other political side will not let me down in this regard. The other side will always tell you either what is wrong with your opinion or what is wrong with the facts you think you have. And yes, that is a good thing. And yes, it may also make me look stupid. But in the end, the truth is advanced.

You think posting your opinion and having that opinion batted about among internet users will eventually produce truth? That's your method?

Holy crap, that explains a lot.

Also, that's not how courts do it. They don't just argue sides until truth falls out. They require facts and evidence, and even then can often rule wrongly. Even with those strict rules and boundaries, human bias can and does convict innocents and set the guilty free pretty frequently.

What is required to discern truth from fiction is critical thinking, which is actually a set of specific skills and not just a nebulous notion of criticizing opposing views.

 

[KeepTalking]

Okay, so all the news we do see and hear is misinformation and the real truth is hidden? But you can see it?

Once again, what is your method for discerning what's true or false? How do you determine if your sources, news, youtube, whatever, are using reliable methods for discerning truth?

The same way our courts do it.

You subpoena witnesses?

I post about things such as this thread that I know will bring comments from another point of view. I am confident that you and others of the other political side will not let me down in this regard. The other side will always tell you either what is wrong with your opinion or what is wrong with the facts you think you have. And yes, that is a good thing. And yes, it may also make me look stupid. But in the end, the truth is advanced.

I can only speak for myself, but I am not trying to make you look stupid. When pointing out that the sources you use are not reliable, or that the conclusion they have led you to is false, there is always the hope that you will learn from that, and either stop consuming the sources, or at least consume the more critically. You always seem to inch closer to learning that lesson by the end of the thread, but then you soon make another thread with the same flaws as the last. Eventually it becomes hard to take you seriously as coming here to seek out another viewpoint, rather than serving up a story as some vindication of your preconceived views.

 

[RVonse]

In the beginning you insisted that the Biden government should follow the law and deport asylum seekers immediately. When it was pointed out that the law allows petitioners to remain in the US while their application is processed, you state that the law should be changed. The law is being followed.

I thought Biden was going to send them back?

That is the point. And you were wrong.

Biden is wrong too?

The asylum process is intended to provided a safe refuge to people who may be in danger in their place of origin. Sending these people back to their place of origin would place them in harm's way, which is why it makes sense to grant them permission to stay in the US until their case can be settled. Why is this so difficult to understand?

You can not handle 13,000 cases that way.

 

[KeepTalking]

I thought Biden was going to send them back?

It seems he is going to use a Trump administration rule that allows him to do that, not a law that instructs him to do that.

Biden is wrong too?

In this case, I think he is wrong to do so. Why is that surprising to you?

The asylum process is intended to provided a safe refuge to people who may be in danger in their place of origin. Sending these people back to their place of origin would place them in harm's way, which is why it makes sense to grant them permission to stay in the US until their case can be settled. Why is this so difficult to understand?

You can not handle 13,000 cases that way.

You can. Time and circumstance may make it difficult, but you can certainly do it. There may have been a way to vet those refugees for political asylum cases, but it appears that the Biden admin is not even going to try. I am as willing to criticize Biden for that as I would be to criticize Trump for it.

 

[Ford]

I post about things such as this thread that I know will bring comments from another point of view. I am confident that you and others of the other political side will not let me down in this regard. The other side will always tell you either what is wrong with your opinion or what is wrong with the facts you think you have. And yes, that is a good thing. And yes, it may also make me look stupid. But in the end, the truth is advanced.

Your OP - original premise - was that you found something the "Biden administration will not allow you to see very much longer." That premise was shot down almost instantly, as the story was being covered in the "mainstream" media. It isn't "another point of view" from "the other political side."

There's no "political side" about it...you were simply incorrect.

If you really want the truth to be "advanced," then when several people point out that what you posted was simply incorrect, you say "ah...got it. Thanks" and consider being a little more careful when posting sensationalist content. You didn't do that. you dug in and kept clinging to your wrongheaded notion. The truth came out pretty quickly, but you chalked it up to being "well the other side has spoken" and don't seem to have learned much.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have enough experience with family members with drug problems (prescribed and illicit) and friends and family who work with people who use/abuse drugs to not be ready to jump on board wholesale legalization. Y'all recognize, don't you, that prescription medications are the reason for the current opioid crisis?

Removing criminality is only a tiny part of the job. We have to have the other parts in place before we open that door.

I do agree that overuse was part of the problem. Note that many of us on the legalization side favor a two-part approach: The low-risk stuff is completely legal, the high-risk stuff is prescription-only, but with a specific legal requirement that addiction is a valid reason for a prescription. With the addicts being able to get their fix legally we could do away with most of the hoops people are made to jump through for the higher level stuff.

It's not just over use. I know someone who was given oxy in the hospital while recovering from knee replacement surgery. Went home, went off meds and became violently ill--because of withdrawal from what he was given for a couple of days in the hospital. He was particularly unlucky in becoming so addicted so quickly--he had zero idea until he went back to the doctors, thinking he must have a heck of an infection. This is unusual, but it happens.

Didn't realize it could bite that fast.

I'm not even sure what 'low risk' means. Decades ago, I was given a prescription for cough medicine with codeine in it. VERY effective but I quit taking it the instant I didn't need it to sleep through the night without coughing my head off because I recognized that my body really, really, really liked it and I could see how it could be a problem for me. I was given oxy after a surgery and I took twice in 24 hrs. because I knew I wanted to be able to move around well and then never touched it again. It did block pain from the surgery but aside from that---there was no: Hello there nice drug response from my body the way there is for codeine, yet lots of people cannot handle oxy at all.

Stuff like marijuana--pretty much non-addictive. LSD, mushrooms, MDMA and the like.

 

[Politesse]

So has Biden disappeared the pictures yet?

(Did RVonse get arrested for sharing them? Do I need to erase my browser cache in a hurry?)

 

[repoman]

Photos and videos of current flag draped coffins of dead soldiers were hard to come by from 1991 to 2009.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/world/americas/27iht-photos.1.20479953.html

Is this FAA decision about drones in the same realm?

 

[ZiprHead]

A mounted U.S. Border Patrol agent shouted commands in a tense encounter with Haitian migrants wading through the Rio Grande near Del Rio, Texas.

As the Haitians tried to climb onto the U.S. side of the river Sunday afternoon, the agent shouted: "Let's go! Get out now! Back to Mexico!"

The agent swung his whip menacingly, charging his horse toward the men in the river who were trying to return to an encampment under the international bridge in Del Rio after buying food and water in Ciudad Acuña, Mexico.

One migrant fell as he tried to dodge, others shielded their heads with their hands.

After a few minutes the agents retreated, allowing the migrants to return to the camp, where over 10,000 are waiting for the chance to open an asylum claim in the United States.

https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/immigration/2021/09/19/haitian-migrants-tough-choices-crackdown-del-rio-texas-border/8411152002/

 

[Trausti]

Thousands of Haitian migrants deported from US

Surprised that Biden admin is doing this. Good.

 

[untermensche]

Thousands of Haitian migrants deported from US

Surprised that Biden admin is doing this. Good.

Deportation is a legal process.

These people who are fleeing a nation turned to shit because of US foreign policy for decades were just thrown out with force.

Sent back to a nation with no legitimate government or leaders or jobs or food.