Poll of the Day > Liberal Man is hailed a LEGEND for LAUGHING at a MAGA HEIFER!!!

Topic List	Page List: 1
Full Throttle 08/08/19 10:08:46 PM #1:	Does the wench deserve to be mocked? - Results (5 votes) Yes 20% (1 vote) 1 No 80% (4 votes) 4 28 y/o Alex Kack, dubbed "Green Shirt Guy" was hailed a LEGEND and became an internet star after he was filmed cackling at 2 Trump Supporters during a city council meeting in Arizona!! A man and woman, who's now outed as far right heifer, Jennifer Harison were holding protest signs and screaming anti-immigration slogans as footage shows Kack sitting neaerby laughing his ass off! He's a blogger and comedian who attended a meeting to support a decision to put a "Sanctuary City" measure on the November Ballot The initiative had already required the number of signatures that meant elected leaders were legally required to approve it and put it on the ballot But Trump Supporters jumped to their feet to demontrate as Jennifer said "you're in direct violation of the oat you took to the United States constitution" And someone in the audience yells "you're in direct violation of being a jackass" Several people left as Jennifer spoke louder before police eventually booted their hineys out But "Green Shirt Guy" continued laughing uncontrollably as he said it was just how absurd those 2 were that he couldn't stop laughing and said "Who has the time in their day to come into a public space just to spread hatred and negativity? Like honestly what happened that made them so ridiculous and hateful" Kack is a field organizer for Peoples Defense Initiative and works with Tucson Families Free and Together on the sanctuary city measure and he showed up in support He said "I think it's a bold statement of morality that our community needs to make, given our history with the larger sanctuary movement and the community that lives here it's something that we need to pass. Families deserve to be together and all people deserve the right to feel safe". His laughter has gone viral as millions have joined in the laughter against Jennifer. Jennifer is a member of a far right group called AZ Patriots and is being sued by the SPLJ & Arizona Churches Does the Maga Wench deserve to be mocked? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPzVCdSlsBM" data-time="&start=28 Alex - Jennifer - Whale --- call me mrduckbear, sweater monkeys. A GFAQS User Steps On A Bug, I'll Stop Posting for 48 HOURS. THIS ACCOUNT ONLY!! I'm an Asian Liberal. RESIST The Alt-Right <cite>Full Throttle posted [p:925820480] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote> Does the wench deserve to be mocked? - Results (5 votes) Yes 20% (1 vote) 1 No 80% (4 votes) 4 28 y/o Alex Kack, dubbed "Green Shirt Guy" was hailed a LEGEND and became an internet star after he was filmed cackling at 2 Trump Supporters during a city council meeting in Arizona!! A man and woman, who's now outed as far right heifer, Jennifer Harison were holding protest signs and screaming anti-immigration slogans as footage shows Kack sitting neaerby laughing his ass off! He's a blogger and comedian who attended a meeting to support a decision to put a "Sanctuary City" measure on the November Ballot The initiative had already required the number of signatures that meant elected leaders were legally required to approve it and put it on the ballot But Trump Supporters jumped to their feet to demontrate as Jennifer said "you're in direct violation of the oat you took to the United States constitution" And someone in the audience yells "you're in direct violation of being a jackass" Several people left as Jennifer spoke louder before police eventually booted their hineys out But "Green Shirt Guy" continued laughing uncontrollably as he said it was just how absurd those 2 were that he couldn't stop laughing and said "Who has the time in their day to come into a public space just to spread hatred and negativity? Like honestly what happened that made them so ridiculous and hateful" Kack is a field organizer for Peoples Defense Initiative and works with Tucson Families Free and Together on the sanctuary city measure and he showed up in support He said "I think it's a bold statement of morality that our community needs to make, given our history with the larger sanctuary movement and the community that lives here it's something that we need to pass. Families deserve to be together and all people deserve the right to feel safe". His laughter has gone viral as millions have joined in the laughter against Jennifer. Jennifer is a member of a far right group called AZ Patriots and is being sued by the SPLJ & Arizona Churches Does the Maga Wench deserve to be mocked? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPzVCdSlsBM" data-time="&start=28 Alex - Jennifer - Whale </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
YeetingBees 08/08/19 10:11:01 PM #2:	Why do you talk like a fucking neanderthal? <cite>YeetingBees posted [p:925820573] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Why do you talk like a fucking neanderthal? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 08/08/19 10:12:02 PM #3:	Full Throttle posted... And someone in the audience yells "you're in direct violation of being a jackass" lol --- If they drag you through the mud, it doesnt change whats in your blood <cite>Mead posted [p:925820622] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Full Throttle posted... </cite> <quote>And someone in the audience yells "you're in direct violation of being a jackass"</quote> lol </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SunWuKung420 08/08/19 10:16:17 PM #4:	Lol --- I'd rather die helping others survive than be all alone, UNSCATHED, after all others have fallen -DEC <cite>SunWuKung420 posted [p:925820796] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Lol</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lirishae 08/08/19 10:24:29 PM #5:	Jennifer said, "you're in direct violation of the oath you took to the United States constitution" The people who scream about the Constitution the most seem to be the people who understand it the least. There is absolutely nothing in that document that requires states and municipalities to use their finite time and resources to run immigration enforcement for the federal government. In fact, the Constitution actually gives the power to set immigration law to individual states via the 10th Amendment. Federal law in the late nineteenth century seized this power for the government in violation of the Constitution. --- "Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus 3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155 <cite>Lirishae posted [p:925821141] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote><quote>Jennifer said, "you're in direct violation of the oath you took to the United States constitution"</quote> The people who scream about the Constitution the most seem to be the people who understand it the least. There is absolutely nothing in that document that requires states and municipalities to use their finite time and resources to run immigration enforcement for the federal government. In fact, the Constitution actually gives the power to set immigration law to individual states via the 10th Amendment. Federal law in the late nineteenth century seized this power for the government in violation of the Constitution.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
rexcrk 08/08/19 10:39:00 PM #6:	YeetingBees posted... Why do you talk like a fucking neanderthal? After all this time I really cant tell if its an act or genuine mental issues. But then again, if its an act, then theres definitely something screwy with someone who devotes that much to it anyway. --- These pretzels are making me thirsty! <cite>rexcrk posted [p:925821766] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>YeetingBees posted...</cite> <quote>Why do you talk like a fucking neanderthal? </quote> After all this time I really cant tell if its an act or genuine mental issues. But then again, if its an act, then theres definitely something screwy with someone who devotes that much to it anyway.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0 08/09/19 3:13:39 AM #7:	It's always been confusing to me that Republicans seem to make claims to the constitution constantly and never seem to have any clue what is actually in the constitution. Democrats on the other hand just go to court over unconstitutional stuff and generally win. <cite>BlackScythe0 posted [p:925829325] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>It's always been confusing to me that Republicans seem to make claims to the constitution constantly and never seem to have any clue what is actually in the constitution. Democrats on the other hand just go to court over unconstitutional stuff and generally win.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Gaawa_chan 08/09/19 3:27:52 AM #8:	Isn't this like the reverse MAGA hat kid + native American situation? He's not doing anything to her. --- Hi <cite>Gaawa_chan posted [p:925829576] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Isn't this like the reverse MAGA hat kid + native American situation? He's not doing anything to her.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
aDirtyShisno 08/09/19 3:28:14 AM #9:	While I believe in the right to peaceful protest I dont believe in the right to disruptive protest even if it is technically peaceful because it usually interferes with someone elses right to free speech. To be frank lately this has been more frequently seen as liberal protests at Trump rallies or anything conservative leaning in general but obviously it does go both ways. Im sure there was a point when the public was able to voice their opinions and concerns regarding the matter at hand and if they felt their opinions were ignored they can always vote the council members out of office in the next election. That being said I dont believe it should be legal to aid and abet criminals just because they are foreigners. If you dont think they should be criminals just for entertaining the country than, like I said above, voice your opinions to your lawmakers to change the laws or vote out the lawmakers you disagree with. If you cant do that then obviously there isnt enough support to your opinion and the laws should be enforced as they currently stand. --- Que sera, sera. Whatever happens, happens. ...and he was never heard from again. <cite>aDirtyShisno posted [p:925829580] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>While I believe in the right to peaceful protest I dont believe in the right to disruptive protest even if it is technically peaceful because it usually interferes with someone elses right to free speech. To be frank lately this has been more frequently seen as liberal protests at Trump rallies or anything conservative leaning in general but obviously it does go both ways. Im sure there was a point when the public was able to voice their opinions and concerns regarding the matter at hand and if they felt their opinions were ignored they can always vote the council members out of office in the next election. That being said I dont believe it should be legal to aid and abet criminals just because they are foreigners. If you dont think they should be criminals just for entertaining the country than, like I said above, voice your opinions to your lawmakers to change the laws or vote out the lawmakers you disagree with. If you cant do that then obviously there isnt enough support to your opinion and the laws should be enforced as they currently stand.