Why is the Right so Afraid of the Left?

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Half of Appalachia and the cracker deep south is on disability, but they have convinced themselves that it ain't no welfare so they've earned it. And they don't vote Dem. 

My opinion on the issue disregards race.

 

Eligibility as it stands, is fine in my book.

 

There just needs to be better controls and limits.

 

With regard to the thread/ topic, these folks will vote in longer timeframes/ higher benefits.

[Spankytoes 1748]

15 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Trans-women most certainly cannot use Planned Parenthood for abortion. It's literally impossible.

Apparently, sarcasm has ceased to exist.

[David Dennison 19441]

Just now, RandomIdoit said:

Just to clarify, you don't think there is no issues with people being in the US illegally?

I don't think there is an enforcement issue, no.

[Lucid 3]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Why is the Right so Afraid of the Left?

Uncle Ted was hardly a rightist but he can answer this question:

"Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative,” “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs.

...

Leftism is a totalitarian force. Wherever leftism is in a position of power it tends to invade every private corner and force every thought into a leftist mold. In part this is because of the quasi-religious character of leftism; everything contrary to leftist beliefs represents Sin. More importantly, leftism is a totalitarian force because of the leftists’ drive for power. The leftist seeks to satisfy his need for power through identification with a social movement and he tries to go through the power process by helping to pursue and attain the goals of the movement (see paragraph 83). But no matter how far the movement has gone in attaining its goals the leftist is never satisfied, because his activism is a surrogate activity (see paragraph 41). That is, the leftist’s real motive is not to attain the ostensible goals of leftism; in reality he is motivated by the sense of power he gets from struggling for and then reaching a social goal. [35] Consequently the leftist is never satisfied with the goals he has already attained; his need for the power process leads him always to pursue some new goal. The leftist wants equal opportunities for minorities. When that is attained he insists on statistical equality of achievement by minorities. And as long as anyone harbors in some corner of his mind a negative attitude toward some minority, the leftist has to re-educated him. And ethnic minorities are not enough; no one can be allowed to have a negative attitude toward homosexuals, disabled people, fat people, old people, ugly people, and on and on and on. It’s not enough that the public should be informed about the hazards of smoking; a warning has to be stamped on every package of cigarettes. Then cigarette advertising has to be restricted if not banned. The activists will never be satisfied until tobacco is outlawed, and after that it will be alcohol, then junk food, etc. Activists have fought gross child abuse, which is reasonable. But now they want to stop all spanking. When they have done that they will want to ban something else they consider unwholesome, then another thing and then another. They will never be satisfied until they have complete control over all child rearing practices. And then they will move on to another cause.

Suppose you asked leftists to make a list of ALL the things that were wrong with society, and then suppose you instituted EVERY social change that they demanded. It is safe to say that within a couple of years the majority of leftists would find something new to complain about, some new social “evil” to correct because, once again, the leftist is motivated less by distress at society’s ills than by the need to satisfy his drive for power by imposing his solutions on society."

[seven 1368]

So spanky has walked back all the government stuff, looks like his main beef is he's not allowed to hit trans-women? 

Uh, ok

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

1 minute ago, Lucid said:

Uncle Ted was hardly a rightist but he can answer this question:

"Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative,” “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs.

...

Leftism is a totalitarian force. Wherever leftism is in a position of power it tends to invade every private corner and force every thought into a leftist mold. In part this is because of the quasi-religious character of leftism; everything contrary to leftist beliefs represents Sin. More importantly, leftism is a totalitarian force because of the leftists’ drive for power. The leftist seeks to satisfy his need for power through identification with a social movement and he tries to go through the power process by helping to pursue and attain the goals of the movement (see paragraph 83). But no matter how far the movement has gone in attaining its goals the leftist is never satisfied, because his activism is a surrogate activity (see paragraph 41). That is, the leftist’s real motive is not to attain the ostensible goals of leftism; in reality he is motivated by the sense of power he gets from struggling for and then reaching a social goal. [35] Consequently the leftist is never satisfied with the goals he has already attained; his need for the power process leads him always to pursue some new goal. The leftist wants equal opportunities for minorities. When that is attained he insists on statistical equality of achievement by minorities. And as long as anyone harbors in some corner of his mind a negative attitude toward some minority, the leftist has to re-educated him. And ethnic minorities are not enough; no one can be allowed to have a negative attitude toward homosexuals, disabled people, fat people, old people, ugly people, and on and on and on. It’s not enough that the public should be informed about the hazards of smoking; a warning has to be stamped on every package of cigarettes. Then cigarette advertising has to be restricted if not banned. The activists will never be satisfied until tobacco is outlawed, and after that it will be alcohol, then junk food, etc. Activists have fought gross child abuse, which is reasonable. But now they want to stop all spanking. When they have done that they will want to ban something else they consider unwholesome, then another thing and then another. They will never be satisfied until they have complete control over all child rearing practices. And then they will move on to another cause.

