WDSmart

Although I am not an opponent of PRIDE month, I do agree that no one or no facility should be required to fly any type of flag at any time.

Thanks for your response. I believe and agree with everything you said above, except for two things: "What you might see in the movies is rarely factual." I believe that many movies with scenes of trials are based on facts, even though they may be dramatized somewhat. "A court generally determines the level of guilt and the severity of punishment, not that the person was or was not a criminal." If the person is found guilty of a crime, then they are, by definition, a "criminal." If they are found not guilty in this one case, they still could be a criminal, but not from the judgment of this one case. They may be a criminal because they have been found guilty in a prior case, or have admitted their guilt without going to trial. You also bring up an interesting point when you write, "I also decided, on my own volition, that a violation of crime was unintentional and closed the investigation, not seeking punishment for the individual as there was no harm done." That, for me, raises the question of whether or not a person is a criminal if they UNINTENTIONALLY committed a crime and/or there was, at least in your judgement, NO HARM DONE. These are aspects of a crime that, IMO, should be decided by a prosecutor, judge, or jury, not by an investigator.

I agree with most everything you've said above, but I'd expect all this to be done following due process. In other words, I don't think an ICE agent should be able to stop anyone on the street, demand proof of their citizenship or visa status, and if they couldn't produce that on the spot, detain them and deport them without further due process. And, yes, my "...how do YOU KNOW,,,?" was a generic reference. I could have written, "...how does ONE KNOW,,,?" I have never worked in law enforcement, investigated violations of the law, or gathered evidence to be used in a court of law. I have only learned about these from reading about them or seeing them portrayed in movies.

The Catholic world might need a pope, but I certainly don't...

Don't you mean "Donald," not "Joe"? 🤔

Don't you mean "Donald," not "Joe"? 🤔

Yes! I agree with all that above, (except the first sentence/question). You seem to be confusing "protesting" with "freedom of speech." They are not the same thing, although most protests do involve freedom of speech. But nowhere can freedom of speech be used as an excuse to violate rules or laws, or commit or encourage violence. I've put more "double-speak" remarks beneath each of your points above.

They ALWAYS have the right to free speech under the 1st Amendment. "Occupying campus buildings," or "disruptions to our academic activities," or lighting buildings on fire or injuring people is not "free speech." These protestors are not, or should not/cannot be punished for their free speech. They are being punished for violating rules or laws, but not for their free speech. Another example that you might agree with is that the insurrectionists on January 6 were not arrested (and now pardoned ) for exercising their free speech. They were arrested for breaking into the Capitol using force.

Yes, we disagree. Free speech can occur at all times and in all public places. No, you can't disrupt a place of business or any other private gathering, but you can speak your mind and support whomever you want, even Zionists. Yes, Columbia is a private university. I'd put them in the category of a "business." I don't need to look up any laws. All I need to do is read the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. There are some exceptions to speech considered "free speech," but none that apply here in this instance.

First, I think the university should take action against any students. Second, if public laws were broken, people should be accused and given a trial if they contest the charges. Those who are determined to be guilty should face the consequences, which, I assume, would not be severe since what they appear to have done are only misdemeanors, not felonies. These people did protest without violence, at least none that I read in the article. All citizens and foreigners have the right to free speech, so they should be allowed to participate in protests, as long as they are peaceful. Who cares what other countries do? This is about the USA, not Zimbabwe.

I am neither reformed nor weird. I'm woke. Yes, I also believe a "criminal" is someone who has committed a crime. My point is, and always has been, that to call someone a criminal, you first must KNOW they committed a crime, not just SUSPECT them of committing a crime. If that's the case, they are a "suspect," not a "criminal," or you could call them a "criminal suspect." "A criminal suspect is a person who is believed to have committed a crime, but has not yet been found guilty. In criminal law, a suspect is someone who is under suspicion, often formally announced as being under investigation by law enforcement officials. If a suspect received an arrest warrant, they might then be identified as a defendant; and after the suspect was convicted or found guilty, they would be called an offender." Microsoft Edge online dictionary

There are many people (MAGA supporters) who believe all immigrants, whether they have a visa or not, should be treated like criminals. This and other forum topics are full of their posts.

I have no problem with Columbia's actions against this demonstration because it disrupted the university's services. However, I would expect actions like this to be done regardless of the topic of the demonstration.

Yes, "Someone" that robs a bank but has yet to be caught, charged and found guilty is still a criminal by the very act of committing the crime. But that doesn't mean you can name them and then call them a criminal yet.

My point is, how do YOU KNOW someone has committed a crime unless you see them commit the crime yourself, they admit to it, or they are found guilty by due process. Otherwise, you're just taking someone else's (or 10 other people's) accusation that they committed a crime. Immigrants who have entered the country (USA) without a visa (illegally) MAY be eligible for a Refugee Visa if they came here fleeing violence. A refugee is not an illegal alien. They can be detained and charged as an illegal alien, but if they prove they are a refugee, those charges are dropped. (At least that's how I think that works.)

Yes, A criminal is someone who has committed a crime. My point is, how do YOU KNOW someone has committed a crime unless you see them commit the crime yourself, they admit to it, or they are found guilty by due process. Otherwise, you're just taking someone else's accusation that they committed a crime.

Yes, A criminal is someone who has committed a crime. My point is, how do YOU KNOW someone has committed a crime unless you see them commit the crime yourself, they admit to it, or they are found guilty by due process. Otherwise, you're just taking someone else's accusation that they committed a crime.

