I want a logical argument from the left for why this man's point of view is wrong.

[HappyJoy]

I've never heard anyone, ever, say that the immigration issue is about "about tackling world poverty", which is the very foundation of his point.

Tossing straw man arguments into a complicated, contentious issue only drags us further away from honestly and effectively addressing it.

Sure, not in those terms. But if it's not about tackling immigrant poverty (or improving immigrant quality of life rather) then what is it about? No one is coming to America because it provides less opportunity or is just a lateral move for them. They're doing it to improve their lives in some way, usually though employment opportunity, quality of living conditions or less crime/danger.

On the flipside, i don't see why any country owes any immigrant the chance to live/work in that country regardless of what that immigrant is faced with elsewhere. If a country is sovereign then they deserve to make a judgment on anyone who's going to be accepted in as part of that country. The idea that we owe the world and it's people anything is a flawed one.

Agreed. We just don't seem to be able with deal with pretty any much any issue right now, that's the freakin' problem. There is a point of equilibrium on most issues, but once political ideology takes over, it's nothing more than a food fight.

Yes, we absolutely must protect our borders, and any Democrat who pretends there's not a significant political element to this latest outrage is either lying or delusional. They're gonna milk this for all it's worth, and don't be surprised when their outrage drops a bit after the election.

At the same time, conservatives have to understand that they're inviting this stuff with their wall, among other things. They could bend a bit and come up with some workable solutions, but instead, they're just punching back. I admit I don't understand partisan politics, but I don't see the point of all this.
.

Just curious, what's the appropriate response, Goldilocks?

Personal insults, name-calling, spin, distortions, Straw Man arguments, deflection and outright lies.

So I'd say you guys are really nailing it here. Things are great, thanks so much.
.

I didn't ask you what wasn't the appropriate response.

For example someone on this board insinuates or outright states that these immigrants are inferior to us, then what is the appropriate response?

When someone says that our government has a law that requires us to separate children from their familes, how should they respond?

When a poster answers in the affirmative that men, women and children should be lined up in shot, should that opinion be respected?

 

[Confounding]

There is nothing to imply that current legal immigration options are permitted for humanitarian reasons.

Then why? It's not useful to our economy, especially as we move closer to a post-labor world.

That logical fault is called moving the goal post.

Why do we let in millions of immigrants every year if they're not useful to our technologically advancing economy and we're not under the impression we are making a difference in the world?

 

[Mac1958]

I've never heard anyone, ever, say that the immigration issue is about "about tackling world poverty", which is the very foundation of his point.

Tossing straw man arguments into a complicated, contentious issue only drags us further away from honestly and effectively addressing it.

Sure, not in those terms. But if it's not about tackling immigrant poverty (or improving immigrant quality of life rather) then what is it about? No one is coming to America because it provides less opportunity or is just a lateral move for them. They're doing it to improve their lives in some way, usually though employment opportunity, quality of living conditions or less crime/danger.

On the flipside, i don't see why any country owes any immigrant the chance to live/work in that country regardless of what that immigrant is faced with elsewhere. If a country is sovereign then they deserve to make a judgment on anyone who's going to be accepted in as part of that country. The idea that we owe the world and it's people anything is a flawed one.

Agreed. We just don't seem to be able with deal with pretty any much any issue right now, that's the freakin' problem. There is a point of equilibrium on most issues, but once political ideology takes over, it's nothing more than a food fight.

Yes, we absolutely must protect our borders, and any Democrat who pretends there's not a significant political element to this latest outrage is either lying or delusional. They're gonna milk this for all it's worth, and don't be surprised when their outrage drops a bit after the election.

At the same time, conservatives have to understand that they're inviting this stuff with their wall, among other things. They could bend a bit and come up with some workable solutions, but instead, they're just punching back. I admit I don't understand partisan politics, but I don't see the point of all this.
.

Just curious, what's the appropriate response, Goldilocks?

Personal insults, name-calling, spin, distortions, Straw Man arguments, deflection and outright lies.

So I'd say you guys are really nailing it here. Things are great, thanks so much.
.

I didn't ask you what wasn't the appropriate response.

For example someone on this board insinuates or outright states that these immigrants are inferior to us, then what is the appropriate response?

When someone says that our government has a law that requires us to separate children from their familes, how should they respond?

When a poster answers in the affirmative that men, women and children should be lined up in shot, should that opinion be respected?

