Is this acceptable? Is this smart?

[ionel]

38 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

They are being asked and are refusing to identify themselves. That's all over the news and a major reason why these protests kicked off.

Sure.  They don't need to respond to protestors unless they are arresting protestors.

Do you actually live in the USA?  

Edited Wednesday at 06:49 PM by ionel

[uncle bernard]

2 minutes ago, ionel said:

Sure.  They don't need to respond to protestors unless they are arresting protestors.

Do you actually live in the USA?  

They aren't identifying themselves to the people they're arresting.

[ionel]

Just now, uncle bernard said:

They aren't identifying themselves to the people they're arresting.

Proof? 

[Caveira]

4 minutes ago, ionel said:

Sure.  They don't need to respond to protestors unless they are arresting protestors.

So there have been a zillion posts and the news people are crying all day about this and it isn’t even against the law.  Damn y’all trying to pull some emotional liberal tears out of this.    
 

not you ionel.  

[mspart]

14 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

As I've said a million times on here, Conservatives LOVE authoritarianism. They yearn to see their cultural enemies get stomped by the state.

Their issue with Communist governments was never about the authoritarianism. It was that authoritarianism was being used to enforce leftist ideology, not *their own* conservative ideology.

Absolutely wrong.   Conservatives love the rule of law and personal freedom as outlined in the Constitution.  What looks like authoritarianism to you is the government finally enforcing the law.   Conservatives do not like anarchy.  The issue conservatives have with communism is the lack of personal freedom and government in everything business and personal.  That is borne out by the dismal record of communist governments.  

What you see as authoritarianism, (ICE going after illegals, Feds calling out the Nat guard for ICE riots, etc) is the government enforcing law and order. 

mspart

[uncle bernard]

8 minutes ago, mspart said:

Absolutely wrong.   Conservatives love the rule of law and personal freedom as outlined in the Constitution.  What looks like authoritarianism to you is the government finally enforcing the law.   Conservatives do not like anarchy.  The issue conservatives have with communism is the lack of personal freedom and government in everything business and personal.  That is borne out by the dismal record of communist governments.  

What you see as authoritarianism, (ICE going after illegals, Feds calling out the Nat guard for ICE riots, etc) is the government enforcing law and order. 

mspart

And yet the "rule of law" gave your cherished president a direct order and he disobeyed it. And you do everything possible to talk your way around that contradiction. Most of the Conservatives on here argued against due process for immigrants, even though our Supreme Court clearly established that to be the law of the land. 

And those riots were instigated by bad police behavior. ICE has been deporting people its entire existence. The reason it faces so much resistance now is because they've been allowed to operate like a goon squad. People won't have it.

If you don't want riots, you should be on my side. Hold the people we pay to maintain the order of this country to a higher standard. That's what they're paid to do.

I just wish Conservatives were more practical. They focus so much on abstract ideals at the cost of actually addressing the things they claim to want to address. Don't want riots? Hold your police accountable. Don't like abortion? Teach kids about safe sex and make contraception easily accessible. Don't want war in the Middle East? Stop following the same strategies that created those wars. Don't want illegal immigration? Make it easier and/or feasible to immigrate legally. Want food that's not poison? Pass regulations that demand it. Want healthcare costs to go down? Let the government negotiate drug prices and let the government compete with the private market with single-payer healthcare.

Nope, can't do any of that. It doesn't perfectly fit your idealistic principles. So instead, you'll continue to trade worse material results in return for your own moralistic purity.

[1032004]

2 hours ago, mspart said:

I think they should be in uniform, without names on the uniform, but identified as ICE etc.   Masks are ok to keep from creeps identifying them so they and their families are as safe from nefarious goons as possible.  

If, and I mean if, this is really happening, then there is no doubt someone will get shot for their own protection.   By if, I mean I have not heard of this, but am not ruling it out as the law enforcement is trying to stay safe. 

mspart

 

 

Yeah I can forgive the masks if they were at least wearing uniforms and badges (although I guess that didn’t help the victims in Minnesota).

If what is happening?  ICE arresting people while wearing masks and street clothes?   The Brad Lander video is one of example of this happening (although it appeared not all of them were).

[uncle bernard]

2 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Yeah I can forgive the masks if they were at least wearing uniforms and badges (although I guess that didn’t help the victims in Minnesota).

If what is happening?  ICE arresting people while wearing masks and street clothes?   The Brad Lander video is one of example of this happening (although it appeared not all of them were).

Not all of them, but many of the arrests involve masked men in street clothes jumping out of unmarked vans without showing identification. I'm not sure how we're supposed to expect people to react in that situation.

[mspart]

12 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

I'm not sure how we're supposed to expect people to react in that situation.

