You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 13122
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by BoSoxGal »

Exactly, Sue.
@realDonaldTrump, your mouth is the foulest shithole in the world! ~ Vicente Fox Quesada

Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States, IMPEACHED by the House of Representatives December 18, 2019.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 17090
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Bloemfontein

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Stupid move to mess with the poem - unnecessary and wrong-headed.
That the United States represents a beacon of freedom and opportunity for marginalized and oppressed people the world over, that all are welcome to make their own American Dream come true.
That's a false statement on fact alone. "All" are not welcome and have not been since 1875 when the SC declared that control of immigration was a Federal responsibility. The govt produced such gems as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Alien Contract Labor laws of 1885 and 1887 prohibited certain laborers from immigrating to the United States. The general Immigration Act of 1882 levied a head tax of fifty cents on each immigrant and blocked (or excluded) the entry of idiots, lunatics, convicts, and persons likely to become a public charge. Ellis Island opened in 1892. Quotas were and still are established. Even in 1977, when I emigrated from England, the US required evidence that legal aliens were free of TB - otherwise, no visa.

Still today, discussion continues as to who should be excluded/controlled and by what means. Some "liberals" have moved away from "what we could all agree on as Americans"- that there should be a mechanism - and have enshrined anarchy in its place. Some "fascists" have (as they always have) demonized immigrants and work to drastically minimize and even halt the entire program.
No use crying, talking to a stranger. Naming the sorrow you've seen. Too many bad times, too many sad times. Nobody knows what you mean

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 2827
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

I wonder where this fits into the far right daydream.

Apparently a R state rep in Washington (state) is some sort of combat instructor in a young men's Christian group for which “there will be biblical teaching (some taken from pastor John Weaver’s works) on biblical warfare, the responsibilities, regulations, principles and mindset. So that our young men will be better prepared to fight against physical enemies, and to do so, God’s way and with His blessing”. Also: "There will be scenarios where every participant will have to fight against one of the most barbaric enemies that are invading our country, Muslims terrorists."

(Seems to me that they could use an English instructor - I'll volunteer my services and, with their permission of course, those of BSG and Meade - we'd make a hell of a team, guys!) Eastern WA, ID and MT of course: the usual suspects location-wise

These folk are mixed up with the far right groups who went to Charlottesville. "Jews will not replace us!" and all that.

The Guardian piece I linked is worth reading.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 6911
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Sue U »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:Stupid move to mess with the poem - unnecessary and wrong-headed.
That the United States represents a beacon of freedom and opportunity for marginalized and oppressed people the world over, that all are welcome to make their own American Dream come true.
That's a false statement on fact alone. "All" are not welcome and have not been since 1875 when the SC declared that control of immigration was a Federal responsibility. The govt produced such gems as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Alien Contract Labor laws of 1885 and 1887 prohibited certain laborers from immigrating to the United States. The general Immigration Act of 1882 levied a head tax of fifty cents on each immigrant and blocked (or excluded) the entry of idiots, lunatics, convicts, and persons likely to become a public charge. Ellis Island opened in 1892. Quotas were and still are established. Even in 1977, when I emigrated from England, the US required evidence that legal aliens were free of TB - otherwise, no visa.
Please, Meade, you know better. The restatement of a moral value enshrined in our founding documents and, through repeated historical iterations, commonly understood to be our national heritage is not a "false statement," no matter how many shameful and boneheaded laws and practices have contravened our aspirations in the interim. The American Dream as understood today is technically a 20th Century concept, although firmly rooted in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, later constitutional amendments and jurisprudence, and the great social movements for abolition, women's suffrage, labor rights, civil rights and equal rights. The American Dream is almost by definition the domain of immigrants, since only a small percentage of us has any lineage in this country longer than three generations, and our immigrant forebears (or immigrant selves) came here in pursuit of it.
MajGenl.Meade wrote:Still today, discussion continues as to who should be excluded/controlled and by what means. Some "liberals" have moved away from "what we could all agree on as Americans"- that there should be a mechanism - and have enshrined anarchy in its place.
That is a right-wing strawman and complete nonsense. Please tell me exactly which "liberals" are advocating anarchy instead of a mechanism for immigration? (BTW, those radical commie liberals at the Cato Institute are pro-immigration and think this "public charge" bullshit is, well, bullshit.
MajGenl.Meade wrote: Some "fascists" have (as they always have) demonized immigrants and work to drastically minimize and even halt the entire program.
You can go ahead and say "Donald Trump and his neo-Nazi henchmen."
GAH!

rubato
Posts: 13862
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by rubato »

Very well put.


