Brickbat: What You Don't Know Can't Hurt Us

Chicago officials are refusing to release public records showing how they have spent more than $100 million caring for foreign migrants. The city has denied a Freedom of Information Act request from a local television station, saying there were no such records, as well as requests for the same records from the Illinois Attorney General's Office and at least one city council member.

Comments

[CarriePool]

I am making a good salary from home 16580-47065/ Doller week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,

Here is I started.…………> http://Www.Smartwork1.com

[VictoriaHacking]

I quit my job and that’s it. I make $120 an hour doing these simple online tasks from home. Also, I make $30,000 a month by working online three hours a day. Also, I recommended q1 for you to try…You won’t lose anything, try the site below and make money everyday…
.
.

HERE:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://Www.Coins71.Com

[EvaJames61]

Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,500 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,500 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com

[Adans smith]

Ah, the Al Capone defense . Seems legit

[Rob Misek]

WHO CONTROLS THE PAST
CONTROLS THE FUTURE
WHO CONTROLS THE PRESENT
CONTROLS THE PAST”

Orwell, 1984

A well managed lie effectively controls the past regardless of how its applied. It changes what people perceive as facts, reality.

Humans, and every other successful living organism make good future decisions based on their perception of facts, reality. Emotions require no facts.

Between lies and emotion, propaganda coerces people to make decisions in the liars, propagandists, interests, giving them control over the future.

Inevitability this control of the future becomes control over the present. It’s simply the nature of time.

Observe how those who control the present, lie and manipulate laws to ensure that the truth that exposes them is criminalized and doesn’t gain traction with successful organisms needing to recognize it, the rest of us. They are controlling the past.

Shadow governments, deep state organizations, the CIA, bigots, basically all secrets depend on these lies.

Unless you do everything you can to successfully discern truth from lies using correctly applied logic and science you will fall victim to this cycle.

Bigotry is demonstrated by refusing to consider arguments precluding the need to refute them. Censorship goes further by preventing others from the opportunity of doing so.

What incentive do these actors have to choose altruism when they can control the past, present and future?

There is one way to break this cycle of crimes against humanity. Criminalize lying. If lying were really protected speech fraud and perjury would not be crimes.

I have stated here many times that if ANYTHING I say is ever refuted with correctly applied logic and science, I will NEVER say it again. I haven’t had to.

[Olivahunter]

I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com

[Unicorn Abattoir]

You're a dumb fuck. Refute that with correctly applied logic and science.

[Rob Misek]

I’m smarter than you and anyone else who denies but can’t refute anything that I say.

You’d have to be pretty dumb not to recognize that. Or did I just refute what you said?

[Unicorn Abattoir]

That's not applied logic. Fail.

[Rob Misek]

Oh it’s correctly applied logic alright.

You’re just too stupid to understand or refute it.

I’m pleased with these optics.

[Wizard4169]

So far you've only refuted two things, "jack" and "shit". Several people have pointed out the obvious flaws in your logic. Refusing to acknowledge that doesn't make it any less true.

[Wizard4169]

In fairness, it takes a lot of intelligence to be as stupid as Rob. Mere ordinary stupid people can't begin to rise to his level.

[Davedave]

"I have stated here many times that if ANYTHING I say is ever refuted with correctly applied logic and science, I will NEVER say it again. I haven’t had to."

You don't have to, since you're lying when you say that.

[Rob Misek]

Prove it fuckwit.

Only a simple link to and specific description of anyone ever refuting what I’ve said is all that’s required.

Hahaha

[Davedave]

And QED.

[Rob Misek]

Your inability to prove your claim demonstrates that you’re a lying waste of skin.

QED. Hahaha

[Will Nonya]

“If lying were really protected speech fraud and perjury would not be crimes.”

The fallacy with this statement starts by pretending that fraud and perjury are simply lies. Fraud and perjury are specific acts which have been criminalized. They have set standards and precedents for determining when these acts occur. If you broaden the scope of the law and lower the bar enough to make a lie a criminal act you have to also draw those lines.

