Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KJP

Threats To Our Civil Liberties

Recommended Posts

This article should scare the hell out of everyone. This is happening RIGHT NOW to fellow CITIZENS in America....

 

Our border is an ugly place, guarded by ugly people, enforcing ugly policies. Friendly reminder: the “border” extends 200 miles from our coasts and land borders....

 

Checkpoint Nation

https://www.texasobserver.org/checkpoint-nation/

Edited by KJP

"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Police Use Disappearing-Message Apps, It’s Not Just Bad for Accountability — It’s Illegal

https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/when-police-use-disappearing-message-apps-its


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

U.S. Citizen, Detained Without Charge by Trump Administration for a Year, Is Finally Free

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/detention/us-citizen-detained-without-charge-trump-administration-year


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We take our country way too seriously. The pledge of allegiance is creepy anyway....

 

Student who refuses to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance expelled, Texas attorney general backs school

After a student was expelled for refusing to stand for her school's Pledge of Allegiance, the Texas Attorney General is intervening.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/09/28/pledge-allegiance-law-texas-attorney-general-student-expelled/1440878002/


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ICE Is Targeting Activists in Vermont. And the State’s DMV Has Been Helping Them.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/ice-targeting-activists-vermont-and-states-dmv-has-been-helping-them


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2018 at 7:04 PM, KJP said:

We take our country way too seriously. The pledge of allegiance is creepy anyway....

 

Student who refuses to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance expelled, Texas attorney general backs school

After a student was expelled for refusing to stand for her school's Pledge of Allegiance, the Texas Attorney General is intervening.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/09/28/pledge-allegiance-law-texas-attorney-general-student-expelled/1440878002/

 

She'll win this one.   Settled law at the USSC level since 1943, you can't make it mandatory.

Edited by E Rocc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Florida Sheriff Worked with ICE to Illegally Jail and Nearly Deport US Citizen

 

(CNN)Peter Sean Brown was born in Philadelphia. He'd only spent a day in Jamaica once on a cruise.

 

But even though he repeatedly told authorities in Monroe County, Florida, that he was a US citizen, according to a federal lawsuit filed Monday, they held him in custody and threatened that he was headed to a Jamaican prison, citing a request from Immigration and Customs and Enforcement.

 

Now, more than seven months after he allegedly ended up in an ICE detention center, Brown, 50, is suing the Monroe County sheriff, alleging he was illegally detained.

 

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/03/us/us-citizen-detained-ice/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2Fus%2F


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They really can't stand democracy. Sign the petition....

 

Ohio Facing New Threat to Citizen Initiatives

 

Last week, the Ohio House followed through on a threat to propose changes to the Ohio Constitution that would make it harder to amend the Ohio Constitution via citizen initiative.

http://innovationohio.org/2018/12/02/ohio-facing-new-threat-to-citizen-initiatives/


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 7:04 PM, KJP said:

We take our country way too seriously. The pledge of allegiance is creepy anyway....

 

Student who refuses to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance expelled, Texas attorney general backs school

After a student was expelled for refusing to stand for her school's Pledge of Allegiance, the Texas Attorney General is intervening.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/09/28/pledge-allegiance-law-texas-attorney-general-student-expelled/1440878002/

 

Similarly - https://news.yahoo.com/florida-student-faces-misdemeanor-charges-235526210.html

 

Quote

Florida student faces misdemeanor charges after refusing to stand for Pledge of Allegiance

 


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2018 at 7:04 PM, KJP said:

We take our country way too seriously. The pledge of allegiance is creepy anyway....