"liberals advocating anarchy" is just stupid.

yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 13350
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Scooter »

U.S. Rep. Steve King: If not for rape and incest, 'would there be any population left?'

U.S. Rep. Steve King told the Westside Conservative Club Wednesday that humanity might not exist if not for rape and incest throughout human history.

"What if we went back through all the family trees and just pulled out anyone who was a product of rape or incest? Would there be any population of the world left if we did that?" he said in Urbandale, Iowa. "Considering all the wars and all the rapes and pillages that happened throughout all these different nations, I know that I can't say that I was not a part of a product of that."

The Kiron Republican was discussing his defense of not allowing exceptions for rape and incest in the anti-abortion legislation he tried to pass in Congress. Republican leadership had prevented bills he sponsored on banning abortions from advancing through the House, despite GOP support for the measures, King said.

Just because a conception happened in bad circumstances doesn't mean the result isn't a person, King, who is Catholic, argued.

"It's not the baby's fault for the sin of the father, or of the mother," he said.

King went over his positions on abortion and a variety of other issues including immigration, guns and more when he talked to a group of 50 people at the Machine Shed in Urbandale at a breakfast meeting.
White privilege is a thing.

What goes on in a woman's uterus is none of your fucking business.

Equal rights for others does not mean less rights for you. It's not pie.

Big RR
Posts: 11059
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Big RR »

And I imagine the incest wars were just as bad; you know, brother against brother produces fierce fighting, especially if it is for conjugal rights with the sister. What an ass.

I am surprised a brain like his can generate enough power to make him walk. And yet he wrote all those horror books...

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 13122
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by BoSoxGal »

Speaking of the horror fiction writer, I saw this short video recently and it gave me a chill or two:

@realDonaldTrump, your mouth is the foulest shithole in the world! ~ Vicente Fox Quesada

Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States, IMPEACHED by the House of Representatives December 18, 2019.

rubato
Posts: 13862
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by rubato »

If not for Republicans Steve King and Trump would not hold public office.. Thanks Republicans!


yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 5583
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Onalaska, Wi (suburb of La Crosse)

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Bicycle Bill »

Scooter wrote:
U.S. Rep. Steve King: If not for rape and incest, 'would there be any population left?'

U.S. Rep. Steve King told the Westside Conservative Club Wednesday that humanity might not exist if not for rape and incest throughout human history.

"What if we went back through all the family trees and just pulled out anyone who was a product of rape or incest? Would there be any population of the world left if we did that?" he said in Urbandale, Iowa. "Considering all the wars and all the rapes and pillages that happened throughout all these different nations, I know that I can't say that I was not a part of a product of that."

The Kiron Republican was discussing his defense of not allowing exceptions for rape and incest in the anti-abortion legislation he tried to pass in Congress. Republican leadership had prevented bills he sponsored on banning abortions from advancing through the House, despite GOP support for the measures, King said.

Just because a conception happened in bad circumstances doesn't mean the result isn't a person, King, who is Catholic, argued.

"It's not the baby's fault for the sin of the father, or of the mother," he said.

King went over his positions on abortion and a variety of other issues including immigration, guns and more when he talked to a group of 50 people at the Machine Shed in Urbandale at a breakfast meeting.
This dickhead makes Fred Grandy ('Gopher' from "The Love Boat"), who represented western Iowa's Sixth Congressional District for eight years from 1987 through 1993 when the district was reapportioned due to the 1990 census and he decided to (unsuccessfully) challenge incumbent governor Terry Branstad in the Republican primary, look like presidential timber in comparison.
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 7866
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Econoline »

Image
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 7866
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Econoline »

Image
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 17090
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Bloemfontein

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Sue U wrote:That is a right-wing strawman and complete nonsense. Please tell me exactly which "liberals" are advocating anarchy instead of a mechanism for immigration? (BTW, those radical commie liberals at the Cato Institute are pro-immigration and think this "public charge" bullshit is, well, bullshit.
Point: I did not state that any liberal was "advocating" anarchy. I wrote "enshrining" anarchy. It's a bit rude of rube to say that your misquote is "stupid" though; I'm sure it wasn't intentional on your part.