Where will the line be for determining when a lie is criminal? Will it apply to any misstatement made with pure intentions? How about a comment by a well-meaning but misinformed speaker? Or does it only apply to intentional lies? If the latter do you believe we can accurately determine that anyone accused of lying actually had knowledge of the truth and then intentionally told a lie? How far down does this line go? Do we have to start having conversations with children about the true nature of egg hiding bunnies and jolly old men?

The real danger with this “proposal” though is that in the process you would be giving the power to imprison liars to a government arbiter of truth. As we’ve seen with hate speech laws that is not a path to ensuring anyone’s liberties.

Throughout your statements you use generalizations and inference masquerading as logic before ultimately ending with the equivalent of “trust me bro” rather than any concise way in which this proposal would end the cycle you’re imaging rather than simply opening the door to significantly more abuses by those in power. Clearly this proposal to criminalize lying is absurd and by any objective measure does not follow correctly applied logic.

As far as your claim that you will not repeat anything that is “refuted with correctly applied logic and science” it seems to fall into this same logical flaw. You’ve seemingly appointed yourself as the arbiter of correctly applied logic immediately after demonstrating that you have embraced flawed logic. It is no wonder you have not had to retract a comment when you are the only one empowered to determine you are wrong. This is exactly how those in power behave now and how they would use this power you suggest granting to them.

[Rob Misek]

Fraud and perjury are based on lies. There is no “fallacy”.

The standard that you can’t seem to grasp is “don’t claim that something is true if you can’t prove it.” You’re going to use the phrase “I don’t know” a lot.

We’ll elect and trust people that claim to speak the truth when their freedom is at risk.

When correctly applied logic and science determine truth, how do you suggest it can it be abused? Whenever people lie about logic and science, correctly applied logic and science demonstrates it.

You haven’t identified and stated ANY flaws in my logic. By claiming you have, you’re lying.

Until you demonstrate that I’ve lied, you’ve accomplished nothing and your rhetoric has been refuted as such.

[Will Nonya]

I believe that you are correct, I can say that you don't know a lot.

As far as how this would be abused you have provided a great example. You have not refuted my remarks but rather simply rejected them. You have done this based on your own flawed logic and the even more flawed belief that it reigns supreme.

To justify your logic you have had to shift my statement that fraud and perjury are not simply lies to a position where they are merely based on lies. While lying and deceit are components the lies themselves are not the crimes here but rather the conditions surrounding them and the intent behind them are what determines whether one has committed fraud or perjury. Conflating fraud, perjury and lies is a simpleton's mistake.

You compound your errors by claiming that my statement which you disagreed with, but without disproving them using correctly applied logic and science, are lies. Here the implication is that anything you disagree with can be marked as a lie rather than a mistake or disagreement. That opens the door for abuse just as you have demonstrated.

If your proposal to criminalize lying were codified into law and I were appointed as the arbiter of lies only to find your statements to be incorrect and therefor criminal lies, would yo have any reluctance to be imprisoned under those conditions?

While there are many other parts of my response you ignored rather than refute I am curious what about American society or politics leads you to conclude that people will elect people that "claim to speak the truth when their freedom is at risk"? That claim does not hold up to reality and therefor must be a lie.

I'd like to believe that you cannot be obtuse enough to actually believe the things you are claiming but you vapid dismissal which aligns with the type of delusional authoritarian you've portrayed yourself to be make that belief difficult to support logically.

[Rob Misek]

You obviously can’t comprehend what you read. Perjury and fraud don’t exist in the absence of lies.

I have challenged you to prove your claims and you haven’t or can’t.

You know that you can’t and you’re simply lying. Truth isn’t arbitrated, it’s discerned with correctly applied logic and science, which you’ve demonstrated yourself to be miserable at.

Prove me wrong. Prove your claim. Until then, yours is refuted rhetoric.

