[QUOTE=Thomas, TTC;53157325]I'd agree that if he did in fact sign bills that came across his desk that shafted immigration from specific countries solely because he didn't like them, that would be a really shitty move on his part. I'm aware of how he conducts himself in relation to his cabinet, and I haven't been trying to defend things he's done, but currently I am unaware of any specific regulations made that have changed how immigration services actually deals with individuals from those countries which was why I was asking for a specific policy if someone was aware of one.
The point of this has been about statements versus actions and policies. So many people seem to be quick to jump to conclusions about what is going to happen because of a statement which may have little influence on actual policy or may not even be put in place in an attempt to change policy. I'm just not a fan of how often times these articles are meant to be reactionary in nature, and in this case, it doesn't outline any specific changes to the department's practices which actually warrant concern about how immigration will change as a result.[/QUOTE]
Were you not around when Trump tried to ban all travel to America, immigration included, from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen? The main reason why that's not official policy [I]now[/I] is because the courts shut Trump down. His thoughts, his words, and especially his actions all heavily imply that he despises immigrants from countries he doesn't like.
[QUOTE=eatdembeanz;53157474]Were you not around when Trump tried to ban all travel to America, immigration included, from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen? The main reason why that's not official policy [I]now[/I] is because the courts shut Trump down. His thoughts, his words, and especially his actions all heavily imply that he despises immigrants from countries he doesn't like.[/QUOTE]
And the courts shut down his bans because his words, on Twitter, very clearly pointed to his intentions that the ban was to be prejudicial against Muslims and other "undesirable" types of people. Words became actions, [I]multiple actions the courts have found to be unconstitutional.[/I]
[QUOTE=The Vman;53157413][img]https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/smart/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Finsertcoin%2Ffiles%2F2014%2F07%2Fliberty.jpg%3Fwidth%3D960[/img][/QUOTE]
Worst part is that that image's already been unironically reposted as anti-immigrant propaganda by Tea Party/alt-right social media fucks.
[QUOTE=Thomas, TTC;53157401]Except for the fact that his statements have the effect when the policy is actually enacted and often times with these kinds of things, what is originally said isn't usually the result we see in the outcome. This is why I've asked twice now for specific legislation because I'd genuinely like to know and even said that I'd probably agree that it was a bad policy if given a specific example.
I haven't been disagreeing with you about the impact words [B]can[/B] have, but the impact they have is the actual legislation which may differ entirely from what was originally stated.
This is the whole "Words becoming actions" part that I'm more concerned with.[/QUOTE]
See: All the bills and discussion on bills that have been brought before him and existing plans were immediately shot down or changed by that discussion.
His words became actions. Thankfully, the reason few of his policies have gone into effect is due to how ridiculously extreme his policies are - meaning the 'reasonable interpretations' of what he wants are immediately shot down by him as he insists that he be delivered the steak he ordered [I]exactly[/I] as he ordered it - or nobody eats.
[QUOTE=eatdembeanz;53157474]Were you not around when Trump tried to ban all travel to America, immigration included, from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen? The main reason why that's not official policy [I]now[/I] is because the courts shut Trump down. His thoughts, his words, and especially his actions all heavily imply that he despises immigrants from countries he doesn't like.[/QUOTE]
I'm aware, and that isn't really related to what we've been discussing about this specific issue. I know this comes as a shocker, but I disagreed with that as well because ([I]woah[/I]) it's an actual policy which was passed. People seem to ignore that I keep saying that is what matters. If I'm remembering correctly, the reasoning on his end also wasn't [B]just[/B] that he doesn't like those countries. I may disagree with the actions he took based on his reasoning, but there is the legitimate concern of terrorist attacks which I would assume was also a motivating factor in the decision; albeit, in a really shitty and what could easily be argued discriminatory way.
I do find it interesting that this is trying to be shifted towards Trump when this was meant to be about the statement from immigration services which seems to be tame for something you want to tie to him as anti-immigration.
