(07-02-2019 10:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/aoc-cl...7Kz#page=2


The New York Democrat said people of all ages were being mistreated and were "drinking out of toilets" as the guards laughed at the migrants' plight right in front of her.

AOC said it, so it must be true. No matter about logic and reason. But if I had ti give a tour of my facility to an antagonistic, Congresswoman, I would not laugh in front of her. Would you?

I think AOC should change her name to Joe McCarthy. She has uncovered evidence that there are thousands on Nazis in the BP. Only in the BP.

I think the CBP agent Facebook group gave a good indication as to how the CBP agents were going to respond to AOC.

(07-02-2019 10:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 10:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/aoc-cl...7Kz#page=2


The New York Democrat said people of all ages were being mistreated and were "drinking out of toilets" as the guards laughed at the migrants' plight right in front of her.

AOC said it, so it must be true. No matter about logic and reason. But if I had ti give a tour of my facility to an antagonistic, Congresswoman, I would not laugh in front of her. Would you?

I think AOC should change her name to Joe McCarthy. She has uncovered evidence that there are thousands on Nazis in the BP. Only in the BP.

I think the CBP agent Facebook group gave a good indication as to how the CBP agents were going to respond to AOC.

Exactly, as I said, you attack a group of people, they will eventually stop taking it quietly.

Tell me, how would people in your office respond to three years of insults and libel? Butterfly kisses?

(07-02-2019 10:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 10:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 10:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/aoc-cl...7Kz#page=2


The New York Democrat said people of all ages were being mistreated and were "drinking out of toilets" as the guards laughed at the migrants' plight right in front of her.

AOC said it, so it must be true. No matter about logic and reason. But if I had ti give a tour of my facility to an antagonistic, Congresswoman, I would not laugh in front of her. Would you?

I think AOC should change her name to Joe McCarthy. She has uncovered evidence that there are thousands on Nazis in the BP. Only in the BP.

I think the CBP agent Facebook group gave a good indication as to how the CBP agents were going to respond to AOC.

Exactly, as I said, you attack a group of people, they will eventually stop taking it quietly.

Tell me, how would people in your office respond to three years of insults and libel? Butterfly kisses?

This is a pretty tepid response to what I consider horrific imagery/ideas found on that Facebook group. Some would say that you were excusing their behavior. Were you one of the ones bemoaning the left for their lack of outcry over antifa?

I'm quite sure that people in my office wouldn't create a private group on Facebook in order to post racist and sexist means in response.

On the Facebook issue itself, any post that threatened physical violence to *any* sitting member of Congress should be dealt with by suspensions and/or termination.

That being said, many of the depictions of AOC, and the verbal insults, are absolutely and fundamentally protected speech, as abhorrent as they be. If they fall short of the threat threshold, they are protected. Period.

If such a Facebook page existed for, say, workers at the EPA or the Bureau of Indian Affairs that was as vociferous against McConnell, or Trump, I would have the exact same stance --- no matter how crude or vile any posts might be.

But, I think we all know where the protections of the 1st Amendment fall on many 'progressive important issues' scale.

And yes, perhaps the 'scapegoating' of all the left towards the 'jackboot' Border Patrol, not to mention the absolute huge verbal assault ICE undergoes from even state and local government officials does have an impact.

In some views of the deeply 'deplorable' the immigration laws actually mean something; to most of the left they are objects to be ignored, ripped down, and the officials who actually enforce the law (yes, its still the gd law, no matter what San Francisco or Austin says) are fundamentally told they are inhuman at many stretches -- I can see why a certain hard shell might be formed by those actually entrusted to enforce the law (again, that stupid phrase with zero meaning or import to a decent population of progressives, the 'law').

So for all the absolute horror that some of these posts take, perhaps those on the oh-so innocent left might actually take a long gd look at themselves and ask *themselves* that perhaps maybe, just maybe, that their attitudes towards these officers of the law (again, that stupid nonsensical word) just *might* have something to do with the callousness on exhibit to us today.

I am sure that that issue ahs zero to do with the 'workers at the concentration camps', but hey, feel proud for yourself that you actually *did not* say Nazi, even though that is what one wishes to convey with that phrase.

