Politically charged altercations at Whataburger

[David Dennison 18892]

3 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

Is it not an incentive for them to come illegally?

I'm sure it is for some, but amending the constitution for the purpose of doing away with birthright citizenship is about as close as you can get to being politically impossible.

[jimmyjazz 45963]

5 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

Emma Lazarus wrote that for a fundraiser and you act like it is the law of the land.

It's on the Statue of Liberty, for fuck's sake.  It's kind of a national philosophy, or at least it was, until a few years ago.

[David Dennison 18892]

6 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

Emma Lazarus wrote that for a fundraiser and you act like it is the law of the land.

You act like it's not one of this nation's guiding principles.

[jimmyjazz 45963]

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

Meh, enough of the insults. If you feel there’s a genocide upon us, I suppose there’s not much I can say to convince you otherwise. 

I didn't use the word "genocide" you stupid fuck.  I don't even think I insulted you because being a toolbag (or a stupid fuck) is actually a step up for you.

Try to elevate your level of thought and actually consider things like sarcasm, metaphor, context, etc.  You know, what the adults do.

[F250 28777]

4 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

and on citizenship: why is american citizenship so sacrosanct? i've started wondering that. i may start a topic on that or pose the question on the DACA thread. 

That would be a good thread. Here is a very interesting read if you are interested. It discusses the question you are asking.

The Coming Anti-National Revolution

"The next such revolution, likely to occur in the 21st century, will challenge the economic implications of the nation state. It will focus on the injustice that follows from the fact that, entirely by chance, some are born in poor countries and others in rich countries. As more people work for multinational firms and get to know more people from other countries, our sense of justice is being affected."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/19/the-looming-anti-national-revolution

[RandomIdoit 655]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

i keep seeing welfare listed by people. i'm sure there are stats out there that compare the number of domestic citizens on some form of welfare to those illegals on some form of welfare.

Does the welfare program have unlimited money? No? Well let's add even more people to the welfare rolls.

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

and on citizenship: why is american citizenship so sacrosanct? i've started wondering that. i may start a topic on that or pose the question on the DACA thread. i love america. but i was a white kid who grew up in the dallas suburbs because i happened to be born to two american citizens who were successful people. i didn't do anything in particular to earn it.

Why is citizenship of any country sacrosanct? Our ancestors fought wars so that we could be our own country. Should we not be able to say who is worthy of citizenship or not if they were not born to people who are citizens? 

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

and of course we should provide medical care for children born here. 

Of course, but that shouldn't mean that they are automatically US citizens in my opinion. Make sure they are well taken care of, but then send them back with their parents if they are not granted asylum.

 

[David Dennison 18892]

2 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

Does the welfare program have unlimited money? No? Well let's add even more people to the welfare rolls.

Why is citizenship of any country sacrosanct? Our ancestors fought wars so that we could be our own country. Should we not be able to say who is worthy of citizenship or not if they were not born to people who are citizens? 

Of course, but that shouldn't mean that they are automatically US citizens in my opinion. Make sure they are well taken care of, but then send them back with their parents if they are not granted asylum.

 

Don't you think it might be better to focus on things that are politically viable?

[RandomIdoit 655]

14 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I'm sure it is for some, but amending the constitution for the purpose of doing away with birthright citizenship is about as close as you can get to being politically impossible.

Even the author of the clause, Jacob M. Howard said it was not intended to apply to non citizens.

During the debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, he argued for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof:"

[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.

Edited July 11, 2018 by RandomIdoit

[jimmyjazz 45963]

2 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

Should we not be able to say who is worthy of citizenship or not if they were not born to people who are citizens? 

Of course.  If you're born here, you're a citizen.  What you really meant to ask was "should we not be able to go against precedent and the 14th Amendment", to which the answer should be "NO".

[Steamboat1874 4067]

19 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i keep seeing welfare listed by people. i'm sure there are stats out there that compare the number of domestic citizens on some form of welfare to those illegals on some form of welfare.

and on citizenship: why is american citizenship so sacrosanct? i've started wondering that. i may start a topic on that or pose the question on the DACA thread. i love america. but i was a white kid who grew up in the dallas suburbs because i happened to be born to two american citizens who were successful people. i didn't do anything in particular to earn it.

and of course we should provide medical care for children born here. 

but once again, i return to the guest worker program. if we allow guest workers to come in, legally, get a worker card, work here with no issues for a year or two or three or whatever, then they can bring their family over. what's wrong with that? is that not the american fucking dream? if we had a sane immigration policy, it removes most or if not all of the negative illegal immigration. i feel like i'm taking crazy pills, the solution seems so easy. it's kind of like the drug war. oh, wait. maybe it's EXACTLY like the drug war in that we perpetuate a terrible policy for other reasons than those stated.