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lirishae 08/09/19 4:01:28 AM #10:	aDirtyShisno posted... the laws should be enforced as they currently stand. Right now, many states still have statutes banning sodomy and adultery. Do you want law enforcement to spend their finite time and resources rounding people up for consensual behavior "because it's the law"? Or do you recognize that this doesn't benefit society whatsoever, and prosecutors have discretion to focus on say, rapists and child molesters? Rounding up people who've committed immigration violations only is a waste of resources. It is physically and financially impossible to round up every single illegal immigrant in this country, and even if you could, it would be a colossal waste of time, money, and manpower. --- "Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus 3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155 <cite>Lirishae posted [p:925830036] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote> the laws should be enforced as they currently stand. </quote> Right now, many states still have statutes banning sodomy and adultery. Do you want law enforcement to spend their finite time and resources rounding people up for consensual behavior "because it's the law"? Or do you recognize that this doesn't benefit society whatsoever, and prosecutors have discretion to focus on say, rapists and child molesters? Rounding up people who've committed immigration violations only is a waste of resources. It is physically and financially impossible to round up every single illegal immigrant in this country, and even if you could, it would be a colossal waste of time, money, and manpower.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 08/09/19 4:12:57 AM #11:	Lirishae posted... Right now, many states still have statutes banning sodomy and adultery. Do you want law enforcement to spend their finite time and resources rounding people up for consensual behavior "because it's the law"? aDirtyShisno posted... voice your opinions to your lawmakers to change the laws or vote out the lawmakers you disagree with. If you cant do that then obviously there isnt enough support to your opinion and the laws should be enforced as they currently stand. The rest of the quote covers your complaint. Lirishae posted... Rounding up people who've committed immigration violations only is a waste of resources. It is physically and financially impossible to round up every single illegal immigrant in this country May as well make drugs and murder legal too since you can't catch every junkie, dealer and assassin; clearly it's just a waste of resources. Lirishae posted... and even if you could, it would be a colossal waste of time, money, and manpower. It isn't, but I don't think you're one to accept facts that don't align with your beliefs. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:925830217] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>Right now, many states still have statutes banning sodomy and adultery. Do you want law enforcement to spend their finite time and resources rounding people up for consensual behavior "because it's the law"? </quote> aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote>voice your opinions to your lawmakers to change the laws or vote out the lawmakers you disagree with. If you cant do that then obviously there isnt enough support to your opinion and the laws should be enforced as they currently stand.</quote> The rest of the quote covers your complaint. Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>Rounding up people who've committed immigration violations only is a waste of resources. It is physically and financially impossible to round up every single illegal immigrant in this country</quote> May as well make drugs and murder legal too since you can't catch every junkie, dealer and assassin; clearly it's just a waste of resources. Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>and even if you could, it would be a colossal waste of time, money, and manpower.</quote> It isn't, but I don't think you're one to accept facts that don't align with your beliefs.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
aDirtyShisno 08/09/19 4:39:05 AM #12:	Lirishae posted... aDirtyShisno posted... the laws should be enforced as they currently stand. Right now, many states still have statutes banning sodomy and adultery. Do you want law enforcement to spend their finite time and resources rounding people up for consensual behavior "because it's the law"? Or do you recognize that this doesn't benefit society whatsoever, and prosecutors have discretion to focus on say, rapists and child molesters? Rounding up people who've committed immigration violations only is a waste of resources. It is physically and financially impossible to round up every single illegal immigrant in this country, and even if you could, it would be a colossal waste of time, money, and manpower. I also said... Like I said above, voice your opinions to your lawmakers to change the laws or vote out the lawmakers you disagree with. If you cant do that then obviously there isnt enough support to your opinion and the laws should be enforced as they currently stand. --- Que sera, sera. Whatever happens, happens. ...and he was never heard from again. <cite>aDirtyShisno posted [p:925830567] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote> the laws should be enforced as they currently stand. </quote> Right now, many states still have statutes banning sodomy and adultery. Do you want law enforcement to spend their finite time and resources rounding people up for consensual behavior "because it's the law"? Or do you recognize that this doesn't benefit society whatsoever, and prosecutors have discretion to focus on say, rapists and child molesters? Rounding up people who've committed immigration violations only is a waste of resources. It is physically and financially impossible to round up every single illegal immigrant in this country, and even if you could, it would be a colossal waste of time, money, and manpower.</quote> <cite>I also said...</cite> <quote>Like I said above, voice your opinions to your lawmakers to change the laws or vote out the lawmakers you disagree with. If you cant do that then obviously there isnt enough support to your opinion and the laws should be enforced as they currently stand.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Gaawa_chan 08/09/19 5:06:37 AM #13:	aDirtyShisno posted... Like I said above, voice your opinions to your lawmakers to change the laws or vote out the lawmakers you disagree with. If you cant do that then obviously there isnt enough support to your opinion and the laws should be enforced as they currently stand. You hear that guys? Be careful where/what time you do anything on Sunday, play pinball, do normal things while black (since Jim Crow laws are still on the books all over the country)... oh, how about the child marriage laws still all over the place in the USA? In many states, there is no age requirement AT ALL provided your parents are willing to sel- I mean- sign you off. Or parental rights for rapists and women not being permitted to withdraw consent if things take a bad turn? That is what you just argued for. I think maybe you might want to learn more about US law before you say stuff like that again. Our system is not built to make revoking unjust, outdated, or ridiculous laws easy. They exist in every single state, and are nothing but a burden both to the citizenry and the judicial system. Immigration is the perfect example of this; treating it as a criminal rather than a civil offense is a massive burden on our judicial system, it is expensive, it is inefficient, and it is damaging to the reputation of our nation. We could free up our courts for more important work and save money if we modernized the process of applying for legal status/renewing status (second one is actually more important than the first) and changed undocumented immigration from a criminal to a civil offense. --- Hi <cite>Gaawa_chan posted [p:925830901] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote>Like I said above, voice your opinions to your lawmakers to change the laws or vote out the lawmakers you disagree with. If you cant do that then obviously there isnt enough support to your opinion and the laws should be enforced as they currently stand.</quote> You hear that guys? Be careful where/what time you do anything on Sunday, play pinball, do normal things while black (since Jim Crow laws are still on the books all over the country)... oh, how about the child marriage laws still all over the place in the USA? In many states, there is no age requirement AT ALL provided your parents are willing to sel- I mean- sign you off. Or parental rights for rapists and women not being permitted to withdraw consent if things take a bad turn? That is what you just argued for. I think maybe you might want to learn more about US law before you say stuff like that again. Our system is not built to make revoking unjust, outdated, or ridiculous laws easy. They exist in every single state, and are nothing but a burden both to the citizenry and the judicial system. Immigration is the perfect example of this; treating it as a criminal rather than a civil offense is a massive burden on our judicial system, it is expensive, it is inefficient, and it is damaging to the reputation of our nation. We could free up our courts for more important work and save money if we modernized the process of applying for legal status/renewing status (second one is actually more important than the first) and changed undocumented immigration from a criminal to a civil offense.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 08/09/19 5:25:41 AM #14:	Gaawa_chan posted... You hear that guys? Be careful where/what time you do anything on Sunday, play pinball, do normal things while black (since Jim Crow laws are still on the books all over the country)... oh, how about the child marriage laws still all over the place in the USA? In many states, there is no age requirement AT ALL provided your parents are willing to sel- I mean- sign you off. Or parental rights for rapists and women not being permitted to withdraw consent if things take a bad turn? That's what protests are for, go get bad laws overturned. Gaawa_chan posted... That is what you just argued for. I think maybe you might want to learn more about US law before you say stuff like that again. The US is a third world shithole, that's nothing new. If you got your shit together, it could be a respectable nation. Gaawa_chan posted... treating it as a criminal rather than a civil offense is a massive burden on our judicial system, it is expensive, it is inefficient, and it is damaging to the reputation of our nation. Oh but I thought bad laws were just ignored? Everybody totally agrees with you, but the law is just hard to overturn, right? --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:925831145] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Gaawa_chan posted...</cite> <quote>You hear that guys? Be careful where/what time you do anything on Sunday, play pinball, do normal things while black (since Jim Crow laws are still on the books all over the country)... oh, how about the child marriage laws still all over the place in the USA? In many states, there is no age requirement AT ALL provided your parents are willing to sel- I mean- sign you off. Or parental rights for rapists and women not being permitted to withdraw consent if things take a bad turn?</quote> That's what protests are for, go get bad laws overturned. Gaawa_chan posted...</cite> <quote>That is what you just argued for. I think maybe you might want to learn more about US law before you say stuff like that again.</quote> The US is a third world shithole, that's nothing new. If you got your shit together, it could be a respectable nation. Gaawa_chan posted...</cite> <quote>treating it as a criminal rather than a civil offense is a massive burden on our judicial system, it is expensive, it is inefficient, and it is damaging to the reputation of our nation.</quote> Oh but I thought bad laws were just ignored? Everybody totally agrees with you, but the law is just hard to overturn, right?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