(07-02-2019 10:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 10:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 10:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 10:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/aoc-cl...7Kz#page=2


The New York Democrat said people of all ages were being mistreated and were "drinking out of toilets" as the guards laughed at the migrants' plight right in front of her.

AOC said it, so it must be true. No matter about logic and reason. But if I had ti give a tour of my facility to an antagonistic, Congresswoman, I would not laugh in front of her. Would you?

I think AOC should change her name to Joe McCarthy. She has uncovered evidence that there are thousands on Nazis in the BP. Only in the BP.

I think the CBP agent Facebook group gave a good indication as to how the CBP agents were going to respond to AOC.

Exactly, as I said, you attack a group of people, they will eventually stop taking it quietly.

Tell me, how would people in your office respond to three years of insults and libel? Butterfly kisses?

This is a pretty tepid response to what I consider horrific imagery/ideas found on that Facebook group. Some would say that you were excusing their behavior. Were you one of the ones bemoaning the left for their lack of outcry over antifa?

I'm quite sure that people in my office wouldn't create a private group on Facebook in order to post racist and sexist means in response.

Not an excuse. An invitation to you all on the left to take a hard look at *your* own actions towards this group in particular, and how that just *might* mysteriously have an impact on what has been discovered.

Or you can ignore that invitation to do some self-introspection.

Seriously, the left in toto has taken a giant, three year, continuous and sustained dump on those charged with enforcing immigration laws. You seriously dont that that doesnt have some impact over time?

(07-02-2019 10:09 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 09:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 09:25 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Are you extrapolating that by referring to these detention centers as "concentration camps" that AOC is calling CBP agents "Nazi thugs"? That's a huge leap if so.

I guess you are unclear about the correlation between 'concentration camps' and Nazis. Perhaps a remedial history course is in order?

The position that there is no link between the two is either stunningly obtuse, or willingly evasive. The term was chosen precisely for that reason, and for the reason that it would always be chosen as the term of use. Dont pretend anything else. That would be an idiotic stance.

Perhaps I think there is some nuance between referring to them as concentration camps and besmirching the government agents who are called to carry out their duties as "Nazi thugs". For the record, I wouldn't have called them concentration camps to begin with. I don't love the implications of that.

One can call out the administration's policies on these detention centers as being horrible without calling the government employees going to work in these centers "Nazis thugs" or horrible in general.

One could. But the left seems to go out of its way to use loaded language that is absolutely intended to conjure up comparisons with the Third Reich.

So the proper response is 'one could, but they havent; and they havent for a long time.'

(07-02-2019 10:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  On the Facebook issue itself, any post that threatened physical violence to *any* sitting member of Congress should be dealt with by suspensions and/or termination.

That being said, many of the depictions of AOC, and the verbal insults, are absolutely and fundamentally protected speech, as abhorrent as they be. If they fall short of the threat threshold, they are protected. Period.


If such a Facebook page existed for, say, workers at the EPA or the Bureau of Indian Affairs that was as vociferous against McConnell, or Trump, I would have the exact same stance --- no matter how crude or vile any posts might be.

But, I think we all know where the protections of the 1st Amendment fall on many 'progressive important issues' scale.

So from an employment law standpoint, this protected free speech should not have any effect on their current job of working in these detention centers? Honest question... not arguing the point.

Quote:And yes, perhaps the 'scapegoating' of all the left towards the 'jackboot' Border Patrol, not to mention the absolute huge verbal assault ICE undergoes from even state and local government officials does have an impact.

In some views of the deeply 'deplorable' the immigration laws actually mean something; to most of the left they are objects to be ignored, ripped down, and the officials who actually enforce the law (yes, its still the gd law, no matter what San Francisco or Austin says) are fundamentally told they are inhuman at many stretches -- I can see why a certain hard shell might be formed by those actually entrusted to enforce the law (again, that stupid phrase with zero meaning or import to a decent population of progressives, the 'law').

So for all the absolute horror that some of these posts take, perhaps those on the oh-so innocent left might actually take a long gd look at themselves and ask *themselves* that perhaps maybe, just maybe, that their attitudes towards these officers of the law (again, that stupid nonsensical word) just *might* have something to do with the callousness on exhibit to us today.

