Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

LaBombo

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,171

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    49

 Content Type 

Profiles

Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by LaBombo

  1. LaBombo
    As of 1.3 seconds after reading your post... no. Not that they're related, Mr. Jinxypants.
  2. LaBombo
    Are you... sure you can handle it?
  3. LaBombo
    Gibson not liking the shift, and audibles into the strikeout instead.
  4. LaBombo
    twinssporto contemplates the nature of internet truth while wsnydes and blake look on...
  5. LaBombo
    Well, actually I only pointed out a mistaken 'correction' of his post, but no matter; in the end it appears this is pretty much what I thought, which is a case of guilt by association. So enough of that. Moving beyond the terminology debate, there's absolutely a crisis, and it doesn't start or end at our borders. And as I said before, it appears we see the same problems and the same difficulty in coming up with answers that address both their needs and U.S concerns.
  6. LaBombo
    If we're going to continue (and I'm not optimistic), please acknowledge that 1. At no point have I advocated for the use of the term "illegals". 2. Asylum seekers are potential immigrants who arrive at the U.S. border to apply for asylum but have not yet been granted it. They are not allowed entry under current U.S. law, so of course they're not "illegals" while they're awaiting resolution of their status in Mexico. AT NO POINT HAVE I ATTEMPTED TO EQUATE THOSE INDIVIDUALS WITH PERSONS CROSSING ILLEGALLY!!! STOP SAYING THAT $#!^. 3. Once again... an "Asylum Seeker" who CROSSES THE BORDER is here illegally under current U.S. law. Applying the abused phrase "Asylum Seeker" to those who cross illegally serves no useful purpose that I'm aware of... or even that you've attempted to state, for that matter. And it does a huge disservice to those who are playing by the rules and waiting their turn outside our border. 4. Oh, F it. I'm not going to waste any more time breaking this down further until we're in agreement on those 3 things. As I stated, our concerns and views are virtually the same. But if there's a terminology issue here it seems to me that it's yours, with all due respect.
  7. LaBombo
    You're a rational person too, but I'm having difficulty following you here. First: if you cross either U.S. border without permission, even as a U.S. citizen, you are breaking the law. Period. That's not a discussion. Second: The "asylum seekers" being discussed when the objection to the term "illegals" was brought up were detainees who had illegally crossed before asylum was granted. Third: with regard to asylum seekers and "illegals" being lumped together, I'm not the one doing the lumping. At all. The lumpers were attempting to incorrectly replace "illegals" with "asylum seekers". Fourth: At no point have I commented on the validity of the term "illegals" as it applies to those who have, in fact, crossed the border illegally. Fifth: Even if you (incorrectly) consider my not objecting to the term "illegals" to be functionally equivalent to endorsing it, it's still not incumbent on me to come up with alternative terminology, but rather on those who object to it. And "asylum seeker" ain't it, at least for anyone who crosses without approval. Up to this point, my only input to the conversation has been an effort to stop the false differentiation of legal status between your "dead of night" crossings and those undertaken illegally by the "asylum seekers". Oddly enough, this sums up where I'm at with the issue(s) pretty well.
  8. LaBombo
    Thanks for posting; I didn't comment on the current policy but clearly it's forcing Mexico to act as buffer and holding area for the seekers in question, putting them at odds with both the immigrants and our government. But as unfortunate as it is, it at least strips away the absurd notion that anti-Latino racism is the predominant underlying cause of concern about our inability to effectively manage immigration and border security.
  9. LaBombo
    Even Vox have admitted that caravan are made up mostly of people seeking entry into the U.S. for reasons other than those which currently qualify for asylum. Most cite economic reasons, and of the ones who fear (legitimately) for their lives, the fear stems from non-political violent crimes that are not a result of persecution by their nations' governments. And again... status as an "asylum seeker" currently has NOTHING to do with crossing the border. Current U.S. law prohibits applicants from crossing, and caravan applicants are required to await approval in Mexico. Ironically the one judge who attempted to overturn the policy did so from his Northern District federal bench... in the sanctuary city of San Francisco, whose mayor is openly horrified at the prospect of illegal crossers coming to his city. As for processing asylum applications more expeditiously, that's all well and good but in the overwhelming majority of cases, it's just speeding up the rejection of asylum status, putting the entire issue back at square one.
  10. LaBombo
    Everybody who keeps claiming there are no "illegals" and that ALL such persons are instead "asylum seekers"... Please STOP! That phrase is "factually incorrect" when used to refer to any non-citizen without a visa attempting to enter the United States from Mexico. First off... asylum seekers attempting to enter the U.S. through Mexico are NOT granted asylum automatically and instantaneously. Second, such status as a "seeker" does NOT grant entry into the United States. So sure enough, just as common sense would dictate, an unlimited number of people can't stream into the United States just by entering a single word. Third, those who do receive asylum are meant to be granted it ONLY as protection from dangers like political persecution. The United States does not have an 'economic asylum' policy, meaning that a very high percentage of "asylum seekers" do not qualify for asylum. It's a good discussion, particularly the quandary of helping those fleeing poverty by allowing them into the U.S. vs. helping their home countries improve economically. But much like the situation itself, the discussion is not served in the least by ignoring our current laws.
  11. LaBombo
    Look at the bright side... a few more of these, and we old-timers will no longer be traumatized by the speaking aloud of the name "Ron Davis".
  12. LaBombo
    We will make them on the grill, and in honor of his save, we will call them Hildenbergers...
  13. LaBombo
    Why can't teh bullpenz have nice thingz?
  14. LaBombo
    FRE, or...
  15. LaBombo
    Oh, and since glunn posted about tragedy befalling Florida Man, there was also a story about Wisconsin Woman this week. Nbd, just another day at the Walmart in Eau Claire: Police: Woman does karate, son gets nude, dog steals cornbread mix
  16. LaBombo
    Twins Daily... Come for the baseball, stay for the... broadening of cultural horizons!
  17. LaBombo
    Just make sure Alexa's not listening if there's audio. Jealous mistress, that one.
  18. LaBombo
    Gamecast says Schoop is batting 1.000 on up and in pitches. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the sample size is very, very small.
  19. LaBombo
    Don't forget the rivulets of thought!
  20. LaBombo
  21. LaBombo
    Without getting into the specifics, I'm extremely optimistic about a possible future for you specializing in the communications segment of politics if you choose to go that way.
  22. LaBombo
    Those two dreaded words... 'Florida Man'.
  23. LaBombo
    The ongoing controversy of pitch counts aside, 100 started looking like a good place to stop today as he entered the 90's. Great to see him turn a slow start into a strong outing.
  24. LaBombo
    Anybody remember the first two innings, when it looked like he wouldn't be able to buy a strikeout today?
  25. LaBombo
    "Something something something 'the other white meat' "
×
×
  • Create New...