@Mordhaus

Except that the United States has for many decades relied on undocumented immigrants as a source of low-wage labor to do the jobs most Americans don't want. Now all of a sudden, after using their cheap labor to keep failing American agriculture and manufacturing alive you just want to yank the carpet out from under them?

Most of the people now up in arms about the "scourge" of illegal immigrants have HIRED illegals at one time or another (in the case of Trump, I'm sure he still employs dozens of hundreds). The US Government could simply have issued more work visas and enforced the rules more closely, but why do that when your buddies can charge sub-minimum wage and stiff their employees on the paycheck whenever they feel like it without fear of repercussion? Instead they wink and nod, punishing the immigrants occasionally, but rarely (if ever) touching the businesses who KNEW they were employing illegals.

It's like ignoring the drug dealers and traffickers for decades, then suddenly deciding drug USERS are a scourge who must be punished.

@newtboy
you were not the only one who put me on the defensive for supporting chis hedges.
so if you feel singled out,i apologize.

the point of this post is put into light an adored spokesperson for the left,and a commentator who is also left leaning (and many of his upvoted videos can be found on the sift) to make a point.

and by your comment,you are struggling to reconcile the two.
but you DID reconcile,and you did so by giving maddow a tacit pass and condemning kyle for being a "complete bombastic liar".

when the truth is:
they both are...kinda..sorta..

they both are approaching,and making their points by using biased and slanted data to influence you,and i for that matter,into adopting their viewpoint.

these are not outright and pernicious lies.they are lies that serve a purpose and i find maddows far more egregious,because it is far more subtle..and you appear to have bought it.

she did so by using the innocuous word "might",yet her inferrence cannot be mistaken.they call it the "dog whistle".this is a wink and a nod that those dirty ruskies own our new president.

wink wink...nudge nudge..know what i mean?

now kyle is not exactly lying either.
he is using russias reaction to the new deployment from putin himself.who has stated that there was an agreement that there would be no new encroachment after the GDR,but that simply reveals the cleverness and political saavy of putin.

the real truth is this:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

or is it?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html
from 2009?

maybe this is the truth?
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html
from 2016.

well,personally i am going with the LAtimes and der spiegel.
brookings is a right wing think tank with deep tentacles in the pentagon and DoD.

but CNN reports that poland LOVES the new troops:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/14/europe/poland-us-troops-nato-welcome/

look,
while i will agree that putin is a vicious thug,who murders political opponents and tortures dissidents.that he is ruthless and relentless political player.

i do not see any evidence of russian hacking influencing our elections,nor do i see a new russian empire pushing for those cold war expansionism days.

the only entity/country i see pushing for expansion and a renewal of the cold war..is us..the pentagon and the department of defense,and those juicy juicy defense contracts!

i feel my time on the sift is coming to a close.
having to defend my admiration for a pulitzer prize winning,war correspondent and author is just...weird.

at least i know i am biased,but i do my best to self-correct.

That wink was kinda out of place. Made me feel awkward.

More Lies and BS from the POTUS. I've got you back, wink wink...He did the same for Ukraine and Syria. All talk and no action.

The movie I, Robot will convince you of the usefulness of winking. And it's a fun Will Smith movie anyway.

Edited:
I was the first to call that assumption in the description out, but you seemed to double down on the sentiment rather than disagree.

If that was meant as sarcasm, mocking the original description, that's why we have the "sarcasm" button, or winking emoji, or words to that effect, because if you don't hit it and instead write something insulting and stupid, then it seems you, like millions of others, MEAN it, especially when you go on with 2 paragraphs pre-defending your statement from the attacks you can see will follow.

I mentioned your qualification and explained how it's no excuse, so clearly I read it.


EDIT: Try reading your original post again without just assuming the first two sentences are mocking sarcasm and see if it sounds outrageous to you...then see if you have said anything to contradict that way of reading it.
BTW, "I was responding to that" does not mean "I was mocking that" or "I was disagreeing with that", imo.

This is unbelievably sloppy thinking. You have a woeful understanding of no true scotsman as well as, apparently, the english language in general.

There are divorced catholics because catholic doctrine is not that it's literally impossible to obtain a divorce. Catholics who get divorces don't suffer sudden existential collapse and wink out of reality. There are no catholics who doubt and despise the bible, who believe that there's no god or historical jesus, and who participate in no catholic tradition. That would be contradictory, and oh look, it's possible to construct a 'no true...' statement that is nevertheless correct. There are no pro-lifers who believe abortion is fine and should be freely available to everyone. There are no democrats who are republicans. There are no jews who believe jesus is the son of god. There are no peaceful muslims.