I don't dispute your point here. It still doesn't excuse this abhorrent behavior. Maybe the right should take a gd look at themselves as well and ask *themselves* that perhaps maybe, just maybe, that their rhetoric towards these "illegal trespassers" just *might* have something to do with the callousness on exhibit to us today.

(07-02-2019 11:03 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 10:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  On the Facebook issue itself, any post that threatened physical violence to *any* sitting member of Congress should be dealt with by suspensions and/or termination.

That being said, many of the depictions of AOC, and the verbal insults, are absolutely and fundamentally protected speech, as abhorrent as they be. If they fall short of the threat threshold, they are protected. Period.


If such a Facebook page existed for, say, workers at the EPA or the Bureau of Indian Affairs that was as vociferous against McConnell, or Trump, I would have the exact same stance --- no matter how crude or vile any posts might be.

But, I think we all know where the protections of the 1st Amendment fall on many 'progressive important issues' scale.

So from an employment law standpoint, this protected free speech should not have any effect on their current job of working in these detention centers? Honest question... not arguing the point.

I am not such an employment law expert to render an opinion there.

I think a case could be made that if one who is charged with the enforcement of the laws *and* the subsequent safekeeping of those detained shows what might be an abdication of that duty, then they should not be in that position.

If a post refers solely to 'beaners' and 'wetbacks', that might not be a strong enough showing to show that they would be remiss in that duty. Vile, yes --- guaranteed to raise voices, yes -- and they actually might get fired.

But, that firing in the civil service might put some liability back onto the government; remember that the government as of last year cannot even restrict a trademark for the word 'Slants' for an all Asian band, since that is a viewpoint based restriction on something being 'disparaging' or not. When a government makes a 'viewpoint' based restriction, there are definitely 1st Amendment issues.

If it referred to 'it might just be easier to weigh them down and toss them back in the river', undoubtedly that would be a far better case to make; in fact that might even rise to the level of an explicit threat.

Quote:

Quote:And yes, perhaps the 'scapegoating' of all the left towards the 'jackboot' Border Patrol, not to mention the absolute huge verbal assault ICE undergoes from even state and local government officials does have an impact.

In some views of the deeply 'deplorable' the immigration laws actually mean something; to most of the left they are objects to be ignored, ripped down, and the officials who actually enforce the law (yes, its still the gd law, no matter what San Francisco or Austin says) are fundamentally told they are inhuman at many stretches -- I can see why a certain hard shell might be formed by those actually entrusted to enforce the law (again, that stupid phrase with zero meaning or import to a decent population of progressives, the 'law').

So for all the absolute horror that some of these posts take, perhaps those on the oh-so innocent left might actually take a long gd look at themselves and ask *themselves* that perhaps maybe, just maybe, that their attitudes towards these officers of the law (again, that stupid nonsensical word) just *might* have something to do with the callousness on exhibit to us today.

I don't dispute your point here. It still doesn't excuse this abhorrent behavior. Maybe the far right should take a gd look at themselves as well and ask *themselves* that perhaps maybe, just maybe, that their rhetoric towards these "illegal trespassers" just *might* have something to do with the callousness on exhibit to us today.

So we shouldnt refer to them as 'illegal trespassers'? Not 'illegal immigrants'? Then what the hell should we use to refer to them? The fundamental fact is that the vast, vast majority of them are breaking the law to enter and reside in this country. And many of them are perjuring themselves when blindly claiming asylum.

Good god. And it is *bad* to use 'illegal immigrants'. This is better (actually worse) than a Monty Python skit.

So actually asking that a law be actually enforced, instead of ignored, is callous rhetoric in your view?

If, when you state the far right as being *actual* ignoramuses who actually use the term 'mud people', no offense but I disavow every single one in that lot. If that is what you meant, nice try at another 'implied tying of the right to Nazi types'.

(07-02-2019 11:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 11:03 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 10:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  On the Facebook issue itself, any post that threatened physical violence to *any* sitting member of Congress should be dealt with by suspensions and/or termination.

