Octopus Overlords

Unagi wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 9:42 pm I think this about to get interesting/funny (IMO). Right now the GOP/Fox want to pretend they care about people and our 'friends that need to be saved' -- only they also need to say that these people have no place here, and should not be allowed to come here.

Kraken wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 10:57 pm MA has said that we will welcome up to 1,000 refugees and several cities are already arranging housing and support for them. I'd welcome 20,000, if we could accommodate that many. Immigrants make us stronger in general, and these refugees in particular -- people who collaborated with us to try to build a country based on our ideals -- are the best kind of immigrants. Hell, they should be fast-tracked for citizenship as far as I'm concerned.

Blackhawk wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 11:38 pm

Kraken wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 10:57 pm MA has said that we will welcome up to 1,000 refugees and several cities are already arranging housing and support for them. I'd welcome 20,000, if we could accommodate that many. Immigrants make us stronger in general, and these refugees in particular -- people who collaborated with us to try to build a country based on our ideals -- are the best kind of immigrants. Hell, they should be fast-tracked for citizenship as far as I'm concerned.

People who were willing to face torture and execution for those ideals, and did so because they trusted us to keep them safe.

If we don't have room, maybe we can kick out some MAGAs...

Unagi wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 9:42 pm I think this about to get interesting/funny (IMO). Right now the GOP/Fox want to pretend they care about people and our 'friends that need to be saved' -- only they also need to say that these people have no place here, and should not be allowed to come here.

Anonymous Bosch wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 12:51 am

Unagi wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 9:42 pm I think this about to get interesting/funny (IMO). Right now the GOP/Fox want to pretend they care about people and our 'friends that need to be saved' -- only they also need to say that these people have no place here, and should not be allowed to come here.

Right, because it's utterly hilarious that the U.S. left behind the majority of Afghan interpreters and others who went through the legitimate Afghanistan SIV application process along with an extensive vetting process (or were stuck in the interminable bureaucracy of doing so). It's not like there's any danger in evacuating a multitude of largely unknown Afghani randos that were fortunate enough to get swept up during the chaotic withdrawal, and doing so would totally make up for abandoning those who actually risked their lives and their families working with, helping, and trusting the U.S. So what if they're now in jeopardy of Taliban retribution? Serves 'em right for being so gullible as to take us at our word. As long as it serves as grist for the mill in the tedium of (R) vs. (D) tribalism, that's what really matters.

Drazzil wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 3:20 am

Anonymous Bosch wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 12:51 am

Unagi wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 9:42 pm I think this about to get interesting/funny (IMO). Right now the GOP/Fox want to pretend they care about people and our 'friends that need to be saved' -- only they also need to say that these people have no place here, and should not be allowed to come here.

Right, because it's utterly hilarious that the U.S. left behind the majority of Afghan interpreters and others who went through the legitimate Afghanistan SIV application process along with an extensive vetting process (or were stuck in the interminable bureaucracy of doing so). It's not like there's any danger in evacuating a multitude of largely unknown Afghani randos that were fortunate enough to get swept up during the chaotic withdrawal, and doing so would totally make up for abandoning those who actually risked their lives and their families working with, helping, and trusting the U.S. So what if they're now in jeopardy of Taliban retribution? Serves 'em right for being so gullible as to take us at our word. As long as it serves as grist for the mill in the tedium of (R) vs. (D) tribalism, that's what really matters.

I think he was pointing to the hilarity of Fox doublespeak, not the ultimate fate of the Afghani's themselves.

Drazzil wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 12:32 am

Blackhawk wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 11:38 pm

Kraken wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 10:57 pm MA has said that we will welcome up to 1,000 refugees and several cities are already arranging housing and support for them. I'd welcome 20,000, if we could accommodate that many. Immigrants make us stronger in general, and these refugees in particular -- people who collaborated with us to try to build a country based on our ideals -- are the best kind of immigrants. Hell, they should be fast-tracked for citizenship as far as I'm concerned.

People who were willing to face torture and execution for those ideals, and did so because they trusted us to keep them safe.

If we don't have room, maybe we can kick out some MAGAs...

+1

Drazzil wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 3:20 am

I think he was pointing to the hilarity of Fox doublespeak, not the ultimate fate of the Afghani's themselves.