Definition: anarchy, "absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal".

Thanks for asking - Anis Shivani is a jolly good liberal and the good folks at Salon are not known for advocating anti-liberalism. Here comes the enshrining:
Immigration, in short, should be removed from criminality, even in the face of any “violations.” It is actually an administrative matter, as it has been and should be, and the concessions to criminal disciplinary action made by neoliberal policymakers, over the last quarter-century in particular, should give way to a regime where there is never detention on purely immigration-related charges, where we start moving toward completely free and open borders
https://www.salon.com/2017/07/30/a-radi ... -part-one/

Bakunin knew a bit about anarchy: "The well-being and the freedom of nations as well as individuals are inextricably interwoven. Therefore, there must be free commerce, exchange, and communication among all federated countries, and abolition of frontiers, passports, and customs duties".

I also deny that "all" would-be immigrants are welcome; some, many, millions may be, but not "all". I'm grateful I wasn't on a list of undesirables (not until too late, anyway!).

We may light moral beacons as often as we wish but the fact is that the government has mechanisms to issue visas and so on to regulate who comes in and who does not. Every one of us (even Anis and Bakunin) surely can identify some type of person that should not have unrestricted access to the benefits of this society. Perhaps war criminals? Perhaps out-and-out gangsters? Don't I recall demonstrations years ago (albeit not large) against the presence of the Shah of Iran, even on a visa to get medical treatment? If there's even one that you would not allow in, then not "all" are welcome.

Well, I didn't want to restrict meanings at the end to Trump et al. There are more fascists than just them. :cry:
No use crying, talking to a stranger. Naming the sorrow you've seen. Too many bad times, too many sad times. Nobody knows what you mean

Big RR
Posts: 11059
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Big RR »

Every one of us (even Anis and Bakunin) surely can identify some type of person that should not have unrestricted access to the benefits of this society. Perhaps war criminals? Perhaps out-and-out gangsters? Don't I recall demonstrations years ago (albeit not large) against the presence of the Shah of Iran, even on a visa to get medical treatment? If there's even one that you would not allow in, then not "all" are welcome.
OK Meade, but do we need criminal sanctions to achieve these ends? We could make violation of immigration laws a civil, rather than criminal, violation, and apply civil detention when necessary. At the very least it would avoid confining the detainees into prisons, and remove the excuse for breaking up families, because "that's what the criminal laws require". Add to it expedited actions in these cases and we might wind up with an immigration system which works, one of laws, not of men (or, in Trump's case, a poor excuse for one).

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 17090
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Bloemfontein

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Big RR, we could but we haven't. Isn't there a Constitutional difficulty involved in that? It seems to me that (like the word 'evolution') people choose to camp on different bits of a thing as if those bits were the only thing. The "problem" (if there is one) with civil courts is that we all know that's a boondoggle so that Fred the Scotsman can get to stay in the USA for something like five years or more while lawyers and judges play courtroom with each other. I am very much against separation of families.

First, immigration needs to be controlled, despite Bakunin. All countries try to do that; each has procedures by which those who wish to enter are vetted. Regulation needs to be more relaxed/stricter, depending on who's doing the talking. But everyone needs to apply, outside the USA, to their local USEmb, just as law-abiding folks have been doing for years.

Second, those apprehended attempting to enter illegally (and that is regardless of criminal and civil jurisdictions) must be stopped and sent back where they came from. Exception should be made based upon which way the wind's blowing/genuine persecution and not just "I felt like it". Depending on who's talking.

Third, those who succeed in entering should be tracked down, rewarded for success/given a Gucci travel-bag (with toothpaste) and sent back where they came from. DOWT.