Please explain how an illegal can get welfare.

I am pretty sure that is a total bullshit argument created by the right.

If you sent them all home today the economy of the US would take a serious blow.

New home building would cease for sure.

[hayden_horn 11362]

9 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

Does the welfare program have unlimited money? No? Well let's add even more people to the welfare rolls.

Why is citizenship of any country sacrosanct? Our ancestors fought wars so that we could be our own country. Should we not be able to say who is worthy of citizenship or not if they were not born to people who are citizens? 

Of course, but that shouldn't mean that they are automatically US citizens in my opinion. Make sure they are well taken care of, but then send them back with their parents if they are not granted asylum.

 

point 1: are illegal immigrants or undocumented immigrants qualified to receive welfare? can you DEFINE what you mean by "welfare?"

point 2: that's a great question. why is it? you say our ancestors fought wars so we could be our own country. our own FREE country. to which we should welcome fellow travelers looking to be free. you think the guatemalan refugee walked all the way across mexico, with her child, uprooting everything they know, so they could be sent back to whatever dire situation drove them in the first place? or did they think that the united states represents a beacon on the hill - a hope for a better life for their kid? 

point 3: why not? 

[hayden_horn 11362]

17 minutes ago, F250 said:

That would be a good thread. Here is a very interesting read if you are interested. It discusses the question you are asking.

The Coming Anti-National Revolution

"The next such revolution, likely to occur in the 21st century, will challenge the economic implications of the nation state. It will focus on the injustice that follows from the fact that, entirely by chance, some are born in poor countries and others in rich countries. As more people work for multinational firms and get to know more people from other countries, our sense of justice is being affected."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/19/the-looming-anti-national-revolution

thanks, i'll look into this.

[Chrispy 132]

17 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I didn't use the word "genocide" you stupid fuck.  I don't even think I insulted you because being a toolbag (or a stupid fuck) is actually a step up for you.

Try to elevate your level of thought and actually consider things like sarcasm, metaphor, context, etc.  You know, what the adults do.

What you posted about the paramilitary happily carrying out “the order” is embarrassingly silly, I’m rather glad you’re backtracking. 

[David Dennison 18892]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

point 1: are illegal immigrants or undocumented immigrants qualified to receive welfare? can you DEFINE what you mean by "welfare?"

point 2: that's a great question. why is it? you say our ancestors fought wars so we could be our own country. our own FREE country. to which we should welcome fellow travelers looking to be free. you think the guatemalan refugee walked all the way across mexico, with her child, uprooting everything they know, so they could be sent back to whatever dire situation drove them in the first place? or did they think that the united states represents a beacon on the hill - a hope for a better life for their kid? 

point 3: why not? 

Sort of. There's always the unpleasantness of history.

Freeish?

[jimmyjazz 45963]

What you posted about the paramilitary happily carrying out “the order” is embarrassingly silly, I’m rather glad you’re backtracking. 

Again, "paramilitary" is shorthand for "those law enforcement or deputized law enforcement willing to do the dirty work".

If you don't think there are literally hundreds of thousands of Americans chomping at the bit to do that job, you are a fool.

Edited July 11, 2018 by jimmyjazz

[bad_teammate 13208]

If someone said, during the Hillary v. Trump debates, that Trump would order taking infants from their mothers and putting the infants in camps, the centrists here would've had the same "oh you crazy libs!" reactions then as they are having in this thread now.

And a couple of years from now, as the cruelty slowly ratchets up, they'll condescendingly chuckle at the suggestion of every new escalation.

Because if there's one thing it's easy to be, it's a moral coward.

[bad_teammate 13208]

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

What you posted about the paramilitary happily carrying out “the order” is embarrassingly silly, I’m rather glad you’re backtracking. 

How do genocides begin?

[Chrispy 132]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Again, "paramilitary" is shorthand for "those law enforcement or deputized law enforcement willing to do the dirty work".

If you don't think there are literally hundreds of thousands of Americans chomping at the bit to do that job, you are a fool.

