.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Asheron
-
Posts
1,185 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by Asheron
-
-
Coming: Fear and Loathing in Cleveland
It's gonna be a sight to see...
The left has always been quite.... "ehrm"... clever with their propaganda posters:
How does anti Semitic NAZI propaganda get past moderation? Unbelievably bad taste and not relevant to anything here......
Of course it's relevant as it's the same style of drawings of Trump and his supporters, only difference is target group.
And to all the shortbus students on this forum: no i do not like nazism one bit just because i posted the link. Reason why i have say this is because of the cognitive dissonance for some on this forum.
-
Coming: Fear and Loathing in Cleveland
It's gonna be a sight to see...
The left has always been quite.... "ehrm"... clever with their propaganda posters:
Please ignore that troll post and don't bother clicking on the link.
Of course you will anyway ...
It will take you to a google image search for "Nazi Jew propaganda." Sick sick sick. This character Asheron suggests that's leftist. Aside from being totally off topic. Shame on you, Asheron, shame on you.
Not sure why it took me so long, but welcome to my ignore list and suggest others do the same.
Speaking of SUPER TROLLS and totally ON topic: Donald Trump. His entire campaign basically a troll.
All the "aww this so funneh" pictures posted on this thread about Trump all remind of the link i posted. It's very much "on-topic" to say that leftist "funneehhh" posters remind very much of the same crap nazis used.
Truth is uncomfortable. I suggest you educate yourself and go read the nazi manifest from 1920's and ask yourself if it doesn't stink of "government control". Government control is just another word for "leftist". While you educate yourself go read what NSDAP stands for.
But go ahead and "ignore" me, you just proved my point.
-
But Trump says he'll buy a large farm in Iowa. He's probably said he'll buy a large expensive property at each state, in each concession/victory speech - to curry favor. That should sway any Republicans who are wavering in their support. They're thinking, "Wow, if Trump buys property in my state, then he must be the best candidate. I'll vote for him!"
Even though the fight on the
killing roomconvention floor will be a loud and raucous near-riot, watch as it concludes. Thousands of Republican faithful, sweaty with torn shirts and comb-overs all a-mess, will appear to come together at its last day. There will be balloons and confetti falling from the rafters, rousing rock and roll songs (written and performed by bands who hate right-wingers), and all in attendance will heap praise on whichever white man is the last one standing. Whether it be Cruz, Trump, Ryan or Ronald McDonald, they'll all lock arms and smile at the cameras, as if they've always been the party of unity. The following day, a few black and Latino janitors will saunter up and down the empty hall, sweeping truckloads of paper and plastic trash into piles.How does Trumps "i'll buy a farm" differ anyway from Sanders or Hillarys "i'll give you moneeehhhh if you vote for me"?
-
Jail time for words? What other totalitarian ideas do you support?
Post removed to enable reply.
I have ignored previous similar posts by you in the past month or so. However, I'm getting tired of your nonsense so...
Racist abuse against an individual in a public place is a criminal act under law in Australia; up to you if you believe racist acts should not be criminalised, I don't.
As an example you have previously posted support for forcible deportation of all Muslim heritage people from Sweden, you support totalitarian ideology, not me.
Nonsense and totalitarian to think that words shouldn't lead to jail time?
Stop spreading lies about me as i have never ever said that all muslims should be deported from Sweden. I have however said that anyone who does commit a crime should be deported.
So what was said that was so racist against your wife? Under swedish law it's also perfectly fine to say anything to a white person without getting convicted for hate crime all the while you can't basicly even look at any minority at the bus without the police knocking on your door. I have hard time believing it would be that much different in Australia.
Furthermore, what heritage do "muslims" have? To my knowledge anyone can convert to islam. You clearly associate islam with arabs, bit ignorant?
I have a clear memory of a post you made wishing for all Muslims to be deported from Sweden, not just those convicted for a criminal offense. Apologies if incorrect.
Am I not correct there are non Arab Muslims living in Sweden e.g. Kurds & Turks.
Of course there are muslim kurds and turks living in Sweden. There are also ethnic swedish muslims living in Sweden.
