he just had to make sure none of the policies already in place to keep people out were followed. 

Source?

What was it she said? Oh yea, I second that. "you are very disingenuous"

However since you cannot type Biden border policies into search here you go. There are more I just picked one.

https://oversight.house.gov/release/wrap...%ef%bf%bc/

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

Source?

What was it she said? Oh yea, I second that. "you are very disingenuous"

However since you cannot type Biden border policies into search here you go. There are more I just picked one.

https://oversight.house.gov/release/wrap...%ef%bf%bc/

None in that article states about a wide open border or any policy that took effect.

---

There was absolutely no lie in what I said. 15 million people didn’t cross the border cuz it was locked up like a drum. You can try this disingenuous argument style of yours on someone else.

Please back to what you said.

So, let’s try again:

When did he open it? What was the date, and what policy opened it? Be specific.

Even if we had that conversation and recapped Biden's whole term order by order, we would still have to deal with the fact that, by his administration's own estimates, the got-aways and contacts with undocumented migrant in general went way up during his term.
You would be stuck saying that Biden's written policies and orders had nothing to do with what actually happened.  And that's worse, actually.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

What was it she said? Oh yea, I second that. "you are very disingenuous"

However since you cannot type Biden border policies into search here you go. There are more I just picked one.

https://oversight.house.gov/release/wrap...%ef%bf%bc/

None in that article states about a wide open border or any policy that took effect.

Just a title from a section from the article. It is there, however I cannot make you understand the words. Where by the way is your source to the opposite?

Key Takeaways:

The Biden Administration sparked the worst border crisis in American history and placed Americans’ lives at risk by abandoning deterrent-focused immigration policies and proven border enforcement tools.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

Please back to what you said.

So, let’s try again:

When did he open it? What was the date, and what policy opened it? Be specific.

Even if we had that conversation and recapped Biden's whole term order by order, we would still have to deal with the fact that, by his administration's own estimates, the got-aways and contacts with undocumented migrant in general went way up during his term.
You would be stuck saying that Biden's written policies and orders had nothing to do with what actually happened.  And that's worse, actually.

Well because it does not.

We are already seeing an increase in migration due to climate change.

https://www.unhcr.org/us/what-we-do/how-...splacement

---

Even if we had that conversation and recapped Biden's whole term order by order, we would still have to deal with the fact that, by his administration's own estimates, the got-aways and contacts with undocumented migrant in general went way up during his term.
You would be stuck saying that Biden's written policies and orders had nothing to do with what actually happened.  And that's worse, actually.

Well because it does not.

We are already seeing an increase in migration due to climate change.

https://www.unhcr.org/us/what-we-do/how-...splacement

ROFL !

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

None in that article states about a wide open border or any policy that took effect.

Just a title from a section from the article. It is there, however I cannot make you understand the words. Where by the way is your source to the opposite?

Key Takeaways:

The Biden Administration sparked the worst border crisis in American history and placed Americans’ lives at risk by abandoning deterrent-focused immigration policies and proven border enforcement tools.

What were those policies?

---

Just a title from a section from the article. It is there, however I cannot make you understand the words. Where by the way is your source to the opposite?

Key Takeaways:

The Biden Administration sparked the worst border crisis in American history and placed Americans’ lives at risk by abandoning deterrent-focused immigration policies and proven border enforcement tools.

What were those policies?

Dude, I do not work for you, I do not owe you, you have no ability to order me around. So answer your own question by educating yourself. I have no ability to enable you to comprehend events in life. Google can be your friend. BTW that link was to a Government report on the issue. Why don't you ask them? ...

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

What were those policies?

Dude, I do not work for you, I do not owe you, you have no ability to order me around. So answer your own question by educating yourself. I have no ability to enable you to comprehend events in life. Google can be your friend. BTW that link was to a Government report on the issue. Why don't you ask them? ...

You should be able to tell me since you feel so strongly about this topic. And since you took time to google it.

Why can't you tell me about the policy?