Blackhawk wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:04 am

Drazzil wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 12:32 am

Blackhawk wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 11:38 pm

Kraken wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 10:57 pm MA has said that we will welcome up to 1,000 refugees and several cities are already arranging housing and support for them. I'd welcome 20,000, if we could accommodate that many. Immigrants make us stronger in general, and these refugees in particular -- people who collaborated with us to try to build a country based on our ideals -- are the best kind of immigrants. Hell, they should be fast-tracked for citizenship as far as I'm concerned.

People who were willing to face torture and execution for those ideals, and did so because they trusted us to keep them safe.

If we don't have room, maybe we can kick out some MAGAs...

+1

That wasn't a +1. Mine was a joke.

Unagi wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 2:04 pm So to be clear... AB, are you asserting that when we hear the numbers of Afghani’s that were ‘rescued’, those were all just Afghani randos, and the numbers most certainly don’t include and substantial number of SIV Afghanis? And hence , rando Afghani shouldn’t be allowed to be a refugee in Toledo.

Anonymous Bosch wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 4:50 pm

Unagi wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 2:04 pm So to be clear... AB, are you asserting that when we hear the numbers of Afghani’s that were ‘rescued’, those were all just Afghani randos, and the numbers most certainly don’t include and substantial number of SIV Afghanis? And hence , rando Afghani shouldn’t be allowed to be a refugee in Toledo.

No. I know how to use words; if that were what I meant, I would have said so.

it's utterly hilarious that the U.S. left behind the majority of Afghan interpreters and others who went through the legitimate Afghanistan SIV application process along with an extensive vetting process (or were stuck in the interminable bureaucracy of doing so). It's not like there's any danger in evacuating a multitude of largely unknown Afghani randos that were fortunate enough to get swept up during the chaotic withdrawal, and doing so would totally make up for abandoning those who actually risked their lives and their families working with, helping, and trusting the U.S. So what if they're now in jeopardy of Taliban retribution? Serves 'em right for being so gullible as to take us at our word.

Unagi wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 5:02 pm

Anonymous Bosch wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 4:50 pm

Unagi wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 2:04 pm So to be clear... AB, are you asserting that when we hear the numbers of Afghani’s that were ‘rescued’, those were all just Afghani randos, and the numbers most certainly don’t include and substantial number of SIV Afghanis? And hence , rando Afghani shouldn’t be allowed to be a refugee in Toledo.

No. I know how to use words; if that were what I meant, I would have said so.

Oh, I'm sorry. Do you understand how conversation works?

Unagi wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 5:35 pm I said something, you replied with dripping sarcasm.
I asked if the point you were making was “x”, to which you replied that you knew how to write and would have written what I said had you wanted to.
I asked you to clarify then, and you came back here saying I was disingenuous.

cbsnews.com wrote:Multiple planes that are ready to take American citizens and green card holders out of the country are being denied permission to leave by the Taliban, congressional and NGO sources told CBS News.

Excerpts of an email from the State Department to members of congress viewed by CBS News acknowledged that charter flights are still on the ground at the Mazar-i-Sharif airstrip in northern Afghanistan and have permission to land in Doha "if and when the Taliban agrees to takeoff."

"The Taliban is basically holding them hostage to get more out of the Americans," a senior congressional source told CBS News.

The group Ascend, an NGO that teaches young women leadership through athletics, told CBS News they have two planes that have been waiting for six days ready to take between 600 and 1200 people — including 19 American citizens and two permanent residents.

CBS News has not been able to corroborate those numbers, but three other sources confirmed there are Americans in the area waiting to evacuate through charter flights.

The planes are not currently loaded. The passengers are being held nearby, because the Taliban won't let them into the airport, according to a senior congressional source.

"The U.S. airfield in Qatar that has been standing by, ready to receive, is now beginning to pack up," Marina LeGree, the group's executive director, told CBS News. "We hope visibility will add pressure to force a solution. Six days of talks are not encouraging."

The State Department advised members of Congress to tell groups seeking to evacuate out of Mazar-i-Sharif that the government "does not have personnel on the ground in Mazar, we do not have air assets in the country, and we do not control the airspace."

"It is a Taliban decision to ground flights in Mazar-i-Sharif," the email said. "We are, however, providing guidance and assistance to the extent possible — and with an emphasis on safety— to private entities working out of Mazar."

Congressional and NGO sources told CBS news there are at least two physical planes on the ground and six more with approved clearance. The obstacle is the Taliban, which controls the airport and is not letting people board or the planes take off.