That being said, many of the depictions of AOC, and the verbal insults, are absolutely and fundamentally protected speech, as abhorrent as they be. If they fall short of the threat threshold, they are protected. Period.


If such a Facebook page existed for, say, workers at the EPA or the Bureau of Indian Affairs that was as vociferous against McConnell, or Trump, I would have the exact same stance --- no matter how crude or vile any posts might be.

But, I think we all know where the protections of the 1st Amendment fall on many 'progressive important issues' scale.

So from an employment law standpoint, this protected free speech should not have any effect on their current job of working in these detention centers? Honest question... not arguing the point.

I am not such an employment law expert to render an opinion there.

I think a case could be made that if one who is charged with the enforcement of the laws *and* the subsequent safekeeping of those detained shows what might be an abdication of that duty, then they should not be in that position.

If a post refers solely to 'beaners' and 'wetbacks', that might not be a strong enough showing to show that they would be remiss in that duty. Vile, yes --- guaranteed to raise voices, yes -- and they actually might get fired.

But, that firing in the civil service might put some liability back onto the government; remember that the government as of last year cannot even restrict a trademark for the word 'Slants' for an all Asian band, since that is a viewpoint based restriction on something being 'disparaging' or not. When a government makes a 'viewpoint' based restriction, there are definitely 1st Amendment issues.

If it referred to 'it might just be easier to weigh them down and toss them back in the river', undoubtedly that would be a far better case to make; in fact that might even rise to the level of an explicit threat.

Quote:

Quote:And yes, perhaps the 'scapegoating' of all the left towards the 'jackboot' Border Patrol, not to mention the absolute huge verbal assault ICE undergoes from even state and local government officials does have an impact.

In some views of the deeply 'deplorable' the immigration laws actually mean something; to most of the left they are objects to be ignored, ripped down, and the officials who actually enforce the law (yes, its still the gd law, no matter what San Francisco or Austin says) are fundamentally told they are inhuman at many stretches -- I can see why a certain hard shell might be formed by those actually entrusted to enforce the law (again, that stupid phrase with zero meaning or import to a decent population of progressives, the 'law').

So for all the absolute horror that some of these posts take, perhaps those on the oh-so innocent left might actually take a long gd look at themselves and ask *themselves* that perhaps maybe, just maybe, that their attitudes towards these officers of the law (again, that stupid nonsensical word) just *might* have something to do with the callousness on exhibit to us today.

I don't dispute your point here. It still doesn't excuse this abhorrent behavior. Maybe the far right should take a gd look at themselves as well and ask *themselves* that perhaps maybe, just maybe, that their rhetoric towards these "illegal trespassers" just *might* have something to do with the callousness on exhibit to us today.

So we shouldnt refer to them as 'illegal trespassers'? Not 'illegal immigrants'? Then what the hell should we use to refer to them? The fundamental fact is that the vast, vast majority of them are breaking the law to enter and reside in this country. And many of them are perjuring themselves when blindly claiming asylum.

Good god. And it is *bad* to use 'illegal immigrants'. This is better (actually worse) than a Monty Python skit.

So actually asking that a law be actually enforced, instead of ignored, is callous rhetoric in your view?

If, when you state the far right as being *actual* ignoramuses who actually use the term 'mud people', no offense but I disavow every single one in that lot. If that is what you meant, nice try at another 'implied tying of the right to Nazi types'.

I was using "illegal trespassers" because it seems to be the term you guys prefer. I don't look at it as especially problematic and not sure why you are directing your post towards the use of this term.

Are you confused about the rhetoric coming from the administration? Or are you just being willfully obtuse? Perhaps you should google "Stephen Miller Trump administration".

(07-02-2019 10:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 10:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 10:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 10:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/aoc-cl...7Kz#page=2


The New York Democrat said people of all ages were being mistreated and were "drinking out of toilets" as the guards laughed at the migrants' plight right in front of her.

AOC said it, so it must be true. No matter about logic and reason. But if I had ti give a tour of my facility to an antagonistic, Congresswoman, I would not laugh in front of her. Would you?