The dirty work for what? We all know what you’re  insinuating, but watching you squirm is entertaining. 

[jimmyjazz 45963]

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

The dirty work for what? We all know what you’re  insinuating, but watching you squirm is entertaining. 

I'm not insinuating anything, and I'm definitely not squirming.  The "dirty work" is "shooting the browns on the orders of Donald J. Trump".  Is that clear?

[Chrispy 132]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How do genocides begin?

Jimmy is claiming he wasn’t referencing a genocide, which of course he was. 

[hayden_horn 11362]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How do genocides begin?

i'll answer because he won't. they begin first with establishing the "other." they take their first steps by thoroughly dehumanizing that "other." this starts with rhetoric like calling the "other" things like "animals," "criminals," or referencing insect or ratlike things like "infestation." then the next steps can take many forms, one of which might be, i dunno, taking the "others," separating them from their families, and shipping them to holding camps all over the nation without really even tracking where which separated family members end up. because they do not even deserve basic human consideration, because they are the "other."

keep in mind, there are people all up and down the chain of command who are enforcing this policy of family separation as their job, and they somehow sleep at night. these are the type of people for whom mission creep could easily move into more nefarious means, and ending up with lethality. for reference, take a look at any video of israeli soldiers shooting unarmed palestinians and laughing about it.

Edited July 11, 2018 by hayden_horn

[RandomIdoit 655]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

point 1: are illegal immigrants or undocumented immigrants qualified to receive welfare? can you DEFINE what you mean by "welfare?"

So I'm an illegal immigrant and I try to get food stamps. I will not qualify. Then I start having children here who are US citizens, and if I cannot afford to feed them and provide medical care, the burden falls on the state to provide medical care and food.

Just now, hayden_horn said:

point 2: that's a great question. why is it? you say our ancestors fought wars so we could be our own country. our own FREE country. to which we should welcome fellow travelers looking to be free. you think the guatemalan refugee walked all the way across mexico, with her child, uprooting everything they know, so they could be sent back to whatever dire situation drove them in the first place? or did they think that the united states represents a beacon on the hill - a hope for a better life for their kid? 

I think they walked all the way across Mexico to get the benefits that we will provide for them. Are the US and Canada the only "safe" places in all of the Americas?

Just now, hayden_horn said:

point 3: why not? 

Because we do not have unlimited money and we are not the world's welfare system. Some of you think that we SHOULD be but we aren't.

[Huckleberry 32889]

19 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

Why is citizenship of any country sacrosanct? Our ancestors fought wars so that we could be our own country. Should we not be able to say who is worthy of citizenship or not if they were not born to people who are citizens? 

Of course, but that shouldn't mean that they are automatically US citizens in my opinion. Make sure they are well taken care of, but then send them back with their parents if they are not granted asylum.

 

I have ancestors who fought for the United States in wars after jus soli became the law of the land. So do millions of other Americans. You understand that means that they fought for a nation where people who are born here are citizens, right?

And why are you only wanting to get rid of jus soli? Hell, I think we should get rid of jus sanguinis as well. We should require citizenship tests of every single American. If you don't pass then you lose your citizenship. If you can't claim citizenship in any other nation then you are forcibly relocated to Oklahoma, which under my plan would be a penal colony.

[David Dennison 18892]

But they are breaking the law!!!!!

 

[Chrispy 132]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not insinuating anything, and I'm definitely not squirming.  The "dirty work" is "shooting the browns on the orders of Donald J. Trump".  Is that clear?

Clear as mud, jimmy. 

[bad_teammate 13208]

There will not be a jump from child concentration camps to mass extermination. That's not even how the Nazis did it. It took them a decade-and-a-half to go from internment to extermination, and they're the archetype of purest evil in the Western world.

It's about allowances. The hardliners push a little further, the center gasps for a second then accepts it as the cost of doing business, and the whole enterprise moves forward for a while unchanged. Then the hardliners push again. The center gasps then accepts. and on we go --->

For those, like Chrispy and Anastasis, who think it is RIDICULOUS to believe that genocide could happen here, please articulate why.

What makes 21st century Americans fundamentally different from 20th century Germans or, hell, 19th century Americans?

If you can answer without smug ignorance, sarcasm, or sputtering that would be awesome.

The reality is that we are the exact same species of hairless ape we have been for tens of thousands of years. We have erected institutions and made technological progress, but the workings of our brains are essentially unchanged.