Suppose you asked leftists to make a list of ALL the things that were wrong with society, and then suppose you instituted EVERY social change that they demanded. It is safe to say that within a couple of years the majority of leftists would find something new to complain about, some new social “evil” to correct because, once again, the leftist is motivated less by distress at society’s ills than by the need to satisfy his drive for power by imposing his solutions on society."

You talking about chickenhawk Uncle Ted Nugent?

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I don't think there is an enforcement issue, no.

you're being willfully ignorant/ stupid.

 

I posted the laws/ parameters.  In no way are they being enforced completely or within a smidgen of reasonable expectation, lest someone be labeled a racist.

 

The very fact that you will not acknowledge the issue is a concern.  Not a fear, but a duly noted characteristic that the left doesn't think the law even matters with regard to immigration.

Edited July 3, 2018 by slorch

[Johnny Sack 8397]

I’m not afraid of the left. I can maneuver my finances.  My kids and grandkids will be fine regardless.   But I will state my opinion   

I think the left incentivizes bad choices.  I think the left embraces victimhood and promises that the government will fix it.  It won’t. It can’t.  And the left has no incentive to really help blacks and browns.  They need to keep them down so they can harvest votes.  I think the left promises if they could just tax the ultra rich then they could pay for all the freebies.  But that isn’t right.  They have to reach down into the $60k a year family to pay for their shit.  

We will see.  I’m not brisket level crying into my pillow every night.  But I’m not optimistic.  When I was younger, we had rational Democrats.  Those are gone.  Bernie Sanders is a socialist.  And is the party darling. 

[Spankytoes 1748]

22 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Because when the dirty liberal cabal gets in charge of gov't, they mandate benefits that aren't specific to gender.  Like here in NY.  Whatever your Texas employer decided to do was up to them, and not the liberal cabal.  Sounds like your real beef is with your former employer.  The liberal state of NY would have looked out for you and your wife as equals.  And looks out for transgendered people as equals as well.

But I want the dirty liberals in charge...

I’m not sure why it’s so hard to buy that I don’t alter boy the holy Liberal cock on every issue yet identify with the vast majority of their social agenda. Where I lean Right is that I don’t want to pay for it because it’s a living document with too many flowcharts.

[David Dennison 19441]

4 minutes ago, slorch said:

you're being willfully ignorant/ stupid.

I posted the laws/ parameters.  In no way are they being enforced completely or within a smidgen of reasonable expectation, lest someone be labeled a racist.

I don't agree with you.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

I think you have me confused with someone else. But, to answer your question:

Tommy has $10. Joe steals $3 from Tommy. Marcus wants $8. In order to pay Marcus, Tommy has to borrow from Sam. Not just the $1, but enough to ensure he doesn’t go broke before giving away all his money because Sally will want $ too.

The janitor matters. If Joe earned the money the right way, Tommy would be better prepared to pay Marcus and Sally. Since he stole, Sally is shit out of luck.

Damn bro.  I know quite a lot of wall street guys and none of them are as a big a dick as you.   A janitor is hired to work.  He isn't stealing.  I'm sure you don't clean the toilets at work yourself.  And guess what, the people that do aren't slaves either.  They make money to clean your bathrooms.  And they keep doing it for a fraction of what you make even though you piss all over the seat and wall.  Joe didn't steal anything.  Tommy paid Joe $3 to do a specific task.  Joe did that task and he was paid for doing it.  Tommy's later business dealings or failings are irrelevant.