[Wizard4169]

Beagles are dogs. Therefore all dogs are beagles. Rob logic FTW!

[Rob Misek]

People convicted of the crime of lying won’t be allowed to hold office. Can you grasp that logic?

These are some of your claims that require proof with correctly applied logic that can’t be refuted.

Note: if you can’t YOU LIED and if you can, YOU PROVED MY POINT.

“If lying were really protected speech fraud and perjury would not be crimes.” The fallacy with this statement starts by pretending that fraud and perjury are simply lies. “

You need to prove that my statement “pretended” what you claim it did. See note.

“ Clearly this proposal to criminalize lying is absurd and by any objective measure does not follow correctly applied logic.”

You need to prove your claim that criminalizing lying is not logical. See note.

“You have embraced flawed logic”

Prove my logic is flawed. See note.

[Rob Misek]

When the going gets tough the fuckwits cut and run.

I’m pleased with these optics.

[Wizard4169]

If you believe the legal system runs on "correctly applied logic and science" then please tell the Tooth Fairy I said "hi".

[Wizard4169]

Yes, fraud and perjury involve lies but most lies aren't fraud or perjury. I frequently joke about selling people the Brooklyn Bridge but unless I actually take their money that's not fraud. If I were to hypothetically call you a dog rapist here in the comments, no one would take that seriously and you'd be hard pressed to prove you'd suffered any harm to your reputation. (Granted, when it comes to damaging your reputation you do it far better than I ever could.) If you were on trial for animal cruelty and I falsely testified that I'd actually seen you raping a dog, that would be perjury. Since my false testimony might result in you being fined or imprisoned, the harm to you is clear and that's why it's a crime.

[Wizard4169]

A serial liar complaining about lying? I love the smell of irony in the morning! Your lies have been refuted over and over, but you cling to them just the same.
Also, have you ever considered that any proposed laws against lying would be enforced by the same people already lying to us? These laws would be turned on their critics to silence them. The clearest, most concise and logical laws that can be written will still be no better than the people enforcing them. If you believe otherwise you should really take a look at this wonderful bridge I have for sale.
You claim that truth isn't political, but it's obvious that law against lying would make "truth" a matter of politics. Some things are objectively true, but once you make it a matter of law, "truth" is what the powerful say it is. Or do you seriously think your law would somehow cause magical thunderbolts from the heavens to smite the dishonest?
Fraud and perjury are crimes because they do specific and identifiable harm to people. Fraud is theft by deception and perjured testimony can either result in innocent people suffering the loss of money or freedom, or allow the guilty to evade responsibility. As long as I'm here, I'll point out that laws against these things still don't magically stop them. Fraudsters often get away with their scams. Depending on who they are, perjurers may face little or no consequence even if exposed. (Just look up the term "testi-lying".)

[Fist of Etiquette]

I'm sure the right people got paid.

[Adans smith]

I thought of that too, but, went with the mob angle. It seemed to be a good fit.

[mad.casual]

And you people doubted that illegal immigrants enriched local culture!

[Wizard4169]

I say it would probably be a better deal to keep the immigrants and deport the crooked/incompetent officials.

[flag58]

Real answer.
" It went to my brother in-laws nephew whose name I can't recall"

[Social Justice is neither]

How can there be records of migrants costing anything? I have been reliably and consistently informed by Reason that migrants are not a drain on local resources and are only ever positive.

[MWAocdoc]

Making up stuff doesn't make you look witty, it just makes you look smart-alecky. Reason never said that immigrants don't cost anything. They shouldn't cost anything if society and government were working properly. Any costs associated with resettlement should be borne by charity voluntarily, not the taxpayers. And if no one was "entitled" to welfare at taxpayer expense - including immigrants - and if anyone were allowed to work at whatever job someone wanted to pay them to do at whatever mutually agreeable wage they agreed to, immigrants would cost society less than American citizens would on average.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Reason has repeatedly implied that Migrants are 'no cost' in that they ultimately enrich society by adding to economic output and GDP. And the pushback in the comments is largely spot on: If we had a system where you got off the boat, put your 'X' on the registry and then went out to find work, and died (literally) if you didn't, then that would be a far lower-cost migration system-- although it's been proven that the 'societal cost' is lower wages. Because Reason has repeatedly comically implied that dumping a quantity of a good or service into a market place lowers prices, except when it comes to labor.