[David Dennison 18892]

1 minute ago, RandomIdoit said:

So I'm an illegal immigrant and I try to get food stamps. I will not qualify. Then I start having children here who are US citizens, and if I cannot afford to feed them and provide medical care, the burden falls on the state to provide medical care and food.

Yep. And there's not much you can do about it.

[jimmyjazz 45963]

2 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Clear as mud, jimmy. 

Pardon me for entertaining the troll.  Blow me.

[jimmyjazz 45963]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Yep. And there's not much you can do about it.

And it is quite literally a drop in the fiscal bucket, but BROWNS EATING OUR FOOD!!!

[hayden_horn 11362]

3 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

So I'm an illegal immigrant and I try to get food stamps. I will not qualify. Then I start having children here who are US citizens, and if I cannot afford to feed them and provide medical care, the burden falls on the state to provide medical care and food.

I think they walked all the way across Mexico to get the benefits that we will provide for them. Are the US and Canada the only "safe" places in all of the Americas?

Because we do not have unlimited money and we are not the world's welfare system. Some of you think that we SHOULD be but we aren't.

point 1: yes. as we should. those kids are us citizens, we should probably take care of them. we have posters, successful people, who grew up on public assistance. this is how the second and third immigrant generations turn into our engineers, attorneys, and doctors. this is how it should work. it would work even easier with an immigration policy that i outlined above, expediting things for all parties, including domestic employers.

point 2: that's horseshit, and i think you know it. they are 1) fleeing something and 2) seeking a better life for their children. most come here and work their asses off. 

point 3: no one said we should be the world's welfare system. you are very hung up on welfare. i think it's a bit.

[wildcat09 29355]

Just now, RandomIdoit said:

So I'm an illegal immigrant and I try to get food stamps. I will not qualify. Then I start having children here who are US citizens, and if I cannot afford to feed them and provide medical care, the burden falls on the state to provide medical care and food.

I think they walked all the way across Mexico to get the benefits that we will provide for them. Are the US and Canada the only "safe" places in all of the Americas?

Because we do not have unlimited money and we are not the world's welfare system. Some of you think that we SHOULD be but we aren't.

Illegal immigrants work much harder than white native-born Americans. They're not coming for a handout, they're coming for the same opportunity every previous generation of immigrants came for.  I'd gladly trade 95% of illegal immigrants that come in for the entire native-born white populations of Oklahoma, Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi. They're harder workers, are less likely to commit crimes, and have better food.

[RandomIdoit 655]

9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Illegal immigrants work much harder than white native-born Americans. They're not coming for a handout, they're coming for the same opportunity every previous generation of immigrants came for.  I'd gladly trade 95% of illegal immigrants that come in for the entire native-born white populations of Oklahoma, Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi. They're harder workers, are less likely to commit crimes, and have better food.

Do they get paid on how hard they work? They can work hard and still be a burden. They do have better food though.

Edited July 11, 2018 by RandomIdoit

[David Dennison 18892]

2 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

Do they get paid on how hard they work? They can work hard and still be a burden. They do have better food though.

Do you get this worked up about visa overstays?

[bad_teammate 13208]

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote about this already, because history rhymes.

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

1944 - The Anti-Semite and the Jew

Quote

If a man attributes all or part of his own misfortunes and  those of his country  to  the presence of  Jewish elements  in  the  community,  if  he  proposes  to  remedy  this  state  of  affairs  by  depriving  the  Jews  of  certain  of  their  rights,  by  keeping them out of certain economic and social activities, by expelling them from the country, by exterminating all of  them, we say that he has anti‐Semitic opinions.

This word opinion makes us stop and think.  It is the word  a  hostess  uses  to  bring  to  an  end  a  discussion  that  threatens  to  become  acrimonious.   It  suggests  that  all  points  of  view  are  equal;  it  reassures  us,  for  it  gives  an  inoffensive  appearance  to  ideas  by  reducing  them  to  the  level  of  tastes.   All  tastes  are  natural;  all  opinions  are  permitted.   Tastes,  colours,  and  opinions  are  not  open  to  discussion. In the name of democratic institutions, in  the  name  of  freedom  of  opinion,  the  anti‐Semite  asserts  the  right to preach the anti‐Jewish crusade everywhere. 

 

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

Hell is other people (wearing MAGA hats). 