Well, I guess that depends on what your goal is.

If your goal is to attack and make people defensive and even more set in their position, I'd say you're doing a fabulous job. Me, I don't burn time on crazies.

If your goal is to learn about how and why people think the way they do, to maybe understand people a bit better, even if they disagree with you, you engage them anyway with curiosity and and open mind.

I don't see the point in the first approach, but that's just me. I'm more attracted to the second.

Up to you.
.

 

[BULLDOG]

Some do require assistance when they first get here. Most don't stay in that situation, and are soon productive members of society

Just for the sake of clarity do you have a link to verifiable information that shows what you've claimed?

no matter what Hannity told you.

I've never once watched Sean Hannity. You might not like my ideas but at least they are my own. Nobody put them there for me.

Yes I do. Trump ordered this study but blocked it's release when it didn't confirm his claims.
Trump administration officials reject report on refugees: report

Odd that all your claims match his perfectly.

 

[BULLDOG]

No. That is not the point of the OP.

That is my point, and I used that video to help make it.

Move that goalpost. It's what you do.

It's called a leading argument. I get you to make a few admissions and face a few realities you don't like. and then from there I surprise attack you with an argument that relies heavily on facts you have already accepted.

You are trying to change the subject. No surprise there.

 

[Confounding]

If your goal is to learn about how and why people think the way they do, to maybe understand people a bit better, even if they disagree with you, you engage them anyway with curiosity and and open mind.

Blasphemy! Burn this WITCH!

 

[Confounding]

Some do require assistance when they first get here. Most don't stay in that situation, and are soon productive members of society

Just for the sake of clarity do you have a link to verifiable information that shows what you've claimed?

no matter what Hannity told you.

I've never once watched Sean Hannity. You might not like my ideas but at least they are my own. Nobody put them there for me.

Yes I do. Trump ordered this study but blocked it's release when it didn't confirm his claims.
Trump administration officials reject report on refugees: report

Odd that all your claims match his perfectly.

That study doesn't show what you're implying it does. It shows that they purchase things and pay taxes, big deal. If you actually think millions of uneducated laborers coming in every year is useful to our economy I don't really know how to help you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Bringing the needy of the world here by the millions and educating all of their children is a bit of a costly venture considering our serious economic problems, no?

Everything has a cost. The correct thing to do is to look at what value the price brings us. And,clearly, we value both an educated populace and some modicum of comfort in old age.

We are at full employment. Domestic farmers and makers of cheap goods cannot find workers to meet increasing demand for their products. Our labor force needs these workers right now.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It shows that they purchase things and pay taxes, big deal

Uh...that actually is kind of a big deal, dude.

 

[Norman]

Immigration from shitholes is not supposed to reduce world poverty, but increase US poverty. Only way democrats can have some votes.

That it does well.

Your argument is self-defeating, assuming you're a capitalist. The only way that it could definitively make the U.S. poorer is if economics is a zero-sum game like the left tends to argue. If you believe that it's not, and that capitalism can create wealth that didn't previously exist, then find a better argument for not letting immigrants in.

Create wealth by them voting my stuff in order to procreate like bunnies and then have the children vote even more of my stuff?

Perhaps a capitalist who lives outside the USA and doesn't give a shit about the country could think that...

Also, in no way is my argument self defeating. You don't get to just assert things without any evidence. At least if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[koshergrl]

There is nothing to imply that current legal immigration options are permitted for humanitarian reasons.

Then why? It's not useful to our economy, especially as we move closer to a post-labor world.

We are never going to be a post labor world.

You're wrong, but whatever. Even if you're right, which you're not, the need for labor will still shrink dramatically in the years to come. We shouldn't be bringing more uneducated people here.

I have no problem with stopping the unfettered stream of illegals.
I think the need for labor is going to increase as we start producing more.

 

[Confounding]

It shows that they purchase things and pay taxes, big deal

Uh...that actually is kind of a big deal, dude.

All poor people purchase things and pay sales tax. That doesn't make them a net benefit to the economy.

 

[HappyJoy]

Sure, not in those terms. But if it's not about tackling immigrant poverty (or improving immigrant quality of life rather) then what is it about? No one is coming to America because it provides less opportunity or is just a lateral move for them. They're doing it to improve their lives in some way, usually though employment opportunity, quality of living conditions or less crime/danger.