 

Student who refuses to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance expelled, Texas attorney general backs school

After a student was expelled for refusing to stand for her school's Pledge of Allegiance, the Texas Attorney General is intervening.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/09/28/pledge-allegiance-law-texas-attorney-general-student-expelled/1440878002/

 

You really need to take a break.  And speak for yourself, with these kinds of statements.  Instead of saying "We take our country too seriously, the pledge is creepy..."  say "I think ...  or "In my opinion....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

If you really want to talk rape of civil liberties, should be talking about the Green New Deal. That would decimate civil liberties like nothing seen before.

or maybe we can talk about what is actually happening right now

 

climate change will also decimate liberties and more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the issue is decimating individual liberties. Green New Deal is much worse for that than standing for pledge of allegiance. @KJP is all worried about standing for the pledge of allegiance, yet he will gladly surrender all his liberties and rights under the guise that he can save the environment. If part of the Green New Deal says you need to stand for the pledge, I am sure @KJP gladly signs up for it then, because of O'Green new deal

Edited by Brutus_buckeye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

But the issue is decimating individual liberties. Green New Deal is much worse for that than standing for pledge of allegiance. @KJP is all worried about standing for the pledge of allegiance, yet he will gladly surrender all his liberties and rights under the guise that he can save the environment.

only in the eyes of a partisan hack is a non existent thing worse than and an existing one.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

But the issue is decimating individual liberties. Green New Deal is much worse for that than standing for pledge of allegiance. @KJP is all worried about standing for the pledge of allegiance, yet he will gladly surrender all his liberties and rights under the guise that he can save the environment. If part of the Green New Deal says you need to stand for the pledge, I am sure @KJP gladly signs up for it then, because of O'Green new deal

 

So, on a sheer economic principle - I think the Green New Deal is worthy of being put on a roll of Charmin Ultra and used accordingly. Nonetheless, in what way (and I honestly don't know) would it be an affront on civil liberties. 

 

When I think of an infringement on civil liberties, I think of a policy that infringes on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 13th, 14th, et al amendments that have been incorporated into the Due Process Clause - which the Pledge of Allegiance issue would be vis a vis the 1st Amendment. What aspects of the Green New Deal would do that? 

Edited by YABO713
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

re the kid causing a commotion in school.  The headline seems misleading as it doesn't sound he was charged for not reciting the pledge, he was charged because he was being a teenager and uncooperative during school.  He's a kid, he was pushing as far as he could, and the school gave up and called police to handle it.  I doubt I'd agree with that, and hopefully judge is understanding and makes it go away, but that headline is disingenuous clickbait and overall has little to do with civil liberties discussion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

But the issue is decimating individual liberties. Green New Deal is much worse for that than standing for pledge of allegiance. @KJP is all worried about standing for the pledge of allegiance, yet he will gladly surrender all his liberties and rights under the guise that he can save the environment. If part of the Green New Deal says you need to stand for the pledge, I am sure @KJP gladly signs up for it then, because of O'Green new deal

 

What I've noticed about some conservatives is that they have this unavoidable desire to absolutely positively be sure of what another person is thinking or what they will do behavior-wise in response to something, when they really had no f*cking clue at all. Why do you need to create this false certainty? Why do you need to know? Why can't you just enjoy the fact that you don't know, never did know and never will know?  Every person is different. Every person responds differently in the same situations, and you and I truly have no idea how they're going to respond. Isn't that beautiful? Why don't you enjoy that?

Edited by KJP

"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YABO713 said:

 

So, on a sheer economic principle - I think the Green New Deal is worthy of being put on a roll of Charmin Ultra and used accordingly. Nonetheless, in what way (and I honestly don't know) would it be an affront on civil liberties. 

 

When I think of an infringement on civil liberties, I think of a policy that infringes on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 13th, 14th, et al amendments that have been incorporated into the Due Process Clause - which the Pledge of Allegiance issue would be vis a vis the 1st Amendment. What aspects of the Green New Deal would do that? 

 

The Green New Deal if it were ever to be implemented in such a way as presented in the now deleted FAQ, would necessitate a huge central planning operation that would infringe on individual life in almost all ways. Think about it, almost all individual property rights would be affected, it would create rationing as determined by the central planners whims and desires. There would be a ton of pressure on property rights under this plan, Now would a person have due process, we don't know yet, but the rules of the GND would be skewed to the collective instead of the individual rights, so due process is just a minor hurdle to accomplish the goal.

 

Depending on how it would be implemented, I certainly can see issues with the 1st, 4th, 5th and 13th, etc amendments. This would vastly remake society into more of a collective system with such strong central planning, that it would be inevitable that many individual rights would go by the wayside. 

