OH - Haitian migrants eating cats?

[jmdrake]

I’m not talking about a fleeting story that got national attention, I’m talking about sustained national attention.

Thank Trump.

Did gangs take over apartment complexes in Colorado? Is it still a problem? Why is that not the discussion?

Because verfifed stories that can bring people together aren't as fun as unverified stories that pull people apart.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Because verfifed stories that can bring people together aren't as fun as unverified stories that pull people apart.

Whether stories are "verified" or "unverified" has little if anything to do with whether they also "bring people together" or "pull people apart". [1]

"Verified" stories can "pull people apart" - and "unverified" ones can "bring people together". [2]

(And that's not even getting into the questions of what "verified" really even means in the first place, which standards of "verification" ought to be applied to which stories under which circumstances, and so forth.)



[1] As for "fun" stories, that is yet a third dimension orthogonal to the other two.

[2] Consider, for example, the Bible - an "unverified" story that often is and has been used to both "bring people together" and "pull people apart".

 

[jmdrake]

Whether stories are "verified" or "unverified" has little if anything to do with whether they also "bring people together" or "pull people apart". [1]

"Verified" stories can "pull people apart" - and "unverified" ones can "bring people together". [2]

(And that's not even getting into the questions of what "verified" really even means in the first place, which standards of "verification" ought to be applied to which stories under which circumstances, and so forth.)



[1] As for "fun" stories, that is yet a third dimension orthogonal to the other two.

[2] Consider, for example, the Bible - an "unverified" story that often is and has been used to both "bring people together" and "pull people apart".

Sure buddy. Whatever you say. Having J.D. Vance peddle an already debunked cat lady video is the way to win hearts and minds. Don't actually focus on the real issues because Nick Fuentes said not to. Just have funny playing in the kitty litter box playing to a base of MAGA hat wearing welfare recipients.

 

[PAF]

Sure buddy. Whatever you say. Having J.D. Vance peddle an already debunked cat lady video is the way to win hearts and minds. Don't actually focus on the real issues because Nick Fuentes said not to. Just have funny playing in the kitty litter box playing to a base of MAGA hat wearing welfare recipients.

[MENTION=28167]Occam's Banana[/MENTION] has a point. Whenever I tell a verified story I usually get the third degree

 

[Occam's Banana]

Sure buddy. Whatever you say. Having J.D. Vance peddle an already debunked cat lady video is the way to win hearts and minds. Don't actually focus on the real issues because Nick Fuentes said not to. Just have funny playing in the kitty litter box playing to a base of MAGA hat wearing welfare recipients.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm not sure what's confusing. I'm trying to agree with you. I guess I'm the one confused by your argument that peddling debunked videos about cat eating Haitians and going on meet the press and claiming that you "created" the story (when we all know J.D. Vance didn't), is somehow productive or not divisive or whatever it is that you're trying to say. So please...unconfuse me.

Edit: This is the word salad I'm trying to parse:

Whether stories are "verified" or "unverified" has little if anything to do with whether they also "bring people together" or "pull people apart". [1]

"Verified" stories can "pull people apart" - and "unverified" ones can "bring people together". [2]

(And that's not even getting into the questions of what "verified" really even means in the first place, which standards of "verification" ought to be applied to which stories under which circumstances, and so forth.)



[1] As for "fun" stories, that is yet a third dimension orthogonal to the other two.

[2] Consider, for example, the Bible - an "unverified" story that often is and has been used to both "bring people together" and "pull people apart".
​

So now a debunked cat eating video is equivlent to the Bible? Yeah....sorry I guess I'm the one confused.

 

[PAF]

I'm not sure what's confusing. I'm trying to agree with you. I guess I'm the one confused by your argument that peddling debunked videos about cat eating Haitians and going on meet the press and claiming that you "created" the story (when we all know J.D. Vance didn't), is somehow productive or not divisive or whatever it is that you're trying to say. So please...unconfuse me.

Edit: This is the word salad I'm trying to parse:

Whether stories are "verified" or "unverified" has little if anything to do with whether they also "bring people together" or "pull people apart". [1]

"Verified" stories can "pull people apart" - and "unverified" ones can "bring people together". [2]

(And that's not even getting into the questions of what "verified" really even means in the first place, which standards of "verification" ought to be applied to which stories under which circumstances, and so forth.)



[1] As for "fun" stories, that is yet a third dimension orthogonal to the other two.

[2] Consider, for example, the Bible - an "unverified" story that often is and has been used to both "bring people together" and "pull people apart".
​

So now a debunked cat eating video is equivlent to the Bible? Yeah....sorry I guess I'm the one confused.

I don't want to speak out of turn here, but... people form their own opinions/conclusions and believe what they want to believe, whether or not its based on fact or fiction. IOW: everybody has an a$$hole too.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I'm not sure what's confusing. I'm trying to agree with you. I guess I'm the one confused by your argument that peddling debunked videos about cat eating Haitians and going on meet the press and claiming that you "created" the story (when we all know J.D. Vance didn't), is somehow productive or not divisive or whatever it is that you're trying to say. So please...unconfuse me.

I don't know how to "unconfuse" you about something that never happened.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't know how to "unconfuse" you about something that never happened.

Okay. Well I was talking about J.D. Vance's unverified (read debunked) cat story and you started talking about the Bible. I have no idea what you meant by any of that but whatever. Have a great day!

 

[Anti Federalist]

I've been to Mexico more times than I can even count and the end goal is to retire there. Their government is very strict on acquiring legal status and will not bend, so I doubt that is happening.

So they don't want a bunch of gringos coming down there and fucking the joint up...imagine that?