On the flipside, i don't see why any country owes any immigrant the chance to live/work in that country regardless of what that immigrant is faced with elsewhere. If a country is sovereign then they deserve to make a judgment on anyone who's going to be accepted in as part of that country. The idea that we owe the world and it's people anything is a flawed one.

Agreed. We just don't seem to be able with deal with pretty any much any issue right now, that's the freakin' problem. There is a point of equilibrium on most issues, but once political ideology takes over, it's nothing more than a food fight.

Yes, we absolutely must protect our borders, and any Democrat who pretends there's not a significant political element to this latest outrage is either lying or delusional. They're gonna milk this for all it's worth, and don't be surprised when their outrage drops a bit after the election.

At the same time, conservatives have to understand that they're inviting this stuff with their wall, among other things. They could bend a bit and come up with some workable solutions, but instead, they're just punching back. I admit I don't understand partisan politics, but I don't see the point of all this.
.

Just curious, what's the appropriate response, Goldilocks?

Personal insults, name-calling, spin, distortions, Straw Man arguments, deflection and outright lies.

So I'd say you guys are really nailing it here. Things are great, thanks so much.
.

I didn't ask you what wasn't the appropriate response.

For example someone on this board insinuates or outright states that these immigrants are inferior to us, then what is the appropriate response?

When someone says that our government has a law that requires us to separate children from their familes, how should they respond?

When a poster answers in the affirmative that men, women and children should be lined up in shot, should that opinion be respected?

Well, I guess that depends on what your goal is.

If your goal is to attack and make people defensive and even more set in their position, I'd say you're doing a fabulous job. Me, I don't burn time on crazies.

Yes you do. All you really do is comment on the 'crazies' of 'both sides', that's your purpose, remember? You make that clear every day. The problem is you think USMB represents our country's politics, it doesn't. The board is over represented by conservatives and these aren't your average Reaganites either. You have moderates on this board (not you, you're something else) who have been consistently been told they are liberal. G5000, Jake, GolfingGator and Old Lady are four than I can think of. I can disagree with all of them and realize they aren't crazy wingnuts. I don't think the Trumpsters feel the same way.

If your goal is to learn about how and why people think the way they do, to maybe understand people a bit better, even if they disagree with you, you engage them anyway with curiosity and and open mind.

My goal should be to learn why someone wants immigrants murdered? I think I kind of know why and I'm not interested. Maybe you want to elevate their disease I care not to.

What have you learned about why bigots are bigots?

I don't see the point in the first approach, but that's just me. I'm more attracted to the second.

Up to you.
.

I think your approach, your goal is to call it all a draw, it's not.

 

[TheDude]

Liberals can only spin when faced with rational behavior. It's just that it's more difficult to put in writing.

CAN WE ALL BE HONEST? Liberals don't care about the real picture. They're emotional and respond based on what they want to believe.

 

[BULLDOG]

Some do require assistance when they first get here. Most don't stay in that situation, and are soon productive members of society

Just for the sake of clarity do you have a link to verifiable information that shows what you've claimed?

no matter what Hannity told you.

I've never once watched Sean Hannity. You might not like my ideas but at least they are my own. Nobody put them there for me.

Yes I do. Trump ordered this study but blocked it's release when it didn't confirm his claims.
Trump administration officials reject report on refugees: report

Odd that all your claims match his perfectly.

That study doesn't show what you're implying it does. It shows that they purchase things and pay taxes, big deal. If you actually think millions of uneducated laborers coming in every year is useful to our economy I don't really know how to help you.

63 billion more than they cost sounds pretty useful to me. How much do you add to the economy?

 

[koshergrl]

Liberals can only spin when faced with rational behavior. It's just that it's more difficult to put in writing.

CAN WE ALL BE HONEST? Liberals don't care about the real picture. They're emotional and respond based on what they want to believe.

Mentally ill. Not *emotional*.

 

[Mac1958]

Agreed. We just don't seem to be able with deal with pretty any much any issue right now, that's the freakin' problem. There is a point of equilibrium on most issues, but once political ideology takes over, it's nothing more than a food fight.

Yes, we absolutely must protect our borders, and any Democrat who pretends there's not a significant political element to this latest outrage is either lying or delusional. They're gonna milk this for all it's worth, and don't be surprised when their outrage drops a bit after the election.

At the same time, conservatives have to understand that they're inviting this stuff with their wall, among other things. They could bend a bit and come up with some workable solutions, but instead, they're just punching back. I admit I don't understand partisan politics, but I don't see the point of all this.
.

