HappyDays
-
Posts
26,613 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by HappyDays
-
-
6 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:
Man. It sure would be nice to have Sammy still here.
For a $20 million cap hit in 2019 and 2020? No thanks.
-
1
-
2
-
-
I have a pretty low opinion of Sammy but he didn't say anything bad here. It's standard football player interview BS.
-
Mayfield said on the ThomaHawk Show that Taylor has been an incredible mentor to him, and Mayfield is shocked that the Browns were able to get Taylor from the Bills for just a third-round draft pick.
“They traded a third-round pick to Tyrod just doesn’t make sense,” Mayfield said. “We got a lot more out of that than anybody else could. The guy that he is for this franchise, for all of our teammates is unbelievable. For me to watch him and learn him has been great. He sets the bar high, shows up, his work ethic, it’s a great situation for me to come into to have someone like that. It’s good for me.” -
3 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:
This place is a sewer.
It's best to tune them out. Only about 25% of Americans support this policy:
It's easy to get caught up in the rage, but these opinions are not representative of our country.
-
2
-
-
You guys have to understand Kizer was beyond terrible last year. Coming out of college I thought he was EJ Manuel 2.0. Turns out he was even worse! He threw 22 interceptions to 11 TDs. Not only was his passer rating the lowest out of 32 starters, it was a full 9 points lower than #31. He completed less than 54% of his passes.
The Browns are in no rush to start a rookie. Kizer was a total disaster and Mayfield comes from a spread system with mostly wide open receivers and great protection. By all accounts Tyrod is looking very good in practice and he is trusting his receivers. I don't think Mayfield will see the field at all this year unless Tyrod gets injured. Their offense is going to be pretty good. I could easily see them having a top 10 scoring offense.
-
-
23 minutes ago, DC Tom said:
"We must endanger the children to protect the children!"
That's not even an argument. It's ignorant, lazy, emotional manipulation.
You've just stated a fundamental principle of America. We don't sacrifice liberties because evil exists. We don't punish innocent people so as to not miss punishing guilty people. And I know the people in this thread agree with that principle. We don't sacrifice gun rights because of the minuscule change your child will be killed by one. Yes some criminals will get away with their crimes because of our liberties, but more importantly innocent people won't be punished.
That audio posted above and the corresponding report is what I'm talking about:
QuoteThen a distraught but determined 6-year-old Salvadoran girl pleads repeatedly for someone to call her aunt. Just one call, she begs anyone who will listen. She says she’s memorized the phone number, and at one point, rattles it off to a consular representative. “My mommy says that I’ll go with my aunt,” she whimpers, “and that she’ll come to pick me up there as quickly as possible.”
...
The child who stood out the most was the 6-year-old Salvadoran girl with a phone number stuck in her head. At the end of the audio, a consular official offers to call the girl’s aunt. ProPublica dialed the number she recited in the audio, and spoke with the aunt about the call.
“It was the hardest moment in my life,” she said. “Imagine getting a call from your 6-year-old niece. She’s crying and begging me to go get her. She says, ‘I promise I’ll behave, but please get me out of here. I’m all alone.’”
The aunt said what made the call even more painful was that there was nothing she could do. She and her 9-year-old daughter are seeking asylum in the United States after immigrating here two years ago for the exact same reasons and on the exact same route as her sister and her niece. They are from a small town called Armenia, about an hour’s drive northwest of the Salvadoran capital, but well within reach of its crippling crime waves. She said gangs were everywhere in El Salvador: “They’re on the buses. They’re in the banks. They’re in schools. They’re in the police. There’s nowhere for normal people to feel safe.”
She said her niece and sister set out for the United States over a month ago. They paid a smuggler $7,000 to guide them through Guatemala, and Mexico and across the border into the United States. Now, she said, all the risk and investment seem lost.
The aunt said she worried that any attempt to intervene in her niece’s situation would put hers and her daughter’s asylum case at risk, particularly since the Trump administration overturned asylum protections for victims of gang and domestic violence. She said she’s managed to speak to her sister, who has been moved to an immigration detention facility near Port Isabel, Texas. And she keeps in touch with her niece, Alison Jimena Valencia Madrid, by telephone. Mother and daughter, however, have not been able to speak to one another.
The aunt said that Alison has been moved out of the Border Patrol facility to a shelter where she has a real bed. But she said that authorities at the shelter have warned the girl that her mother, 29-year-old Cindy Madrid, might be deported without her.These people are victims. Yes they broke the law to enter this country, because staying home with their children is worse. We should do what we've been doing which is to keep the families together until their hearing. They're not given trials before being separated because of the zero-tolerance policy.