 

[PAF]

So they don't want a bunch of gringos coming down there and $#@!ing the joint up...imagine that?

Staying there isn't a problem like it is here. Some obtain legal status, some don't, but the ones who want to obtain that status can't bypass the process. Though it takes 4 years to become a permanent resident the process is simple and inexpensive. I've been to many, many places abroad and I can tell you first hand, I feel much freer in other places, but when I return back to the states I feel as though I am treated like a criminal. It's disgusting, actually.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Staying there isn't a problem like it is here. Some obtain legal status, some don't, but the ones who want to obtain that status can't bypass the process. Though it takes 4 years to become a permanent resident the process is simple and inexpensive. I've been to many, many places abroad and I can tell you first hand, I feel much freer in other places, but when I return back to the states I feel as though I am treated like a criminal. It's disgusting, actually.

It is...me, I'm looking at property in Bariloche.

 

[PAF]

It is...me, I'm looking at property in Bariloche.

Have you been there [Argentina] yet? How much is the average property lot?

If it's because of Javier, I'd personally hold back for a while to see what happens. It seems that he's leaving a lot of "opportunities" open for when the next administration takes over lol.

 

[PAF]

[MENTION=3169]Anti Federalist[/MENTION]

Like Mexico, you can't own property outright in Argentina but you can purchase it through a fideicomiso [which is a trust]. Nothing wrong with that, in fact, if someone passes away, the property goes to next of kin for a small fee for up to 50 years [the last time I checked].

https://www.transitionsabroad.com/l...ying-real-estate-in-bariloche-argentina.shtml

 

[Anti Federalist]

Have you been there [Argentina] yet? How much is the average property lot?

If it's because of Javier, I'd personally hold back for a while to see what happens. It seems that he's leaving a lot of "opportunities" open for when the next administration takes over lol.

No, I'd have to visit.

Yes Javier is selling point, but the fact is it is beautiful and the climate is what I like.

Right now it's just a pipe dream.

 

[dannno]

 

[Anti Federalist]

https://x.com/FrankDeScushin/status/1836955701396050221

 

[PAF]

No, I'd have to visit.

Yes Javier is selling point, but the fact is it is beautiful and the climate is what I like.

Right now it's just a pipe dream.

Hopefully they will respect your human individual right to travel, as long as it's on your own dime, and not consider you an invader and shoot to kill on sight

I have never had that problem when traveling abroad [they are for the most part wonderful people], but since Amerika is the Worlds Empire, I'm wondering when they will follow suit. I hope in my lifetime Sanctions and Tariffs won't be imposed too, too much in order for them to comply

I still have to worry about taking x amount of my own money out the country, the USSofA doesn't like it when I do that

 

[Swordsmyth]

1:32 "I was told I was not allowed to do that because I was told it was something with the 2nd Amendment."

Kudos to whoever told her that.

Whoever told her that is a liar.
Invaders do not have any rights, let alone a 2A right to be armed.

Open treason is not a good look.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You're so dedicated to the stupid that you weren't content with just being logically wrong, you had to be factually wrong as well.

That would be you:

The 1804 massacre was carried out against the remaining white population of French colonists[SUP][130][/SUP] and loyalists,[SUP][131][/SUP] both enemies and traitors of the revolution,[SUP][132][/SUP] by the black population of Haiti on the order of Jean-Jacques Dessalines, who declared the French as barbarians, demanding their expulsion and vengeance for their crimes.[SUP][133][/SUP][SUP][134][/SUP] The massacre—which took place in the entire territory of Haiti—was carried out from early February 1804 until 22 April 1804. During February and March, Dessalines traveled among the cities of Haiti to assure himself that his orders were carried out. Despite his orders, the massacres were often not carried out until he personally visited the cities.[SUP][135][/SUP]
The course of the massacre showed an almost identical pattern in every city he visited. Before his arrival, there were only a few killings, despite his orders.[SUP][136][/SUP] When Dessalines arrived, he first spoke about the atrocities committed by former French authorities, such as Rochambeau and Leclerc, after which he demanded that his orders about mass killings of the area's French population be carried out. Reportedly, he also ordered the unwilling to take part in the killings, especially men of mixed-race, so that blame would not rest solely on the black population.[SUP][111][/SUP] Mass killings then took place on the streets and on places outside the cities. In parallel to the killings, plundering and rape also occurred.[SUP][111][/SUP] Women and children were generally killed last. White women were "often raped or pushed into forced marriages under threat of death".[SUP][111][/SUP]
By the end of April 1804, some 3,000 to 5,000 people had been killed[SUP][137][/SUP] practically eradicating the country's white population. Dessalines had specifically stated that France is "the real enemy of the new nation." This allowed certain categories of whites to be excluded from massacre who had to pledge their rejection to France: the Polish soldiers who deserted from the French army; the group of German colonists of Nord-Ouest who were inhabitants before the revolution; French widows who were allowed to keep their property;[SUP][134][/SUP] select male Frenchmen;[SUP][138][/SUP] and a group of medical doctors and professionals.[SUP][135][/SUP] Reportedly, also people with connections to Haitian notables were spared,[SUP][111][/SUP] as well as the women who agreed to marry non-white men.[SUP][137][/SUP]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution

First they just killed every white they could, including anti-slavery allies, then when the extermination was all but complete some of the survivors were spared on a subjective basis, including making many into sex slaves.

Are you back to your old saw of redefining words when you have no other argument?

Evil and stupid.

That's what your side has done, expelling enemies of liberty and the people is not genocide.
Importing foreigners and subsidizing their birthrates to replace the population and killing/suppressing the birthrates of the natives through every method you can is genocide, and the intent has been made clear to eventually directly kill the natives.