So the janitor is doing a job that I hired him to do regardless of his legal status.  He isn't stealing from me.  Nor does the janitor's legal status affect my hiring decisions when I am looking to hire a CFO.  And if we are going to take this stupid analogy to the end, hiring an illegal janitor is probably cheaper than hiring an American one.  So in this case, the illegal janitor actually frees up more money for me to have a competitive compensation package for the CFO.  Now when I am ready to hire a Chief Counsel, that's the one who tells me I need to try to fix the janitor's status.

[David Dennison 19441]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I’m not afraid of the left. I can maneuver my finances.  My kids and grandkids will be fine regardless.   But I will state my opinion   

I think the left incentivizes bad choices.  I think the left embraces victimhood and promises that the government will fix it.  It won’t. It can’t.  And the left has no incentive to really help blacks and browns.  They need to keep them down so they can harvest votes.  I think the left promises if they could just tax the ultra rich then they could pay for all the freebies.  But that isn’t right.  They have to reach down into the $60k a year family to pay for their shit.  

We will see.  I’m not brisket level crying into my pillow every night.  But I’m not optimistic.  When I was younger, we had rational Democrats.  Those are gone.  Bernie Sanders is a socialist.  And is the party darling. 

Everything you said about the left, I believe about the right. 

The right loves the government when it serves their interests.

Edited July 3, 2018 by David Dennison

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I don't agree with you.

that's fair, i guess, but i could find 20 people here illegally before 8AM tomorrow, and that is if I started at 7AM.

 

Our immigration laws are not being enforced.

 

The thread asks why righties are "scared."  the fact that you don't recognize the impropriety is a huge factor why.

Edited July 3, 2018 by slorch

[David Dennison 19441]

1 minute ago, slorch said:

that's fair, i guess, but i could find 20 people here illegally before 8AM tomorrow, and that is if I started at 7AM.

 

Our immigration laws are not being enforced.

 

The thread asks why righties are "scared."  the fact that you don't recognize the impropriety is a huge factor why.

How do you propose enforcing the law for 11 million illegal immigrants?

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 minutes ago, slorch said:

that's fair, i guess, but i could find 20 people here illegally before 8AM tomorrow, and that is if I started at 7AM.

 

Our immigration laws are not being enforced.

 

The thread asks why righties are "scared."  the fact that you don't recognize the impropriety is a huge factor why.

So turn them in then.

[hobbes2702 13353]

16 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

I believe you know the answer: Donald

Ok, spring it on me

So you actively voted against your own interests?

[RandomIdoit 739]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

How do you propose enforcing the law for 11 million illegal immigrants?

One of the first things that needs to happen is getting rid of sanctuary cities.

[David Dennison 19441]

Just now, RandomIdoit said:

One of the first things that needs to happen is getting rid of sanctuary cities.

How do you propose enforcing the law in those cities?

[staboner 5067]

here i was thinking this might be an interesting thread

haha not. its retarded. happy monday assholes

[Spankytoes 1748]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

Damn bro.  I know quite a lot of wall street guys and none of them are as a big a dick as you.   A janitor is hired to work.  He isn't stealing.  I'm sure you don't clean the toilets at work yourself.  And guess what, the people that do aren't slaves either.  They make money to clean your bathrooms.  And they keep doing it for a fraction of what you make even though you piss all over the seat and wall.  Joe didn't steal anything.  Tommy paid Joe $3 to do a specific task.  Joe did that task and he was paid for doing it.  Tommy's later business dealings or failings are irrelevant.

So the janitor is doing a job that I hired him to do regardless of his legal status.  He isn't stealing from me.  Nor does the janitor's legal status affect my hiring decisions when I am looking to hire a CFO.  And if we are going to take this stupid analogy to the end, hiring an illegal janitor is probably cheaper than hiring an American one.  So in this case, the illegal janitor actually frees up more money for me to have a competitive compensation package for the CFO.  Now when I am ready to hire a Chief Counsel, that's the one who tells me I need to try to fix the janitor's status.

Yep, you definitely have me confused with someone else. Sales team to Wall Street? Moving on up in the world!

