Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

At least, that's the growing progressive position being aimed at potential democrat nominee for 2020...

Kamala Harris has already flunked the question, at least as of today...

The prospective campaign talking point really picked up last week after MSNBC host Chris Hayes asked Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), someone who has been propped up as a possible 2020 candidate, if America should have ICE. She responded that “ICE has a purpose, ICE has a role, ICE should exist.”

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/03/l ... %B7tion%29

The idea of defunding ICE has gained traction among immigrant-rights groups horrified by the speed at which, under President Donald Trump, the agency has ramped up an already brutal deportation process. Mary Small, policy director at Detention Watch Network, said, “Responsible policymakers need to be honest about the fact that the core of the agency is broken.” Her group led the charge to defund ICE with its #DefundHate campaign last year.

https://www.thenation.com/article/its-t ... olish-ice/

I thought conservatives were in favor of eliminating the bureaucracies created following 9/11? No?

We love the expansion of the federal guvmint now?

Skjellyfetti wrote:I thought conservatives were in favor of eliminating the bureaucracies created following 9/11? No?

We love the expansion of the federal guvmint now?

Assuming, are we???

Did I make any sort of value comments...just presenting two sides of an arguement...

But we know where you stand...

Well, I know you've been always had an issue with the creation of DHS.

What's different about ICE?

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), someone who has been propped up as a possible 2020 candidate...

For what?!?!? Extradition?

ICE has turned into America's Gestapo

Skjellyfetti wrote:I thought conservatives were in favor of eliminating the bureaucracies created following 9/11? No?

We love the expansion of the federal guvmint now?

Was it an expansion, per se? I thought ICE was just the consolidation of a whole bunch of different agencies and departments that existed long before 9/11.

dbackjon wrote:ICE has turned into America's Gestapo

Historical accuracy and understanding dies a little every time someone reaches back to the Nazi era to inappropriately and incorrectly label something as Nazi-related when they oppose a political party, or agency, or policy. For shame.

GannonFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:I thought conservatives were in favor of eliminating the bureaucracies created following 9/11? No?

We love the expansion of the federal guvmint now?

Was it an expansion, per se? I thought ICE was just the consolidation of a whole bunch of different agencies and departments that existed long before 9/11.

Same as DHS.

GannonFan wrote:
Historical accuracy and understanding dies a little every time someone reaches back to the Nazi era to inappropriately and incorrectly label something as Nazi-related when they oppose a political party, or agency, or policy. For shame.

Also when someone compares the Mueller investigation to McCarthy and the Red Scare.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Historical accuracy and understanding dies a little every time someone reaches back to the Nazi era to inappropriately and incorrectly label something as Nazi-related when they oppose a political party, or agency, or policy. For shame.

Also when someone compares the Mueller investigation to McCarthy and the Red Scare.

Well, considering that you've been unable to refute that categorization, I'd say that's one in my column. Next?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Was it an expansion, per se? I thought ICE was just the consolidation of a whole bunch of different agencies and departments that existed long before 9/11.

Same as DHS.

And?

I'm saying if you're against DHS - you should also be against ICE. Or explain your rationale for the distinction.

Skjellyfetti wrote:I'm saying if you're against DHS - you should also be against ICE. Or explain your rationale for the distinction.

I've never thought about it one way or the other - I'm neutral when it comes to DHS and therefore ICE. I certainly think the idea that they are the Gestapo is a vast mischaracterization, but I'm sure it was said more for shock value than for anything approaching reality.

GannonFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Also when someone compares the Mueller investigation to McCarthy and the Red Scare.

Well, considering that you've been unable to refute that categorization, I'd say that's one in my column. Next?

At least you've given up on comparing it to Benghazi.

We'll see where it stands when the dust settles.

GannonFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Also when someone compares the Mueller investigation to McCarthy and the Red Scare.

Well, considering that you've been unable to refute that categorization, I'd say that's one in my column. Next?

Smoot-Hawley?

1950’s?

Look at it this way...at least no one can accuse you of a foolish consistency.

GannonFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:I thought conservatives were in favor of eliminating the bureaucracies created following 9/11? No?

We love the expansion of the federal guvmint now?

Was it an expansion, per se? I thought ICE was just the consolidation of a whole bunch of different agencies and departments that existed long before 9/11.

Basically INS & Customs, pre 2003 became:
ICE: Investigation & intel arms (basically the non uniformed law enforcement) of the old INS & Customs Service.
CBP: Uniformed INS (which included Border Patrol), uniformed Customs.
USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services): non law enforcement arm of the old INS.

Bascially 2 agencies became 3..

Skjellyfetti wrote:I'm saying if you're against DHS - you should also be against ICE. Or explain your rationale for the distinction.

ICE was not "created" after 9/11, Junior

ICE is the old INS enforcement section. Aside from getting an independent director, and a few Customs investigators, it was almost a straight name change.

Should be against ICE if you're against DHS?

I'm seeing a distinct pattern in your lack of logic, or clumsiness in trying to apply it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How many times do Houndawg and I have to tell you...jail a few illegal employers and most of these issues go away in a few years.

The rest is just pablum.

kalm wrote:How many times do Houndawg and I have to tell you...jail a few illegal employers and most of these issues go away in a few years.

The rest is just pablum.

Yep.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Skjellyfetti wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Well, considering that you've been unable to refute that categorization, I'd say that's one in my column. Next?

At least you've given up on comparing it to Benghazi.

We'll see where it stands when the dust settles.

Huh? When have I ever mentioned Benghazi? I'm not sure I've ever commented on Benghazi anywhere on these boards (although I'm sure I did when it happened), but I certainly have not compared anything to Benghazi. You're going to have to put up some evidence on that or apologize for the mischaracterization. I think you're making it up.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Well, considering that you've been unable to refute that categorization, I'd say that's one in my column. Next?

Smoot-Hawley?

1950’s?

Look at it this way...at least no one can accuse you of a foolish consistency.

You'll have to explain how one has anything to do with the other. I think you're reaching on this one.

kalm wrote:How many times do Houndawg and I have to tell you...jail a few illegal employers and most of these issues go away in a few years.

The rest is just pablum.

There's no doubt that employers are a factor in this discussion and they should go after those employers to set an example. But I think a lot of it is now well past employers acting illegally - that's just a small segment of a bigger problem.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Smoot-Hawley?

1950’s?

Look at it this way...at least no one can accuse you of a foolish consistency.

You'll have to explain how one has anything to do with the other. I think you're reaching on this one.

You chastise Skelly or Dback for playing loose and using hyperbole or satire with history...yet....

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
You'll have to explain how one has anything to do with the other. I think you're reaching on this one.

You chastise Skelly or Dback for playing loose and using hyperbole or satire with history...yet....

I don't use hyperbole or satire with history with you - you legitimately advocate for economic policies that mirror past examples like Hawley-Smoot. Heck, what Trump is doing now is almost verbatim what you've advocated for on these boards for years. Or are you now trying to pass yourself off as a free-trader? It must be difficult for you to remember which policies and positions you are for and which you are against considering your ability to change from day to day. Being post-partisan isn't supposed to make you schizophrenic, so it must be something else.