The problem in Sweden is that no matter what crime you commit your citizenship can't be revoked, it can't even be revoked if you got the citizenship on false grounds (like lying who you are etc). As swedish citizens have "aboslute right to reside in Sweden" it's impossible to deport people who commit crimes even if the criminal have several citizenships. Matter of fact it's basicly impossible to deport anyone because they committed a crime as they just make up som BS about "oh i can't eat if i get deported".
Don't know about you but i don't want criminals from other nations in my nation.
-
Coming: Fear and Loathing in Cleveland
It's gonna be a sight to see...
The left has always been quite.... "ehrm"... clever with their propaganda posters:<removed>
-
Freedom of Expression is not an absolute. It goes hand in hand with responsible behaviour. You know the old US Supreme court judge who put it in perspective; freedom of expression/speech doesn't mean you can yell fire in a crowded theatre?
One has an obligation to be truthful and to not spread intentional lies. We know conentraion camps existed and that millions died. Those who deny their existence do so only to inflict injury to others. Not the best of motives.
To be crystal clear, so that people like ******* or others on this forum don't get confused; i do not deny that concentration camps existed nor that millions were murdered in them. I however demand that people are free to deny openly.
I assume you talk about law: no one has an "obligation" to be truthful nor not to spread intentional lies. If that was the case something like 100% of the worlds population commit a "crime" each day. But how is law really any kind of measure for what is right or wrong? I mean, Apartheid was legal. So was murdering jews.
Your example of "yelling fire in crowded theatre" versus "concentration camps didn't exist" does not hold. First example is clearly forbidden, and rightfully so, as you will put human lifes at risk by doing so. And to test that "concentration camps didn't exist" you can go the nearest crowded theatre and stand in the middle of it and yell as high you can "concentration camps didn't exist" and see how many people will start to trample on each other. My guess is that you will most likely be escorted out by security from the property.
To shorten everything down: feelings nor emotions are not more important than freedom of speech.
Odd isn't it, that those who are so very keen to defend the rights of Neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers, cannot quite bring themselves to openly defend the 'freedom of speech' rights to those who openly advocate paedophilia. Nor would they be standing up and defending the free speech rights of those advocating support for more Paris bombings. No, its the Holocaust deniers that they wish to wrap their friendly arms around and if 'free speech' doesn't quite cut it then relativise it into the long grass. Liberal cover with nasty repercussions.
Of course laws are different in each and every nation but in general in democracies or constitutional republics you can/can't/should be able to/shouldn't be able to do the following:
It is wrong say the following because they are meant to bodily harm people:
"I want more bombings because "X" reason and someone has to do it now".
"I want more beheadings of people in the group "X" and someone has to do it now".
"Yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre".
"I want people to shot white policemen because white policeman "X" shot black thug "Y".
It is not wrong to say the following as they are not meant to bodily harm people (your feelings/emotions are still not important):
"There were no concentration camps".
"There were concentration camps".
"The moon is made of cheese".
"The moon is not made of cheese".
"There was a lunar landing".
"There was no lunar landing".
"Muhammed is the most perfect person to ever live".
"Muhammed was a paedophile".
"Muslims didn't fly planes into WTC".
"Muslims did fly planes into WTC".
"I don't want people from nation "X" in my nation".
"I want people from nation "X" in my nation".
Advocating paedophile is surely not freedom of speech as it will most definately cause bodily harm to another human being. No one is saying "put jews/mulism/atheists/whatever in gas chambers" by saying "there were no concentration camps".
There is an "uproar" in USA right now about some people standing on the flag of that nation. I say, so what, it's within their rights to do so. But they can't set the flag on fire because THAT can lead to bodily harm if/when the fire spreads.
See the difference now?
-
Holocaust denial is incredibly stupid.
Almost as stupid as outlawing it.
Holocaust denial is not stupid it is the justification of murder. The stupids are those running in front of, alongside and behind Le Pen.
It's called freedom of expression, not "justification of murder".
Freedom of Expression is not an absolute. It goes hand in hand with responsible behaviour. You know the old US Supreme court judge who put it in perspective; freedom of expression/speech doesn't mean you can yell fire in a crowded theatre?
One has an obligation to be truthful and to not spread intentional lies. We know conentraion camps existed and that millions died. Those who deny their existence do so only to inflict injury to others. Not the best of motives.