All of it is irrelevant. There should have never been a “Joe” to take anything, earned or stolen. All he did is make it more difficult for Marcus and Sally to earn a living. Getting away from the analogy, it costs us a shitload to fund illegal immigration. Denying it is rationalizing why it’s ok to steal from Walmart without giving credence to the fact that Walmart doesn’t deserve to take a loss just because it can absorb it better than a mom and pops store. And we’re not talking about illegally downloading a song here. We’re losing OEM Windows software. Altruistic benefits don’t mean shit. When your Social Security fund is depleted, and you need help as an elder, letting Joe have a job won’t seem nearly as charitable. 

[David Dennison 19441]

Just now, Spankytoes said:

Yep, you definitely have me confused with someone else. Sales team to Wall Street? Moving on up in the world!

All of it is irrelevant. There should have never been a “Joe” to take anything, earned or stolen. All he did is make it more difficult for Marcus and Sally to earn a living. Getting away from the analogy, it costs us a shitload to fund illegal immigration. Denying it is rationalizing why it’s ok to steal from Walmart without giving credence to the fact that Walmart doesn’t deserve to take a loss just because it can absorb it better than a mom and pops store. And we’re not talking about illegally downloading a song here. We’re losing OEM Windows software. Altruistic benefits don’t mean shit. When your Social Security fund is depleted, and you need help as an elder, letting Joe have a job won’t seem nearly as charitable. 

How much does it cost?

[Spankytoes 1748]

2 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

So you actively voted against your own interests?

I voted with the shitty choices I was provided, Party be damned.

[Spankytoes 1748]

Just now, David Dennison said:

How much does it cost?

Less than the cost to Google the info, if you’re really interested in the answer. (Which you’re not) It’s 2:30 AM and have to get up in a few hours to go to the airport. Until tomorrow...

[hobbes2702 13353]

Just now, Spankytoes said:

I voted with the shitty choices I was provided, Party be damned.

Right. And you voted for the choice that is literally against things that you claim to support.

[RandomIdoit 739]

Just now, David Dennison said:

How do you propose enforcing the law in those cities?

Have the full cooperation of law enforcement instead of people tipping illegals off that they are coming for them. Not supplying illegals with drivers licenses. That would be a good start.

[David Dennison 19441]

Just now, RandomIdoit said:

Have the full cooperation of law enforcement instead of people tipping illegals off that they are coming for them. Not supplying illegals with drivers licenses. That would be a good start.

How many states allow illegal immigrants to get driver licenses?

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

How do you propose enforcing the law in those cities?

I guess they could send the military door to door.  I think many of the knee-jerk conservatives don't really understand why sanctuary cities are sanctuary cities.

You know when you were in college, and you and your friends were drinking.  Your ages ran from 18 to 22ish.  Do you recall ever being turned in by one of your friends for underage drinking?  Did you ever turn in one of your friends for it?  Of course not.

Now all they need to do is apply that same logic to sanctuary cities.  Even Johnny Sack has an illegal yard guy.  The rest of us have actual friends that are immigrants of varying statuses.  We don't ask about it, just like we don't ask if a friend's friend coming over to our college house party is over 21.  For sure though, we want our friends to be welcome in our city, and we want our friend's friend to have a good time at our house party.

[hobbes2702 13353]

Just now, RandomIdoit said:

Have the full cooperation of law enforcement instead of people tipping illegals off that they are coming for them. Not supplying illegals with drivers licenses. That would be a good start.

Local law enforcement are not immigration officers. They exist to keep their local community safe. Local law enforcements believe sanctuary cities make them safer not the opposite. 

[Lucid 3]

19 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

You talking about chickenhawk Uncle Ted Nugent?

Uncle Ted Kaczynski

[David Dennison 19441]

3 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

Less than the cost to Google the info, if you’re really interested in the answer. (Which you’re not) It’s 2:30 AM and have to get up in a few hours to go to the airport. Until tomorrow...

So, not that much. Cool.

[RandomIdoit 739]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

How many states allow illegal immigrants to get driver licenses?

California. That is one too many. I saw an article that said they have issued one million drivers licenses to illegals. 

[David Dennison 19441]

3 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

California. That is one too many. I saw an article that said they have issued one million drivers licenses to illegals. 