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:
The entire point of the policy is we don't know who these people are. It's a fact that there are large numbers of children trafficked across the southern border every year. Many are brought over by mules who pretend to be parents to these kids.
This is not a principle that should ever be employed in America. "Ah we don't know for sure that this person isn't a human trafficker. Best to rip the crying child away from them and sort it out in a couple months."
-
3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
They are screaming because they are scared. The traffickers groom them, and normalize their mistreatment. They have been in transit with their traffickers for some time, and it is in the best interests of the traffickers to handle their captives in a way that makes their chains feel light, or non-existent, in order to prevent their detection.
This is a very real evil.
Stare it in the face.
You're literally making this all up. There is zero evidence that the children being separated right now belong to human traffickers. I guarantee that if that were the case the administration would be touting the statistics, "X% of these separated children are actually just trafficking victims," instead of vaguely talking about deterrence.
I mean come on, you of all people are now advocating that the US government treat every single adult as a trafficking criminal without investigating?? You believe that this human rights abuse is okay because of the possibility that some of them are criminals? I would love to see you apply that principle everywhere else.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
Yes.
First, two article, one from a left leaning site, one from a right leaning site:
Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Mexico
Various government and international organizations:
https://www.unicefusa.org/mission/protect/trafficking
http://www.ecpat.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy/Factsheet_Mexico.pdf
Where is the proof that the children being separated at the border are being trafficked? Of course human trafficking is an issue and of course we should work to prevent it. But as you know we currently have a zero-tolerance policy wherein every child is separated from their parents for weeks or months at a time regardless of their situation. Is that how you think the US government should act? Treat every adult like a human trafficker without even pretending to investigate?
-
20 minutes ago, peace out said:
Savage stuff here
Those children are screaming because they were ripped from the arms of their sex traffickers, dont you know?
Everyone in this thread should listen to the Pro Publica audio. It's really bad. There is no excuse for this.
-
20 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:
Assuming the 2nd is about Allen? Twitter's blocked at my office
Yep. According to his source Allen is distantly in 3rd, McCarron in 2nd, and Peterman 1st. If he's correct that Allen is "distantly" in 3rd then it confirms what I thought, which is that the real competition is between Peterman and McCarron and Allen will be brought along slowly. And I would bet they will keep Allen on the bench until the winner of that competition shows he isn't getting it done.
-
2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
At least 2/3 of the population doesn't accurately understand the issue then.
Apparently neither does the administration.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday defended the Trump administration’s recent policy of separating migrant families apprehended at the border.
“We do not want to separate children from their parents,” he told the National Sheriffs Association in a speech. “We do not want adults to bring children into this country unlawfully, either.”
Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday defended the Trump administration’s recent policy of separating migrant families apprehended at the border.
“We do not want to separate children from their parents,” he told the National Sheriffs Association in a speech. “We do not want adults to bring children into this country unlawfully, either.”
He’d earlier admitted that the policy — in addition to prioritizing the criminal prosecution of parents who for the most part have committed only misdemeanors — was also meant to act as a deterrent.
“We cannot and will not encourage people to bring their children, or other children, to the country unlawfully by giving them immunity in the process,” he said, asserting that families claiming asylum at designated ports of entry, rather than between them, would not be separated.
In March of last year, John Kelly told CNN that the administration was considering taking children from their parents if they crossed the border illegally. At the time, Kelly was secretary for the Department of Homeland Security.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
JOHN KELLY: Yes, I am considering - in order to deter more movement along this terribly dangerous network, I am considering exactly that. They will be well cared for as we deal with their parents.I am well aware that some Trump supporters have come up with a convoluted moral reason that parents are being separated from their children. Unfortunately for you the administration has undermined that claim by repeatedly stating that their real goal is deterrence. They are separating children from their parents to punish people as a deterrent. It is a sick policy.
-
9 minutes ago, DC Tom said:
So 2/3 of all polled want to throw the children in jail with their parents?
You know very well they could all be held in the same detention center while they await their asylum hearing. It's disgusting that they're separating children from their parents and they're lying to the parents to make if easier. This is morally repugnant.
Anyways I dont mean to intrude on your little bubble. Just thought I'd show you guys what life outside the bubble is like.
-
1
-
-
Well this is something:
FWIW Allbright was the first one reporting Josh Allen to the Bills and he never wavered on that. His source is legit.