To be crystal clear, so that people like ******* or others on this forum don't get confused; i do not deny that concentration camps existed nor that millions were murdered in them. I however demand that people are free to deny openly.
I assume you talk about law: no one has an "obligation" to be truthful nor not to spread intentional lies. If that was the case something like 100% of the worlds population commit a "crime" each day. But how is law really any kind of measure for what is right or wrong? I mean, Apartheid was legal. So was murdering jews.
Your example of "yelling fire in crowded theatre" versus "concentration camps didn't exist" does not hold. First example is clearly forbidden, and rightfully so, as you will put human lifes at risk by doing so. And to test that "concentration camps didn't exist" you can go the nearest crowded theatre and stand in the middle of it and yell as high you can "concentration camps didn't exist" and see how many people will start to trample on each other. My guess is that you will most likely be escorted out by security from the property.
To shorten everything down: feelings nor emotions are not more important than freedom of speech.
-
Not wishing to lecture you, agreed the same info can be interpreted differently by us. I would observe that you appear to approve of the conviction of Le Pen just as you do the prosecution of Geert Wilders, whereas I don't approve of the prosecution of Geert Wilders, and I'm uneasy over the conviction of Mr Le Pen, even though I despise the man. Free speech does have a price, no free speech has a larger one in my opinion.
As I recall Wilders was charged with incitement of hatred & discrimination.
Personally I find the issue of 'free speech' quite complex. Last year a senior Australian politician observed people have the right to be bigoted - he was referring to anti Muslim commentary. Where should the law draw the line as we both know such speech does lead to to physiological and physical violence by both sides of politics, innocents do suffer.
France has deported Islamic hate speech preachers with which I agree.
On a personal note my wife has on three occasions been subject to spiteful anti Asian comments on public transport in Oz, I would have loved to see the bastards ending up in jail for a while.
Jail time for words? What other totalitarian ideas do you support?
Post removed to enable reply.
I have ignored previous similar posts by you in the past month or so. However, I'm getting tired of your nonsense so...
Racist abuse against an individual in a public place is a criminal act under law in Australia; up to you if you believe racist acts should not be criminalised, I don't.
As an example you have previously posted support for forcible deportation of all Muslim heritage people from Sweden, you support totalitarian ideology, not me.
Nonsense and totalitarian to think that words shouldn't lead to jail time?
Stop spreading lies about me as i have never ever said that all muslims should be deported from Sweden. I have however said that anyone who does commit a crime should be deported.
So what was said that was so racist against your wife? Under swedish law it's also perfectly fine to say anything to a white person without getting convicted for hate crime all the while you can't basicly even look at any minority at the bus without the police knocking on your door. I have hard time believing it would be that much different in Australia.
Furthermore, what heritage do "muslims" have? To my knowledge anyone can convert to islam. You clearly associate islam with arabs, bit ignorant?
-
I disagree... as think if the Republican Party has any chance at a meaningful future, it would need to changeSeems a lot of people hoping for contested convention for Republicans, as they think will cause the most damage to Republican Party
I'm hoping for a contested convention because at this point I think it's the only thing that can save the Republican party. If Trump somehow manages to win the nomination, it will hobble the party for at least a generation.
If contested convention and 'Trump is stopped' it just means the same old same old... No growth, no change, no need to evaluate why the voters have disconnected
Why have so many Republicans voted for Trump in the primary?
I disagree completely with the reason that it's because those voters are uneducated, knuckle dragging, racists...
I think it is similar to way so many voting for Sanders on the Democrat side as well
A vast number of voters are angry and not happy with the establishment politics on both sides
I think the politicians on both sides of the isle need to accept this and need to make changes in both sides
And a 'win' by establishment candidates on either side will not force the politicians to recognize this and work for change within their respective parties
As it is not my hope that 1 party is destroyed and the other party establishment candidates rule the country for a generation
I think having a vibrant multiple party system is a good thing. I thing an exchange and a debate of ideas is a good thing
The problem is that system is not working well.. Change is needed
A vast number of voters are angry and not happy with the establishment politics on both sides
'Vast' is not a claim the fringe far right can credibly claim for itself in this respect.
