The State Loves You...

In this case, the "boogie man" is real.

 

It always seems "real" to those whose irrational fears compel them to seek a tyrant to confront it.

 

Considering the reality, that more of his "rapists" are leaving than are entering the country, the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars he would commit to identifying, locating, tracking down, apprehending, incarcerating, prosecuting, and deporting 11-12 million of, overwhelmingly, hard-working and law-abiding folks would be a very foolish way of throwing money at whatever "problem" gets some so hysterical.

 

or to those subjected to "No Knock" warrents.

 

Yes, it would be silly to indict all human societies. Rather, I think your criticism is spot on: "These snivelers cower behind their Big Bully as they stridently point out the various folks they crave to see cudgeled by the almighty and intrusive hammer-wielding arm of an all-powerful political authority, their supreme babysitter and protector of their wetted beds."

I oppose those bed-wetters who want their Big Bully to cudgel those who have harmed nobody. Big Bully should not be worshipped, despite what the Statists say.

 

Thus, the infatuation with Trump is, one hopes, a passing fancy.

 

Trump or no Trump, authoritarians and authoritarian followers will always crave to see various folks cudgeled by the almighty hammer-wielding arm of an all-powerful state.

On the other hand, there are those who oppose both the authoritarians and the authoritarian followers and oppose the initiation of aggression against people who haven't harmed anyone.

 

In that regard, Canada and France are among the humanitarian nations to be commended for standing by the courage of their moral convictions.

 

This is very inaccurate. The number of "law abiding" folks who he wants to deport is zero. That is pretty clever slipping that in there. If you agree with me, you can acknowledge this by not responding to me.

 

Freedom is a zero sum game. The bigger and more powerful government becomes, the less we are free. Whether government grows because it wants to redistribute income or spy on us doesn't matter. The effect is the same.

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

No it is not. We have created a system where people can accumulate wealth at unseen levels in the name of some kind of freedom. It never existed before. Kings, Republics and city states taxed all or almost all wealth upon death.
The founders of liberalism like Locke and Mill didn't believe people should be allowed to accumulate wealth beyond what they needed. They didn't believe in private property beyond your needs.
All successful states and most admirable thinkers had these ideas. They all fell with the concentration of wealth.

Education educates. Absolute education educates absolutely. There is no excuse to deny the positive effects of education. Only those who feel threatened negate the freedom to pursue politics and education to those they feel are beneath them. Anyone who has read the 3000 years of history we have written knows this.

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree. No problem. I respect your opinion.

 

We have lowered the bar on educational requirements today allowing any idiot to be educated when it's obvious that is wasted upon the many. You bring people 'up' to education and not lower the bar. Exhibit A: Affirmative Action. We are doing many a disservice as they cannot function in the World. Many cannot read nor write above a 4th Grade level at best. Yet, we pass them in class and hope for the best. 90% of the people in college would be better served in a trades school.

In essence, the best education must be administered to those best to absorb it and not based on political/social reasons. Merit.

 

Hard to tell if this is motived by a need for justice, or simple jealousy. Not all people who have more than others stole it. Many earned it.

 

I subscribe to the American moral principle that all are innocent until proven guilty.

If you believe that the 11-12 million men, women and children have all been condemned in a court of law, for what?

If you had mistakenly assumed they all had been tried and convicted, you need not try to defend your error.

 

No one is born free they are always part of society and the society they are in, your not also born free in Ancient Rome and your born a slave you often died a slave, and native Romans weren't free their cage was just bigger. In our world freedom is relative and come in many forms which is stronger the freedom of religion or freedom from hunger I would say the latter is stronger if a government is a theocracy but it feeds you a good diet it might be seen as good. Is the right to privacy as important as the rights to housing and employment with a good education to be able to work at a good job - I might argue losing some privacy to get those other things is a fair trade off.

I will say being free but ignorant, cold, sick, hungry, naked and not being overall safe and provided for isn't freedom the homeless man is free more than some but is in a sorry state. While being provided for but losing some freedoms could be in many ways far more free since they are free from gross loss of life's needs.

 

​

.

War is Peace ​

.

Freedom is Slavery​

.