---

Dude, I do not work for you, I do not owe you, you have no ability to order me around. So answer your own question by educating yourself. I have no ability to enable you to comprehend events in life. Google can be your friend. BTW that link was to a Government report on the issue. Why don't you ask them? ...

You should be able to tell me since you feel so strongly about this topic. And since you took time to google it.

Why can't you tell me about the policy?

Please re read the above slowly. Now if you would like to hire me as a consultant I would be happy to meet with you. My fee is 2k a day. 4 hour minimum. Let me know.  ...

On second thought, it would be a waste of time for both of us. I withdraw the offer.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

The only people who even worry about Karl Marx anymore are conservatives. Most liberals have moved into a wanting a mixed model economy, stepping out of the old paradigm altogether.

It’s largely been this way since Keynes.

'You might not think you're following Marx, and maybe in many ways you aren't, but when you make comments about time moving in one direction and positive changes being inevitable, you are.

No, Marx isn't the only social scientist to buy into this. In the 19th century, it may have started with Lewis Morgan and his evolutionary social theory, but even since WWII, theories that deal with social historical change have noted that technological evolution is intertwined with societal change and does not result in going backward.

Most people on the left didn't want to focus on this in the sixties through the nineties because unidirectional progress as a meme implied a sense of superiority relative to past societies. But technology doesn't logically go in the negative direction. Of course, you can use it to blow up civilization, but that isn't inherently logical.

---

Actually, I agree that the radicals on the left have been ushering in too much change at one time, which has pushed those right of center further right, to the point that they begin to resemble the old Nazi/fascist right.

I also agree that the left/right paradigm is an inadequate measure. However, I'm not a big identity Democrat or someone focused in the extreme on multiculturalism. You're oversimplifying, too.

There's a huge difference between being attached to traditional hierarchy and forging toward equality without forcing an end to hierarchy by merit. But money isn't merit, and neither is traditional hierarchy. Time only goes in one direction, and it favors eventual progressive social values and more egalitarian distribution of wealth, even though there may be small reactionary turns.

You argue that it is important to place historical events in a contextual perspective and compare them to alternatives from that time. Saying that Nazism developed as a reaction to the threat of communism is partially correct, but it does not explain why the Nazis themselves adopted ideas that were deeply authoritarian and anti-individualistic. It is also misleading to call these "leftist ideas" simply because the state played a central role.

Let us not forget that it was conservatives who brought Hitler to power and supported him in becoming Chancellor. Socialists, on the other hand, were his main opponents, and once he consolidated power, he imprisoned them. Many prominent socialist figures were executed, and even "ordinary" socialists without political influence were arrested. My grandfather was one of them.

In physics, time only moves forward.  But in politics, time can move any direction for any amount of time.  It won't ever move precisely backwards, as if decades and centuries past could be recreated and relived in hi-fi, but it can angle strongly towards that direction.

I question this. In politics, there isn't a general move forward or back. Individual issues move. All over the developed world, we have had anti-abortion movements, for example, and they have become louder and apparently more powerful. But if you examine the views of individuals on annual polls going back to the early 1970s, there has been only a slow evolution in the progressive direction, not a backtracking. The angling in that direction is louder speech and the rise in political power of certain individuals through gerrymandering. But it isn't real political power, which can only come from the majority, not some loud elite.

Just to go back to to your other point. You stated that:

The main enduring appeal of Marx is also one of his main errors: he thought he could predict the future. He thought Germany would broadly become a capitalist and bourgeois democracy as the UK and France had, and he thought the UK and France would inevitably be the first to become dictatorships of the proletariat, with every other nation in the world inevitably following that pattern.

Germany isn't a capitalist and bourgeois democracy? And the UK and France have all those mitigating social programs, as does Germany, of course, that were first ideas of socialism.

It isn't that Marx had no predictive power - part of the reason social conflict theories survive well is that conflict as a concept allows one to pick out the differences and variations, without which scientific prediction isn't possible. Rather, once Marxist theory inspired some of those below and scared some of those above, behavior worked to preserve capitalism and bourgeois democracy by modifying it in the direction of social democracy.