[QUOTE=Thomas, TTC;53157565]I'm aware, and that isn't really related to what we've been discussing about this specific issue. I know this comes as a shocker, but I disagreed with that as well because ([I]woah[/I]) it's an actual policy which was passed. People seem to ignore that I keep saying that is what matters. If I'm remembering correctly, the reasoning on his end also wasn't [B]just[/B] that he doesn't like those countries. I may disagree with the actions he took based on his reasoning, but there is the legitimate concern of terrorist attacks which I would assume was also a motivating factor in the decision; albeit, in a really shitty and what could easily be argued discriminatory way.
[B]I do find it interesting that this is trying to be shifted towards Trump when this was meant to be about the statement from immigration services which seems to be tame for something you want to tie to him as anti-immigration.[/B][/QUOTE]
He is the President. Ultimately, he is the leader of the nation, and he is ultimately responsible for the direction his cabinet takes the country. The federal immigration service will have been responding to policy directions the Trump administration is signaling -- like attempted Muslim bans, building the Wall, and diminishing and minimizing legal immigration numbers along with harsh crackdowns on illegal immigration. It's been pretty clear for the past year that Trump is at least sympathetic to the white ethnostate desired by the white supremacists in the alt-right, and let's not forget Steve Bannon's time on the campaign and in the White House. Trump's anti-immigration position is informed (or defined and prompted) by anti-immigration hardliners in his White House staff who talked him into announcing he'd veto a bipartisan-majority-supported immigration bill coming out of Congress that included a ton of funding for increased border security that he wanted, [I]after he previously said he'd sign whatever bill they handed him[/I].
If "Trump is anti-immigrant" is news to you and it is baffling as to how the actions of an agency in his administration might be influenced by his statements about immigrants and the "story" of America (a bunch of oppressed white Christians whose way of life is being threatened by George Soros and his army of future-Democrat-voting immigrant African transgendered welfare Jews who want to gay marry all the white women and force neoliberal values on good Christian American values), I don't know what to say.
He wanted to be the boss. Now he's the boss and people are treating him like the boss, including accepting responsibility for departments under his watch. Why is he suddenly not the boss now?
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53157542]His words became actions. Thankfully, the reason few of his policies have gone into effect is due to how ridiculously extreme his policies are - meaning the 'reasonable interpretations' of what he wants are immediately shot down by him as he insists that he be delivered the steak he ordered [I]exactly[/I] as he ordered it - or nobody eats.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that's why I don't listen to a lot of what he says and also why I said I usually don't care. Most of it seems to be ridiculous, so that's why I try to ignore what he says and actually look at policies which get pushed through. The ones that do get pushed through usually don't really represent his viewpoint, or if they do, they usually get reversed almost immediately due to him being open about his reasoning after the fact.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53157583]He is the President. Ultimately, he is the leader of the nation, and he is ultimately responsible for the direction his cabinet takes the country. The federal immigration service will have been responding to policy directions the Trump administration is signaling -- like attempted Muslim bans, building the Wall, and diminishing and minimizing legal immigration numbers along with harsh crackdowns on illegal immigration. It's been pretty clear for the past year that Trump is at least sympathetic to the white ethnostate desired by the white supremacists in the alt-right, and let's not forget Steve Bannon's time on the campaign and in the White House. Trump's anti-immigration position is informed (or defined and prompted) by anti-immigration hardliners in his White House staff who talked him into announcing he'd veto a bipartisan-majority-supported immigration bill coming out of Congress that included a ton of funding for increased border security that he wanted, [I]after he previously said he'd sign whatever bill they handed him[/I].
If "Trump is anti-immigrant" is news to you and it is baffling as to how the actions of an agency in his administration might be influenced by his statements about immigrants and the "story" of America (a bunch of oppressed white Christians whose way of life is being threatened by George Soros and his army of future-Democrat-voting immigrant African transgendered welfare Jews who want to gay marry all the white women and force neoliberal values on good Christian American values), I don't know what to say.
He wanted to be the boss. Now he's the boss and people are treating him like the boss, including accepting responsibility for departments under his watch. Why is he suddenly not the boss now?[/QUOTE]
Then please elaborate how the statement they made is somehow anti-immigration if it is representative of his views. I'm kinda trying to play devil's advocate here because I'm curious about how it shows that. Even when I assume it's supposed to be anti-immigration, I just don't see it as that by reading the statement.