I think AOC should change her name to Joe McCarthy. She has uncovered evidence that there are thousands on Nazis in the BP. Only in the BP.

I think the CBP agent Facebook group gave a good indication as to how the CBP agents were going to respond to AOC.

Exactly, as I said, you attack a group of people, they will eventually stop taking it quietly.

Tell me, how would people in your office respond to three years of insults and libel? Butterfly kisses?

This is a pretty tepid response to what I consider horrific imagery/ideas found on that Facebook group. Some would say that you were excusing their behavior. Were you one of the ones bemoaning the left for their lack of outcry over antifa?

I'm quite sure that people in my office wouldn't create a private group on Facebook in order to post racist and sexist means in response.

Yes, I was one that was bringing up your dodging of the Antifa question.

So how many posts were there that were horrific? Do you have any idea, or are you just accepting the word of others? I would bet on the latter. For 9500 people, all bigoted and hateful, that should be in the tens of thousands, don't you think?

You seem to take it a given that this FB group was created "in order to post racist and sexist means in response". In response to what, exactly, in 2016, when you said it was created. Quite an assumption there on motive. Any proof, or just the stereotypes? Not knowing anything about your office,(I do know something of the BP) I would guess three years of unwarranted vicious attacks might change the equation.

Are you in favor of open borders? If yes, why? If no, why?

I used to not care if somebody was illegal or not. I helped many illegals to come in. I don't do that anymore. I have been friends and co-workers with illegals, I have worshiped with them, I have given them a place to live, I have treated them like individuals, not a group. I guess you did, what, put up a poster and sent $10 to somebody, and now are patting yourself on the back for it, while you cross to the other side of the street to avoid them. Seen way too many liberals in their gated communities and no face to face experience pontificate on this.

(07-02-2019 11:36 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 11:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 11:03 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 10:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  On the Facebook issue itself, any post that threatened physical violence to *any* sitting member of Congress should be dealt with by suspensions and/or termination.

That being said, many of the depictions of AOC, and the verbal insults, are absolutely and fundamentally protected speech, as abhorrent as they be. If they fall short of the threat threshold, they are protected. Period.


If such a Facebook page existed for, say, workers at the EPA or the Bureau of Indian Affairs that was as vociferous against McConnell, or Trump, I would have the exact same stance --- no matter how crude or vile any posts might be.

But, I think we all know where the protections of the 1st Amendment fall on many 'progressive important issues' scale.

So from an employment law standpoint, this protected free speech should not have any effect on their current job of working in these detention centers? Honest question... not arguing the point.

I am not such an employment law expert to render an opinion there.

I think a case could be made that if one who is charged with the enforcement of the laws *and* the subsequent safekeeping of those detained shows what might be an abdication of that duty, then they should not be in that position.

If a post refers solely to 'beaners' and 'wetbacks', that might not be a strong enough showing to show that they would be remiss in that duty. Vile, yes --- guaranteed to raise voices, yes -- and they actually might get fired.

But, that firing in the civil service might put some liability back onto the government; remember that the government as of last year cannot even restrict a trademark for the word 'Slants' for an all Asian band, since that is a viewpoint based restriction on something being 'disparaging' or not. When a government makes a 'viewpoint' based restriction, there are definitely 1st Amendment issues.

If it referred to 'it might just be easier to weigh them down and toss them back in the river', undoubtedly that would be a far better case to make; in fact that might even rise to the level of an explicit threat.

Quote:

Quote:And yes, perhaps the 'scapegoating' of all the left towards the 'jackboot' Border Patrol, not to mention the absolute huge verbal assault ICE undergoes from even state and local government officials does have an impact.

In some views of the deeply 'deplorable' the immigration laws actually mean something; to most of the left they are objects to be ignored, ripped down, and the officials who actually enforce the law (yes, its still the gd law, no matter what San Francisco or Austin says) are fundamentally told they are inhuman at many stretches -- I can see why a certain hard shell might be formed by those actually entrusted to enforce the law (again, that stupid phrase with zero meaning or import to a decent population of progressives, the 'law').

