Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Jade Helm Conspiracy Non-TerroristsFollow

#202 May 10 2018 at 11:22 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,612 posts
gbaji wrote:
the only way to win is not to play


That wasn't the WOPR, that was Joshua.

WORST. NERD. EVAR.Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Smash wrote:
My next mixed metaphor will include chocolate cake.

#203 May 11 2018 at 8:27 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,674 posts
gbaji wrote:
Foolishness doesn't just follow partisan lines.
Foolishness only follows partisan lines.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#204 May 11 2018 at 11:37 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,004 posts
He did what you saw there.
#205 Jun 08 2018 at 7:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Conservatives are now convinced that there's a Clinton-Soros child rape camp in the Arizona desert and are making police investigate it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#206 Jun 08 2018 at 7:26 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,761 posts
Do they serve pizza?
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#207 Jun 08 2018 at 7:37 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,674 posts
Jophiel wrote:
link wrote:
But the lack of evidence has done nothing to prevent these claims from catching on among far-right online conspiracy theorists.
A lot of that going around.

Edited, Jun 8th 2018 9:37am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#208 Jun 08 2018 at 8:16 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,626 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Conservatives are now convinced that there's a Clinton-Soros child rape camp in the Arizona desert and are making police investigate it.

That must be where all the kids separated from their parents at the border are being sent.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#209 Jun 08 2018 at 3:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,339 posts
Debalic wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Conservatives are now convinced that there's a Clinton-Soros child rape camp in the Arizona desert and are making police investigate it.

That must be where all the kids separated from their parents at the border are being sent.


No way they'd hand a valuable resource over to the Clintons.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#210 Jun 08 2018 at 5:34 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,292 posts
Samira wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Conservatives are now convinced that there's a Clinton-Soros child rape camp in the Arizona desert and are making police investigate it.

That must be where all the kids separated from their parents at the border are being sent.


No way they'd hand a valuable resource over to the Clintons.


Children of illegal immigrants aren't valuable resources, silly.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#211 Jun 09 2018 at 10:54 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,761 posts
It is if you run a child *** ring, like the Clintons.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#212 Jun 09 2018 at 12:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,339 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
It is if you run a child *** ring, like the Clintons.


And possibly ICE, or HHS, or some other alphabet soup component who "lost" a thousand kids.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#213 Jun 10 2018 at 10:33 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,507 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Conservatives are now convinced that there's a Clinton-Soros child rape camp in the Arizona desert and are making police investigate it.


Not sure why Obama always gets left out of these. Maybe it's hard for them to ********** to fantasizing a black man's **** in place of their own.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#214 Jun 11 2018 at 7:29 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,674 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Samira wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Conservativesare now convinced that there's a Clinton-Soros child rape camp in the Arizona desert and are making police investigate it.
That must be where all the kids separated from their parents at the border are being sent.
No way they'd hand a valuable resource over to the Clintons.
Children of illegal immigrants aren't valuable resources, silly.
I don't know. There's a reason the iPod works and the Zune doesn't.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#215 Jun 11 2018 at 7:47 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,761 posts
The magic was in the eyes of the children the whole time...It just took their tears to get it out!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#216 Jun 11 2018 at 7:47 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,292 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Samira wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Conservativesare now convinced that there's a Clinton-Soros child rape camp in the Arizona desert and are making police investigate it.
That must be where all the kids separated from their parents at the border are being sent.
No way they'd hand a valuable resource over to the Clintons.
Children of illegal immigrants aren't valuable resources, silly.
I don't know. There's a reason the iPod works and the Zune doesn't.
Maybe they have some value, but it is only when they stay in their Eastern European and South Asia sweat shops.


