BuckSwope

Because by entering races like this, they would be admitting they are not women.

Only so many times I can answer the question the same way. We just disagree, man.

I guess what I am saying is that: Show up -> claim asylum -> get your day in court to prove your case is a legal pathway, correct. We know and they know they aren't coming for the "proper" claims of asylum, but IMO that is on us for letting it get to the point where it's a 4.5 year wait for the court date. We allowed that legal pathway to become severely backlogged and it basically means nothing now. So here we are - show up, when you get caught claim asylum and still get let in. You have about 5 years to work and figure it out. It's a huge reason why we have the numbers we do - it's pretty easy to get in (once you get here, not the trip to get here).

I am talking about the issue of our borders and illegals in general. IMO the way bigger root causes are that they: 1. get hired 2. have very easy path to exploit in our asylum process, and 3. now get protection and benefits. When I say a wall is an ineffective solution to our border and immigration, this is what I am talking about. It doesn't address any of those 3 things, and rarely see talk of 1 or 2 from either side of the aisle. IF you are just wanting to stop or slow the flow, then sure it can be effective, but I would argue that other methods would be a better use of money like drones, tech, enforcement. A wall seems antiquated and silly at this point, IMO. When I say there could be harm is going back to part 1 - these people are being hired for a reason. Profits, they are needed, and their low wages keep prices in line. We can't ignore the impact they have on our economy, so a possible harm is reducing that flow past the point where it starts effecting those things. I just don't understand people's obsession with this wall. I think it's a dumb waste of money.

Well, that's a different tone than what I thought your original posts were stating. You seem to be saying it won't help much, but who cares it won't hurt. So we disagree that it would help a great deal, and it can hurt more than just feels - it for sure can stifle our economy and possibly raise prices a lot.

More tangentially about other issues where I feel I am on the side of smaller government but the right is for around here. Not as much here. For me it doesn't have to be any harder than being against ideas I don't think will significantly address these issues. To me a physical wall is so far down the list of ways we should address it, it becomes a pretty dumb idea. But that's how I approach each issue.

Claiming asylum is not a legal path?

Why, you just admitted that it won't address the issue. You ask what the "harm" is and I answered - more gubment waste, and it's not addressing the issue. On top of that, a complete walling off of the border like many here want would tank our economy more, so that is another part of it - it could become too restrictive. I always thought the conservatives were for smaller government and less bloat, so I am curious why it doesn't apply to an issue like this where you have also stated a couple times it won't address the issue. I feel like I am in bizzaro world or something.

Correct. The right needs to admit this part, and the left needs to admit it can't be a free for all.

At 0 point did I use those words - that is on you. I've been against the wall because I don't think it's going to largely address our problem and it's a waste of tax money. I'm not sure why that is an idiotic position to hold when looking at issues.

Of course we do. Much of that stuff I don't agree with and think are waste of tax dollars too. It's only a dumb argument if you aren't consistent in not wanting government spending money on stupid crap. IMO it's a dumber argument to shrug and say "well, we spend billions on other stupid sh1t, why not this too?".

I don't think it has to be much more complicated than thinking it's a waste of tax dollars. I always thought the wall was dumb because it's not fixing core things that are leading to this - mainly jobs/benefits when they get here and our horrible asylum process.

Still a stupid idea, but I can't wait for the righties to change their tune now that pedo Joe is down for it.

We can disagree on things like spanking, as i dont think people should hit their kids. I agree with the sentiment of the thread that constant yelling is different than occasionally having to do so. Context is everything

Yes, I'm advocating for no prisons and no deterrents at all. My kids must be the worst in the school because I've never hit them and rarely raise my voice.

My take away from the article and posts like yours is it doesn't have to be a choice. Both are abuse (or easily can turn into that), and neither have to be done. Not sure why the choice is yelling or beating, or why in the same thread as these post we get comments like "today's kids are poosies".

HERE It depends how you are talking about it. Yes, that info is a few years behind. Sometimes an article you look at just counts competitions, sometimes it includes practices. Sometimes cheerleading is considered a "sport" and counted, sometimes not. So as you posted, many of the injuries are concussions and if you look at the rates - competition is lower but practice is higher than many mainstream sports. If I scanned right, for practice it's 2nd to football. Still not understanding why that post had to be shtick.

Why? One of the highest rates of injuries and concussions are cheerleaders. Not the fat ones we had that couldn't play sports, the actual athletic ones that do flips and throws.

Tonight I was leaning towards either Haunt on Hulu or watching an old B&W on Criterion channel.

So far I watched: Gonjiam: Haunted Asylum Deadstream The Invitation TCM 2 Nightmare 2

I started already , and knocked out 5 movies. Seems like most here lean to the extreme gross stuff, so I didn't bother talking much about them.

Be careful - if you believe any of this you are a pedo!

It's sort of odd that all the focus is yet again on black people, but they weren't even the ones who benefitted the most from all these hires.

You missed the "bootlicking" in the other thread, I was disappointed.

Wait, don't 2a and 2b apply to the OP and what people like kilroy have been posting their experience has been? If a hiring manager is told point blank to not hire white dudes, that's 2a as far as I read it. If it's happening a bit in the corporate world, wouldn't that be 2b?