aDirtyShisno 08/09/19 5:27:38 AM #15:	Gaawa_chan posted... aDirtyShisno posted... Like I said above, voice your opinions to your lawmakers to change the laws or vote out the lawmakers you disagree with. If you cant do that then obviously there isnt enough support to your opinion and the laws should be enforced as they currently stand. You hear that guys? Be careful where/what time you do anything on Sunday, play pinball, do normal things while black (since Jim Crow laws are still on the books all over the country)... oh, how about the child marriage laws still all over the place in the USA? In many states, there is no age requirement AT ALL provided your parents are willing to sel- I mean- sign you off. Or parental rights for rapists and women not being permitted to withdraw consent if things take a bad turn? That is what you just argued for. I think maybe you might want to learn more about US law before you say stuff like that again. Our system is not built to make revoking unjust, outdated, or ridiculous laws easy. They exist in every single state, and are nothing but a burden both to the citizenry and the judicial system. Immigration is the perfect example of this; treating it as a criminal rather than a civil offense is a massive burden on our judicial system, it is expensive, it is inefficient, and it is damaging to the reputation of our nation. We could free up our courts for more important work and save money if we modernized the process of applying for legal status/renewing status (second one is actually more important than the first) and changed undocumented immigration from a criminal to a civil offense. Pretty sure around 90% of what you just said have been legislated Federally, and some of that Constitutionally at that. Again if its outlawed it should remain outlawed, if a Judicial case nullified a law than it should be physically stricken as a matter of business, and if its not been removed from the books and its bad then get your lawmakers to remove it. Ignoring laws because you disagree with them and think theyre stupid is just asking for anarchy. Murderers ignore laws all the time because they think they shouldnt apply. What makes enforcing those laws any different than enforcing say a stupid law that says a husband must walk in front of his wifes car swinging a lantern to warn all other drivers of a woman driver on the road? Yup, its a real law in some State, I forget which. A stupid law, but a real law. Dont want to enforce it? Pull it off the books. Did it get nullified by a Constitutional Amendment? Pull it off the books. Otherwise if its somehow completely legal, and I doubt it is, then enforce it. Otherwise you might as well let everyone go free. --- Que sera, sera. Whatever happens, happens. ...and he was never heard from again. <cite>aDirtyShisno posted [p:925831173] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Gaawa_chan posted...</cite> <quote>aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote>Like I said above, voice your opinions to your lawmakers to change the laws or vote out the lawmakers you disagree with. If you cant do that then obviously there isnt enough support to your opinion and the laws should be enforced as they currently stand.</quote> You hear that guys? Be careful where/what time you do anything on Sunday, play pinball, do normal things while black (since Jim Crow laws are still on the books all over the country)... oh, how about the child marriage laws still all over the place in the USA? In many states, there is no age requirement AT ALL provided your parents are willing to sel- I mean- sign you off. Or parental rights for rapists and women not being permitted to withdraw consent if things take a bad turn? That is what you just argued for. I think maybe you might want to learn more about US law before you say stuff like that again. Our system is not built to make revoking unjust, outdated, or ridiculous laws easy. They exist in every single state, and are nothing but a burden both to the citizenry and the judicial system. Immigration is the perfect example of this; treating it as a criminal rather than a civil offense is a massive burden on our judicial system, it is expensive, it is inefficient, and it is damaging to the reputation of our nation. We could free up our courts for more important work and save money if we modernized the process of applying for legal status/renewing status (second one is actually more important than the first) and changed undocumented immigration from a criminal to a civil offense.</quote> Pretty sure around 90% of what you just said have been legislated Federally, and some of that Constitutionally at that. Again if its outlawed it should remain outlawed, if a Judicial case nullified a law than it should be physically stricken as a matter of business, and if its not been removed from the books and its bad then get your lawmakers to remove it. Ignoring laws because you disagree with them and think theyre stupid is just asking for anarchy. Murderers ignore laws all the time because they think they shouldnt apply. What makes enforcing those laws any different than enforcing say a stupid law that says a husband must walk in front of his wifes car swinging a lantern to warn all other drivers of a woman driver on the road? Yup, its a real law in some State, I forget which. A stupid law, but a real law. Dont want to enforce it? Pull it off the books. Did it get nullified by a Constitutional Amendment? Pull it off the books. Otherwise if its somehow completely legal, and I doubt it is, then enforce it. Otherwise you might as well let everyone go free.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lirishae 08/09/19 5:45:59 AM #16:	aDirtyShisno posted... like I said above, voice your opinions to your lawmakers to change the laws or vote out the lawmakers you disagree with. If you cant do that then obviously there isnt enough support to your opinion and the laws should be enforced as they currently stand. Correct me if I'm wrong, but since you repeated this quote, I'm assuming you're trying to say that sodomy and adultery should continue to be prosecuted until the laws are changed. This is the kind of mentality that's jokingly referred to as "lawful stupid" -- not calling you stupid, it's just the name of the trope. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid Prosecuting everything "because it's the law" means not being able to use discretion to prioritize the cases that are most important toward keeping society safe. If anyone thinks that deporting illegal immigrants should be a high priority, make the case for that position. Don't hide behind "it's the law," because being the law doesn't make it morally correct or mean that you can't apply discretion as to when it's enforced. https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prosecutorial-discretion/ Kyuubi4269 posted... May as well make drugs and murder legal too since you can't catch every junkie, dealer and assassin; clearly it's just a waste of resources. This is a logical fallacy called reductio ad absurdum. The war on drugs has been a colossal failure, but getting murderers off has obvious benefits. Kyuubi4269 posted... It isn't, but I don't think you're one to accept facts that don't align with your beliefs. Oh hai, I'm that person who frequently cites statistics and articles while you're here presenting your opinion as fact with nothing to back it up. Here, I've got an article for you to read with lots of citations explaining why mass deportations will hurt the economy. Somehow I doubt this will affect your opinion on the subject though. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/14/what-donald-trumps-deportation-plans-would-do-to-american-businesses/ --- "Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus 3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155 <cite>Lirishae posted [p:925831422] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote>like I said above, voice your opinions to your lawmakers to change the laws or vote out the lawmakers you disagree with. If you cant do that then obviously there isnt enough support to your opinion and the laws should be enforced as they currently stand. </quote> Correct me if I'm wrong, but since you repeated this quote, I'm assuming you're trying to say that sodomy and adultery should continue to be prosecuted until the laws are changed. This is the kind of mentality that's jokingly referred to as "lawful stupid" -- not calling you stupid, it's just the name of the trope. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid Prosecuting everything "because it's the law" means not being able to use discretion to prioritize the cases that are most important toward keeping society safe. If anyone thinks that deporting illegal immigrants should be a high priority, make the case for that position. Don't hide behind "it's the law," because being the law doesn't make it morally correct or mean that you can't apply discretion as to when it's enforced. https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prosecutorial-discretion/ Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>May as well make drugs and murder legal too since you can't catch every junkie, dealer and assassin; clearly it's just a waste of resources.</quote> This is a logical fallacy called reductio ad absurdum. The war on drugs has been a colossal failure, but getting murderers off has obvious benefits. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>It isn't, but I don't think you're one to accept facts that don't align with your beliefs.</quote> Oh hai, I'm that person who frequently cites statistics and articles while you're here presenting your opinion as fact with nothing to back it up. Here, I've got an article for you to read with lots of citations explaining why mass deportations will hurt the economy. Somehow I doubt this will affect your opinion on the subject though. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/14/what-donald-trumps-deportation-plans-would-do-to-american-businesses/</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 08/09/19 6:04:22 AM #17:	Lirishae posted... Correct me if I'm wrong, but since you repeated this quote, I'm assuming you're trying to say that sodomy and adultery should continue to be prosecuted until the laws are changed. This is the kind of mentality that's jokingly referred to as "lawful stupid" -- not calling you stupid, it's just the name of the trope. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid That isn't lawful stupid as the trope describes. He didn't say immigrants are the enemy because it's illegal. What I think he meant was that not enforcing the law means laws are pointless and subject to massive corruption. Lirishae posted... If anyone thinks that deporting illegal immigrants should be a high priority, make the case for that position. If you think any other law should be higher priority, make the case for that position. There's no good reason this law should be less enforced beyond feels. Lirishae posted... This is a logical fallacy called reductio ad absurdum. The war on drugs has been a colossal failure, but getting murderers off has obvious benefits. Getting rid of illegal immigrants has obvious benefits. When you make an absurd claim, it's going to be challenged on your merits, and you've just admitted it's absurd. Lirishae posted... Oh hai, I'm that person who frequently cites statistics and articles while you're here presenting your opinion as fact with nothing to back it up. Here, I've got an article for you to read with lots of citations explaining why mass deportations will hurt the economy. Somehow I doubt this will affect your opinion on the subject though. 1) I can't see that. 2) The fuck does a columnist know about economics. 3) It's an issue of illegal immigrants harming the lives of citizens, not of company bottom lines. In fact, businesses make more profit because they can exploit immigrants and abandon citizens. Don't talk on subjects you're ignorant of. Edit: There's also the amusing part that since you're a raging feminist, you're also likely to be socialist-minded. Can you not see how the issue with immigration is the same as how when Trump claimed unemployment was down when it was from forcing people in to lesser working conditions. Profits may be up, but quality of life is down. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:925831659] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>Correct me if I'm wrong, but since you repeated this quote, I'm assuming you're trying to say that sodomy and adultery should continue to be prosecuted until the laws are changed. This is the kind of mentality that's jokingly referred to as "lawful stupid" -- not calling you stupid, it's just the name of the trope. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid</quote> That isn't lawful stupid as the trope describes. He didn't say immigrants are the enemy because it's illegal. What I think he meant was that not enforcing the law means laws are pointless and subject to massive corruption. Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>If anyone thinks that deporting illegal immigrants should be a high priority, make the case for that position. </quote> If you think any other law should be higher priority, make the case for that position. There's no good reason this law should be less enforced beyond feels. Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>This is a logical fallacy called reductio ad absurdum. The war on drugs has been a colossal failure, but getting murderers off has obvious benefits.</quote> Getting rid of illegal immigrants has obvious benefits. When you make an absurd claim, it's going to be challenged on your merits, and you've just admitted it's absurd. Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>Oh hai, I'm that person who frequently cites statistics and articles while you're here presenting your opinion as fact with nothing to back it up. Here, I've got an article for you to read with lots of citations explaining why mass deportations will hurt the economy. Somehow I doubt this will affect your opinion on the subject though.</quote> 1) I can't see that. 2) The fuck does a columnist know about economics. 3) It's an issue of illegal immigrants harming the lives of citizens, not of company bottom lines. In fact, businesses make more profit because they can exploit immigrants and abandon citizens. Don't talk on subjects you're ignorant of. Edit: There's also the amusing part that since you're a raging feminist, you're also likely to be socialist-minded. Can you not see how the issue with immigration is the same as how when Trump claimed unemployment was down when it was from forcing people in to lesser working conditions. Profits may be up, but quality of life is down.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
aDirtyShisno 08/09/19 6:10:47 AM #18:	Lirishae posted... aDirtyShisno posted... like I said above, voice your opinions to your lawmakers to change the laws or vote out the lawmakers you disagree with. If you cant do that then obviously there isnt enough support to your opinion and the laws should be enforced as they currently stand. Correct me if I'm wrong, but since you repeated this quote, I'm assuming you're trying to say that sodomy and adultery should continue to be prosecuted until the laws are changed. This is the kind of mentality that's jokingly referred to as "lawful stupid" -- not calling you stupid, it's just the name of the trope. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid Prosecuting everything "because it's the law" means not being able to use discretion to prioritize the cases that are most important toward keeping society safe. If anyone thinks that deporting illegal immigrants should be a high priority, make the case for that position. Don't hide behind "it's the law," because being the law doesn't make it morally correct or mean that you can't apply discretion as to when it's enforced. https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prosecutorial-discretion/ Kyuubi4269 posted... May as well make drugs and murder legal too since you can't catch every junkie, dealer and assassin; clearly it's just a waste of resources. This is a logical fallacy called reductio ad absurdum. The war on drugs has been a colossal failure, but getting murderers off has obvious benefits. Kyuubi4269 posted... It isn't, but I don't think you're one to accept facts that don't align with your beliefs. Oh hai, I'm that person who frequently cites statistics and articles while you're here presenting your opinion as fact with nothing to back it up. Here, I've got an article for you to read with lots of citations explaining why mass deportations will hurt the economy. Somehow I doubt this will affect your opinion on the subject though. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/14/what-donald-trumps-deportation-plans-would-do-to-american-businesses/ Youre choosing laws to *completely ignore* on a whim. Not laws to enforce to a lesser degree. If a law is not worth enforcing entirely then it should be removed from the books, but if you cant garner the support to remove that law from the books then ipso facto it has enough support to at least be enforced to some reasonable degree. --- Que sera, sera. Whatever happens, happens. ...and he was never heard from again. <cite>aDirtyShisno posted [p:925831749] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote>like I said above, voice your opinions to your lawmakers to change the laws or vote out the lawmakers you disagree with. If you cant do that then obviously there isnt enough support to your opinion and the laws should be enforced as they currently stand. </quote> Correct me if I'm wrong, but since you repeated this quote, I'm assuming you're trying to say that sodomy and adultery should continue to be prosecuted until the laws are changed. This is the kind of mentality that's jokingly referred to as "lawful stupid" -- not calling you stupid, it's just the name of the trope. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid Prosecuting everything "because it's the law" means not being able to use discretion to prioritize the cases that are most important toward keeping society safe. If anyone thinks that deporting illegal immigrants should be a high priority, make the case for that position. Don't hide behind "it's the law," because being the law doesn't make it morally correct or mean that you can't apply discretion as to when it's enforced. https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prosecutorial-discretion/ Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>May as well make drugs and murder legal too since you can't catch every junkie, dealer and assassin; clearly it's just a waste of resources.</quote> This is a logical fallacy called reductio ad absurdum. The war on drugs has been a colossal failure, but getting murderers off has obvious benefits. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>It isn't, but I don't think you're one to accept facts that don't align with your beliefs.</quote> Oh hai, I'm that person who frequently cites statistics and articles while you're here presenting your opinion as fact with nothing to back it up. Here, I've got an article for you to read with lots of citations explaining why mass deportations will hurt the economy. Somehow I doubt this will affect your opinion on the subject though. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/14/what-donald-trumps-deportation-plans-would-do-to-american-businesses/</quote> Youre choosing laws to completely ignore on a whim. Not laws to enforce to a lesser degree. If a law is not worth enforcing entirely then it should be removed from the books, but if you cant garner the support to remove that law from the books then ipso facto it has enough support to at least be enforced to some reasonable degree.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BloodWhen_iWipe 08/09/19 6:17:12 AM #19:	Kyuubi4269 posted... Lirishae posted... Rounding up people who've committed immigration violations only is a waste of resources. It is physically and financially impossible to round up every single illegal immigrant in this country May as well make drugs legal Yes, the government should. Kyuubi4269 posted... May as well make murder legal too since you can't catch every assassin; clearly it's just a waste of resources. Stupid comparison. Crossing illegally is a misdemeanor. <cite>BloodWhen_iWipe posted [p:925831846] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>Rounding up people who've committed immigration violations only is a waste of resources. It is physically and financially impossible to round up every single illegal immigrant in this country</quote> May as well make drugs legal</quote> Yes, the government should. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>May as well make murder legal too since you can't catch every assassin; clearly it's just a waste of resources.</quote> Stupid comparison. Crossing illegally is a misdemeanor.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 08/09/19 6:41:24 AM #20:	BloodWhen_iWipe posted... Yes, the government should. Drugs isn't just weed and speed, nah man. We're talking krokadil, cocaine, meth, all the stuff that seriously fucks up people and their areas. BloodWhen_iWipe posted... Stupid comparison. Crossing illegally is a misdemeanor. It is a criminal act with difficult enforcement. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:925832211] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>BloodWhen_iWipe posted...</cite> <quote>Yes, the government should.</quote> Drugs isn't just weed and speed, nah man. We're talking krokadil, cocaine, meth, all the stuff that seriously fucks up people and their areas. BloodWhen_iWipe posted...</cite> <quote>Stupid comparison. Crossing illegally is a misdemeanor.</quote> It is a criminal act with difficult enforcement.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BloodWhen_iWipe 08/09/19 6:53:42 AM #21:	Kyuubi4269 posted... BloodWhen_iWipe posted... Yes, the government should. Drugs isn't just weed and speed, nah man. We're talking krokadil, cocaine, meth, all the stuff that seriously fucks up people and their areas. Did I stutter? I didn't say "weed and speed". Drugs should be legal. All drugs. Then, the FDA can regulate recreational narcotics to help ensure public safety, and drugs can be taxed and data collected. BloodWhen_iWipe posted... Stupid comparison. Crossing illegally is a misdemeanor. It is a criminal act with difficult enforcement. Doesn't change the fact that's a stupid comparison <cite>BloodWhen_iWipe posted [p:925832384] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>BloodWhen_iWipe posted...</cite> <quote>Yes, the government should.</quote> Drugs isn't just weed and speed, nah man. We're talking krokadil, cocaine, meth, all the stuff that seriously fucks up people and their areas.</quote> Did I stutter? I didn't say "weed and speed". Drugs should be legal. All drugs. Then, the FDA can regulate recreational narcotics to help ensure public safety, and drugs can be taxed and data collected. <quote>BloodWhen_iWipe posted...</cite> <quote>Stupid comparison. Crossing illegally is a misdemeanor.</quote> It is a criminal act with difficult enforcement.</quote> Doesn't change the fact that's a stupid comparison</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 08/09/19 7:10:21 AM #22:	BloodWhen_iWipe posted... Did I stutter? I didn't say "weed and speed". Drugs should be legal. All drugs. Then, the FDA can regulate recreational narcotics to help ensure public safety, and drugs can be taxed and data collected. Recreational narcotics are regulated already. Drugs aren't illegal as such, just improper use is, and the fact you want it regulated means you want the law to be enforced, not ignored on a whim. BloodWhen_iWipe posted... Doesn't change the fact that's a stupid comparison It's stupid to compare incomparable elements, which is why you look at the correlation. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:925832637] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>BloodWhen_iWipe posted...</cite> <quote>Did I stutter? I didn't say "weed and speed". Drugs should be legal. All drugs. Then, the FDA can regulate recreational narcotics to help ensure public safety, and drugs can be taxed and data collected.</quote> Recreational narcotics are regulated already. Drugs aren't illegal as such, just improper use is, and the fact you want it regulated means you want the law to be enforced, not ignored on a whim. BloodWhen_iWipe posted...