On a more serious note. This "1000s of missing children after being separated from their parents" thing seems to be a purposefully misleading title running in the media. Most of these kids are the ones that came unaccompanied to the border, and are labelled missing because when their recorded contact was contacted, no one answered or they had relocated with family members.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#217 Jun 11 2018 at 9:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The 1,400 missing children refers to children who were taken by the government and placed in sponsor homes. From CNN:
Quote:
After a stay in an ORR shelter, the majority of children are sent to live with sponsors who have close ties to the children -- typically a parent or close relative, Wagner said, though some end up living with "other-than-close relatives or non-relatives."

Between October and December 2017, Wagner told the subcommittee, the ORR reached out to 7,635 unaccompanied children to check on them. But the ORR "was unable to determine with certainty the whereabouts of 1,475 children," Wagner testified. An additional 28 had run away.

That's more than 19% of the children that were placed by the ORR. But Wagner said HHS is not responsible for the children.

This is one thing if children are arriving unescorted at the border. The concern is that, if the US has a policy of separating children from their parents then those children will wind up in a system where we lose track of a fifth of the children and say "Not our problem".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#218 Jun 11 2018 at 10:24 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,292 posts
But even your quoted article says these weren't just children "taken by the government and placed in sponsor homes" Says they were unaccompanied minors showing up at the border, and majority placed with family members. And the "lost track" part includes unanswered phone calls.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#219 Jun 11 2018 at 11:52 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,626 posts
Well, if you call looking for somebody and there's no answer, you don't have confirmation of their whereabouts.

Anyways, letting children stay with their parents when they reach our borders, greatly increases the chances of not losing them in the first place.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#220 Jun 11 2018 at 12:02 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,292 posts
Debalic wrote:
Anyways, letting children stay with their parents when they reach our borders, greatly increases the chances of not losing them in the first place.

This is exactly why I think the way this is being portrayed is misleading. These are not children that were taken from their parents. These are children that showed up unaccompanied at the border and were placed in homes. Most of them with parents and relatives. But the way it's being interpreted is that these are children separated from their parents by the US government and then given to foster homes who then lost them.

Quote:
Well, if you call looking for somebody and there's no answer, you don't have confirmation of their whereabouts.
But if in reality they are still with their family, does it matter if said family member didn't answer the phone when the Government called?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#221 Jun 11 2018 at 12:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
TirithRR wrote:
But even your quoted article says these weren't just children "taken by the government and placed in sponsor homes" Says they were unaccompanied minors showing up at the border, and majority placed with family members. And the "lost track" part includes unanswered phone calls.

Yes, because the policy of actively removing children from their families is new. The point is that, if the current "take unaccompanied children, place them in sponsored homes" leads to a 20% "loss" rate, maybe upping those numbers by adding children who HAVE parents with them, but we're going to separate, isn't a great idea.

"Well, they didn't answer the phone and never got back to us but I'm sure they're fine" isn't a reassuring rebuttal. That doesn't mean that they're all sex slaves in the salt mines but, you know, maybe someone should actually make sure that they're not? Besides "Well, we put these kids with some families and we made a phone call. It's out of our hands now."

Edited, Jun 11th 2018 1:11pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#222 Jun 11 2018 at 12:36 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,626 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Anyways, letting children stay with their parents when they reach our borders, greatly increases the chances of not losing them in the first place.

This is exactly why I think the way this is being portrayed is misleading. These are not children that were taken from their parents. These are children that showed up unaccompanied at the border and were placed in homes. Most of them with parents and relatives. But the way it's being interpreted is that these are children separated from their parents by the US government and then given to foster homes who then lost them.

Quote:
Well, if you call looking for somebody and there's no answer, you don't have confirmation of their whereabouts.
But if in reality they are still with their family, does it matter if said family member didn't answer the phone when the Government called?

The latest policy of separating children from parents and shipping them off to foster care will only make things worse. Unaccompanied minors are usually sent with the intention of staying with family anyways; families coming together might not have others already in country.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#223 Jun 12 2018 at 3:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,384 posts
Jophiel wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
But even your quoted article says these weren't just children "taken by the government and placed in sponsor homes" Says they were unaccompanied minors showing up at the border, and majority placed with family members. And the "lost track" part includes unanswered phone calls.