So for all the absolute horror that some of these posts take, perhaps those on the oh-so innocent left might actually take a long gd look at themselves and ask *themselves* that perhaps maybe, just maybe, that their attitudes towards these officers of the law (again, that stupid nonsensical word) just *might* have something to do with the callousness on exhibit to us today.

I don't dispute your point here. It still doesn't excuse this abhorrent behavior. Maybe the far right should take a gd look at themselves as well and ask *themselves* that perhaps maybe, just maybe, that their rhetoric towards these "illegal trespassers" just *might* have something to do with the callousness on exhibit to us today.

So we shouldnt refer to them as 'illegal trespassers'? Not 'illegal immigrants'? Then what the hell should we use to refer to them? The fundamental fact is that the vast, vast majority of them are breaking the law to enter and reside in this country. And many of them are perjuring themselves when blindly claiming asylum.

Good god. And it is *bad* to use 'illegal immigrants'. This is better (actually worse) than a Monty Python skit.

So actually asking that a law be actually enforced, instead of ignored, is callous rhetoric in your view?

If, when you state the far right as being *actual* ignoramuses who actually use the term 'mud people', no offense but I disavow every single one in that lot. If that is what you meant, nice try at another 'implied tying of the right to Nazi types'.

I was using "illegal trespassers" because it seems to be the term you guys prefer. I don't look at it as especially problematic and not sure why you are directing your post towards the use of this term.

Are you confused about the rhetoric coming from the administration? Or are you just being willfully obtuse? Perhaps you should google "Stephen Miller Trump administration".

I did google him,

Wikipedia Entry for Said Stephen Miller

Perhaps you wouldn't mind pointing out said 'rhetoric' that is so offensive to you here.

In fact here is another source, probably more in line with your biases. Again, point out the 'horrible rhetoric'.

Leftie viewpoint of Miller

Funny, in that last one all I see all over the gd place is 'anti-immigrant'. Funny that, they seem to have left off a very important adjective with that leftwards autonomic response. Can you tell me which adjective that might be, 93? Hint, it starts with the letters I-L-L. And it has a G in it.

Yeah '93, I get it. Anything Trump means racist in your book. Any 'policy' as it pertains to actually enforcing illegal immigration is a mortal sin. Tell us something we dont already know.

Anything that the Trump administration does, utters, or breathes is bathed in racism. Trust me '93, it is painfully obvious that that is your take on it.

(07-02-2019 11:36 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 11:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 11:03 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 10:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  On the Facebook issue itself, any post that threatened physical violence to *any* sitting member of Congress should be dealt with by suspensions and/or termination.

That being said, many of the depictions of AOC, and the verbal insults, are absolutely and fundamentally protected speech, as abhorrent as they be. If they fall short of the threat threshold, they are protected. Period.


If such a Facebook page existed for, say, workers at the EPA or the Bureau of Indian Affairs that was as vociferous against McConnell, or Trump, I would have the exact same stance --- no matter how crude or vile any posts might be.

But, I think we all know where the protections of the 1st Amendment fall on many 'progressive important issues' scale.

So from an employment law standpoint, this protected free speech should not have any effect on their current job of working in these detention centers? Honest question... not arguing the point.

I am not such an employment law expert to render an opinion there.

I think a case could be made that if one who is charged with the enforcement of the laws *and* the subsequent safekeeping of those detained shows what might be an abdication of that duty, then they should not be in that position.

If a post refers solely to 'beaners' and 'wetbacks', that might not be a strong enough showing to show that they would be remiss in that duty. Vile, yes --- guaranteed to raise voices, yes -- and they actually might get fired.

But, that firing in the civil service might put some liability back onto the government; remember that the government as of last year cannot even restrict a trademark for the word 'Slants' for an all Asian band, since that is a viewpoint based restriction on something being 'disparaging' or not. When a government makes a 'viewpoint' based restriction, there are definitely 1st Amendment issues.

If it referred to 'it might just be easier to weigh them down and toss them back in the river', undoubtedly that would be a far better case to make; in fact that might even rise to the level of an explicit threat.

Quote:

Quote:And yes, perhaps the 'scapegoating' of all the left towards the 'jackboot' Border Patrol, not to mention the absolute huge verbal assault ICE undergoes from even state and local government officials does have an impact.

