Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 1960921)

The point is, these dogs didn't just appear out of nowhere. They came from someplace that wasn't all that great in the first place. If you fix that place, you won't find all those unwanted dogs in the kennel. People won't be so eager to dump them on you. The dogs need to live SOMEWHERE.

If you want to compare accurately, how about we just leave them in their former homes where they are abused and used for bait in dog fights, or who are abandoned in their yards and left to starve? Why not just do that?

And let's carry that comparison (since you're the one who wants to compare immigrants to unwanted dogs) to people:

How about we just euthanize all the immigrants? Unwanted mongrels, let's just put them all to sleep. Whenever they come to our kennel (the border) we don't even check to see if they're adoptable. We just put them down.

No? You don't want to do that? Why not? That is the comparison you are choosing here. Unwanted dogs = unwanted immigrants.

It's a sick comparison. And I wouldn't do that with a dog, either by the way. Fix the problem at its source. The countries these people are coming FROM are inhospitable to civilized human existence. They have to go SOMEWHERE and they don't have the means to buy an island and create their own peaceful civilization. So they come here.

Will we tell them they have to go back to being abused, murdered, terrorized, sold into slavery, tortured? Or will we take them WHILE we attempt to get their home countries to stop doing this to each other?

You only get to pick one option.

I choose humanity. Even if it's inconvenient.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 1960925)

Let's talk about whether the US is fundamentally racist.... - YouTube

There it is on youtube for you.

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan (Post 1961092)

I am obviously a liberal, but I think the Student Loans program signed into law by LBJ was a major cause of the decline in education at the college level.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 1961476)

Bigoted like Tucker?

Originally Posted by Bucco (Post 1961412)

You do understand that elimination of CRT as you support, means exactly what you oppose here.

It allows elects officials to decide what NOT to teach.

IF CRT is allowed the kid get the benefit of the truth

This post of your is supporting the censoring of our country's history to satisfy an agenda. Is this what you think our country stands for ?

Add this to all the other conspiracies and untruths and what do you have......

Originally Posted by Bucco (Post 1960880)

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 1961561)

CRT is not being taught in grade schools. It's a non-issue. It's not a thing. The "CRT is being taught in grade schools" is fiction, propaganda, a conspiracy theory of the alt-right and Qanon. It's not a thing that's actually happening. There are no reports of it actually happening anywhere. There's only people screaming that it's happening and needs to stop. But you can't stop something that isn't actually happening.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 1961561)

CRT is not being taught in grade schools. It's a non-issue. It's not a thing. The "CRT is being taught in grade schools" is fiction, propaganda, a conspiracy theory of the alt-right and Qanon. It's not a thing that's actually happening. There are no reports of it actually happening anywhere. There's only people screaming that it's happening and needs to stop. But you can't stop something that isn't actually happening.

Originally Posted by Aloha1 (Post 1961540)

If the shoe fits....

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 1959563)

I NEVER suggested that Blacks and Browns were too ignorant at ANYTHING. I WOULD suggest that maybe you should get more informed about the dark, hidden ramifications about the lines drawn by gerrymandering.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 1961470)

You are taking a Progressive view on immigration, the "standard" view. I am a Progressive about ALL other issues. And, actually, maybe (?) my view is ssssooooo much more progressive that it could seem backward or conservative. Here is MY thinking......MOST people judge a country's value by GNP, which is good for certain things like power and economic growth. Most average people JUDGE their lives by how GOOD they feel about various elements. I would call that more like "Quality of Life" - which can be looked up on lists for comparisons between countries. I would call Quality of Life to be a better measuring stick than GDP. And I would call thinking in those terms of Quality of Life to be PROGRESSIVE and GDP to be more conservative.

I contend that after about 275 Million people in the US, that each NEW arrival has caused the Quality of Life to decrease. People talk about the "good old" days of the 1950s and 60s and in MANY ways, they are RIGHT. The ratio of natural resources to population was in a BETTER balance then than today. I gave my analogy about a home having more and more dogs - causing Quality of Life to go from good to bad. Try putting more and more goldfish in ONE bowl and SEE the same idea. I understand that your interpretation is the currently prevailing one and mine is the CURRENT outlier. I, also, believe that most people have NEVER really thought about it. It is EASY to believe that the status quo is the RIGHT and best solution. And it would, also, be COSERVATIVE. I am questioning the status quo, therefore, I am PROGRESSIVE.