That's up to California. 

There are eleven others and the District of Columbia.

 

 

Edited July 3, 2018 by David Dennison

[Johnny Sack 8397]

15 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Everything you said about the left, I believe about the right. 

The right loves the government when it serves their interests.

I’d like a whole lot less government.  In all aspects.  Even if it’s something that doesn’t serve my interests.  I don’t think the government is the solution. I think it’s the problem.  Especially centralized government.  If California wants to have big government, I don’t give a shit. I have property out there.  But it doesn’t make that much difference to me.  I wish liberals would extend the same courtesy.  

I’d prefer to have 50 different laboratories and let people vote with their feet.  

[hobbes2702 13353]

3 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

California. That is one too many. I saw an article that said they have issued one million drivers licenses to illegals. 

I guess the better idea is for them to drive cars without knowing how...

[David Dennison 19441]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

I’d like a whole lot less government.  In all aspects.  Even if it’s something that doesn’t serve my interests.  I don’t think the government is the solution. I think it’s the problem.  Especially centralized government.  If California wants to have big government, I don’t give a shit. I have property out there.  But it doesn’t make that much difference to me.  I wish liberals would extend the same courtesy.  

I’d prefer to have 50 different laboratories and let people vote with their feet.  

So Texas, Arizona, California, and New Mexico should decide how to handle immigration on their southern borders?

[FondrenRoad 4378]

20 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

Yep, you definitely have me confused with someone else. Sales team to Wall Street? Moving on up in the world!

All of it is irrelevant. There should have never been a “Joe” to take anything, earned or stolen. All he did is make it more difficult for Marcus and Sally to earn a living. Getting away from the analogy, it costs us a shitload to fund illegal immigration. Denying it is rationalizing why it’s ok to steal from Walmart without giving credence to the fact that Walmart doesn’t deserve to take a loss just because it can absorb it better than a mom and pops store. And we’re not talking about illegally downloading a song here. We’re losing OEM Windows software. Altruistic benefits don’t mean shit. When your Social Security fund is depleted, and you need help as an elder, letting Joe have a job won’t seem nearly as charitable. 

You brought up the janitor/CFO comparison.  You then compared the janitor to a guy who steals money or to charity.  I'm not "letting" Joe do anything.  I'm not doing Joe a favor nor am I doing anything charitable for Joe.  I need my bathrooms cleaned.  I need my trash emptied.  I need my floors vacuumed.  I hire and pay Joe to do that.  I didn't even know Joe at first.  I interviewed a bunch of potential janitors because I needed a fucking janitor.   No Americans even answered my help wanted ad. Early on, maybe I did that work myself to save money, but now I work 80 hours a week, and when I'm client facing, I bring in $1000 an hour for my company.  So when I'm cleaning my own bathroom, I am losing money.  

In fact, the same logic goes into every early hire at a young company, including CFO. 

True though that I don't know what you do for work. Ignore that part, and my apologies for the assumption.

Edited July 3, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[RandomIdoit 739]

5 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Local law enforcement are not immigration officers. They exist to keep their local community safe. Local law enforcements believe sanctuary cities make them safer not the opposite. 

They are not immigration officers but they should still arrest people who have entered the United States illegally. Illegal immigrants have committed an offense punishable by up to 6 months in prison for the first offense and up to 2 years for every subsequent offense. The police's job should be to take the offender into custody and allow a judge to determine what the penalty shall be. 

[SaucyJack 3517]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

amnesty is also about whether we recognize the sovereignty of our nation.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

18 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I’d like a whole lot less government.  In all aspects.  Even if it’s something that doesn’t serve my interests.  I don’t think the government is the solution. I think it’s the problem.  Especially centralized government.  If California wants to have big government, I don’t give a shit. I have property out there.  But it doesn’t make that much difference to me.  I wish liberals would extend the same courtesy.  

I’d prefer to have 50 different laboratories and let people vote with their feet.  