</cite> <quote>Doesn't change the fact that's a stupid comparison</quote> It's stupid to compare incomparable elements, which is why you look at the correlation.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Grendel Prime 08/09/19 7:24:40 AM #23:	I believe that poster is referring to things like street heroin being regulated in the manner OTC pharmaceuticals are, not regulated in the sense that they're illegal. --- https://imgur.com/ocx9d7F <cite>Grendel Prime posted [p:925832867] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>I believe that poster is referring to things like street heroin being regulated in the manner OTC pharmaceuticals are, not regulated in the sense that they're illegal.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 08/09/19 7:38:24 AM #24:	Grendel Prime posted... I believe that poster is referring to things like street heroin being regulated in the manner OTC pharmaceuticals are, not regulated in the sense that they're illegal. Meth is illegal in the US except when prescribed by a doctor. He's made a complaint about categorisation in an argument over law enforcement. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:925833138] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Grendel Prime posted...</cite> <quote>I believe that poster is referring to things like street heroin being regulated in the manner OTC pharmaceuticals are, not regulated in the sense that they're illegal.</quote> Meth is illegal in the US except when prescribed by a doctor. He's made a complaint about categorisation in an argument over law enforcement.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 08/09/19 8:06:28 AM #25:	Kyuubi4269 posted... Meth is illegal in the US except when prescribed by a doctor. He's made a complaint about categorisation in an argument over law enforcement. I dont know why youre always posting and arguing about US issues you clearly never have any clue what you are talking about --- If they drag you through the mud, it doesnt change whats in your blood <cite>Mead posted [p:925833701] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted... </cite> <quote>Meth is illegal in the US except when prescribed by a doctor. He's made a complaint about categorisation in an argument over law enforcement.</quote> I dont know why youre always posting and arguing about US issues you clearly never have any clue what you are talking about </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mad_Max 08/09/19 8:47:38 AM #26:	Mead posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... Meth is illegal in the US except when prescribed by a doctor. He's made a complaint about categorisation in an argument over law enforcement. I dont know why youre always posting and arguing about US issues you clearly never have any clue what you are talking about --- Terminal Crazy https://imgur.com/R9TrmGD <cite>Mad_Max posted [p:925834650] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted... </cite> <quote>Meth is illegal in the US except when prescribed by a doctor. He's made a complaint about categorisation in an argument over law enforcement.</quote> I dont know why youre always posting and arguing about US issues you clearly never have any clue what you are talking about </quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 08/09/19 8:53:56 AM #27:	Mad_Max posted... Mead posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... Meth is illegal in the US except when prescribed by a doctor. He's made a complaint about categorisation in an argument over law enforcement. I dont know why youre always posting and arguing about US issues you clearly never have any clue what you are talking about https://www.rxlist.com/desoxyn-drug.htm#description --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:925834788] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Mad_Max posted...</cite> <quote>Mead posted...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted... </cite> <quote>Meth is illegal in the US except when prescribed by a doctor. He's made a complaint about categorisation in an argument over law enforcement.</quote> I dont know why youre always posting and arguing about US issues you clearly never have any clue what you are talking about </quote></quote> https://www.rxlist.com/desoxyn-drug.htm#description</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mad_Max 08/09/19 8:59:48 AM #28:	Kyuubi4269 posted... Mad_Max posted... Mead posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... Meth is illegal in the US except when prescribed by a doctor. He's made a complaint about categorisation in an argument over law enforcement. I dont know why youre always posting and arguing about US issues you clearly never have any clue what you are talking about https://www.rxlist.com/desoxyn-drug.htm#description Grendel Prime posted... I believe that poster is referring to things like street heroin being regulated in the manner OTC pharmaceuticals are, not regulated in the sense that they're illegal. Mead posted... I dont know why youre always posting and arguing about US issues you clearly never have any clue what you are talking about --- Terminal Crazy https://imgur.com/R9TrmGD <cite>Mad_Max posted [p:925834947] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Mad_Max posted...</cite> <quote>Mead posted...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted... </cite> <quote>Meth is illegal in the US except when prescribed by a doctor. He's made a complaint about categorisation in an argument over law enforcement.</quote> I dont know why youre always posting and arguing about US issues you clearly never have any clue what you are talking about </quote></quote> https://www.rxlist.com/desoxyn-drug.htm#description</quote> Grendel Prime posted...</cite> <quote>I believe that poster is referring to things like street heroin being regulated in the manner OTC pharmaceuticals are, not regulated in the sense that they're illegal.</quote> Mead posted...</cite> <quote>I dont know why youre always posting and arguing about US issues you clearly never have any clue what you are talking about </quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 08/09/19 9:08:37 AM #29:	Mad_Max posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... Mad_Max posted... Mead posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... Meth is illegal in the US except when prescribed by a doctor. He's made a complaint about categorisation in an argument over law enforcement. I dont know why youre always posting and arguing about US issues you clearly never have any clue what you are talking about https://www.rxlist.com/desoxyn-drug.htm#description Grendel Prime posted... I believe that poster is referring to things like street heroin being regulated in the manner OTC pharmaceuticals are, not regulated in the sense that they're illegal. Mead posted... I dont know why youre always posting and arguing about US issues you clearly never have any clue what you are talking about I said meth is prescribed by doctors and I am correct. He wants all drugs to be OTC, so inherently he also knows meth isn't OTC. Don't argue things that aren't disputed. He said he wanted regulation on drugs and that is what exists, I said he wanted recategorisation (i.e. make drugs OTC regulated) but we're arguing about law enforcement. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:925835200] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Mad_Max posted...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Mad_Max posted...</cite> <quote>Mead posted...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted... </cite> <quote>Meth is illegal in the US except when prescribed by a doctor. He's made a complaint about categorisation in an argument over law enforcement.</quote> I dont know why youre always posting and arguing about US issues you clearly never have any clue what you are talking about </quote></quote> https://www.rxlist.com/desoxyn-drug.htm#description</quote> Grendel Prime posted...</cite> <quote>I believe that poster is referring to things like street heroin being regulated in the manner OTC pharmaceuticals are, not regulated in the sense that they're illegal.</quote> Mead posted...</cite> <quote>I dont know why youre always posting and arguing about US issues you clearly never have any clue what you are talking about </quote></quote> I said meth is prescribed by doctors and I am correct. He wants all drugs to be OTC, so inherently he also knows meth isn't OTC. Don't argue things that aren't disputed. He said he wanted regulation on drugs and that is what exists, I said he wanted recategorisation (i.e. make drugs OTC regulated) but we're arguing about law enforcement.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lirishae 08/09/19 12:08:36 PM #30:	Kyuubi4269 posted... That isn't lawful stupid as the trope describes. He didn't say immigrants are the enemy because it's illegal. What I think he meant was that not enforcing the law means laws are pointless and subject to massive corruption. Lawful stupid is about people who blindly adhere to laws because they're laws even when doing so makes no sense. You're acting as if you have to specifically use the word "enemy" in order to meet the definition of the trope, which the examples section will show is not necessary. Kyuubi4269 posted... If you think any other law should be higher priority, make the case for that position. There's no good reason this law should be less enforced beyond feels. I thought it was self-evident that getting rapists and murderers off the street benefits society more than mass deporting illegal immigrants which most economists agree will hurt the economy, but I guess not. Kyuubi4269 posted... Getting rid of illegal immigrants has obvious benefits. When you make an absurd claim, it's going to be challenged on your merits, and you've just admitted it's absurd. So what are these "obvious benefits"? I pointed out your use of reductio ad absurdum. Your reading comprehension is severely lacking if you think that's "admitting it's absurd." Kyuubi4269 posted... 1) I can't see that. 2) The f* does a columnist know about economics. 3) It's an issue of illegal immigrants harming the lives of citizens, not of company bottom lines. In fact, businesses make more profit because they can exploit immigrants and abandon citizens. 1. You can't see that when I just cited an article with studies that back me up, while you cited absolutely nothing but your own personal opinion? 2. The columnist quotes economists who do know about economics. Do you really need this explained to you? 3. Except immigrants commit far less crime than the native-born. Even right-wing think tanks like the Center for Immigration Studies agree this is true. If you're worried about people who are causing harm to society, authorities should be targeting American citizens first. https://www.businessinsider.com/immigrants-commit-less-crime-than-native-born-americans-trump-speech-2017-3/ https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/aug/03/antonio-villaraigosa/mostly-true-undocumented-immigrants-less-likely-co/ Kyuubi4269 posted... Don't talk on subjects you're ignorant of. Funny, I'm still the one with sources who agree with me while you're presenting nothing but your personal opinion. You're the one who accused me of ignoring facts that go against my opinion, but look at what you're doing. Kyuubi4269 posted... Edit: There's also the amusing part that since you're a raging feminist, you're also likely to be socialist-minded. Can you not see how the issue with immigration is the same as how when Trump claimed unemployment was down when it was from forcing people in to lesser working conditions. Profits may be up, but quality of life is down. Funny how you think holding opinions shared by a majority of Americans makes me a "raging feminist" and that this also means I favor socialism. And no, I don't see how deporting people en masse has anything to do with people being underemployed. --- "Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus 3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155 <cite>Lirishae posted [p:925841115] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>That isn't lawful stupid as the trope describes. He didn't say immigrants are the enemy because it's illegal. What I think he meant was that not enforcing the law means laws are pointless and subject to massive corruption.