Like I've said several times now, I'm aware of his views and am not trying to defend them because I also tend to disagree quite heavily with them, but I was just more curious about specific policy regarding this case because that's what I'm interested in. I know the process is slow for actually getting policies pushed through and seeing what the effect is, so it's hard to know right away, but I was curious.
[quote=Thomas, TTC]Yeah that's why I don't listen to a lot of what he says and also why I said I usually don't care. Most of it seems to be ridiculous, so that's why I try to ignore what he says and actually look at policies which get pushed through.[/quote]
So... [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here]'it can't happen here'[/url] is the reason you don't care? Friend, it can happen. That's why you should pay attention - by the time a policy gets pushed through into law it's already too late to say 'whoa wait a moment here'. If you don't make an effort to stay on top of this stuff, there is every chance that it will stay on top of you.
e: By all means ignore Trump's stump speeches and whatnot - but pay very close attention to anything he says to congressmen or individuals in offices of the government and any 'announcements' he makes.
Being anti-immigrant is un-American.
[QUOTE=Thomas, TTC;53157641]Yeah that's why I don't listen to a lot of what he says and also why I said I usually don't care. Most of it seems to be ridiculous, so that's why I try to ignore what he says and actually look at policies which get pushed through. The ones that do get pushed through usually don't really represent his viewpoint, or if they do, they usually get reversed almost immediately due to him being open about his reasoning after the fact.
Then please elaborate how the statement they made is somehow anti-immigration if it is representative of his views. I'm kinda trying to play devil's advocate here because I'm curious about how it shows that. Even when I assume it's supposed to be anti-immigration, I just don't see it as that by reading the statement.
Like I've said several times now, I'm aware of his views and am not trying to defend them because I also tend to disagree quite heavily with them, but I was just more curious about specific policy regarding this case because that's what I'm interested in. I know the process is slow for actually getting policies pushed through and seeing what the effect is, so it's hard to know right away, but I was curious.[/QUOTE]
Defining America as a nation of immigrants means its immigration policy should be welcoming to immigrants, within reason. It defines the American heritage as one of people who emigrated to seek a better life on better shores -- this was the American story, as it was told to me when I was growing up. It is a story of immigrants coming to America to make a better life for themselves in the land of freedom and opportunity, symbolized by Lady Liberty herself standing against the Atlantic storms with her torch defiantly held aloft, looking to the Old World in stoic composure.
By erasing the statement that America is defined as a nation of immigrants, it implies that immigration matters are now going to be judged in a nationalistic, nativist spirit rather than one of, well, a nation of immigrants welcoming others in. Lady Liberty is now a harsh selfish mistress of biased judgement, measuring each supplicant for their worth and acting as a barrier to the unworthy who must return to their shithole countries and suffer their miserable lots in life. This is a profound shift.
Trump's administration is defined by pulling the ladder up behind him, and this statement removing a definition of America's current population (predominantly whites) as immigrants is the same: America is full, go back home (that means you, Mexicans! You wait until we get that wall built!!)
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53157662]So... [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here]'it can't happen here'[/url] is the reason you don't care? Friend, it can happen. That's why you should pay attention - by the time a policy gets pushed through into law it's already too late to say 'whoa wait a moment here'. If you don't make an effort to stay on top of this stuff, there is every chance that it will stay on top of you.
e: By all means ignore Trump's stump speeches and whatnot - but pay very close attention to anything he says to congressmen or individuals in offices of the government and any 'announcements' he makes.[/QUOTE]
When did I ever imply that we couldn't end up like that? I try to stay aware of many sides of issues to get a better picture of what people think about them (because ultimately most of them vote in some way).
Policies change drastically from the time someone says "I want X" and the time it is pushed into law. Even under this presidency. Policy is also easier to follow as far as actually understanding which actions are actually taking place in government.