In some views of the deeply 'deplorable' the immigration laws actually mean something; to most of the left they are objects to be ignored, ripped down, and the officials who actually enforce the law (yes, its still the gd law, no matter what San Francisco or Austin says) are fundamentally told they are inhuman at many stretches -- I can see why a certain hard shell might be formed by those actually entrusted to enforce the law (again, that stupid phrase with zero meaning or import to a decent population of progressives, the 'law').

So for all the absolute horror that some of these posts take, perhaps those on the oh-so innocent left might actually take a long gd look at themselves and ask *themselves* that perhaps maybe, just maybe, that their attitudes towards these officers of the law (again, that stupid nonsensical word) just *might* have something to do with the callousness on exhibit to us today.

I don't dispute your point here. It still doesn't excuse this abhorrent behavior. Maybe the far right should take a gd look at themselves as well and ask *themselves* that perhaps maybe, just maybe, that their rhetoric towards these "illegal trespassers" just *might* have something to do with the callousness on exhibit to us today.

So we shouldnt refer to them as 'illegal trespassers'? Not 'illegal immigrants'? Then what the hell should we use to refer to them? The fundamental fact is that the vast, vast majority of them are breaking the law to enter and reside in this country. And many of them are perjuring themselves when blindly claiming asylum.

Good god. And it is *bad* to use 'illegal immigrants'. This is better (actually worse) than a Monty Python skit.

So actually asking that a law be actually enforced, instead of ignored, is callous rhetoric in your view?

If, when you state the far right as being *actual* ignoramuses who actually use the term 'mud people', no offense but I disavow every single one in that lot. If that is what you meant, nice try at another 'implied tying of the right to Nazi types'.

I was using "illegal trespassers" because it seems to be the term you guys prefer. I don't look at it as especially problematic and not sure why you are directing your post towards the use of this term.

Are you confused about the rhetoric coming from the administration? Or are you just being willfully obtuse? Perhaps you should google "Stephen Miller Trump administration".

Here is the root important question 93: is actually asking that a law be actually enforced, instead of ignored, callous rhetoric in your view?

(07-02-2019 12:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Anything that the Trump administration does, utters, or breathes is bathed in racism. Trust me '93, it is painfully obvious that that is your take on it.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion based on my posts on the topic of this Propublica article. I would ask you to walk me through it but I have a feeling that you are ready to throw that accusation at all leftists.

(07-02-2019 12:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 12:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Anything that the Trump administration does, utters, or breathes is bathed in racism. Trust me '93, it is painfully obvious that that is your take on it.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion based on my posts on the topic of this Propublica article. I would ask you to walk me through it but I have a feeling that you are ready to throw that accusation at all leftists.

I will certainly give any self-admitted progressive the opportunity to show that that isnt their subjective default stance.

So here is the walk through, you know, the one you asked for *before* your all inclusive and all seemingly knowing end statement:

Based upon your calling out first of the 'far right' for their terrible rhetoric, then when pressed for specifics on such 'terrible rhetoric' your reply was "Google Stephen Miller trump administration", that is a small clue as to your stance.

And in that vein I sent two links. Could you point out the specific horrific rhetoric in those links I found through Google, as you requested? I mean, this rhetoric obviously rises to the level of your potential justification in using language that, while not explicitly calling an organization Nazis, so heavily alludes to it to be equivalent.

I truly look forward to some examples of rhetoric that rise to that level from the conservative ranks.

Am I incorrect and your viewpoint is that the Trump administration is not awash in racism? If so, I will take your word on it. And, I have actually met one progressive who thinks in that manner, so I am aware that that (pretty microscopic) subset exists, notwithstanding your statement above.

Art Del Cueto

This guy was just on TV. He said he estimates the people posting the offensive posts number about 20, and cautions that not everybody posting there is in the BP.

When that video becomes available I will post it.

(07-02-2019 12:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 12:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 12:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Anything that the Trump administration does, utters, or breathes is bathed in racism. Trust me '93, it is painfully obvious that that is your take on it.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion based on my posts on the topic of this Propublica article. I would ask you to walk me through it but I have a feeling that you are ready to throw that accusation at all leftists.