Put that aside for now. You're arguing for the end of all moral judgement and distinction. Humans are not consistent, therefore it would be outrageous to condemn a car thief for stealing a car. After all, look at all the times he didn't steal a car. Fuck off.

It's possible to make generalisations about arbitrarily large groups that share common attributes. People who steal things are thieves. Apples are fruits. Muslims are violent.

By definition, all muslims share first the belief that mohammed was a good person and second the conviction to follow his example and instruction. By necessity, all muslims share the guilt for the evils of that man, and the evils brought into the world as a result of his legacy.

True, the constitution has some screwed up parts. However, there is a process in place to make or change amendments. If the bulk of the United States decides to repeal the 2nd Amendment, using the methods in place to do so, so be it. I'd give my guns up in that case. If the legislature decides to pass an unconstitutional law as a knee jerk reaction to a terrorist act, then they aren't getting them. The problem with unconstitutional laws, by the way, is that SCOTUS can always wink at the bill of rights and say that it is constitutional. I don't care for that, but again, it is a legal interpretation of the document if they do it. I'd give up my guns if that happened.

I don't even really have an issue if we go back to the assault weapon ban of the 90's. I get that we can make some changes and cut down on these incidents. I'm just extremely leery of package deals like lets ban everyone who ends up on a list from having weapons based on a government decision. You give someone due process to avoid being on the list, like we do to people accused of felonies before they are convicted, no problem. But as it stands, our President is just tossing an idea out there that absolutely violates multiple rights and people are eating it up like it was candy.

*whispers* big chocolate salty balls *wink*

Love the wink.
That's some *quality flirting, sugar.

I think you will find that most veterans, and currently serving men and women, simply want a clear objective that allows them to win the conflict and return home. Unfortunately the nature of terrorism means that while we follow long held rules that prevent collateral damage, or seek to limit it, the enemy we are fighting do not.

Just as we learned to our sorrow in Vietnam, as the British learned in fighting the IRA, the Russians in fighting the Mujaheddin, and we are learning again in our current battles, terrorists do not feel the need to adhere to the laws of warfare. They use civilians to support them, protect targets, or provide them escape methods. They attack civilians gleefully, knowing we cannot respond in kind.

While I do not support Trump, I do think we seriously need to have a new Geneva Convention to clarify how to treat terrorists and their civilian supporters. I think that is what the ex-Seal meant at the heart of his argument, that fighting terrorists using the old "Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, we have rules here" is an absolute losing proposition. Even Obama found that we needed to work outside the rules sometimes to be successful, hence his invasion into a sovereign allied nation to kill or capture Bin Laden, and his current extremely heavy use of drone attacks on suspected targets.

As far as the second veteran, I feel it is absolutely valid to question his integrity. He could have claimed CO status prior to going to conflict or simply not joined the military in the first place. Instead, he decided to claim it after experiencing combat, something my friends who have served noticed happening in the first gulf war. You really don't want a recap of some of the things they called people who left the service after seeing combat.

I've seen it twice now--once on opening night in IMAX with co-workers and the next day with my daughter and wife in 2D at the local theatre. To be honest, I wouldn't have gone to see it again if the local theatre hadn't of gifted me with discounted tickets (around $12 US for me and the wife and $9 for the daughter).

I was deeply disappointed with the film, though I would not go so far as to say it sucks like @kulpims did. If I had to sum it up in two phrases, I'd say "tries too hard to be clever" in homages to the original films and "deeply flawed" in terms of story. It's not a terrible film by any means, but I would say its unevenness makes it good yet far from great.

It's better and worse than the prequels at the same time. Acting and pacing are far better than the prequels (but not nearly as good as the originals as has been pointed out by @ChaosEngine already).

At the same time, say what you want about Lucas's prequels but he at least tried to expand the Star Wars universe and show us new sides and aspects of it--to make it really feel like a galaxy rather than a couple of mostly uninhabited worlds like Tatooine and Hoth that we got to see in the original trilogy. This movie is a step backwards from that and played things waaaaaay too safe (partly because, as I mentioned, they were too busy trying to make themselves look clever with references to the originals and lots of "nod, nod, wink, wink, see what I did there" moments).

But it is JJ Abrams and I shouldn't have really been as shocked as I was to find out how much of the movie was copy/pasted from the originals with twists that I'm sure he thought were clever but which I just found as cringe-worthy.

Still, really loved the new characters. The daughter was definitely enthralled by Rey, but surprisingly likes her better as dune-surfing scavenger than planet-hopping adventurer.

I think she considers Tyler Johnston the most impressive "thing" she's ever "done".

If you catch my drift, >nudge< >nudge< >wink< >wink< know what I mean? A nod's as good as a wink to a blind man, I always say.

Thought you might want to see this, Mr. notarobot (wink wink) https://youtu.be/BGOUSvaQcBs