  • Like 1
  • Poison 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ck said:

re the kid causing a commotion in school.  The headline seems misleading as it doesn't sound he was charged for not reciting the pledge, he was charged because he was being a teenager and uncooperative during school.  He's a kid, he was pushing as far as he could, and the school gave up and called police to handle it.  I doubt I'd agree with that, and hopefully judge is understanding and makes it go away, but that headline is disingenuous clickbait and overall has little to do with civil liberties discussion

 

Yes...an ELEVEN YEAR OLD became upset over *compelled speech.*  SCOTUS has already ruled no student can be forced to say the Pledge.  There should have been no confrontation to begin with, but then it escalated to getting the police involved.  And again, the kid is ELEVEN.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

What I've noticed about some conservatives is that they have this unavoidable desire to absolutely positively be sure of what another person is thinking or what they will do behavior-wise in response to something, when they really had no f*cking clue at all. Why do you need to create this false certainty? Why do you need to know? Why can't you just enjoy the fact that you don't know, never did know and never will know?  Every person is different. Every person responds differently in the same situations, and you and I truly have no idea how they're going to respond. Isn't that beautiful? Why don't you enjoy that?

 

You and other liberals literally do the EXACT same thing; that is the glaring issue in this country in my opinion.  I like to think I am more middle than far to either side.   But both sides do exactly what you mention and it drives me insane.  And it has to do with listening rather than assuming, we assume WAY too much in this country.  I don't assume you're crazy because we think differently, I read what you and others post before forming my opinions. 

 

But we've become so divided because nobody can admit when they're wrong and right because nobody knows really what to believe.  Nobody has trust in the government which is why you see the Trumps and AOC's in power.  They challenged the status quo and to me that's beautiful because I hate watching documentaries about the 80's and seeing the same people in power then as I do now.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Yes...an ELEVEN YEAR OLD became upset over *compelled speech.*  SCOTUS has already ruled no student can be forced to say the Pledge.  There should have been no confrontation to begin with, but then it escalated to getting the police involved.  And again, the kid is ELEVEN.

 

Yes, it's probably not the right way to deal with the situation based on what we know from a thousand+ miles away and a quick article, but the pledge just seemed to be a catalyst for a kid being a kid and wasn't the direct reason he was charged with a misdemeanor.  I still feel the headline is clickbait and adds too much weight to the pledge part which merely started the argument with the substitute, which is what led to the disruption.  We definitely don't report on all arguments kids have at school with teachers.  In this case, though, it started with the pledge so the news understood they could tie politics into it and it would get a ton more attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ck said:

 

Yes, it's probably not the right way to deal with the situation based on what we know from a thousand+ miles away and a quick article, but the pledge just seemed to be a catalyst for a kid being a kid and wasn't the direct reason he was charged with a misdemeanor.  I still feel the headline is clickbait and adds too much weight to the pledge part which merely started the argument with the substitute, which is what led to the disruption.  We definitely don't report on all arguments kids have at school with teachers.  In this case, though, it started with the pledge so the news understood they could tie politics into it and it would get a ton more attention.

 

There's no argument if the teacher follows the law and school policy.  So while the arrest may be for disruption, the impetus is the teacher trying to compel a student to recite the Pledge.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's worth noting that we're all really overreacting a bit. We have a storied history as a country of these sort of instances springing up from time to time - the court precedents are frankly fascinating, especially the Tinker case. 

 

This isn't the first time a kid has refused to say the Pledge and been penalized, it won't be the last. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

There's no argument if the teacher follows the law and school policy.  So while the arrest may be for disruption, the impetus is the teacher trying to compel a student to recite the Pledge.

 

 

Don't really know for sure with the available information, but it's a fair observation.  That would lead me to think it's just an ignorant teacher and that hardly requires a national article.  The school didn't take the position that he had to recite the pledge, but they also couldn't excuse the alleged behavior from the kid once it was escalated to them.  This really is just normal grade school drama that had the pledge as a catalyst and therefore could be a hot button issue if the headline was right... and they got the headline right.  clickbait

 

I view these articles the same way I do when I see one from a right wing source about college campuses no longer being a place that welcomes free speech based on an isolated incident.  It's clickbait, and sometimes done with malicious intent to drive a narrative.