I try to stay up to date on actual policy legislation and what bills are currently being discussed in Congress [I]which is why I've said it's what I'm interested in[/I], so I don't know how that's me ignoring what's going on if it's the part that will actually influence you, your neighbors, or someone on the other side of the globe's life in some way.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53157686]Defining America as a nation of immigrants means its immigration policy should be welcoming to immigrants, within reason. It defines the American heritage as one of people who emigrated to seek a better life on better shores -- this was the American story, as it was told to me when I was growing up. It is a story of immigrants coming to America to make a better life for themselves in the land of freedom and opportunity, symbolized by Lady Liberty herself standing against the Atlantic storms with her torch defiantly held aloft, looking to the Old World in stoic composure.
By erasing the statement that America is defined as a nation of immigrants, it implies that immigration matters are now going to be judged in a nationalistic, nativist spirit rather than one of, well, a nation of immigrants welcoming others in. Lady Liberty is now a harsh selfish mistress of biased judgement, measuring each supplicant for their worth and acting as a barrier to the unworthy who must return to their shithole countries and suffer their miserable lots in life. This is a profound shift.[/QUOTE]
Sure, I agree entirely that it's a large shift from what I was brought up to believe as well because most of my family came over in the early 1900's. Unfortunately we can't accept everyone and there do have to be some restrictions. We take in a lot of migrants each year and are almost back up to the rate we had back about 2010 before everything that's happening now. Only time will tell if we'll see a massive drop at the end of this year. I want the US to be able to take in everyone who wants to come, but there is a limit to what we can handle
[IMG]http://puu.sh/zuY2U/7dcc69cb8e.png[/IMG]
[CODE]1821 - 1830: 143,439 immigrants arrive in the US
1831 - 1840: 599,125 immigrants arrive in the US
1841 - 1850: 1,713,251 immigrants arrive in the US
1851 - 1860: 2,598,214 immigrants arrive in the US
1861 - 1870: 2,314,825 immigrants arrive in the US
1871 - 1880: 2,812,191 immigrants arrive in the US
1881 - 1890: 5,246,613 immigrants arrive in the US
1891 - 1900: 3,687,564 immigrants arrive in the US
1901 - 1910: 8,795,386 immigrants arrive in the US
1911 - 1920: 5,735,811 immigrants arrive in the US
1921 - 1930: 4,107,209 immigrants arrive in the US
1931 - 1940: 532,431 immigrants arrive in the US (Great Depression)
1941 - 1950: 1,035,039 immigrants arrive in the US
1951 - 1960: 2,515,479 immigrants arrive in the US
1961 - 1970: 3,321,677 immigrants arrive in the US
1971 - 1980: 4,493,314 immigrants arrive in the US
1981 - 1990: 7,338,062 immigrants arrive in the US
1991 - 2000: 9,095,417 immigrants arrive in the US
2001 - 2010: 13,900,000 immigrants arrive in the US[/CODE]
[QUOTE=Thomas, TTC;53157214]Officially how? What policies are being created that enforce this homogeneity within the agency itself. I'm not really a fan of Trump either and won't try to defend what he says (mainly because I don't care), but once again, this comes down to actual policies which most people don't actually even look into.
For all I care, he could say "pixies are real," but until he starts dedicating time and resources to making contact and forming diplomatic relations with them, I don't see how what he says is really that relevant to the argument in the same way I don't see how the mission statement change is relevant either.[/QUOTE]
Well Trumps muslim ban for one
Okay, hold the phone. Wait. How did you go from
[QUOTE=Thomas, TTC;53157641]Then please elaborate how the statement they made is somehow anti-immigration if it is representative of his views. I'm kinda trying to play devil's advocate here because I'm curious about how it shows that. Even when I assume it's supposed to be anti-immigration, I just don't see it as that by reading the statement.
Like I've said several times now, I'm aware of his views and am not trying to defend them because I also tend to disagree quite heavily with them, but I was just more curious about specific policy regarding this case because that's what I'm interested in. I know the process is slow for actually getting policies pushed through and seeing what the effect is, so it's hard to know right away, but I was curious.[/QUOTE]
to
[QUOTE=Thomas, TTC;53157712]Unfortunately we can't accept everyone and there do have to be some restrictions. We take in a lot of migrants each year and are almost back up to the rate we had back about 2010 before everything that's happening now. Only time will tell if we'll see a massive drop at the end of this year. I want the US to be able to take in everyone who wants to come, but there is a limit to what we can handle
[IMG]http://puu.sh/zuY2U/7dcc69cb8e.png[/IMG]
[CODE]-snip-[/CODE][/QUOTE]
One, you go from "I'm trying to play devil's advocate, I don't agree with Trump's views, I heavily disagree with them" to "yeah but see we can't accept everyone in, we're taking in so many as it is and being more stringent is actually sensible".