I'm actually a states' rights guy.  The problem is that we are free to travel among the states.  We can't have "laboratories" because we can't have control.  Any experiment that starts to look good will be overrun by residents of states with bad experiments.  Its why the deep south hasn't had appreciable population change since practically the civil war.  Meanwhile CA and the East Coast hit capacity, and TX is growing.  You believe that TX growth is an aberration when compared to the Northeast or CA but it isn't.  TX is completely open for business for immigrants in spite of its choice of rhetoric and politicians, and that is the same thing that filled up CA and the Northeast.

What you actually want is more of an EU arrangement.  I'd be happy with that too.  I want you to try and fail with a Christian Sharia state, but I would want a checkpoint between us when you do.  You're also going to have to move 3 states East to try it.

Edited July 3, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[hobbes2702 13353]

24 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

They are not immigration officers but they should still arrest people who have entered the United States illegally. Illegal immigrants have committed an offense punishable by up to 6 months in prison for the first offense and up to 2 years for every subsequent offense. The police's job should be to take the offender into custody and allow a judge to determine what the penalty shall be. 

Except that is literally not their job. Immigration enforcement should in no way be the responsibility or the priority of local law enforcement. That’s asinine 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

57 minutes ago, slorch said:

that's fair, i guess, but i could find 20 people here illegally before 8AM tomorrow, and that is if I started at 7AM.

 

Our immigration laws are not being enforced.

 

The thread asks why righties are "scared."  the fact that you don't recognize the impropriety is a huge factor why.

I one sentenced this before, but I'll give you a real answer.  Our immigration laws are not enforced because you don't want them to be enforced.

I believe you when you say you could find 20 illegal immigrants in an hour.  Yet you haven't turned them in.  You could have, and ICE would come, and they would run, or be deported, even under Obama, but you didn't.  So why didn't you?  You didn't because you didn't want to bring harm to those individuals you saw.  They looked like hardworking guys, right?  I mean they were out there looking for work at 7 am.  Are Americans doing that?

ICE really has only one enforcement issue and that is the US citizen.  They can't accidentally dragnet a US citizen without serious repercussions, so they can't just round up your local Home Depot because, for sure, some of those guys are citizens even if most probably aren't.  And keep in mind, that you go around every day without carrying proof of citizenship with you.  You'd have a fucking fit if ICE held you for a week while bureaucrats dug up your TX birth certificate.  And if you aren't racist, you shouldn't want Latino US citizens going through that either.

As far as enforcement of other laws goes, you see speeding all the time and have never called the police for it.  You may have seen a kid shoplifting and all you did is tell him to give what he stole back.  But if you see a robbery, do you call the police?  Sure you do.  A murder?  Absolutely.  So while you complain about enforcement, you're actually the reason why enforcement is difficult.  You consider illegal immigration only a minor infraction.

Edited July 3, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[FondrenRoad 4378]

4 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Except that is literally not their job. Immigration enforcement should in no way be the responsibility or the priority of local law enforcement. That’s asinine 

And this.  Although I have no issue with local LEOs checking for existing deportation orders and transferring custody.  In no way should they hold anyone with no record while awaiting proof of citizenship.

[hobbes2702 13353]

Just now, FondrenRoad said:

And this.  Although I have no issue with local LEOs checking for existing deportation orders and transferring custody.  In no way should they hold anyone with no record while awaiting proof of citizenship.

Exactly. Check for existing orders. Otherwise this fucking “papers please” nonsense is ridiculous 

[orangeut 215]

31 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

31 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

.  Its why the deep south hasn't had appreciable population change since practically the civil war.  Meanwhile CA and the East Coast hit capacity, and TX is growing.  You believe that TX growth is an aberration when compared to the Northeast or CA but it in't

 

I hate to say it but you don't have a clue about what you are talking about.   Since just 2000-2014, Texas has grown 29.3%, Florida--24.5%, Georgia--23.3%, North Carolina--23.6%, Virginia--17.6%,, Tennessee--15.1%, Maryland--12.6%, South Carolina--@20.6%, Kentucky--9.2%, Arkansas--11.0%, Alabama--9.0%, Mississippi--5.3%, Louisiana--4.0% and West Virginia--2.3% according to World Almanac 2016.   What other statements have you made on this thread that are inaccurate or incorrect?  The deep south, excluding Mississippi, Louisiana (including Katrina) and West Virginia, is one of the fastest growing regions in the US, if not the fastest.   Please, before you make blanket statements like this, have your facts right. 