 

Edited by ck
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

The Green New Deal if it were ever to be implemented in such a way as presented in the now deleted FAQ, would necessitate a huge central planning operation that would infringe on individual life in almost all ways. Think about it, almost all individual property rights would be affected, it would create rationing as determined by the central planners whims and desires. There would be a ton of pressure on property rights under this plan, Now would a person have due process, we don't know yet, but the rules of the GND would be skewed to the collective instead of the individual rights, so due process is just a minor hurdle to accomplish the goal.

 

Depending on how it would be implemented, I certainly can see issues with the 1st, 4th, 5th and 13th, etc amendments. This would vastly remake society into more of a collective system with such strong central planning, that it would be inevitable that many individual rights would go by the wayside.  

 

Yeah, I didn't delve too deeply into the entirety of the Green New Deal because I don't take it seriously - that might change in the next election cycle, but I highly doubt it. The entire proposal comes across as nothing more than a poorly catalogued, starry-eyed collection of sophomoric platitudes. The one area I did read about in a bit more detail, however, was with regards to property - primarily because it would impact me directly as an architect and on occasion these sorts of idealistic and unrealistic wishes end up trickling down into actual codes at about 1/100th their original intensity. The ideas about not only new buildings, but upgrades to existing buildings came across, to me, as an unprecedented attack on property rights by the federal government. There are also 10th amendment issues here, as legislation regarding construction is typically made at the state and local level, so this would be yet another power grab by Washington.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

Depending on how it would be implemented, I certainly can see issues with the 1st, 4th, 5th and 13th, etc amendments.

 

 

Since neither house of Congress has enacted the "now deleted FAQ," neither that FAQ nor rumors on how it is going to be implemented seem like an appropriate place to start discussing the merits of the Green New Deal proposal.  Read the resolution actually submitted in the House, it's short -- and, again, it has not yet even been submitted for a vote.  As with many other proposals in Congress, there will likely be a chance that it will be amended prior to any vote and that it may never even get a vote.

 

https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution on a Green New Deal.pdf

The first 4 pages are preamble, then the resolution begins with "it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal" -- and proceeds to list the goals on pages 5-14. 

 

What are the goals?  The creation of "millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure the prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States" (Section 1(B)); "building resiliency against climate change-related disasters . . . including by leveraging funding and providing investments for community-defined projects" (Section 2(A)); and "eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible" (Section 2(B)(i)), are some examples.  Conservatives could get behind those goals and could be helpful in finding fiscally-responsible solutions.  The solutions may include market-based incentives, and are not necessarily going to require the creation of large new bureaucratic government agencies.

 

We can debate the goals, which ones are most important and how to achieve their aims, but the federal government has taken no action so far and only foreign governments are leading on this issue.  So far there is no evidence that private entities are going to address the problem without government incentives to do so. 

 

Anti-government conservatives will object to the first sentence.  But beyond having the government involved, what do anti-government conservatives propose, if they acknowledge the climate change problem?  Private enterprise is not addressing the problem. 

 

The Republican Party looks like the flat earth society so far, denying that climate change is happening, denying that it's caused by human activity, or denying that there is anything we can or should do about it.  I don't want the Republican Party to give up on becoming part of the solution, there is a role for private incentives and re-ordering our fiscal priorities so that we don't either dig ourselves in a fiscal hole we can't get out of or cook the earth through inaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

I think it's worth noting that we're all really overreacting a bit. We have a storied history as a country of these sort of instances springing up from time to time - the court precedents are frankly fascinating, especially the Tinker case. 

 

This isn't the first time a kid has refused to say the Pledge and been penalized, it won't be the last. 

 

I look forward to the ACLU filing lawsuits and hopefully winning each and every time. Regurgitating the pledge of allegiance is almost as creepy as being penalized for not chanting its words alongside your programmed countrymen.