I will certainly give any self-admitted progressive the opportunity to show that that isnt their subjective default stance.

So here is the walk through, you know, the one you asked for *before* your all inclusive and all seemingly knowing end statement:

Based upon your calling out first of the 'far right' for their terrible rhetoric, then when pressed for specifics on such 'terrible rhetoric' your reply was "Google Stephen Miller trump administration", that is a small clue as to your stance.

And in that vein I sent two links. Could you point out the specific horrific rhetoric in those links I found through Google, as you requested? I mean, this rhetoric obviously rises to the level of your potential justification in using language that, while not explicitly calling an organization Nazis, so heavily alludes to it to be equivalent.

I truly look forward to some examples of rhetoric that rise to that level from the conservative ranks.

Am I incorrect and your viewpoint is that the Trump administration is not awash in racism? If so, I will take your word on it. And, I have actually met one progressive who thinks in that manner, so I am aware that that (pretty microscopic) subset exists, notwithstanding your statement above.

I'm at work... I'll do some research on Stephen Miller/Trump administration rhetoric later. Sounds like you think that Miller is simply following the laws on the books. No issue with him, then? Happy with the direction that he would like to lead the administration?

I personally don't think the Trump administration is awash in racism. I think Trump has tapped into the Nationalistic tendencies that have emerged worldwide and this has served him well politically.

(07-02-2019 01:28 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I think Trump has tapped into the Nationalistic tendencies that have emerged worldwide and this has served him well politically.

This comment is highly astute and highly understated at the same time.

(07-02-2019 12:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Art Del Cueto

This guy was just on TV. He said he estimates the people posting the offensive posts number about 20, and cautions that not everybody posting there is in the BP.

When that video becomes available I will post it.

Hopefully the Facebook group and the posts will be made public so that light is shed on this situation. I had no illusions that all members of the group were border agents. I wouldn't be surprised if less than half of the members are.

(07-02-2019 09:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 09:25 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Are you extrapolating that by referring to these detention centers as "concentration camps" that AOC is calling CBP agents "Nazi thugs"? That's a huge leap if so.

I guess you are unclear about the correlation between 'concentration camps' and Nazis. Perhaps a remedial history course is in order?

The position that there is no link between the two is either stunningly obtuse, or willingly evasive. The term was chosen precisely for that reason, and for the reason that it would always be chosen as the term of use. Dont pretend anything else. That would be an idiotic stance.

I guess you are unclear about the fact that the term "concentration camp" has been used to describe other, similar efforts.

Like the internment of Japanese people in the US at concentration camps during WWII... You're right that there is a very real, and immediate connection to Hitler's regime, but the Nazis were not the only group who used concentration camps to intern or hold mass amounts of people in less than tolerable conditions. So you're being either stunningly obtuse, or willingly evasive, to assume that concentration camps are ONLY associated with the Third Reich...

(07-02-2019 02:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 09:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 09:25 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Are you extrapolating that by referring to these detention centers as "concentration camps" that AOC is calling CBP agents "Nazi thugs"? That's a huge leap if so.

I guess you are unclear about the correlation between 'concentration camps' and Nazis. Perhaps a remedial history course is in order?

The position that there is no link between the two is either stunningly obtuse, or willingly evasive. The term was chosen precisely for that reason, and for the reason that it would always be chosen as the term of use. Dont pretend anything else. That would be an idiotic stance.

I guess you are unclear about the fact that the term "concentration camp" has been used to describe other, similar efforts.

Like the internment of Japanese people in the US at concentration camps during WWII... You're right that there is a very real, and immediate connection to Hitler's regime, but the Nazis were not the only group who used concentration camps to intern or hold mass amounts of people in less than tolerable conditions. So you're being either stunningly obtuse, or willingly evasive, to assume that concentration camps are ONLY associated with the Third Reich...

https://nypost.com/2019/06/18/aocs-lates...n-borders/

" Leaving no doubt that she was invoking the Nazi death camps, she noted that she was addressing people “concerned enough with humanity to say that . . . ‘Never Again’ means something.”