Yes, because the policy of actively removing children from their families is new. The point is that, if the current "take unaccompanied children, place them in sponsored homes" leads to a 20% "loss" rate, maybe upping those numbers by adding children who HAVE parents with them, but we're going to separate, isn't a great idea.


Ok. But lumping them in together somewhat muddles the numbers. Do we know if the percentage of children placed in sponsored homes who then become unaccounted for is higher or lower than the percentage of children placed with family members. I think the point Tirith was making is that the article suggests that there's some horrific problem with the "new" policy of placing children in sponsored homes, but includes mostly data from children who were placed with family.

I think most of us would reasonably accept that placing the child with a family member will increase the likelihood of later lack of response, simply due to the family being more likely to want to hide the child from authorities (or hide themselves in some cases). Obviously, we can't say for sure, but the point is that the data in the article doesn't actually support the assumed claim in the article itself.

Quote:
"Well, they didn't answer the phone and never got back to us but I'm sure they're fine" isn't a reassuring rebuttal. That doesn't mean that they're all sex slaves in the salt mines but, you know, maybe someone should actually make sure that they're not? Besides "Well, we put these kids with some families and we made a phone call. It's out of our hands now."


I don't think anyone was making any of those assertions.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#224 Jun 12 2018 at 5:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Ok. But lumping them in together somewhat muddles the numbers. Do we know if the percentage of children placed in sponsored homes who then become unaccounted for is higher or lower than the percentage of children placed with family members.

Some sponsored homes are with family, some are not. But all are in sponsored homes.
Quote:
I think most of us would reasonably accept that placing the child with a family member will increase the likelihood of later lack of response, simply due to the family being more likely to want to hide the child from authorities (or hide themselves in some cases).

That's a swell guess but it's just a guess. You're also making the guess that non-documented family members in the US are eligible to be sponsors.
Quote:
I don't think anyone was making any of those assertions.

Tirith repeatedly made the point that "well, it includes people who didn't answer the phone". Of course, if I was turning children into stew or something, I probably wouldn't answer the phone either. So what's the percentage of "Well, they didn't answer the phone" missing children who are in some sort of neglect or peril? Oh, we have no idea because the official stance of the government is "Once they're in a sponsored family, they're not our problem any more".

And so an 80% success rate in tracking these children is nothing to write home about. But here's the thing: maybe you accept this as "good enough" for children found unaccompanied at the border. Sucks, but you need to find some solution for these kids. But the reason why this is in the news is because the administration is making the completely voluntary choice to take children away from their families -- to make them "unaccompanied" -- for purely political reasons and put them into this system with an 80% success rate. Enough children that the shelters are now overflowing and we're erecting tent cities to house another couple thousand children. And these children are probably less likely to have family-sponsored homes to stay at because they came with their families.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#225 Jun 12 2018 at 9:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,384 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Ok. But lumping them in together somewhat muddles the numbers. Do we know if the percentage of children placed in sponsored homes who then become unaccounted for is higher or lower than the percentage of children placed with family members.

Some sponsored homes are with family, some are not. But all are in sponsored homes.


Ok. But the implication I got from the article was that it was trying to make a point about "removing children from their families/parents == bad", so the issue isn't whether the home is "sponsored", but whether it's a relative or a non-relative who is taking custody of the child. And that is certainly muddled by the way the numbers are presented.

Quote:
Quote:
I think most of us would reasonably accept that placing the child with a family member will increase the likelihood of later lack of response, simply due to the family being more likely to want to hide the child from authorities (or hide themselves in some cases).

That's a swell guess but it's just a guess. You're also making the guess that non-documented family members in the US are eligible to be sponsors.