Two, you're suddenly turning this into a different argument. The topic is that the White House is pushing an anti-immigration rhetoric with deeply unfortunate racist/nationalist racing stripes peeking at the edges and this is starting to be reflected in federal policies. ("Starting to be", as if ICE didn't write themselves a blank check a year ago.) That is a very different argument from "immigration requirements should be raised" or "immigration numbers as a whole should be reduced". And what's even more revealing is that an argument against a federal agency making a concerning change that seems to be in line with an openly-bigoted White House immigration policy (less people from "shitholes") is somehow being presented as absoluteist on open border immigration, which is a strawman.
I find it hard to believe that you're just playing devil's advocate and just asking questions after the subsequent replies.
Except that's been true since forever? We have never taken in every immigrant who wants to come, and just because I think some form of regulation on who is accepted is necessary, that makes me agree with him entirely? I'd appreciate if you didn't attempt to mischaracterize what I say.
I never said we should take in more or less immigrants. As long as we have the ability to accommodate individuals, and they benefit society as a whole, there should be no reason they can't become citizens, so yes, I disagree with placing blanket bans and arbitrary restrictions as well as discriminating based on race, religion, or other factors which should not be relevant to someone becoming a citizen.
The graph is meant to show there hasn't been a huge decrease in the number of immigrants since he was elected as you would expect from a government which holds such a viewpoint against immigration, and I stated that policies do take some time to take effect, so it is possible that policies either haven't taken effect yet, or it could be possible that no such policies have actually made it out of the woodwork due to the widespread resentment for Trump's push for them. A lot of those on the right disagree with him too you know?
I disagreed on the ban on those from Muslim nations and would disagree on any other attempt at such a restriction, but I don't find it unreasonable to form a conclusion when there is sufficient evidence to do so, and unfortunately there's not much to look at yet on what kind of damage has been done.
Headed to a USCIS office in 2 weeks to help asylum seekers gain legal status. Honored to help some new Americans. Can't wait.
[t]https://cdn.internationalcitizens.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/statue-of-liberty-poem-wide.jpg[/t]
[img]https://fi.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/emot-patriot.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;53158249]Headed to a USCIS office in 2 weeks to help asylum seekers gain legal status. Honored to help some new Americans. Can't wait.
[t]https://cdn.internationalcitizens.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/statue-of-liberty-poem-wide.jpg[/t]
[img]https://fi.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/emot-patriot.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
Good for you, we're hoping we can get my girlfriend citizenship this year after over a decade of permanent residency
[QUOTE=Wafflemonstr;53156762]lol US citizens(and Canadians as well, albeit less so) are incredibly notorious for referring to themselves as Irish(I may be a bit guilty here), Scottish, German, English, so on, rather than "American".
They may be patriotic of their country, but often times it isn't the American nationality that comes to their own minds when they think about who they are as a people.[/QUOTE]
I don't think there is an American nationality. America is just the collection of all nationalities, which is probably why we can't agree on shit. We have every nationality and every religion. How can we agree on one thing
[QUOTE=proboardslol;53157048]Disagree. Assimilation is a racially charged and culturally homogeneous term. There is no American culture; there are Mexican Americans with their own culture, Arab Americans with their own culture, Chinese Americans with their own culture, etc. Assimilation simply means "act more white"[/QUOTE]
This must be one of the most self-deluded and contradictory things I've ever read
There is very clearly an American culture. I know you might believe in atomization and the nihilism meme, but believing such has a real political effect. We are a Western country, you bring in low skilled people who don't believe (or even know) it its ideals or its history, or even speak the language, you bring in a ghettoized underclass which divides the country, voting tribally and heightening a culture war that sunders democracy and individualism. This mixes terribly with the decline of the middle class, and destroys a civic identity that unites a postcolonial nation which is critical to holding it together, especially so as our old stock ceases to be a cultural majority and we are only left with founding civics and liberal values.