"We had six airplanes at the airport, six airplanes with American citizens on them as I speak, also with these interpreters and the Taliban is holding them hostage for demands right now," Representative Michael McCaul, a Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told Fox News on Sunday.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Tuesday that some evacuation flights out of Afghanistan have been prevented from taking off because they included passengers without valid travel documents, an explanation that undercuts Republican claims that the Taliban is holding Americans hostage.

The top U.S. diplomat said the Taliban has agreed to allow anyone to leave as long as they have valid documentation, and he said he is unaware of any “hostage-type” situation.

“It’s my understanding that the Taliban has not denied exit to anyone holding a valid document, but they have said those without valid documents, at this point, can’t leave,” Blinken said.

“Because all of these people are grouped together, that’s meant that flights have not been allowed to go,” he said.
...
Blinken acknowledged Tuesday that without U.S. personnel on the ground, Washington is unable to verify the manifests and check the documents of passengers seeking charter flights out. As an alternative, the State Department has begun facilitating ground transportation of U.S. citizens and others, including the departure of four U.S. citizens on Monday.

That departure marked the first overland evacuation facilitated by the State Department since the U.S. military withdrew from Afghanistan last week. The Taliban was aware of the operation and did not impede the Americans’ safe passage, said a State Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive mission.

TheMix wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 9:50 am Wow. That's one take, I suppose.

My impartial ruling sides with Unagi though. I thought he was genuinely trying to understand what you were saying. And you were a dick in return.

This is also not the first time that you've resorted to an "I know how to use words" response. But I have to wonder if you really understand how conversations work. You say "I meant exactly what I wrote". But the issue is that other people don't always understand what you mean. I don't see how getting snarky and unresponsive helps when people ask you to clarify. There is often meaning hiding behind words. I submit that your words are not as clear as you think they are. And if you are unwilling to put in any effort to clarify what your words mean, then, yes, you are definitely being disingenuous.

TheMix wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:07 pmYour continual assumption that everything you write is "unequivocally spelled out" is the height of hubris. Short of an answer like "No" or "I like ice cream" (which could easily evolve into a more in depth discussion), I never assume that everyone knows exactly what is going on in my mind.

TheMix wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:07 pmYet, you'll make complicated arguments or statements and then get offended and riled up when someone asks for clarification. Repeatedly. Enough that someone like me that doesn't get involved in these discussions has noticed the behavior. It's your right, of course, to push forward with the same behavior. But you will likely find that fewer members are going to want to engage you when it's clear that meaningful discussion is not on the table.

TheMix wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:29 pmAnd though you may disagree, you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL ME WHAT OPINION I MAY HAVE.

TheMix wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:29 pmI didn't call you a hubristic dick.

TheMix wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:29 pm(again, it's my impression - you don't get to dictate what I feel),

TheMix wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:29 pmAs for the hubris... I don't know. You seem to either have a huge chip on your shoulder, or you appear to believe that you are better than everyone else on the forum.

TheMix wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:29 pmI've seen a lot of responses from you that make me shake my head. Like others, I honestly can't tell what your point is sometimes. But every time someone asks you to clarify, you double down. I'm not sure why that is such an offense to you. That someone might not have understood exactly what you meant.

Blackhawk wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 9:58 pm He did not call you a dick. He said you were being a dick.

TheMix wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 9:50 am …you were a dick in return.

Kraken wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 10:20 pm Arguments like this are why we lost Afghanistan.

Blackhawk wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 10:17 pm Again, with the words and the meaning.

"You were a dick in return" is your behavior. It is referring to a single event. "In that exchange your actions were those of a dick."

"You are a dick" is not referring to an event. That would be calling you a dick.

Anonymous Bosch wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 10:30 pm

Blackhawk wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 10:17 pm Again, with the words and the meaning.

"You were a dick in return" is your behavior. It is referring to a single event. "In that exchange your actions were those of a dick."

"You are a dick" is not referring to an event. That would be calling you a dick.

Well, in that case, I totally should've taken it as a constructive compliment rather than a personal attack.

If that ain't calling someone a dick, it's awful close to it.

I know how to use words; if that were what I meant, I would have said so.

TheMix wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 10:52 pm

Anonymous Bosch wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 10:30 pm Well, in that case, I totally should've taken it as a constructive compliment rather than a personal attack.

It was an attempt at constructive criticism.

TheMix wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 10:52 pmI'm sure, however, that by now Unagi has moved on and no longer has any interest in trying to determine what your actual stance is.

TheMix wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 10:52 pm One more thing:

Please try to be consistent in your messaging. If it's good enough to apply to someone else, shouldn't it be good enough to apply to yourself?