</quote> Lawful stupid is about people who blindly adhere to laws because they're laws even when doing so makes no sense. You're acting as if you have to specifically use the word "enemy" in order to meet the definition of the trope, which the examples section will show is not necessary. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>If you think any other law should be higher priority, make the case for that position. There's no good reason this law should be less enforced beyond feels.</quote> I thought it was self-evident that getting rapists and murderers off the street benefits society more than mass deporting illegal immigrants which most economists agree will hurt the economy, but I guess not. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Getting rid of illegal immigrants has obvious benefits. When you make an absurd claim, it's going to be challenged on your merits, and you've just admitted it's absurd.</quote> So what are these "obvious benefits"? I pointed out your use of reductio ad absurdum. Your reading comprehension is severely lacking if you think that's "admitting it's absurd." Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>1) I can't see that. 2) The f* does a columnist know about economics. 3) It's an issue of illegal immigrants harming the lives of citizens, not of company bottom lines. In fact, businesses make more profit because they can exploit immigrants and abandon citizens. </quote> 1. You can't see that when I just cited an article with studies that back me up, while you cited absolutely nothing but your own personal opinion? 2. The columnist quotes economists who do know about economics. Do you really need this explained to you? 3. Except immigrants commit far less crime than the native-born. Even right-wing think tanks like the Center for Immigration Studies agree this is true. If you're worried about people who are causing harm to society, authorities should be targeting American citizens first. https://www.businessinsider.com/immigrants-commit-less-crime-than-native-born-americans-trump-speech-2017-3/ https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/aug/03/antonio-villaraigosa/mostly-true-undocumented-immigrants-less-likely-co/ Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Don't talk on subjects you're ignorant of.</quote> Funny, I'm still the one with sources who agree with me while you're presenting nothing but your personal opinion. You're the one who accused me of ignoring facts that go against my opinion, but look at what you're doing. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Edit: There's also the amusing part that since you're a raging feminist, you're also likely to be socialist-minded. Can you not see how the issue with immigration is the same as how when Trump claimed unemployment was down when it was from forcing people in to lesser working conditions. Profits may be up, but quality of life is down.</quote> Funny how you think holding opinions shared by a majority of Americans makes me a "raging feminist" and that this also means I favor socialism. And no, I don't see how deporting people en masse has anything to do with people being underemployed.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lirishae 08/09/19 12:18:08 PM #31:	aDirtyShisno posted... Youre choosing laws to completely ignore on a whim. Not laws to enforce to a lesser degree. If a law is not worth enforcing entirely then it should be removed from the books, but if you cant garner the support to remove that law from the books then ipso facto it has enough support to at least be enforced to some reasonable degree. If you read what I wrote, I'm arguing for discretion in enforcement because I think it's better for society. I also gave my arguments for why I think this way, and cited sources to back that up. That is not "choosing laws to completely ignore on a whim." Prosecutorial discretion is very much a thing in the American legal system and for good reason. Instead of trying to deport every single illegal immigrant, discretion should be applied on who to prioritize for deportation. Kyuubi4269 posted... meth isn't OTC It's a component in some OTC nasal sprays. --- "Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus 3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155 <cite>Lirishae posted [p:925841494] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote>Youre choosing laws to completely ignore on a whim. Not laws to enforce to a lesser degree. If a law is not worth enforcing entirely then it should be removed from the books, but if you cant garner the support to remove that law from the books then ipso facto it has enough support to at least be enforced to some reasonable degree.</quote> If you read what I wrote, I'm arguing for discretion in enforcement because I think it's better for society. I also gave my arguments for why I think this way, and cited sources to back that up. That is not "choosing laws to completely ignore on a whim." Prosecutorial discretion is very much a thing in the American legal system and for good reason. Instead of trying to deport every single illegal immigrant, discretion should be applied on who to prioritize for deportation. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>meth isn't OTC</quote> It's a component in some OTC nasal sprays.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KeijiMaedaTiger 08/09/19 12:39:47 PM #32:	Why is this guy a legend? People laugh at others on both sides. --- Why are tigers strong? Because they're born that way! <cite>KeijiMaedaTiger posted [p:925842445] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Why is this guy a legend? People laugh at others on both sides.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 08/09/19 12:59:39 PM #33:	Lirishae posted... Lawful stupid is about people who blindly adhere to laws because they're laws even when doing so makes no sense. You're acting as if you have to specifically use the word "enemy" in order to meet the definition of the trope, which the examples section will show is not necessary. He isn't saying immigration is bad because it's illegal either, just that laws are meant to be enforced. Lirishae posted... I thought it was self-evident that getting rapists and murderers off the street benefits society more than mass deporting illegal immigrants which most economists agree will hurt the economy, but I guess not. How is stopping immigrants stopping police catching murderers and rapists? They don't interrupt eachother so neither needs to take precedence. Lirishae posted... So what are these "obvious benefits"? I pointed out your use of reductio ad absurdum. Your reading comprehension is severely lacking if you think that's "admitting it's absurd." You claim it's reductive, I say it's comparative. You claim it's absurd, thus I claim it's absurd as the two are comparable. Lirishae posted... 1. You can't see that when I just cited an article with studies that back me up, while you cited absolutely nothing but your own personal opinion? I haven't signed up to read unlimited articles, genius. Lirishae posted... 2. The columnist quotes economists who do know about economics. Do you really need this explained to you? I can cherrypick convenient statements too. Lirishae posted... 3. Except immigrants commit far less crime than the native-born. Even right-wing think tanks like the Center for Immigration Studies agree this is true. If you're worried about people who are causing harm to society, authorities should be targeting American citizens first. I wouldn't be surprised if legal immigrants did, very much doubt illegal immigrants do. It's also very hard to get statistics on an undocumented group. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:925843226] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>Lawful stupid is about people who blindly adhere to laws because they're laws even when doing so makes no sense. You're acting as if you have to specifically use the word "enemy" in order to meet the definition of the trope, which the examples section will show is not necessary.</quote> He isn't saying immigration is bad because it's illegal either, just that laws are meant to be enforced. Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>I thought it was self-evident that getting rapists and murderers off the street benefits society more than mass deporting illegal immigrants which most economists agree will hurt the economy, but I guess not.</quote> How is stopping immigrants stopping police catching murderers and rapists? They don't interrupt eachother so neither needs to take precedence. Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>So what are these "obvious benefits"? I pointed out your use of reductio ad absurdum. Your reading comprehension is severely lacking if you think that's "admitting it's absurd."</quote> You claim it's reductive, I say it's comparative. You claim it's absurd, thus I claim it's absurd as the two are comparable. Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>1. You can't see that when I just cited an article with studies that back me up, while you cited absolutely nothing but your own personal opinion?</quote> I haven't signed up to read unlimited articles, genius. Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>2. The columnist quotes economists who do know about economics. Do you really need this explained to you?</quote> I can cherrypick convenient statements too. Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>3. Except immigrants commit far less crime than the native-born. Even right-wing think tanks like the Center for Immigration Studies agree this is true. If you're worried about people who are causing harm to society, authorities should be targeting American citizens first.</quote> I wouldn't be surprised if legal immigrants did, very much doubt illegal immigrants do. It's also very hard to get statistics on an undocumented group.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 08/09/19 1:01:37 PM #34:	Lirishae posted... Funny, I'm still the one with sources who agree with me while you're presenting nothing but your personal opinion. You're the one who accused me of ignoring facts that go against my opinion, but look at what you're doing. I don't have any interest in arguing the friendliness of illegal immigrants so I'm not going to hunt down sources. I am quite happy to state they are illegal and that refusal to enforce the law makes law redundant, but you won't refute that. Lirishae posted... Funny how you think holding opinions shared by a majority of Americans makes me a "raging feminist" No, you're a raging feminist because of what you've said in prior topics. Regardless, refusing to deal with illegal immigration is not supported by the majority of Americans otherwise there would have been a vote to open all borders and it would have passed. Lirishae posted... If you read what I wrote, I'm arguing for discretion in enforcement because I think it's better for society. You're arguing that the police should use their discretion to support your worldview. If you made that happen, it would be considered corruption. Lirishae posted... Prosecutorial discretion is very much a thing in the American legal system and for good reason. Notice how discretion is not being used, it's like the police think the law should be upheld and your reason is insufficient. Lirishae posted... Instead of trying to deport every single illegal immigrant, discretion should be applied on who to prioritize for deportation. And it is, that's why illegal immigrants are increasing, not dropping. Note the prioritisation means they will get around to it and intend to prosecute, not that they won't do low priority prosecutions. Lirishae posted... It's a component in some OTC nasal sprays. Again, not relevant, that's a legal use within current regulation. He wants recategorisation of drugs, still has nothing to do with how the law is enforced. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:925843304] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>Funny, I'm still the one with sources who agree with me while you're presenting nothing but your personal opinion. You're the one who accused me of ignoring facts that go against my opinion, but look at what you're doing.</quote> I don't have any interest in arguing the friendliness of illegal immigrants so I'm not going to hunt down sources. I am quite happy to state they are illegal and that refusal to enforce the law makes law redundant, but you won't refute that. Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>Funny how you think holding opinions shared by a majority of Americans makes me a "raging feminist" </quote> No, you're a raging feminist because of what you've said in prior topics. Regardless, refusing to deal with illegal immigration is not supported by the majority of Americans otherwise there would have been a vote to open all borders and it would have passed. Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>If you read what I wrote, I'm arguing for discretion in enforcement because I think it's better for society.</quote> You're arguing that the police should use their discretion to support your worldview. If you made that happen, it would be considered corruption. Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>Prosecutorial discretion is very much a thing in the American legal system and for good reason. </quote> Notice how discretion is not being used, it's like the police think the law should be upheld and your reason is insufficient. Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>Instead of trying to deport every single illegal immigrant, discretion should be applied on who to prioritize for deportation.</quote> And it is, that's why illegal immigrants are increasing, not dropping. Note the prioritisation means they will get around to it and intend to prosecute, not that they won't do low priority prosecutions. Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>It's a component in some OTC nasal sprays.</quote> Again, not relevant, that's a legal use within current regulation. He wants recategorisation of drugs, still has nothing to do with how the law is enforced.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OrangeDawn 08/09/19 1:14:14 PM #35:	Mad_Max posted... Mead posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... Meth is illegal in the US except when prescribed by a doctor. He's made a complaint about categorisation in an argument over law enforcement. I dont know why youre always posting and arguing about US issues you clearly never have any clue what you are talking about --- 3DS Friend Code: 3308-5843-0863 Town: Virginia <cite>OrangeDawn posted [p:925843792] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Mad_Max posted...</cite> <quote>Mead posted...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted... </cite> <quote>Meth is illegal in the US except when prescribed by a doctor. He's made a complaint about categorisation in an argument over law enforcement.</quote> I dont know why youre always posting and arguing about US issues you clearly never have any clue what you are talking about </quote></quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lirishae 08/09/19 2:37:17 PM #36:	This is the last time I'm replying to you, Kyuubi. As multiple people have pointed out, you frequently don't know what you're talking about. You also refuse to acknowledge facts that run contrary to your opinion, and you won't cite anything but your own personal opinion. I enjoy civil discussions with people who don't agree with me, but you've repeatedly shown yourself to be a poorly informed hypocrite. So I'm done here. Kyuubi4269 posted... How is stopping immigrants stopping police catching murderers and rapists? They don't interrupt eachother so neither needs to take precedence. In case you've forgotten, this discussion started with a woman complaining at a local town meeting that the city should enforce federal immigration law. That's using finite resources that municipalities need to deal with criminals like rapists and murderers. Kyuubi4269 posted... You claim it's reductive, I say it's comparative. You claim it's absurd, thus I claim it's absurd as the two are comparable. Yet again, you've made it apparent you have absolutely no idea what reductio ad absurdum is. Kyuubi4269 posted... I am quite happy to state they are illegal and that refusal to enforce the law makes law redundant, but you won't refute that. Except I did just that by repeatedly citing prosecutorial discretion. It's the reason why DAs are spending their time prosecuting rape and child molestation instead of sodomy and adultery despite all four things being equally illegal. Kyuubi4269 posted... No, you're a raging feminist because of what you've said in prior topics. Regardless, refusing to deal with illegal immigration is not supported by the majority of Americans otherwise there would have been a vote to open all borders and it would have passed. Because I post things that a majority of Americans agree with and back that up with statistics and articles? Lol. And FYI, the majority of Americans believe there should be a pathway to legal status for illegal immigrants who committed no other crimes. There are many policies supported by a broad coalition of the American people, yet have not been taken up by Congress due to corruption and dysfunction. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/24/what-americans-want-to-do-about-illegal-immigration/ Kyuubi4269 posted... You're arguing that the police should use their discretion to support your worldview. If you made that happen, it would be considered corruption. No, I'm arguing that immigration law should be applied with discretion because many experts agree that mass deportations would be harmful to the US.You have shown zero evidence for your position that mass deportations are beneficial to society. Kyuubi4269 posted... And it is, that's why illegal immigrants are increasing, not dropping. Note the prioritisation means they will get around to it and intend to prosecute, not that they won't do low priority prosecutions. Illegal immigration is down, not up. What's increasing lately is the number of asylum seekers. And as the legal definition I linked to earlier states, the concept of prosecutorial discretion does allow for charges to be dropped entirely. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/12/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/ Kyuubi4269 posted... Again, not relevant You stated it wasn't available OTC which is incorrect. Can you ever admit you're mistaken on anything? --- "Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus 3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155 <cite>Lirishae posted [p:925847027] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>This is the last time I'm replying to you, Kyuubi. As multiple people have pointed out, you frequently don't know what you're talking about. You also refuse to acknowledge facts that run contrary to your opinion, and you won't cite anything but your own personal opinion. I enjoy civil discussions with people who don't agree with me, but you've repeatedly shown yourself to be a poorly informed hypocrite. So I'm done here. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>How is stopping immigrants stopping police catching murderers and rapists? They don't interrupt eachother so neither needs to take precedence. </quote> In case you've forgotten, this discussion started with a woman complaining at a local town meeting that the city should enforce federal immigration law. That's using finite resources that municipalities need to deal with criminals like rapists and murderers. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>You claim it's reductive, I say it's comparative. You claim it's absurd, thus I claim it's absurd as the two are comparable.</quote> Yet again, you've made it apparent you have absolutely no idea what reductio ad absurdum is. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>I am quite happy to state they are illegal and that refusal to enforce the law makes law redundant, but you won't refute that.</quote> Except I did just that by repeatedly citing prosecutorial discretion. It's the reason why DAs are spending their time prosecuting rape and child molestation instead of sodomy and adultery despite all four things being equally illegal. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>No, you're a raging feminist because of what you've said in prior topics. Regardless, refusing to deal with illegal immigration is not supported by the majority of Americans otherwise there would have been a vote to open all borders and it would have passed.</quote> Because I post things that a majority of Americans agree with and back that up with statistics and articles? Lol. And FYI, the majority of Americans believe there should be a pathway to legal status for illegal immigrants who committed no other crimes. There are many policies supported by a broad coalition of the American people, yet have not been taken up by Congress due to corruption and dysfunction. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/24/what-americans-want-to-do-about-illegal-immigration/ Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>You're arguing that the police should use their discretion to support your worldview. If you made that happen, it would be considered corruption. </quote> No, I'm arguing that immigration law should be applied with discretion because many experts agree that mass deportations would be harmful to the US.You have shown zero evidence for your position that mass deportations are beneficial to society. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>And it is, that's why illegal immigrants are increasing, not dropping. Note the prioritisation means they will get around to it and intend to prosecute, not that they won't do low priority prosecutions.</quote> Illegal immigration is down, not up. What's increasing lately is the number of asylum seekers. And as the legal definition I linked to earlier states, the concept of prosecutorial discretion does allow for charges to be dropped entirely. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/12/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/ Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Again, not relevant</quote> You stated it wasn't available OTC which is incorrect. Can you ever admit you're mistaken on anything?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 08/09/19 3:15:33 PM #37:	Lirishae posted... n case you've forgotten, this discussion started with a woman complaining at a local town meeting that the city should enforce federal immigration law. That's using finite resources that municipalities need to deal with criminals like rapists and murderers. There's only so many rapes and murders, throwing more bodies at it won't help. Why can't the excess focus on immigration? Lirishae posted... Yet again, you've made it apparent you have absolutely no idea what reductio ad absurdum is. "You clearly don't understand me as you couldn't possibly disagree if you did." Lirishae posted... Except I did just that by repeatedly citing prosecutorial discretion. The need to use discretion implicitly asserts that their immigration is illegal, you haven't adressed whether you believe not upholding the law makes it redundant, you've only deflected. Lirishae posted... It's the reason why DAs are spending their time prosecuting rape and child molestation instead of sodomy and adultery despite all four things being equally illegal. Crimes are followed up on when there is a report, like the moderation system here. If no report is made, no police come, no discretion required. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:925848547] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>n case you've forgotten, this discussion started with a woman complaining at a local town meeting that the city should enforce federal immigration law. That's using finite resources that municipalities need to deal with criminals like rapists and murderers.