But of course the pathology behind this train of thought is liberation from every social structure or obligation and claiming this is in the spirit of America, freedom, and liberalism. Because racism, or something. It's stupidity unique to postmodern times that precipitated where we are now.
If your problem is that new citizens are expected to 'act white', whatever that means, then your problem is with the existence of a nation-state and our republic as it existed for most of its history. Your problem, not mine. Don't pretend you're moral for having this issue or that this the American position (it's not), you just live in another reality, probably far away from the consequences of the policy you propose.
Also, your post is on another scale of retarded because on one hand you state we have no culture but on the other say assimilation is racist. Your opinions border on a joke, I care more about liberal values than your petty culture war to craft a 21st century vision that you will then gaslight opponents with, claiming this is nothing new. The lessons of Irish and Italian assimilation suggest you need immigration tempered by law to let things sit and have the community largely graduate out of ghettoized status. I also can look at the lessons of our interventionism abroad and see most of the world is not politically mature enough for democracy.
If you're not speaking in terms of racial assimilation, you're speaking in terms of cultural assimilation. America has never ever been culturally homogeneous.
[editline]25th February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Conscript;53159278]If your problem is that new citizens are expected to 'act white', whatever that means, then your problem is with the existence of a nation-state and our republic as it existed for most of its history. Your problem, not mine. Don't pretend you're moral for having this issue or that this the American position (it's not), you just live in another reality, probably far away from the consequences of the policy you propose.[/QUOTE]
I'm not gonna have an armchair philosopher tell me that my life doesn't exist, or isn't genuine.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53159320]If you're not speaking in terms of racial assimilation, you're speaking in terms of cultural assimilation. America has never ever been culturally homogeneous.[/QUOTE]
Yes it has. It has largely been made up of western Europeans and then took in influxes of southern and eastern Europeans at the same time we struggled to spread liberalism and democracy to these countries. Today, these demographics are largely politically and culturally indistinguishable from the general variety seen in middle america and its regionalism. They are liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. They are represented in all classes and either in city or countryside. An Italian here is far more drawing from western european traditions our republicanism was spawned from than Italy itself. You can say we've done similar with other groups.
If the problem is that liberal values and civics are more difficult to spread outside of some racial boundary, then this is all the more argument for the necessity of preventing a ghettoized underclass from forming first through immigration law and regulation. You can't expand middle america without it and will instead render things a zero sum game of racial in-groups, which is why the left is currently locked in a culture war with it and is playing the game of identity politics. Redefining what it means to be American into nothingness is about power, nothing more, and it's false to claim this is in the spirit of liberalism and freedom. It's in the spirit of politically correct falsification.
[QUOTE=Conscript;53159348]Yes it has. It has largely been made up of western Europeans and then took in influxes of southern and eastern Europeans at the same time we struggled to spread liberalism and democracy to these countries. Today, these demographics are largely politically and culturally indistinguishable from the general variety seen in middle america and its regionalism. They are liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. They are represented in all classes and either in city or countryside. An Italian here is far more drawing from western european traditions our republicanism was spawned from than Italy itself. You can say we've done similar with other groups.
If the problem is that liberal values and civics are more difficult to spread outside of some racial boundary, then this is all the more argument for the necessity of preventing a ghettoized underclass from forming first through immigration law and regulation. You can't expand middle america without it and will instead render things a zero sum game of racial in-groups, which is why the left is currently locked in a culture war with it and is playing the game of identity politics. Redefining what it means to be American into nothingness is about power, nothing more, and it's false to claim this is in the spirit of liberalism and freedom. It's in the spirit of politically correct falsification.[/QUOTE]
Western European countries are basically indistinguishable today but these nations developed independently of one another for a reason. It's like saying protestants and catholics are basically the same. But they're not the same and you're missing or purposely excluding a hell of a lot of context.
[editline]25th February 2018[/editline]
If you're willing to lump disparate European nationalities under one umbrella but you aren't willing to lump black people or asian people under the title of american I think you're being disingenuous.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