Fact is the vast majority of voters which means more than two-thirds of 'em say they could never vote for Donald Trump for Potus.
AP-GfK Poll: Americans overwhelmingly view Trump negativelySeven in 10 people, including close to half of Republican voters, have an unfavorable view of Trump, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll. It’s an opinion shared by majorities of men and women; young and old; conservatives, moderates and liberals; and whites, Hispanics and blacks — a devastatingly broad indictment of the billionaire businessman.
More than 60 percent of all registered voters and 31 percent of Republicans said they definitely would not vote for Trump in the general election.
One group that is still with him includes those who describe themselves as both Republicans and supporters of the tea party movement. Sixty-eight percent of them have a favorable view.
http://ap-gfkpoll.com/featured/ap-gfk-poll-americans-overwhelmingly-view-trump-negatively
The end of the Republican party and not just as we know it. The end period if they nominate Trump. Senate and House turn blue as do most Republicans faces turn blue on election day. Supreme Court starts to wear blue robes.
RIP GOP.
Gone Old Party.
Fringe far left just loves to make up all kind of stories.
-
Holocaust denial is incredibly stupid.
Almost as stupid as outlawing it.
Holocaust denial is not stupid it is the justification of murder. The stupids are those running in front of, alongside and behind Le Pen.
It's called freedom of expression, not "justification of murder".
-
Or that they are perfectly happy with the way life has improved IMEASURABLY since the union was formed. Go and travel see the difference.
The vote was for trade interests and agreements with the Ukraine, not for admission to the union, explaining the non-interest.30% turn out, would i be wrong in saying the dutch public havntt really taken the issue v seriously?
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app
The non voters merely showed they are fed up with the EU dictatorship.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app
Exactly for who has it been "a paradise" (paraphrasing you here)? Not for any of the rich countries, only the pathetic parasite corrupt nations in the south have got it better as they get shitloads from EU. Sweden is now Swedenistan and soon bankrupt thanks to the EU.
Or did you mean something childish like "oh now i don't have to exchange my fiat money to another fiat money"?
-
Not wishing to lecture you, agreed the same info can be interpreted differently by us. I would observe that you appear to approve of the conviction of Le Pen just as you do the prosecution of Geert Wilders, whereas I don't approve of the prosecution of Geert Wilders, and I'm uneasy over the conviction of Mr Le Pen, even though I despise the man. Free speech does have a price, no free speech has a larger one in my opinion.Let's not conflate France and Europe's longstanding antisemitism with imported antisemitism from North Africa and the Middle East, the latter being the proxy vehicle for your modern leftist Antisemites who don't want to get their own hands dirty.http://www.thetower.org/article/the-holocaust-the-left-and-the-return-of-hate/
The real irony being that laws put in place as an indirect result of the holocaust are being used to shield the new Antisemites from scrutiny. Though I hate Mr Le Pen I would gladly forego any laws relating specifically to the holocaust in exchange for greater freedom of speech.
Edit; to clarify my point, the lessons of the holocaust for the liberal-left Europeans were that nationalism was the cause of evil and internationalism was the antidote. To Jews the notion of Zionism (Jewish nationalism) was that nobody else could be trusted to defend them. Roll on to 67 and the left had cemented its notion that Israel was a relic of old European nationalism and colonialism. Returning full circle to holocaust denial, the left uses it to beat down its own far right nationalists but is completely blindsided to Muslim antisemitism, which is in their DNA. Your Washington post link is a classic example of this.
Thanks, but I do not need a lecture from you to comprehend the background of issues in Europe.
We obviously interpret information differently. For me the article was clear on issues being created by some in the Muslim community as well as, for balance, some Front National members and others in French society.
The article is based upon a US based organisation "Human Rights First" report, an organisation that has received recognition from both sides of politics e.g. Senator McCain and Hilary Clinton.
As I recall Wilders was charged with incitement of hatred & discrimination.
Personally I find the issue of 'free speech' quite complex. Last year a senior Australian politician observed people have the right to be bigoted - he was referring to anti Muslim commentary. Where should the law draw the line as we both know such speech does lead to to physiological and physical violence by both sides of politics, innocents do suffer.
