Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up
Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:11 pm
Exactly, Sue.
have fun, relax, but above all ARGUE!
http://www.theplanbforum.com/forum/
http://www.theplanbforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=18526
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.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.
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:Stupid move to mess with the poem - unnecessary and wrong-headed.
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.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 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: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.
You can go ahead and say "Donald Trump and his neo-Nazi henchmen."MajGenl.Meade wrote: Some "fascists" have (as they always have) demonized immigrants and work to drastically minimize and even halt the entire program.
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.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.
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.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.
https://www.salon.com/2017/07/30/a-radi ... -part-one/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
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).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.
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.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".
***
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.But everyone needs to apply, outside the USA, to their local USEmb, just as law-abiding folks have been doing for years.
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.
Why? Are the small number of natural born citizens of alien parents that much of a problem?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.
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.