Peterman's odds just went up.
Also:
-
Some good news:
Polling shows overwhelming opposition to the family separation policy. Except of course for Republicans, this party of family values mostly supports it.
I feel for the 1 out of 3 Republicans that oppose it. It must be tough watching your party spiral out of control and get taken over by sociopaths.
-
1
-
-
How was everyone's Father's Day?
-
10 minutes ago, Koko78 said:
trying to use children as human shields isn't working.
Some of you people are just bad people. I don't know how to argue against this. You think these parents are using their children as human shields! Not that they're trying to get their families out of dangerous situations, but that they maliciously bring them only to have a better chance of being granted entry. You're not a parent, are you?
13 minutes ago, Koko78 said:It's not a policy, it's enforcing laws already on the books. You know, laws passed by Congress.
Please point me to the law on the books that says illegal immigrants will have their children forcibly separated for weeks or months at a time.
In some countries you'll get your hand cut off for stealing bread. But that doesn't make hunger go away. A poor person there either goes hungry or makes a risky choice to steal bread, either way they are probably screwed. For many of you that situation just boils down to a lawbreaker being punished I guess.
Well I've spent enough of my Sunday trying to convince you all that forcibly separating children from their parents for weeks or months at a time is a monstrous policy.
Oh I almost forgot, happy Father's Day to everyone in this thread!
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Albwan said:
I'm screaming at the sky, tears streaming down my face, fists
clenched in fury, when i think about manafort's children
ARRRGHHHH...GOD NO WHY WHY WHY
You on the other hand are not troubled by the policy deep down. I believe people like you relish in it and genuinely don't care to learn about the suffering of people outside your inner circle of family and friends.
1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:Our border is being inundated with people who are now seeking asylum. Our court system is backlogged. The DOJ has increased judges to handle this but face it, everyone is claiming asylum and we're overrun. Still, the dems won't agree to a workable solution.
And you still have not commented on the policy being discussed here, which is children being forcibly separated from their parents for weeks or months at a time. Nothing that you say runs contrary to what I have said which is that this policy needs to end. As I said above I take this dodging as a sign that you find the policy morally wrong, so I am thankful for that.
-
1 minute ago, joesixpack said:
Would you agree there are other places these asylum seekers could look?
Not in every case. And of course this has nothing to do with the policy of separating children from their parents for weeks or months at a time. I'm glad to see most of you are trying to dodge the issue. It means that deep down the issue still troubles you. There is no reason we need to be doing this. Even if you are a staunch anti-immigration advocate you have to admit that punishing children is a new low.
-
8 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:
If they were to agree to a fix then such as a wall, ending chain migration and getting rid of the lottery they would no longer have an issue to try to gain Hispanic votes.
I don't believe that ending this policy of separating children from their parents for weeks or months should require concessions.
-
3 minutes ago, joesixpack said:
I wouldn't be so irresponsible as to put my child in a situation where I know that she could be separated from me by the authorities.
To be clear: this isn't a government issue. It's a bad parenting issue.
Then you have ignored the part of my post where I say this is a new policy by the Trump administration. Asylum seekers have never had this happen to them before and shouldn't be expected to know that it is a possibility.
And really, let's not pretend this is a simple matter of parents putting their children in danger. You know very well that many of these parents, the ones who will eventually be granted asylum, are escaping from danger with their children. This is the definition of a rock and a hard place and for some reason the Trump administration has taken it upon themselves to be the rock.
-
41 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:
No, and neither do you. Those seeking asylum and turning themselves in at a port of entry generally don't get their family separated. Those that try to sneak across the border are not considered asylum seekers and are held in different facilities than their supposed children. The children are held an average of 49 days before they are located with a relative or other sponsor.
From the same article I posted above, talking about the legal entry point you mention:
TM: Even if they crossed at a legal entry point?
AC: Very few people come to the bridge. The border patrol are saying the bridge is closed. When I was last out in McAllen, people were stacked on the bridge, sleeping there for three, four, ten nights. They’ve now cleared those individuals from sleeping on the bridge, but there are hundreds of accounts of asylum seekers, when they go to the bridge, who are told, “I’m sorry, we’re full today. We can’t process your case.” So the families go illegally on a raft—I don’t want to say illegally; they cross without a visa on a raft. Many of them then look for Border Patrol to turn themselves in, because they know they’re going to ask for asylum. And under this government theory—you know, in the past, we’ve had international treaties, right? Statutes which codified the right of asylum seekers to ask for asylum. Right? Article 31 of the Refugee Convention clearly says that it is improper for any state to use criminal laws that could deter asylum seekers as long as that asylum seeker is asking for asylum within a reasonable amount of time. But our administration is kind of ignoring this longstanding international and national jurisprudence of basic beliefs to make this distinction that, if you come to a bridge, we’re not going to prosecute you, but if you come over the river and then find immigration or are caught by immigration, we’re prosecuting you.