I agree with the "or," but disagree that YOU KNOW FOR SURE whether someone has committed a crime or not unless you see them commit the crime or they have been found guilty. That's like calling someone a rapist or child molester without knowing whether or not they've committed those crimes. I don't believe all these ICE agents have seen any of these immigrants enter the country illegally. If they don't have documents showing they are and claim to be refugees, they are entitled to due process to determine if they are refugees. Refugees are fleeing danger in their home country, and can enter the USA without a visa if they are under threat or duress. If they are, they are entitled to an asylum visa. So, if they are picked up and don't claim asylum, then they can be deported. If they claim asylum, they have to go through due process to determine their status. That's the "woke way" I see it, anyway. And, I do think a refugee should present himself to immigration AFTER he has entered the country illegally in some reasonable time frame. I think that should be days, maybe 30 days at the most. Some of them, however, may be so worried about people or gangs in their home country finding out where they are now that they put off doing that for way too long, or until they are stopped by ICE.

These definitions are for how the term is used parochially or in casual English, BUT...they could apply here too.. For example, "A person who has committed a crime, or has been legally convicted of one." How do YOU know the person has committed a crime unless they've been convicted of it, or you've seen them commit the crime yourself? You don't. Are you taking the word of someone else who's accusing them? In most of the cases we talk about here, the people are called "criminals" so they can be arrested and deported. Also, in the legal use of the word, a person isn't a criminal even if you saw them commit the crime yourself. In our legal process, they are presumed to be innocent, and unless convicted, are not guilty of committing the crime you saw them commit. The point here is that to refer to all immigrants as "criminals" just so they can be detained and deported is a very "un-woke" thing to do, and one which I will not tolerate.

I define "criminal" as someone who has committed a criminal act. No charge, conviction or even witnesses are necessary to be a criminal. Yes, that's how all the "un-woke", MAGA supporters use the term, also. They don't believe any due process is necessary. They believe just the suspicion or assumption that someone has committed a criminal act makes them a criminal. That is the root of this and many other problems between the "un-woke" MAGA supporters and the "woke" liberals. It's very hard to discuss something when you're both not using the same meaning for terms relevant to the issue.

The problem between the "woke" (my) and "non-woke" (MAGA Supporters) on this topic, and a lot of topics, stems from the use of certain words or terms. In this case, it's "criminals." I define "criminal" as someone who's been charged with and convicted of a crime using a due process of the law. If someone has just been charged, they have the right to due process, so a trial date is set. If they are not considered a flight risk or a risk to the community, they will be released on bond (which could be zero dollars) and given a trial date. If they are considered a flight risk or a risk to the community, they will be imprisoned until the trial date. If they are found guilty, they will be sentenced. THEN, THEY ARE A CRIMINAL When someone has been convicted, then they have, or soon will be, given a sentence, which could, on one extreme, include imprisonment, a fine, or, on the other extreme, could just be scolded and released. If the accused is here on a visa, they could also be deported back to their country of origin. If the accused is here but has no visa and claims asylum, they could then be told to go through the immigration due process to determine if their claim of asylum is legitimate. If it is, they would then get an asylum visa. If their claim for asylum is denied, then they should be deported back to their country of origin. If they are found not guilty, they will be released. The "non-woke" (MAGA Supporters) define "criminal" as: Anyone charged with a crime. Anyone here on a visa who is SUSPECTED of committing a crime, is non-White, and not a native English-speaker. Anyone here without a valid visa. Anyone demonstrating against the Zionist takeover of Palestine. Basically, anyone who disagrees with them. So, I say the problem here again is how the "woke" and "non-woke" differ in their use of the word "criminal." And this is also the case in many, maybe most, of the disagreements between these two groups.

good for you. your voice used to be very loud. have you noticed that the tide is changing? 😄 I have noticed that the tide has receded a lot lately. It could be a sign of a tsunami of wokeness, and I certainly hope so. In any event, no matter what the public viewpoint is now or becomes, my wokeness will not change.

I buy melatonin online. It's available on many sites without a prescription. I have never heard that it is only allowed as a prescribed medication in Thailand.

If you live in a country with a capitalist economy or a plutocracy (like my home country, the USA), you'll have to earn money by working for a wealthy person or business. 😞If you lived in a country with a socialist economy, you would probably be able to get some kind of help for your wife since her buffalo died, assuming she needed help. You wouldn't get any money because money is not part of a socialist economy. Your wife would, if she qualified, get free consultation services - or maybe even a new, baby buffalo! 😮 No, money does not grow on trees, but if you are an immigrant, you should be able to get a job as a fruit picker, and then you might be able to say that money does grow on trees. Of course, if you're not an immigrant, you wouldn't consider getting a job as a fruit picker, so you'd be out of luck on that. 😐 No, in my home country (USA), many people are accountable. All the poor and working-class people are accountable. The wealthy are not accountable, and the wealthier you are, the less accountable you are. 😞 Yes, I am very "woke," and have been so for around 50 years. 😉

Not true, it depends on the offence and persons criminal history. Violent offeces are less likely to get bail, 1St time offenders are more likely to get bail. Yes, what you say in this part of your response is true, but all that is taken into consideration to determine if, as I've said above, "they are considered a flight risk or a further risk to the community".