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wpcc88 said:

 

You and other liberals literally do the EXACT same thing; that is the glaring issue in this country in my opinion.  I like to think I am more middle than far to either side.   But both sides do exactly what you mention and it drives me insane.  And it has to do with listening rather than assuming, we assume WAY too much in this country.  I don't assume you're crazy because we think differently, I read what you and others post before forming my opinions. 

 

But we've become so divided because nobody can admit when they're wrong and right because nobody knows really what to believe.  Nobody has trust in the government which is why you see the Trumps and AOC's in power.  They challenged the status quo and to me that's beautiful because I hate watching documentaries about the 80's and seeing the same people in power then as I do now.  

 

And that's where you're wrong. I agree we liberals do much the same thing too. It's why I don't usually engage in debates here. We're all hypocrites but some of us are so busy shining our holier than thou medals that we can't see that we're all full of sh!t. The only difference is that I don't care if people think I'm full of sh!t. I already know I am. I just happen to be comfortable with the sh!t I spew. If someone doesn't like it, then don't read it. I won't take it personally. After all, I don't read what many of you post unless you happen to tag me like Brut by Fabergé did.


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

And that's where you're wrong. I agree we liberals do much the same thing too. It's why I don't usually engage in debates here. We're all hypocrites but some of us are so busy shining our holier than thou medals that we can't see that we're all full of sh!t. The only difference is that I don't care if people think I'm full of sh!t. I already know I am. I just happen to be comfortable with the sh!t I spew. If someone doesn't like it, then don't read it. I won't take it personally. After all, I don't read what many of you post unless you happen to tag me like Brut by Fabergé did.

 

lol - in a lot of ways I really respect what you said.  But the other side thinks if we all know we're full of shit and we don't try to improve, well, where does that leave us? Not in a great place - just a bunch of people trying to shout over each other. Regardless, nice to see someone admit they're fallible 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ck said:

 

lol - in a lot of ways I really respect what you said.  But the other side thinks if we all know we're full of shit and we don't try to improve, well, where does that leave us? Not in a great place - just a bunch of people trying to shout over each other. Regardless, nice to see someone admit they're fallible 🙂

 

If they're as comfortable with the sh!t they're filled with as I am and noone is getting hurt from it, then what is there to improve? I could retire to the wilderness today and know that I've lived a good life and never look back with regret. The problem is I hate seeing people get hurt, marginalized, isolated, denied, refused, penalized, etc because of who they are and how they're trying to define their lives without hurting others. And the only reason why they're getting hurt is because the people doing the hurting are so uncomfortable with themselves that they have to take out on someone else. You feel uncomfortable seeing so many people of color around you? That's on you. You're uncomfortable seeing two people of the same gender getting married? That's on you. You're uncomfortable seeing someone not chant for a pledge or stand for an anthem? That's on you. Is their action, which defines who they are and what they want to be (safe, happy, loved, heard, employed, part of a family), preventing you from defining who you are? Is it really??

Edited by KJP

"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 

Since neither house of Congress has enacted the "now deleted FAQ," neither that FAQ nor rumors on how it is going to be implemented seem like an appropriate place to start discussing the merits of the Green New Deal proposal.  Read the resolution actually submitted in the House, it's short -- and, again, it has not yet even been submitted for a vote.  As with many other proposals in Congress, there will likely be a chance that it will be amended prior to any vote and that it may never even get a vote.

 

https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution on a Green New Deal.pdf

The first 4 pages are preamble, then the resolution begins with "it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal" -- and proceeds to list the goals on pages 5-14. 

 

What are the goals?  The creation of "millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure the prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States" (Section 1(B)); "building resiliency against climate change-related disasters . . . including by leveraging funding and providing investments for community-defined projects" (Section 2(A)); and "eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible" (Section 2(B)(i)), are some examples.  Conservatives could get behind those goals and could be helpful in finding fiscally-responsible solutions.  The solutions may include market-based incentives, and are not necessarily going to require the creation of large new bureaucratic government agencies.