Fourth, the word "citizen" needs to be redefined to include only the children of US citizens and of properly registered legal aliens. Bit of a Constitutional problem there, no DOWT. :lol:

Fifth, all illegally-US-habitating non-citizens of all ages should be sent back to where they are citizens. Together. Comfortably. First class if possible.

Sixth, I am indeed an evil violator of human rights.
No use crying, talking to a stranger. Naming the sorrow you've seen. Too many bad times, too many sad times. Nobody knows what you mean

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 6911
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Sue U »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Sue U wrote:That is a right-wing strawman and complete nonsense. Please tell me exactly which "liberals" are advocating anarchy instead of a mechanism for immigration? ***
***
Thanks for asking - Anis Shivani is a jolly good liberal and the good folks at Salon are not known for advocating anti-liberalism. Here comes the enshrining:
Immigration, in short, should be removed from criminality, even in the face of any “violations.” It is actually an administrative matter, as it has been and should be, and the concessions to criminal disciplinary action made by neoliberal policymakers, over the last quarter-century in particular, should give way to a regime where there is never detention on purely immigration-related charges, where we start moving toward completely free and open borders
***
Bakunin knew a bit about anarchy: "The well-being and the freedom of nations as well as individuals are inextricably interwoven. Therefore, there must be free commerce, exchange, and communication among all federated countries, and abolition of frontiers, passports, and customs duties".

***
Thanks for proving my point: As examples of "liberals" "enshrining anarchy" you pick a fiction writer who gestures vaguely toward some utopian future (and who does not appear to be anywhere near a mainstream "liberal" in any sense) and a 150-years-dead Russian anarchist (also not a "liberal"). There is no "liberal" that I know of in any party leadership position, holding any political power, or running for any federal office in the US and A who is even advocating "open borders," whatever that might mean -- and it doesn't mean "no borders," let alone "enshrining anarchy," whatever "enshrining" is supposed to mean.

In fact, the most ardent advocates for "open borders" tend to be conservative economists and libertarians who believe in the free movement of labor and capital as a function of free-market forces. I tend to be in agreement, but for other political reasons -- and also too I am not a "liberal."
GAH!

Big RR
Posts: 11059
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Big RR »

Meade--immigration is a civil matter, and the immigration apparatus and courts decide administrative matters including whether someone is entitled to enter or not. No boondoggle, just straightforward decisions made based on the law--no need to invoke criminal sanctions. As for:
But everyone needs to apply, outside the USA, to their local USEmb, just as law-abiding folks have been doing for years.
why, someone fleeing persecution should be given a fair hearing wherever they are located, don't you think? We have laws governing asylum and entry, and many people entered the US before applying for entry, such as Cubans and others fleeing from countries which we had problems with. Let's just follow the law.
those apprehended attempting to enter illegally (and that is regardless of criminal and civil jurisdictions) must be stopped and sent back where they came from. Exception should be made based upon which way the wind's blowing/genuine persecution and not just "I felt like it". Depending on who's talking.

????? Again, I'd just enforce the law
Third, those who succeed in entering should be tracked down, rewarded for success/given a Gucci travel-bag (with toothpaste) and sent back where they came from. DOWT.
????
Fourth, the word "citizen" needs to be redefined to include only the children of US citizens and of properly registered legal aliens. Bit of a Constitutional problem there, no DOWT. :lol:
Why? Are the small number of natural born citizens of alien parents that much of a problem?

I won't even discuss your fifth point--again, enforce the law. And recognize that we do not have the assets to track them all done, and that the cost of even trying to do so grossly outweighs the benefits.

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 13122
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by BoSoxGal »

If all the undocumented persons in the USA got up and left tomorrow, our economy would be very negatively impacted, SS would falter, and a tomato at the grocery would be nearly as expensive as one from Andy’s garden.
@realDonaldTrump, your mouth is the foulest shithole in the world! ~ Vicente Fox Quesada

Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States, IMPEACHED by the House of Representatives December 18, 2019.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 17090
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Bloemfontein

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

OK Sue; pax. I did not mention "mainstream" liberals, party leadership, those in power, those running for office. I referred to some "liberals" etc. and I put liberals in inverted commas for good reason. Criticism for my words is acceptable but not for what I have never written. Why should I not turn to the founding fathers of anarchism to show their intent? People die but ideas live on, especially the bad ones.

