Using it to argue about the semantics that someone else paraphrased is indeed off the fucking topic, as well as being needlessly insulting.
That’s being generous.
I’m not at all mad that I helped support Peele by paying to see his film, but I wasn’t ‘scared’ at all; just morbidly curious and then severely underwhelmed by the end.
No, the well known allegory for goading the ‘bad guy’ into doing what you want them to do, which most people these days know as illustrated by animated anthropomorphic animals.
It’s a damn shame he cannot do that. So many jobs need to be filled in sanctuary cities. And unlike a certain percentage of homeless people we are not talking about people who are suffering from mental health issues or drug and/or alcohol addiction. These people want to work and care for their families.
I’m at the point where I can usually tell when it’s something Trump has actually written or said by the use of superlatives intended to speak directly to his base. But then he used a 5-syllable word, and I’m back to wondering.
As an aside, how come they didn’t fix these “very dangerous immigration laws” back when the Republicans controlled the House, Senate and the office of the President?
Weren’t they dangerous then?
Or did they become dangerous after Obama left the office?
If so, why did the Republicans choose to make them dangerous after Obama left?
If they “really” were “very dangerous” before Trump took office, we are back to “why didn’t they fix them then”?
After OK Computer, Radiohead said that they didn’t mean to get so weird and their next album would be straightforward rock and roll. Artists have a lot less control of their art than they let on.
It may not have declared itself as such but it voted overwhelmingly for Hillary and strongly supports such policies, while at the same time it has a gate to keep non-rich Americans out.
Uh, it’s a city, incorporated on October 19, 1961. It’s a legal status, not an opinion.
And I would love to see the super-rich liberals in gated Hidden Hills forced to live with diversity and refugees.
Because you think they’re hypocrites, or because you just hate them?
This reminds me of the argument “well if you’re for raising taxes to pay for public services then feel free to pay extra taxes yourself!”
To which I counter: “if you’re in favor of going to war with Iran then get a gun and fly over there yourself!”
This is how it works: we live in a government of the people, by the people, for the people, we elect people to enact policies we think the government should rightly do, often because it’s more efficient or logical for the government to do those things (building highways, regulating commerce, dealing with crises, etc.)-- having some celebrity you personally dislike house a migrant family doesn’t solve the issue.
Or maybe you should have Trump hire some migrants to work in his country clubs. Oh. . . nevermind. .
It’s no co-incidence that this kind of simple-minded Libertarian economic “thought” is so deeply enmeshed in the various quarters of the alt-right, including the Identitarian anti-immigrant movement. And they wonder why serious people laugh at their “epic gotchas”.
It’s also reminiscent of the way people tried to roll back civil rights support by constantly pushing “Black people are going to move into your nice neighborhoods” imagery.
“forced to live with diversity”… JFC. What a twisted worldview a person would have to have, to think that’s a punishment.
Considering every urban area in the country is 1.) majority left leaning, and 2.) already teeming with diversity, @jimjim can take some solace in knowing plenty of liberals are already living with diversity.
I dunno. Is indefinite detention of American citizens still a thing under the current NDAA? If so, the word “terrorist” might be exactly what is needed.