 

We can debate the goals, which ones are most important and how to achieve their aims, but the federal government has taken no action so far and only foreign governments are leading on this issue.  So far there is no evidence that private entities are going to address the problem without government incentives to do so. 

 

Anti-government conservatives will object to the first sentence.  But beyond having the government involved, what do anti-government conservatives propose, if they acknowledge the climate change problem?  Private enterprise is not addressing the problem. 

 

The Republican Party looks like the flat earth society so far, denying that climate change is happening, denying that it's caused by human activity, or denying that there is anything we can or should do about it.  I don't want the Republican Party to give up on becoming part of the solution, there is a role for private incentives and re-ordering our fiscal priorities so that we don't either dig ourselves in a fiscal hole we can't get out of or cook the earth through inaction.

 I think the FAQ has telegraphed the goals, or at least the goals of a few of the zealots in Congress. None of those could pass in the current Congress, both House or Senate, but it would be concerning if they gained traction from an uneducated public.

  • Poison 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 

Since neither house of Congress has enacted the "now deleted FAQ," neither that FAQ nor rumors on how it is going to be implemented seem like an appropriate place to start discussing the merits of the Green New Deal proposal.  Read the resolution actually submitted in the House, it's short -- and, again, it has not yet even been submitted for a vote.  As with many other proposals in Congress, there will likely be a chance that it will be amended prior to any vote and that it may never even get a vote.

 

https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution on a Green New Deal.pdf

The first 4 pages are preamble, then the resolution begins with "it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal" -- and proceeds to list the goals on pages 5-14. 

 

What are the goals?  The creation of "millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure the prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States" (Section 1(B)); "building resiliency against climate change-related disasters . . . including by leveraging funding and providing investments for community-defined projects" (Section 2(A)); and "eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible" (Section 2(B)(i)), are some examples.  Conservatives could get behind those goals and could be helpful in finding fiscally-responsible solutions.  The solutions may include market-based incentives, and are not necessarily going to require the creation of large new bureaucratic government agencies.

 

We can debate the goals, which ones are most important and how to achieve their aims, but the federal government has taken no action so far and only foreign governments are leading on this issue.  So far there is no evidence that private entities are going to address the problem without government incentives to do so. 

 

Anti-government conservatives will object to the first sentence.  But beyond having the government involved, what do anti-government conservatives propose, if they acknowledge the climate change problem?  Private enterprise is not addressing the problem. 

 

The Republican Party looks like the flat earth society so far, denying that climate change is happening, denying that it's caused by human activity, or denying that there is anything we can or should do about it.  I don't want the Republican Party to give up on becoming part of the solution, there is a role for private incentives and re-ordering our fiscal priorities so that we don't either dig ourselves in a fiscal hole we can't get out of or cook the earth through inaction.

 I think the FAQ has telegraphed the goals, or at least the goals of a few of the zealots in Congress. None of those could pass in the current Congress, both House or Senate, but it would be concerning if they gained traction from an uneducated public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

If you really want to talk rape of civil liberties, should be talking about the Green New Deal. That would decimate civil liberties like nothing seen before.

First they came for our plastic bags, and we said nothing lol.

 

Okay Brutus_buckeye you've inspired me to actually read what's in this GND thing once and for all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Source: Leaked Documents Show the U.S. Government Tracking Journalists and Immigration Advocates Through a Secret Database

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/investigations/Source-Leaked-Documents-Show-the-US-Government-Tracking-Journalists-and-Advocates-Through-a-Secret-Database-506783231.html


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa...What has ICE become??

 

Exclusive: ICE Has Kept Tabs on ‘Anti-Trump’ Protesters in New York City

Documents reveal that the immigration enforcement agency has been keenly attuned to left-leaning protests in the city. 

https://www.thenation.com/article/ice-immigration-protest-spreadsheet-tracking/


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems clear that most people in our country do not understand the dangerous activity that is being executed by people in our government. But nah, no fascism here....