TM: So if you cross any other way besides the bridge, we’re prosecuting you. But . . . you can’t cross the bridge.
AC: That’s right. I’ve talked to tons of people. There are organizations like Al Otro Lado that document border turn-backs. And there’s an effort to accompany asylum seekers so that Customs and Border Patrol can’t say, “We’re closed.” Everybody we’ve talked to who’s been prosecuted or separated has crossed the river without a visa.So let's get this out of the way - this is a complicated situation and there are no easy answers.
There is a legal entry point but it isn't always open. Some prospective asylum seekers will then illegally cross the border anyways, and if/when they turn themselves in or are caught they are placed in detention centers. In the past the families wouldn't be separated, they would be kept together until an available judge could hear their case for political asylum. Those found to have a "credible fear" would eventually be given asylum. So these detention centers are a necessary evil. We have to keep them somewhere while they wait to hear their asylum case. I don't have a problem with that.
The Trump administration however has taken up a zero-tolerance policy wherein families waiting for their "credible fear" hearings are separated. Children and parents are placed in separate facilities. The parents are often lied to first to make the separation easier. They wont hear from their children again for several weeks or months. This is true whether or not they have a legitimate case for political asylum.
The admin's stated reason for this new policy is deterrence. They want prospective asylum seekers to be afraid that their children will be punished. I guess you have to decide for yourself if you're okay with that. Me, I think this is monstrous. I never thought such a policy would be up for debate in America. I know I'm not the only one in this thread that is a parent so I would just ask any of you to imagine yourself and your child in this situation before deciding how you feel about it.
-
27 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:
The children at the border are hardly being held in cages.
Tell me if that makes you feel any better when you read articles like this:
QuoteBut 90 percent of those who are being convicted are having their children separated from them. The 10 percent that aren’t are some mothers who are going with their children to the detention centers in Karnes and Dilley. But, for the most part, the ones that I’ve been working with are the ones that are actually being prosecuted for criminal entry, which is a pretty new thing for our country—to take first-time asylum seekers who are here seeking safe refuge, to turn around and charge them with a criminal offense. Those parents are finding themselves in adult detention centers and in a process known as expedited removal, where many are being deported. And their children, on the other hand, are put in a completely different legal structure.
QuoteAnd we may see more parents that get out of jail because they pass a “credible fear” interview, which is the screening done by the asylum office to see who should be deported quickly, within days or weeks of arrival, and who should stay here and have an opportunity to present their asylum case before an immigration judge of the Department of Justice. So we have a lot of individuals who are in that credible fear process right now, but in Houston, once you have a credible fear interview (which will sometimes take two to three weeks to even set up), those results aren’t coming out for four to six weeks. Meanwhile, these parents are just kind of languishing in these detention centers because of the zero-tolerance policy.
QuoteIn other cases, we see no communication that the parent knows that their child is to be taken away. Instead, the officers say, “I’m going to take your child to get bathed.” That’s one we see again and again. “Your child needs to come with me for a bath.” The child goes off, and in a half an hour, twenty minutes, the parent inquires, “Where is my five-year-old?” “Where’s my seven-year-old?” “This is a long bath.” And they say, “You won’t be seeing your child again.” Sometimes mothers—I was talking to one mother, and she said, “Don’t take my child away,” and the child started screaming and vomiting and crying hysterically, and she asked the officers, “Can I at least have five minutes to console her?” They said no. In another case, the father said, “Can I comfort my child? Can I hold him for a few minutes?” The officer said, “You must let them go, and if you don’t let them go, I will write you up for an altercation, which will mean that you are the one that had the additional charges charged against you.” So, threats. So the father just let the child go.
QuoteWe spoke to nine parents on this Monday, which was the 11th, and these were adults in detention centers outside of Houston. They had been separated from their child between May 23 and May 25, and as of June 11, not one of them had been able to talk to their child or knew a phone number that functioned from the detention center director. None of them had direct information from immigration on where their child was located
Sammy Watkins classes it up on his way out of LA
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Benjamin will not have a $20 million cap hit. Don't be silly.