France has deported Islamic hate speech preachers with which I agree.
On a personal note my wife has on three occasions been subject to spiteful anti Asian comments on public transport in Oz, I would have loved to see the bastards ending up in jail for a while.
Jail time for words? What other totalitarian ideas do you support?
-
Tattoos are like bumper stickers — the main differences are bumper stickers on your car can be easily taken off. Having said that now lets think about something else… If you had a really good car, say a high-end BMW, or Rolls Royce, would you lower its value by slapping stupid bumper stickers all over its rear end? I think not. I, being the somewhat silent judgmental sort of person I admit to being, when I meet someone that sounds smart, looks and dresses smartly, then I realize they have a bunch of tattoos — sorry, but I instantly deduct 10 or 12 points from their perceived IQ. (Now let the haters rear their heads...)
How many IQ points should we deduct from people comparing the value of a car with bumper stickers to the "value" of a human being with tattoos?
-
Your comment about white people is racist, but of course you wont understand that. But if i put it like this maybe your SJW brain will immediatelly go into BSOD mode: "how about the undereducated, low IQ, gangbanging and illegal latinos and hispanics moved back to their home nation instead of staying in the USA?".
Weither you like it or not "white people" have always been the backbone of USA together with the very small minority of asians. Your racism, together with the other fascists on this thread, against white people (doesnt matter if you yourself are white as SJW's are bit "funneeeh") is the reason why Trump is drawing never before seen numbers at his meetings and caucuses.
Not sure how pointing out demographic fact can be a racist comment. Curious as to what you think the percentage of the hispanic/Latino population fits your description?
It does not matter what numbers Trump draws to his rallies. It will never be anywhere close to a majority of the US voters. Learn to live with it. It is possible for you to do so. Just quit listening to hate speech that offers no viable solutions to the issues the country is facing. Mass deportation of 11 million million people and building a wall to keep them out is not a viable solution. It's Demagoguery.
TH
Of course you didn't understand why it would be racist. Nothing new under the sun.
And it's not "hate speech" to say that "laws X, Y, Z says you are a criminal if you are illegally in this nation and shall be deported". If it's 1, 11 or 11 million people make no difference. And yes, it is very much a viable solution to punish criminals. But again, SJW's just doesn't understand the concept of what "the law" is, how and why it is enforced.
-
The reason why Trump should be the republican nominee is obvious from this thread. If he can muster this much pure hate against him from the left then he is the right man.
I don't hate polio or Hostess Twinkees, but I don't want them to get more of a hold in America. I don't have to hate something or someone to not want it making life decisions for me.
It's hard to decide which one would be worse: Cruz or Trump. It's heartening to know that neither will win against the Dem candidate. Kusich would have the best chance of the remaining contenders, in the general election, but he's essentially out of the running. He's too reasonable & middle-of-the-road to get a majority of Republican voters.
For as long as I can recall, the Republican Party has only moved closer to the center when they realize they've got to adjust to prevailing views of the electorate, in order to try and garner added votes. If left to their own devices, they'd happily stay hard right, and that's why they have Cruz as a close #2 in this race. In 20 years, Americans will be more liberal and less Bible-thumping (already nearly 50% of Americans don't call themselves deists. They don't say that openly, because it's still so politically incorrect to claim to not be a religionist). As Republicans see the trend (normally they're 1 or 2 decades behind trends), they'll stress religion less - in order to try and garner more votes. Same has been happening with Planned Parenthood, science-based education, gay marriage, gays in the military, and so on. Privately, Republican politicians don't like those things, but as they belatedly become aware of trends, they take pains to adjust - but only the minimum amount - which they ascertain will gain at least 51% of votes.
The choices are: a lying almost (soon?) felon, a socialist and borderline communist, a bible thumper and a corporatist. It's like asking do you want AIDS, ebola, pneumonic plague or eabies (without shot against it).
Neither "the left" nor "the right" in the USA are even close to the real meaning of both descriptions anymore. They are basicly feces wrestlings everywhere just to give the people a good fake show so they can continue fool the people with their "government plans". But this is nothing new or unique for the USA, it's the exact same theatricals in Europe and Asia and they get away with it as the general populace is dumb as <deleted>.