 

More lawyers, reporter stopped and questioned at border by U.S. officials

At least 1 journalist and 4 American immigration attorneys have been stopped and questioned at border stations in Arizona and Texas in recent months.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/more-lawyers-reporter-stopped-questioned-border-u-s-officials-n984256


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how all corruption and violation of rights happen- because people just don't know enough about them.  It's like when you take your car to a mechanic- most people have no idea how their cars work.  Mechanics can claim your car needs all sorts of repairs when in reality they are merely taking advantage of your ignorance.  It's the same with ICE.  They take advantage of the public's ignorance of the law and Constitution, and it is very effective.  The irony is that in trying to enforce supposed laws and "protect the country", they violate the very documents and foundations they're really supposed to be protecting.  ICE is the HOA of America. 

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the problems with ICE is it has a limited jurisdiction,  and like all such agencies (BATFE, DEA, various state liquor cops) it's constantly trying to expand it.

 

But the biggest problem is the mission and rules are vague and inconsistent.   This doesn't attract law enforcement professional types.   This attracts the types that thrive on chaos and they will abuse rights.

 

Immigration law needs to be made firm and consistent.   If citizenship and legal residency are to mean anything, lack thereof needs to as well.  If you aren't here legally, your rights are pretty much limited to humane deportation.

 

We have the right as a nation to control our borders, and the duty to those here legally to do exactly that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

One of the problems with ICE is it has a limited jurisdiction,  and like all such agencies (BATFE, DEA, various state liquor cops) it's constantly trying to expand it.

 

But the biggest problem is the mission and rules are vague and inconsistent.   This doesn't attract law enforcement professional types.   This attracts the types that thrive on chaos and they will abuse rights.

 

Immigration law needs to be made firm and consistent.   If citizenship and legal residency are to mean anything, lack thereof needs to as well.  If you aren't here legally, your rights are pretty much limited to humane deportation.

 

We have the right as a nation to control our borders, and the duty to those here legally to do exactly that.

 

People also have human rights, as well aslegal rights even as non-citizens.  Also, we can choose to not be terrible. 

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

People also have human rights, as well aslegal rights even as non-citizens.  Also, we can choose to not be terrible. 

 

Leaving aside that I included non-citizens who are here legally, note the word "humane".   No one has a right to be in this nation if they do not meet the criteria we establish.   Which, as a nation, we have the right to establish.

 

Those who advocate de facto "open borders" often try to blur the distinction between those who are here according to our laws, and those here in defiance of same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

People also have human rights, as well aslegal rights even as non-citizens.  Also, we can choose to not be terrible. 

Non Citizens and illegals have human rights and deserve to be treated with dignity. That does not mean they should be allowed to disregard the laws of entry and they should be granted free unfettered access to come and go as they please.

 

Respect for human rights does not mean open borders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Non Citizens and illegals have human rights and deserve to be treated with dignity. That does not mean they should be allowed to disregard the laws of entry and they should be granted free unfettered access to come and go as they please.

 

Respect for human rights does not mean open borders

 

Agreed.  Only the far left fringe is arguing for open borders, that's not a position being taken by the Democratic Party so we can just put that to the side.

 

But -- the law does not say that you have to stay in a foreign country in order to claim asylum.  And the administration is trying to force asylum-seekers to stay out until their asylum claims are decided, and deporting asylum seekers who came across the border illegally.  And the law (Republicans did control Congress until the end of 2018, and they write the laws) says that when someone requests asylum they are allowed to stay in the US until a decision is made on asylum.  Don't like the law, change it. 

 

Massive amounts of drugs and immigrants are not coming across the border illegally, the vast majority of both are coming across through our legal border entry points.  That is where we need to improve the system.

 

Congress appropriated funds to hire more border inspectors.  The Executive has not hired those inspectors.  Another way to deal with all of the asylum claims is to hire more immigration judges to speed up processing.  Congress appropriated funds to hire over 100 more administrative immigration judges.  The Executive has not hired more judges.  Why? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, E Rocc said:

No one has a right to be in this nation if they do not meet the criteria we establish.   Which, as a nation, we have the right to establish.

 

"No one has a right to be in the nation if they do not meet the criteria the Native Americans establish.  Which, as indigenous people, they have the right to establish."


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...