Ignorance is Strength​

This past week alone, The Great Flatu claimed that the United States is about to take in 250,000 Syrian refugees, that African-Americans are responsible for most white homicides, and that during the 9/11 attacks, “thousands and thousands” of people in an unnamed “Arab” community in New Jersey “were cheering as that building was coming down.”

Only he know if he was lying. He could be the chronic victim of false memory syndrome. Either way, it is convenient that the untruths he spouts allign with the irrational prejudices of his rabid followers.

Do the neo-nazis and white supremacists who have openly declared their support for him care?

Probably not.

 

Moral is not the same as legal, but that is another topic. I follow the same principle.

I do not believe that that number of people have been condemned in a court of law. I quoted you on "law abiding", and one does not need to be condemned in a court of law to be a non law abiding person.

I have not assumed that all had been convicted, but I do keep seeing on the news that many have been repeatedly convicted.

 

Nor are they mutually exclusive. Moral principles are normally quite compatible with legal jurisprudence.

"Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" applies. Presuming guilt, that an individual is not "law abiding," demands credible evidence against that individual at the minimum.

What percentage out of 11-12 million constitutes "many" for you?

Criminals are being deported in record numbers, as well as those who have been convicted of minor infractions, or were merely shown to have been here illegally.

Give the reality, the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars that Trump would throw at identifying, locating, apprehending, incarcerating, prosecuting, and deporting 11-12 million men, women, and children, as well as building an enormous wall (with all the government seizure of private land that would necessitate,) is an extremely daft notion.

 

Since they're in this country illegally, their guilt has already been proven.

 

You are quite correct. Judeo Christian values are deeply intertwined with our legal system.

I am no expert in law, but I don't think that "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" applies here. If I understand correctly, court is where people are tried for crimes, but unlawful presence in the country is not a crime. It is a violation of federal immigration law to remain in the country without legal authorization, but this violation is punishable by civil penalties, not criminal. To the best of my limited legal knowledge, people who are here unlawfully are supposed to be removed or deported. Their unlawful presence is not determined in court, but that does not mean that they are "law abiding" people. Being caught or proven guilty are not related to whether somebody is abiding by the law anyway. People have murdered and raped without being convicted, but this does not make them law abiding people. I may be incorrect because of my limited knowledge of law, but I think that people who evade our immigration officers or misrepresent who they are when they enter our country are committing an actual crime that would need to be proven in a court. These folks would just be non law abiding people until proven guilty of a crime. Either way, a tree can still fall in a forest, even if nobody sees it.

I don't know about percentages. I just see many news stories where someone has been repeatedly convicted of crimes, and has just committed another.

I am glad to see that we are deporting criminals as well as non law abiding people. They don't belong here, so lets get rid of them all.

It would probably cost far less if the government had been enforcing our laws all along, but Trump's plan as you have described it here is not really his own plan. He just wants to enforce existing laws and build a wall that will reduce this huge expense in the future. Paying for past irresponsibility can be expensive, but the wall can make immigration enforcement cost less to maintain in the long run. I am sure new ways to expedite the entry of unregistered democrats will evolve, so no need to worry.

 

And Donald Trump also forced all these people to come here illegally in the first place, huh? I love how the Left works. People come here illegally, invading our sovereignty, they misuse an amendment that was never about illegals, then when we finally want to enforce the LAW, all of the sudden Trump is the bad guy for splitting up homes. If would be like if I broke into your house, and moved my whole family in, without your permission, then when you tried to kick me out and said, "maybe we can work something out if you come back and ask nicely, and then i might let you in, LEGALLY", then your nosy neighbor called you a heartless cretin for "breaking up families".

Don't want your family broken up? Come to America legally, it's not freakin' rocket science.

 

No, it hasn't. Not until each of the 11-12 million folks that you accuse have been found guilty in a court of law.

 

Not that I know of. Why do you believe that?

Especially since more are leaving than are now entering, as a practical matter (that has nothing to do with your imaginary "Left!") I don't regard committing hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money to identifying, locating, apprehending, incarcerating, and prosecuting 11-12 million suspects, whilst constructing an enormous wall, an intelligent allocation of resources.

 

According to Natty, you would not be breaking the law until it was proven in court. I guess if you kill the real homeowner and don't get caught, you would remain a law abiding person.