The sooner the general populace gets that not a single politicians would even piss on you if you were on fire the better. But i'm not holding my breath as the general populace barely have the IQ to understand how to tie their shoelaces.
-
Le Pen is basically a Nazi, and he should have his freedom of speech taken away.
The man incites racial hatred with a whole load of his comments.
And you sir are a fascist if that is your view of freedom of speech.
Oh, I'm a fascist if/because I think it would be a good idea to take away Le Pen's freedom of speech ?
Okay, let's just say I admire Joseph Stalin. I don't, but let's say I do. So, I reckon Stalin's ideas were good, and Stalin didn't exactly want to give freedom of speech to everybody. Does that mean that Stalin was a fascist as well ?
I'm trying to say, just because I reckon it's a good idea to take away Le Pen's freedom of speech, that doesn't make me a fascist. Now then, if we look on the internet, and see what are the ideas that are generally regarded as being fascist, well, in that case, I say that I certainly don't support those ideas that are generally regarded as fascist.
Your text "I'm trying to say, just because I reckon it's a good idea to take away Le Pen's freedom of speech, that doesn't make me a fascist." clearly shows that you have fascist tendencies. Is "1984" like your favorite instruction manual?
Tell me, where are you from and which party do you vote for?
-
Freedom of speech doesn't include the freedom of lying to create hate.
(only Trump has this freedom of lying)
And by your logic neither is stupidity, which means your freedom of speech need to be taken away.
-
Le Pen is basically a Nazi, and he should have his freedom of speech taken away.
The man incites racial hatred with a whole load of his comments.
And you sir are a fascist if that is your view of freedom of speech.
-
It's quite sad that there are so many adults SJW's in this world who are so immature that they make children look like mature... but atleast children have a reason for their tantrums. I mean, you can explain to children, and get them to understand, that it is not ok to have a tantrum or hit someone because "X" make them feel uncomfortable.
Letting your feelings control your life, like SJW's in this thread, means that you are immature and quite frankly an underdeveloped person for believing that your feelings have some kind of magical properties and everyone should obey the feelings. This is also the reason why fascists (also known as SJW's) just love to react to everything with feelings.
-
The reason why Trump should be the republican nominee is obvious from this thread. If he can muster this much pure hate against him from the left then he is the right man.
-
Trump's not wrong about a 'massive recession'
Economists were quick to point out the obvious: There’s no sign of the “very massive recession” Donald Trump predicted in a recent interview with the Washington Post, either now or any time soon. In fact, overall job growth is strong, suggesting a modest economic expansion is likely to continue.
But Trump wasn’t speaking to economists. He was speaking to millions of angry Americans who feel Trump is exactly right about economic collapse.
And about 9 years or so ago every single economist in the world were like "oh there are no problems at all, just continue the same road".
-
Steroids.....screws up their minds
What if i told you that even you have steroids in your body?
Duh......what if I told you Michael Jackson was still alive....
Nothing wrong with lifting weights and being fit, but pumping yourself
Full of illegal steroids and turning into a giant walnut is a sure sign of a mental problem.
And you never ever put any dangerous substances into your body right? Because you are really holier than thou.... right?
-
How many illegals are doing all that?It's a big place. California went through some tough times economically while Shwarzenegger was governor, but now with Brown, it's on the mend. It's also had a 5 year drought. Speaking of Jerry Brown, he would make a great president. Maybe Sanders or HRC will pick him as their running mate.
CA is a big target, if someone wants to poke holes at it. Yet, it's got a lot going for it. It's the #1 inventor and sustainer of businesses related to digital and internet. It's got the biggest film-making industry in the world, by far. If it were a country, it would be the 5th biggest economy in the world. It has excellent parks and boasts the first or second national park in the world (Yosemite). I think Yellowstone in WY was the first. There are many parts of CA where geese and deer, roam, and it's not unusual for a cougar or bear to be sighted near human settlements. As a comparison, in China or SE Asia, you wouldn't see flocks of geese or herds of deer. Locals would charge out to kill them all - every last one. Americans are creating giant marine parks, rehabilitating near-extinct species, and sharing park management with neighboring countries (Glacier National Park is one example). Nothing like that is happening anywhere in Asia. Indeed, the S.China Sea could be designated an International Marine Park if Asians weren't stuck in archaic-thinking. Instead, it's becoming militarized.