Edited July 3, 2018 by orangeut

[FondrenRoad 4378]

4 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Exactly. Check for existing orders. Otherwise this fucking “papers please” nonsense is ridiculous 

Not only that, it gives LEOs a free pass for unlawful detention.  All they would have to do is "assume" that the person is illegal, and they can detain him until its proven otherwise.  They can use this against the clearly African American guy they picked up for "loitering."  They can use it against a white guy who got a PI on 6th street too, but they wouldn't because that white guy and his dad would raise a shitstorm.  So like all the other assumptions we allow LEOs to make, they'll abuse this one to fuck with minorities too.

[RandomIdoit 739]

17 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Except that is literally not their job. Immigration enforcement should in no way be the responsibility or the priority of local law enforcement. That’s asinine 

Texas Senate Bill 4 disagrees with you.

[Grippe 323]

What a stupid fucking (bias ridden) thread. The only thing stupider are fellow conservative shagsters who take the bait and respond to this drivel.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

12 minutes ago, orangeut said:

I hate to say it but you don't have a clue about what you are talking about.   Since just 2000-2014, Texas has grown 29.3%, Florida--24.5%, Georgia--23.3%, North Carolina--23.6%, Virginia--17.6%,, Tennessee--15.1%, Maryland--12.6%, South Carolina--@20.6%, Kentucky--9.2%, Arkansas--11.0%, Alabama--9.0%, Mississippi--5.3%, Louisiana--4.0% and West Virginia--2.3% according to World Almanac 2016.   What other statements have you made on this thread that are inaccurate or incorrect?  The deep south, excluding Mississippi, Louisiana (including Katrina) and West Virginia, is one of the fastest growing regions in the US, if not the fastest.   Please, before you make blanket statements like this, have your facts right. 

I hate to say it to you, but you don't have a clue.  Most of those states are not the Deep South.  The Deep South is Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina.  Only Georgia has seen immigration.  The rest grow based on birth rate and usually even lag that statistic.

And really.  First, you included West Virginia in the Deep South.  A state that only exists because several counties in Virginia didn't want to secede from the union.   It isn't even the South at all.   A bunch of Appalachia and Piedmont.  And then you include Texas, which is just Texas, a region into itself.  And Florida is pretty much its own thing too.  Both Texas and Florida have tiny parts which are part of the Deep South, but neither are Deep South states.

The sad thing is that you don't realize you're better than the Deep South.  You are, yet they hang onto you like an anchor.  Even Georgia wants to escape and they are actually in the Deep South.

Edited July 3, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I one sentenced this before, but I'll give you a real answer.  Our immigration laws are not enforced because you don't want them to be enforced.

I believe you when you say you could find 20 illegal immigrants in an hour.  Yet you haven't turned them in.  You could have, and ICE would come, and they would run, or be deported, even under Obama, but you didn't.  So why didn't you?  You didn't because you didn't want to bring harm to those individuals you saw.  They looked like hardworking guys, right?  I mean they were out there looking for work at 7 am.  Are Americans doing that?

ICE really has only one enforcement issue and that is the US citizen.  They can't accidentally dragnet a US citizen without serious repercussions, so they can't just round up your local Home Depot because, for sure, some of those guys are citizens even if most probably aren't.  And keep in mind, that you go around every day without carrying proof of citizenship with you.  You'd have a fucking fit if ICE held you for a week while bureaucrats dug up your TX birth certificate.  And if you aren't racist, you shouldn't want Latino US citizens going through that either.

As far as enforcement of other laws goes, you see speeding all the time and have never called the police for it.  You may have seen a kid shoplifting and all you did is tell him to give what he stole back.  But if you see a robbery, do you call the police?  Sure you do.  A murder?  Absolutely.  So while you complain about enforcement, you're actually the reason why enforcement is difficult.  You consider illegal immigration only a minor infraction.

You're right.  ICE doesn't know where Home Depot is...

[hobbes2702 13353]

5 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

Texas Senate Bill 4 disagrees with you.

We will see if that stands up at the Supreme Court.

You realize you are advocating that local officers can detain you to determine your immigration status right? That’s what this bill allows for.