Just curious, what's the appropriate response, Goldilocks?

Personal insults, name-calling, spin, distortions, Straw Man arguments, deflection and outright lies.

So I'd say you guys are really nailing it here. Things are great, thanks so much.
.

I didn't ask you what wasn't the appropriate response.

For example someone on this board insinuates or outright states that these immigrants are inferior to us, then what is the appropriate response?

When someone says that our government has a law that requires us to separate children from their familes, how should they respond?

When a poster answers in the affirmative that men, women and children should be lined up in shot, should that opinion be respected?

Well, I guess that depends on what your goal is.

If your goal is to attack and make people defensive and even more set in their position, I'd say you're doing a fabulous job. Me, I don't burn time on crazies.

Yes you do. All you really do is comment on the 'crazies' of 'both sides', that's your purpose, remember? You make that clear every day. The problem is you think USMB represents our country's politics, it doesn't. The board is over represented by conservatives and these aren't your average Reaganites either. You have moderates on this board (not you, you're something else) who have been consistently been told they are liberal. G5000, Jake, GolfingGator and Old Lady are four than I can think of. I can disagree with all of them and realize they aren't crazy wingnuts. I don't think the Trumpsters feel the same way.

If your goal is to learn about how and why people think the way they do, to maybe understand people a bit better, even if they disagree with you, you engage them anyway with curiosity and and open mind.

My goal should learn why someone wants immigrants murdered? I think I kind of know why and I'm not interested. Maybe you want to elevate their disease I care not to.

I don't see the point in the first approach, but that's just me. I'm more attracted to the second.

Up to you.
.

I think your approach, your goal is to call it all a draw, it's not.

Wrong, of course. But about what I expected.

You asked, I answered. As I said, I don't burn time on crazies.
.

 

[Confounding]

Our labor force needs these workers right now.

I feel like this statement on its own is nonsense. I'm willing to be proven wrong. We do not need more immigrants. I know not all farmers can afford them, but check this out...



Technology is rapidly removing the need for the human element, and that truth will be just as multiplicative as technology itself. Bringing unskilled labor here is a mistake, even if you think their kids can do alright a couple decades later.

 

[HappyJoy]

Just curious, what's the appropriate response, Goldilocks?

Personal insults, name-calling, spin, distortions, Straw Man arguments, deflection and outright lies.

So I'd say you guys are really nailing it here. Things are great, thanks so much.
.

I didn't ask you what wasn't the appropriate response.

For example someone on this board insinuates or outright states that these immigrants are inferior to us, then what is the appropriate response?

When someone says that our government has a law that requires us to separate children from their familes, how should they respond?

When a poster answers in the affirmative that men, women and children should be lined up in shot, should that opinion be respected?

Well, I guess that depends on what your goal is.

If your goal is to attack and make people defensive and even more set in their position, I'd say you're doing a fabulous job. Me, I don't burn time on crazies.

Yes you do. All you really do is comment on the 'crazies' of 'both sides', that's your purpose, remember? You make that clear every day. The problem is you think USMB represents our country's politics, it doesn't. The board is over represented by conservatives and these aren't your average Reaganites either. You have moderates on this board (not you, you're something else) who have been consistently been told they are liberal. G5000, Jake, GolfingGator and Old Lady are four than I can think of. I can disagree with all of them and realize they aren't crazy wingnuts. I don't think the Trumpsters feel the same way.

If your goal is to learn about how and why people think the way they do, to maybe understand people a bit better, even if they disagree with you, you engage them anyway with curiosity and and open mind.

My goal should learn why someone wants immigrants murdered? I think I kind of know why and I'm not interested. Maybe you want to elevate their disease I care not to.

I don't see the point in the first approach, but that's just me. I'm more attracted to the second.

Up to you.
.

I think your approach, your goal is to call it all a draw, it's not.

Wrong, of course. But about what I expected.

You asked, I answered. As I said, I don't burn time on crazies.
.

What am i wrong about?

 

[LoneLaugher]

not this shit again

I've never heard anyone say allowing immigrants would reduce world poverty. Where did that goober come up with such a dumb idea? He hasn't built a straw man. He built a gumball man. Is this all RWNJs have to spend their time on?

Why do we let in millions of people annually if we're not actually making a humanitarian difference? It certainly has a very real impact on our economy.

A real POSITIVE impact.