[Chrispy 132]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

There will not be a jump from child concentration camps to mass extermination. That's not even how the Nazis did it. It took them a decade-and-a-half to go from internment to extermination, and they're the archetype of purest evil in the Western world.

It's about allowances. The hardliners push a little further, the center gasps for a second then accepts it as the cost of doing business, and the whole enterprise moves forward for a while unchanged. Then the hardliners push again. The center gasps then accepts. and on we go --->

For those, like Chrispy and Anastasis, who think it is RIDICULOUS to believe that genocide could happen here, please articulate why.

What makes 21st century Americans fundamentally different from 20th century Germans or, hell, 19th century Americans?

If you can answer without smug ignorance, sarcasm, or sputtering that would be awesome.

The reality is that we are the exact same species of hairless ape we have been for tens of thousands of years. We have erected institutions and made technological progress, but the workings of our brains are essentially unchanged.

I think it’s important to never say never and be mindful of our past. However, the advent of social media has created a world of hyper vigilance, to the degree that I believe a genocide would be extremely unlikely. 

We’re are most certainly the same ape, but we’re apes being watched incessantly. 

[F250 28777]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote about this already, because history rhymes.

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

1944 - The Anti-Semite and the Jew

 

That is freakishly accurate.

[Chrispy 132]

27 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Pardon me for entertaining the troll.  Blow me.

Discard me as a troll if you must I suppose, I know it’s easier than defending your original assertion.

[jimmyjazz 45963]

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

Discard me as a troll if you must I suppose, I know it’s easier than defending your original assertion.

Do tell, how did I fail to defend my original assertion?  Show your work, troll.  Jean-Paul Sartre is listening (from above).

[jimmyjazz 45963]

4 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I think it’s important to never say never and be mindful of our past. However, the advent of social media has created a world of hyper vigilance, to the degree that I believe a genocide would be extremely unlikely. 

We’re are most certainly the same ape, but we’re apes being watched incessantly. 

This argument completely falls apart in the light of the most glaringly obvious evidence:  the continued atrocities at the border.  Come on.

[RandomIdoit 655]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Do you get this worked up about visa overstays?

They are here illegally too. They should be deported too.

[hayden_horn 11362]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

This argument completely falls apart in the light of the most glaringly obvious evidence:  the continued atrocities at the border.  Come on.

and the willingness of the ice employees to continue to act in such a manner. i couldn't live with myself. somehow they seem to be able to do so, and that scares the fuck out of me

[Chrispy 132]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Do tell, how did I fail to defend my original assertion?  Show your work, troll.  Jean-Paul Sartre is listening (from above).

You made clear what you were alluding to with your paramilitary nonsense, but I’m not going to twist your arm into defending that lunacy. 

[David Dennison 18892]

8 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

They are here illegally too. They should be deported too.

How?

[jimmyjazz 45963]

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

You made clear what you were alluding to with your paramilitary nonsense, but I’m not going to twist your arm into defending that lunacy. 

OK, got it.  So my assertion that there is no indication that factions of law enforcement would be willing to shoot those crossing the border is "lunacy".  Got it.  It's interesting that you have actually zero inclination to debate the point, because, of course, you can't.  You know it's true.

Thanks for enabling the downfall of our country.

[Chrispy 132]

12 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

This argument completely falls apart in the light of the most glaringly obvious evidence:  the continued atrocities at the border.  Come on.

I don’t believe so. The media has reporters and cameras parked outside every one of these facilities, not to mention the politicians and protestors. Social media has proved to be a effective tool, even if I don’t agree with its tactics. 

[wildcat09 29355]

5 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

and the willingness of the ice employees to continue to act in such a manner. i couldn't live with myself. somehow they seem to be able to do so, and that scares the fuck out of me

Not only are they able to do so, we've seen substantial evidence that plenty of them are extremely excited about the opportunity to be inhumane to others.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

49 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Illegal immigrants work much harder than white native-born Americans. They're not coming for a handout, they're coming for the same opportunity every previous generation of immigrants came for.  I'd gladly trade 95% of illegal immigrants that come in for the entire native-born white populations of Oklahoma, Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi. They're harder workers, are less likely to commit crimes, and have better food.

Not the native-born blacks though.  Just the whites, right?

[Huckleberry 32889]

Aww, poor Johnny. People are judging him because of the color of his skin. Must be terrible.

[David Dennison 18892]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Not the native-born blacks though.  Just the whites, right?

Correct. White people are terrible.