Um... Or the much more reasonable "non-guess" that it's not uncommon at all for many people who come to the US illegally (especially if dragging along minor children, or sending them unaccompanied into the states), to have legal resident/citizen relatives living in the US. Those are usually the people they're intending their minor children to live with in the first place (even if just "some of the time" in order to help them stay in the US). So yeah, said family members would certainly have a higher likelihood of not responding to contact requests once the child is in their hands than a non-relative guardian.

While I'm sure it does happen, I'd assume that the rate of non-related sponsors "losing" those children would probably be similar to the rate among any other random set of children in foster care. It happens. But it's rare, and usually involves teens and not "young children". Again though, the implication I got was that this was about claiming that by putting children in non-family homes, they're at risk of "going missing", with some kind of implied nefariousness going on or something.

I don't see data that supports that implication though.

Quote:
Quote:
I don't think anyone was making any of those assertions.

Tirith repeatedly made the point that "well, it includes people who didn't answer the phone". Of course, if I was turning children into stew or something, I probably wouldn't answer the phone either. So what's the percentage of "Well, they didn't answer the phone" missing children who are in some sort of neglect or peril?


What's the percentage of homes you might randomly call in which they don't answer the phone and in which there's a child in some sort of neglect or peril? I don't know. Neither do you. Is the likelihood increased if the child was placed in the home via a sponsorship program versus just living there with their parents? I mean, I guess you could interpret that as arguing *against* it happening at all, but that wasn't the vibe I got. I got more of a "there's no automatic reason to assume something nefarious in this case". Again, it's more likely that they aren't responding specifically because they are trying to shield the child from immigration officials rather than that there's something horrible being done to the child.

But then, it's hard to gauge that because the article conflates too many different data points, so we can't really get a clear picture of what's going on. If there was some kind of pattern in terms of which sort of sponsoring home maybe correlates to a higher percentage of "failed to answer the phone over X amount of time" outcomes, maybe we could make some kind of guesses as to what is happening. But the article seemed more about generating emotions (on all sides, since the immigration enforcement people could claim that the kinds were "missing" as a means of avoiding immigration law, and the open borders folks could claim they were missing due to some kind of evil plot by the government to take those poor immigrant children and sell them into slavery or something.

Quote:
Oh, we have no idea because the official stance of the government is "Once they're in a sponsored family, they're not our problem any more".


Yeah. See my references to foster homes above. It's a pretty crappy scenario and there's no good solution either way.

Quote:
And so an 80% success rate in tracking these children is nothing to write home about. But here's the thing: maybe you accept this as "good enough" for children found unaccompanied at the border. Sucks, but you need to find some solution for these kids. But the reason why this is in the news is because the administration is making the completely voluntary choice to take children away from their families -- to make them "unaccompanied" -- for purely political reasons and put them into this system with an 80% success rate. Enough children that the shelters are now overflowing and we're erecting tent cities to house another couple thousand children. And these children are probably less likely to have family-sponsored homes to stay at because they came with their families.


So, you're looping back to the "put them with relatives instead" argument, right? Which would make that whole "where is the 20% that are missing actually coming from" point relevant. If it turns out that the kids that are "missing" are most prevalent in the homes of relatives rather than unrelated sponsors, doesn't that completely step on your core argument? Which would make actually bothering to narrow down those states kinda important.

Edited, Jun 12th 2018 9:02pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#226 Jun 12 2018 at 10:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
What's the percentage of homes you might randomly call in which they don't answer the phone and in which there's a child in some sort of neglect or peril? I don't know. Neither do you.

Why, it's almost as though the people who put them in those homes should have a Plan B besides "Eh, he's probably fine." Accountability is hard, let's go shopping!

It's sort of bizarre that your entire counter argument hinges on "But, uh, maybe the kids are safe with families and we don't know!" but you're cool with the "we don't know" part as the government prepares to send thousands of other kids into "we don't know" land. I suppose ignorance is blissful enough to mandate keeping it that way.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 71 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (71)