Certainly don't expect the torching of waymo cars or looting stores, actions that do nothing to address the issue they supposedly are against. 

mspart

 

[mspart]

21 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

And yet the "rule of law" gave your cherished president a direct order and he disobeyed it. And you do everything possible to talk your way around that contradiction. Most of the Conservatives on here argued against due process for immigrants, even though our Supreme Court clearly established that to be the law of the land. 

 

I showed that you were 0 for 6 on this count and yet you still are making the same assertions.   Some people can't be taught.

mspart

[uncle bernard]

Just now, mspart said:

I showed that you were 0 for 6 on this count and yet you still are making the same assertions.   Some people can't be taught.

mspart

You did not show that and I showed you why, yet you are still making the same assertions.

[mspart]

Go back and look.  

mspart

[uncle bernard]

3 minutes ago, mspart said:

Certainly don't expect the torching of waymo cars or looting stores, actions that do nothing to address the issue they supposedly are against. 

mspart

 

That's a fantastic personal standard for yourself, and one I whole-heartedly share. 

However, riots are a fact of life. We know what causes them. You can address them in two ways. Either by overwhelming force (what we usually do) or by addressing the root cause.

[uncle bernard]

Just now, mspart said:

Go back and look.  

mspart

Right back at ya 

[Caveira]

2 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

You did not show that and I showed you why, yet you are still making the same assertions.

I know you are but what am I 

[uncle bernard]

4 minutes ago, mspart said:

I showed that you were 0 for 6 on this count and yet you still are making the same assertions.   Some people can't be taught.

mspart

Address this:

"And even then, they've disobeyed direct orders. That's incontrovertible. If they disagree with the orders, they can go through the proper legal process to dispute that. They aren't allowed to just ignore them and proceed. That's a radical departure from civil norms that directly challenges the constitution."

[uncle bernard]

2 minutes ago, Caveira said:

I know you are but what am I 

Remarkably quick to catch on to the joke for your standards. Proud of you!

[mspart]

Again, you are speaking of district court judges moving out of their lane and going national.   There is a reason they are district courts, because they serve the district, not the nation.   Therefore that would be an unlawful order to follow until further appeal clarifies the situation.

Trump complied with the Abrego decision and Abrego is back, but tied up with federal charges.   So you are wrong. 

Trump sent people to El Salvador.   The district judge said you can't do that and bring them back.   It was too late for that.  But have any illegals since gone to El Salvador?   NO. 

Those are just two of your 0 for 6.  

mspart

[ionel]

38 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

And yet the "rule of law" gave your cherished president a direct order and he disobeyed it.

Based on our Constitution who is able to give the POTUS a direct order?

I'll ask again, do you live in the USA?  

[Offthemat]

Since it’s illegal for an illegal to possess a firearm there’s not much chance anyone will be shot by an illegal, right?

The dress of law enforcement is a reaction to the interference and lack of cooperation by local law enforcement authorities.  
 

The riots were instigated when it falsely went out on the grapevine that ICE was making a raid on illegals.  It was actually a different agency enforcing a search warrant.  The only illegal activity was the riots and the interference. 

[uncle bernard]

Just now, ionel said:

Based on our Constitution who is able to give the POTUS a direct order?

I'll ask again, do you live in the USA?  

The Judiciary and Legislative branches. Quick tip: google "checks and balances."

I live in the US. I'm starting doubt you do though, considering you seem to think the President can't be ordered to do anything.

[152lbs]

Mass deportations are cruel and inhumane.  Also very expensive. I would rather see an Amnesty program similar to 1986.

[Offthemat]

1 minute ago, 152lbs said:

Mass deportations are cruel and inhumane.  Also very expensive. I would rather see an Amnesty program similar to 1986.

Mass illegal immigration is dangerous, unaffordable, and unfair to those who are going through the legal process, as well as those who are being displaced by them in the workforce.  Don’t agree with it, change the law.  Good luck, the consensus against you is strong. 

[ionel]

3 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

The Judiciary and Legislative branches. Quick tip: google "checks and balances."

I live in the US. I'm starting doubt you do though, considering you seem to think the President can't be ordered to do anything.

So the legislative branch can give the President a "direct order."  How does that work if the house & senate can't agree on the same language in said order.  Is it only the Supreme Court that can give direct orders or other lower courts.  Does the order have to be written by the Chief Justice or does he/she need to go to the west wing and give a direct verbal order?  

[Paul158]

27 minutes ago, ionel said:

Based on our Constitution who is able to give the POTUS a direct order?

I'll ask again, do you live in the USA?  

I think UB has overstayed his visa and may be on the lam.