</quote> There's only so many rapes and murders, throwing more bodies at it won't help. Why can't the excess focus on immigration? Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>Yet again, you've made it apparent you have absolutely no idea what reductio ad absurdum is.</quote> "You clearly don't understand me as you couldn't possibly disagree if you did." Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>Except I did just that by repeatedly citing prosecutorial discretion.</quote> The need to use discretion implicitly asserts that their immigration is illegal, you haven't adressed whether you believe not upholding the law makes it redundant, you've only deflected. Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>It's the reason why DAs are spending their time prosecuting rape and child molestation instead of sodomy and adultery despite all four things being equally illegal.</quote> Crimes are followed up on when there is a report, like the moderation system here. If no report is made, no police come, no discretion required.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 08/09/19 3:15:50 PM #38:	Lirishae posted... Because I post things that a majority of Americans agree with The data refutes that. As in prior surveys, a majority of those who favor granting legal status for people in the U.S. illegally 42% of the public overall say they should be able to apply for U.S. citizenship. About a quarter of the public (26%) say they should only be able to apply for permanent residency. They agree that they should be able to *apply* for citizenship or residency, but the whole reason why they are illegal immigrants is because they either do not qualify or do not want to apply. You relied on false data so said false things. Lirishae posted... No, I'm arguing that immigration law should be applied with discretion A law applied with the discretion applied to not execute it is functionally the same as not following the law. If it is used the way you think it should, it's deeply corrupt and we really don't want that from the police. Lirishae posted... many experts agree that mass deportations would be harmful to the US. Many experts are Marxists. An appeal to authority is a fallacy for a reason, they are not correct because they know some stuff. Lirishae posted... You have shown zero evidence for your position that mass deportations are beneficial to society. I've made an assertion based in solid enough reasoning. As there is no means to accurately determine the results until it happens, I'm not going to put any effort in to researching the unknowable. Lirishae posted... Illegal immigration is down, not up. Okay, not particularly important but sure. That statement was an asspull guess to make impact rather than assert truth, ya got me. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:925848559] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>Because I post things that a majority of Americans agree with</quote> The data refutes that. <quote>As in prior surveys, a majority of those who favor granting legal status for people in the U.S. illegally 42% of the public overall say they should be able to apply for U.S. citizenship. About a quarter of the public (26%) say they should only be able to apply for permanent residency.</quote> They agree that they should be able to apply for citizenship or residency, but the whole reason why they are illegal immigrants is because they either do not qualify or do not want to apply. You relied on false data so said false things. Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>No, I'm arguing that immigration law should be applied with discretion</quote> A law applied with the discretion applied to not execute it is functionally the same as not following the law. If it is used the way you think it should, it's deeply corrupt and we really don't want that from the police. Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>many experts agree that mass deportations would be harmful to the US.</quote> Many experts are Marxists. An appeal to authority is a fallacy for a reason, they are not correct because they know some stuff. Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>You have shown zero evidence for your position that mass deportations are beneficial to society.</quote> I've made an assertion based in solid enough reasoning. As there is no means to accurately determine the results until it happens, I'm not going to put any effort in to researching the unknowable. Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>Illegal immigration is down, not up.</quote> Okay, not particularly important but sure. That statement was an asspull guess to make impact rather than assert truth, ya got me.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 08/09/19 3:18:20 PM #39:	Lirishae posted... And as the legal definition I linked to earlier states, the concept of prosecutorial discretion does allow for charges to be dropped entirely. You probably should have said that instead of "who to prioritise". Then I'd just repeat that it's not appropriate to just blanket veto the law and that kind of use is deeply corrupt, something that would likely lead to an internal investigation. Lirishae posted... You stated it wasn't available OTC which is incorrect. Can you ever admit you're mistaken on anything? I wasn't mistaken, I was generalising. You can get it as a minor ingredient in OTC medication, you cannot however get it in any amount in which you can reasonably describe as meth. You cannot sell a solid lump of shit as food, but there is an allowed tolerance of fecal matter in food, so just as food laced with feces isn't feces, cough syrup laced with meth isn't meth. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:925848663] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>And as the legal definition I linked to earlier states, the concept of prosecutorial discretion does allow for charges to be dropped entirely.</quote> You probably should have said that instead of "who to prioritise". Then I'd just repeat that it's not appropriate to just blanket veto the law and that kind of use is deeply corrupt, something that would likely lead to an internal investigation. Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>You stated it wasn't available OTC which is incorrect. Can you ever admit you're mistaken on anything?</quote> I wasn't mistaken, I was generalising. You can get it as a minor ingredient in OTC medication, you cannot however get it in any amount in which you can reasonably describe as meth. You cannot sell a solid lump of shit as food, but there is an allowed tolerance of fecal matter in food, so just as food laced with feces isn't feces, cough syrup laced with meth isn't meth.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0 08/09/19 3:23:46 PM #40:	Full Throttle posted... "you're in direct violation of being a jackass" Yes, yes she was. <cite>BlackScythe0 posted [p:925848891] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Full Throttle posted...</cite> <quote>"you're in direct violation of being a jackass"</quote> Yes, yes she was.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
aDirtyShisno 08/09/19 5:51:19 PM #41:	Lirishae posted... aDirtyShisno posted... Youre choosing laws to completely ignore on a whim. Not laws to enforce to a lesser degree. If a law is not worth enforcing entirely then it should be removed from the books, but if you cant garner the support to remove that law from the books then ipso facto it has enough support to at least be enforced to some reasonable degree. If you read what I wrote, I'm arguing for discretion in enforcement because I think it's better for society. I also gave my arguments for why I think this way, and cited sources to back that up. That is not "choosing laws to completely ignore on a whim." Prosecutorial discretion is very much a thing in the American legal system and for good reason. Instead of trying to deport every single illegal immigrant, discretion should be applied on who to prioritize for deportation. Kyuubi4269 posted... meth isn't OTC It's a component in some OTC nasal sprays. Youre not arguing discretion, youre arguing blind ignorance. Discretion would be a Border Patrol Officer ignores the fleeing immigrant entering illegally because he sees a rape happening a short distance away and moves to intervene. Ignorance is that same Officer not arresting the immigrant entering illegally when no other crime is occurring because you feel the judicial system should be prosecuting a rape instead that didnt happen in that Officers jurisdiction. Border Patrol and ICE officers are not local law enforcement. They are not going to be put on the streets to patrol for petty crimes because thats not their jobs. If unfettered immigration were to become legal they would simply be put out of jobs. --- Que sera, sera. Whatever happens, happens. ...and he was never heard from again. <cite>aDirtyShisno posted [p:925854977] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Lirishae posted...</cite> <quote>aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote>Youre choosing laws to completely ignore on a whim. Not laws to enforce to a lesser degree. If a law is not worth enforcing entirely then it should be removed from the books, but if you cant garner the support to remove that law from the books then ipso facto it has enough support to at least be enforced to some reasonable degree.</quote> If you read what I wrote, I'm arguing for discretion in enforcement because I think it's better for society. I also gave my arguments for why I think this way, and cited sources to back that up. That is not "choosing laws to completely ignore on a whim." Prosecutorial discretion is very much a thing in the American legal system and for good reason. Instead of trying to deport every single illegal immigrant, discretion should be applied on who to prioritize for deportation. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>meth isn't OTC</quote> It's a component in some OTC nasal sprays.</quote> Youre not arguing discretion, youre arguing blind ignorance. Discretion would be a Border Patrol Officer ignores the fleeing immigrant entering illegally because he sees a rape happening a short distance away and moves to intervene. Ignorance is that same Officer not arresting the immigrant entering illegally when no other crime is occurring because you feel the judicial system should be prosecuting a rape instead that didnt happen in that Officers jurisdiction. Border Patrol and ICE officers are not local law enforcement. They are not going to be put on the streets to patrol for petty crimes because thats not their jobs. If unfettered immigration were to become legal they would simply be put out of jobs.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BloodWhen_iWipe 08/14/19 8:37:04 AM #42:	Grendel Prime posted... I believe that poster is referring to things like street heroin being regulated in the manner OTC pharmaceuticals are, not regulated in the sense that they're illegal. Glad some people don't need everything spelled out for them. <cite>BloodWhen_iWipe posted [p:926049080] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>Grendel Prime posted...</cite> <quote>I believe that poster is referring to things like street heroin being regulated in the manner OTC pharmaceuticals are, not regulated in the sense that they're illegal.</quote> Glad some people don't need everything spelled out for them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ArvTheGreat 08/14/19 8:53:44 AM #43:	so hes a hero who laughed arv would probably laugh to arv loves laughing at protesters of all kinds --- Things are about to get arvified <cite>ArvTheGreat posted [p:926049478] in Liberal Ma... [t:77925883]...</cite> <quote>so hes a hero who laughed arv would probably laugh to arv loves laughing at protesters of all kinds </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1

Poll of the Day > Liberal Man is hailed a LEGEND for LAUGHING at a MAGA HEIFER!!! (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Liberal Man is hailed a LEGEND for LAUGHING at a MAGA HEIFER!!!