[Smith1]

Lower wages is not a societal cost. That's just stupid. They are more a benefit than a cost in that the cost of products is lower, employment is higher, the larger work force results in more payment of social security (and other) taxes. We NEED immigrants willing to work in order to save our economy from the higher costs on wage earners of greater retirements.

[Mockamodo]

We allow unskilled, uneducated people into the nation to do the jobs we pay unskilled, uneducated Americans not to do.

[Davedave]

You appear to be suffering from a lack of basic arithmetic skills. Big surprise that you're a fucking idiot.

Net costs/benefits involve subtracting costs from benefits and seeing if the result is positive or negative. But you're just too fucking stupid to get that, so you're making a fool of yourself with your stupid comments.

Obviously immigrants are a net benefit to any society. It's unquestionable that it's so. Just be honest and admit you hate foreigners, brown people, and so-on. That's the only valid - vile, but valid - argument against immigration.

[Spiritus Mundi]

Net benefit to Texas:
https://nypost.com/2023/08/20/teen-migrant-nabbed-in-sex-assault-fatal-strangling-of-11-year-old-texas-girl/

[Spiritus Mundi]

Unquestionable benefit for Boston:
https://www.bostonherald.com/2023/08/16/boston-ice-agents-catch-brazilian-illegal-immigrant-wanted-for-11-murders/

[Davedave]

Wow, you increase the size of a population and the total number of crimes goes up along with everything else. What a shock!

Fucking moron. You can't even understand your own arguments.

[mad.casual]

dumping a quantity of a good or service into a market place lowers prices

Even at the basic, physical level of flipping bits, doing so locally costs less than migrating the flips or the bits without regard for the prior state of the bits. The only way it doesn't is if you're already exerting relatively larger (massive even) amounts of energy to selectively generate a field where it doesn't, somehow arbitrarily ascribe more/less value to the prior state(s) of the bits, or both.

[Rob Misek]

If lying were a crime what low level bureaucrat wouldn’t throw their boss under the bus when accused?

[Jerry B.]

"The city has denied a Freedom of Information Act request from a local television station, saying there were no such records..."

Oh, come on. Records are the lifeblood of bureaucracies.

[BigT]

If no records are available, then the apparatchiks are not being fiscally responsible, possibly criminally. This should be investigated.

Haha! Chicago government investigating someone for scamming the system! As if they care.

[A Cynical Asshole]

Chicago government investigating someone for scamming the system! As if they care.

They care if it's someone other than themselves. Then you'd be surprised how fast they launch a full investigation when it's one of the "commoners" doing the scamming.

[Quo Usque Tandem]

Any ideas as to how much Mogadishu on Lake Michigan spent per immigrant?

Here is a little factet I gleaned from a very brief search:

According to a city spokesperson, 10,019 migrants have arrived in Chicago over the past nine months, with 4,151 migrants currently residing in temporary city shelters. Of the over 10,000 migrants to arrive since last August, 5,573 arrived via bus while 4,446 individuals arrived to Chicago by other means1.

Learn more:
1. nbcchicago.com
2. nbcchicago.com

Article doesn't specify over what time period to stonewalling covers , but I'm guessing the $100 million was spent along the lines of 10K per person?

[Brandybuck]

> while 4,446 individuals arrived to Chicago by other means1.

DeSantos put them on a plane and sent them there?

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

More likely Biden put them on a plane and sent them there. And when that secret process was uncovered, you know how the New York Times reported it? Yep, "Republicans pounce-- in an election year!"

[Dillinger]

boating accident.