Big RR, I was too obscure. . . obviously. "Depending on who's talking" (DOWT) indicated two extremities of viewpoint - the more "liberal" (not a political term) and the more hard-line. So there are some who'd like to welcome "all" (or claim that they do) for whatever reason and some who'd bar them all. "People tending to camp on different bits of the same thing" was meant to indicate that what followed was speaking of those extremes.

Yes, I believe that children born in the USA to people who illegally entered the country should not be citizens. I believe it but am sure I could not support anyone who tried to make it a reality. There is a Constitutional impediment to such a measure - no matter who's doing the talking. Hence "no DOWT" which was meant to be a smiley thing. Besides, there's a problem in that the parents' country of origin in many or most cases does not recognize foreign-born children as their citizens either. :cry:

Yes, I believe that illegal entry and residence in the United States are grounds for deportation. I abhor the means and manner in which this has been going on recently. I hate the newspeak "undocumented workers" and other such subterfuges to warp the language in pursuit of political ends. People of course are not illegal; it's what they do wrong that is illegal, and that includes evading immigration controls etc.

If they all went home the sky would fall? I had no idea there were that many illegal residents of the USA. Guess that proves something about inadequate law enforcement at the borders. :lol:
No use crying, talking to a stranger. Naming the sorrow you've seen. Too many bad times, too many sad times. Nobody knows what you mean

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 13350
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Scooter »

Shell Workers Had To Attend Trump Speech To Be Paid, Were Ordered Not To Protest: Report

Workers at a massive new Shell plant in Pennsylvania had to attend a speech by President Donald Trump there earlier this week to be paid — and were ordered not to protest, reported the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Attendance was not mandatory for thousands of union workers at Royal Dutch Shell’s petrochemical plant north of Pittsburgh, but they had to forfeit pay for the day if they skipped, according to attendance and comportment information obtained by the newspaper.

“Your attendance is not mandatory,” one manager told workers, summarizing a memo that Shell sent to union leaders, the Post-Gazette reported, but only those who showed up at 7 a.m., scanned their ID cards and prepared to stand for hours through lunch would be paid.

“No scan, no pay,” workers were warned.

In addition, workers who decided not to listen to the president’s speech reportedly would not be paid overtime rates routinely built in for extra time during the week.

The newspaper said that they were also told: “No yelling, shouting, protesting or anything viewed as resistance will be tolerated at the event. An underlying theme of the event is to promote good will from the unions. Your building trades leaders and jobs stewards have agreed to this.”

“This is just what Shell wanted to do and we went along with it,” Ken Broadbent, business manager for Steamfitters Local 449, told the newspaper. He said he wouldn’t “bad rap” the situation.

“We’re glad to have the jobs. We’re glad to have the project built,” he said. “The president is the president whether we like him or dislike him. We respect him for the title.”

The new $6 billion plant, which has been under construction since 2017, is an “ethane cracker” plant. It will “crack” ethane, a natural gas liquid found in some natural gas deposits, and turn it into plastic pellets to be used in various plastic products. The plant will produce over 1 million tons of plastic. Environmentalists and community groups complain that the operation will harm the region’s air quality and will increase carbon emissions and plastic pollution.

Trump took full credit for the plant in his speech, even though it was initially approved in June 2016, during the Obama administration, CNN reported.

“It was the Trump administration that made it possible,“ Trump told workers. “No one else. Without us, you would never have been able to do this.”

He also told workers: “I’m going to speak to some of your union leaders to say, ’I hope you’re going to support Trump. If they don’t, vote them the hell out of office because they’re not doing their job.”

Trump was supposed to stick to addressing energy in his speech, but it morphed into a full-blown, free-range campaign speech.
White privilege is a thing.

What goes on in a woman's uterus is none of your fucking business.

Equal rights for others does not mean less rights for you. It's not pie.

Post Reply