There have even been arguments that scientific paradigms in the social sciences were affected. In social/ cultural anthropology, for example, Malinowski's paradigm of participant observation, turning away from the Boasian and other historical orientation, was an attempt to make a non-Marxian anthropology, as if being oriented to historical change had necessarily to be Marxian.

There's more we could say about this, but it's enough to point out that Democrats, and you, embrace this today. That way, every time you lose, you haven't really lost for good, it's just your eventual victory has been delayed. It's quasi religious pap for people who have rejected or been disappointed by traditional religion.

 This is silly. This attitude is what individuals need psychologically to keep working and fighting for what you discuss next:

And it's dangerous! The good stuff we have today, the wide distribution of wealth and power, the permissive social values, we have to fight to keep that, if we want to keep it. It does not inevitably grow. In fact, if anything in political economy is inevitable, it is that the powerful and wealthy today will attempt to make their power and wealth permanent, they will pull up the ladder behind them. We have to resist that.

Nobody fights to keep things or restore them after setbacks if they do not have a psychological edge.

---

None in that article states about a wide open border or any policy that took effect.

Key Takeaways:

The Biden Administration sparked the worst border crisis in American history and placed Americans’ lives at risk by abandoning deterrent-focused immigration policies and proven border enforcement tools.

Biden didn't spark anything.

Covid ended.

Going back to the article you posted:

Under Biden, by his administration's own estimates, the got-aways and contacts with undocumented migrant in general went way up during his term. Biden failed the american people in this regard.

More were apprehended and expelled than under Trump. 

Deny that.

---

Key Takeaways:

The Biden Administration sparked the worst border crisis in American history and placed Americans’ lives at risk by abandoning deterrent-focused immigration policies and proven border enforcement tools.

Biden didn't spark anything.

Covid ended.

Going back to the article you posted:

Under Biden, by his administration's own estimates, the got-aways and contacts with undocumented migrant in general went way up during his term. Biden failed the american people in this regard.

More were apprehended and expelled than under Trump. 

Deny that.

Source?

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

Biden didn't spark anything.

Covid ended.

Going back to the article you posted:


More were apprehended and expelled than under Trump. 

Deny that.

Source?

Sure.

https://www.cato.org/blog/new-data-show-...rump-biden

https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELE...peoeoerpr/

---

Source?

Sure.

https://www.cato.org/blog/new-data-show-...rump-biden

https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELE...peoeoerpr/

---

Source?

Sure.

https://www.cato.org/blog/new-data-show-...rump-biden


https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELE...peoeoerpr/

https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2018...-institute


The Rueters article was written  - Published July 8, 2023  04:30 AM EDT.  Just like the fake labor numbers reported in the run up to the election he began this.  Before that it was a free for all. I believe at that time he did an about face and decided he would allow only 2500people a day in.

Have a nice day.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

Sure.

https://www.cato.org/blog/new-data-show-...rump-biden


https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELE...peoeoerpr/

https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2018...-institute


The Rueters article was written  - Published July 8, 2023  04:30 AM EDT.  Just like the fake labor numbers reported in the run up to the election he began this.  Before that it was a free for all. I believe at that time he did an about face and decided he would allow only 2500people a day in.

Have a nice day.

Lol

---

Well because it does not.

We are already seeing an increase in migration due to climate change.

https://www.unhcr.org/us/what-we-do/how-...splacement

ROFL !

Laugh if you want. The climate is changing and many areas are getting tougher for agriculture, especially areas that cannot afford the latest agricultural equipment, such as Central America.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

ROFL !

Laugh if you want. The climate is changing and many areas are getting tougher for agriculture, especially areas that cannot afford the latest agricultural equipment, such as Central America.

Yes, the earth is on basically a 2500 year cycle. This has been proved and agreed upon for many years. Humans have had about a 1-2% impact.  This does not justify the open border of our country.

We are also about due for the poles to flip and the Sun is going into a different phase right now where less heat will be sent our way. See
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ear...er-minimum

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7575229/

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.