Illegals is an over-amped word. Similar to the word 'bastards.' An illegal is a person who does not have citizenship in the country he's/she's in. A bastard is a person who is born of parents who were not married. In both cases, the people are people. It's their circumstance that warrants the prejudiced label from people like Trump supporters. Anyone in the USA who is not an American Indian is a migrant or offspring of migrants. The so-called illegal 'wetbacks' probably have closer blood ties with the original Americans than do any of the people chastizing or criminalizing them. It the Mexican army had been content with conquering the Alamo and surrounding region, and hadn't ventured further north and northeast, the map of the SW region of the US would probably look a lot different. Half of Texas, a third of California, and the states of NM and AZ could quite possibly have stayed as parts of Mexico. In a bigger perspective, many illegal Mexicans are straying into territory that could have been theirs, if history had been a bit different.
Which other laws do you think anyone should be able to break without punishment?
If you ask me, there are several. One of the biggest, is the law against farming hemp. It's utterly ridiculous. Thankfully, there are some reasonable politicians who are now distancing themselves from the insanity of criminalizing an herb used to make rope and healthy snacks.
If you were to ask a Republican candidate about hemp, you would probably draw a blank stare, like when Romney was asked 4 years ago.
So your argument is that if someone views a law as "ridiculous" then you can break it?
And "illegal immigrant" means it's a person who is staying illegally in nation X, in other words, committing a crime. Being born a "bastard" is not a crime. Not rocket science.
-
"Immigration laws crippling farms in Indiana and Georgia"
"For Indiana and Georgia farmers, it's not a matter of who's right and wrong in the debate behind tough new immigration laws that took effect July 1, 2011
but of those laws essentially biting the hands that help feed them."
"In a report released earlier this month, the Center said farmers of the state's seven largest crops:
onions, watermelons, bell peppers, cucumbers, squash, blueberries and blackberries,
reported shortages of almost 6,000 workers this spring as immigrants fled the state with the bill's April passage."
"The estimated loss to farmers has been $140 million so far, with the ripple affect on local and state economies estimated at $390 million."
(In the first year)
The Georgia Department of Agriculture estimates the worker shortage has now grown to 11,000.
"While agricultural specific figures aren't available in Indiana,
a report by the Perryman Group predicts a cost to that state of $2.8 billion,
and more than 16,000 jobs lost if all of the estimated 47,000 unauthorized immigrants in the state were removed.
"In Georgia, Perryman figures stand at a staggering $21 billion and 132,000 jobs lost."
http://northamericanfarmer.com/articles/farmlabor.aspx
The Bloviator once again, clueless.
And he wants to deport 11 million... What a clown.
Which other laws do you think anyone should be able to break without punishment?
Dunno. Maybe any one of the nearly 5000 laws, just on the Federal books might be suitable for non compliance.
"The number of criminal offenses in the U.S. Code increased from 3,000 in the early 1980s to 4,000 by 2000 to over 4,450 by 2008."http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/04/overcriminalization-an-explosion-of-federal-criminal-law
Of course over-criminalisation is promoted by the right wing 'strong on crime' politicians in the same breath that they prattle on about their 2nd Amendment freedoms. Funny how many of these laws impact on people of colour and other minorities more than others. Criminalisation of immigration is as blinkered a policy as criminalisation of recreational drug use or sexual activity. But the old white men are too angry to accept such thinking and so the dangerous populists thrive and morph into demagogues and tyrants. Viva il Duce.
Not an argument, try harder.
France: Le Pen fined 30,000 euros for latest 'gas chamber' remark
in World News
Posted
So the issue is a moral one? Because what else can "provocative" be than about moral? And it's still not "inciting hatred" to say "concentration camps didn't exist" as it's just the refusal to accept facts. It's bizarre that democracies have limitations on words or sentences because it might offend people... that kind of slippery slope have no end as everyone and everything can and will "offend".
There is a saying, "you do not have the right to not be offended".
I'll end with quote from Thomas Sowell: "The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.".