The Deportation of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia

#1,102
#1,102
NashVol11 said:
But-for cause as logic - ie "one doesn't exist without the other" - is not very meaningful, especially when the second thing is worse for many people than the first thing is. If the second thing were MUCH worse, like something that involved death, then people would understand that very quickly. It is an intentionally extreme example
Click to expand...
The non-equivalency still makes it a flawed thought experiment.

"One admin created a problem of too many illegal immigrants, so we are trying to streamline the process of sending them back within the laws' allowances."

"One admin created a problem of too many illegal immigrants, so we're just going to kill all of them."


You're actually admitting the false equivalency, yet doubling down, as a way to preserve the appearance of intellectual honesty?


__________________

You seem to be missing the fact that our entire legal system is built on but-for logic performed in a legal and just manner. yet you introduce a self-admitted non-equivalent comparison of just-for logic as the expectation of rational/legal/emotional response.

Since this person stole, the just and legal responses will be...
Since this person raped someone, the just/legal response will be...
Since this person murdered someone, the just/legal response will be...
Since this person rear-ended you at the stop-light, the just/legal response will be...
Since this person entered and resided in the US illegally, the just/legal response will be...

And I could go down each one of those statements and agree with the but-for logic until you start swapping out the buts and the fors.

Since this person rear-ended you on the freeway, we will send you to prison for 20 years.
Since this person rear-ended your car at a stoplight, we will send them to Guatemala, never to enter the US again.
Since this person murdered someone, we'll make them pay for your new bumper.
Since this person entered and resided in the country illegally, we will give them the death penalty.


Now...

Since this admin created a huge illegal immigration/residency problem, we will send them back where they came from, with no legal option of ever coming back.
Since this admin created a huge illegal immigration/residency problem, we will murder them.



Yep. That's the preservation of intellectual honesty in its clearest form.
 
#1,103
#1,103
NashVol11 said:
But-for cause as logic - ie "one doesn't exist without the other" - is not very meaningful, especially when the second thing is worse for many people than the first thing is. If the second thing were MUCH worse, like something that involved death, then people would understand that very quickly; no one would be saying "well this wouldn't exist without Biden's border policy" and acting like that is important to note. It is an intentionally extreme example
Click to expand...
What's worse, failing to enforce or ignoring law?

you must choose one over the other............. Do you see how ridiculous that is?

I think it's MUCH worse to cost your taxpayers 150+ billion dollars than it is to deport a few planes full of gang members and associates to their home country without due process. I don't like either but if you forced me to weigh those scales that's where I would fall.........I think most people would agree with me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and Orangeslice13
#1,104
#1,104
Orange_Crush said:
The non-equivalency still makes it a flawed thought experiment.

"One admin created a problem of too many illegal immigrants, so we are trying to streamline the process of sending them back within the laws' allowances."

"One admin created a problem of too many illegal immigrants, so we're just going to kill all of them."


You're actually admitting the false equivalency, yet doubling down, as a way to preserve the appearance of intellectual honesty?


__________________

You seem to be missing the fact that our entire legal system is built on but-for logic performed in a legal and just manner. yet you introduce a self-admitted non-equivalent comparison of just-for logic as the expectation of rational/legal/emotional response.

Since this person stole, the just and legal responses will be...
Since this person raped someone, the just/legal response will be...
Since this person murdered someone, the just/legal response will be...
Since this person rear-ended you at the stop-light, the just/legal response will be...
Since this person entered and resided in the US illegally, the just/legal response will be...

And I could go down each one of those statements and agree with the but-for logic until you start swapping out the buts and the fors.

Since this person rear-ended you on the freeway, we will send you to prison for 20 years.
Since this person rear-ended your car at a stoplight, we will send them to Guatemala, never to enter the US again.
Since this person murdered someone, we'll make them pay for your new bumper.
Since this person entered and resided in the country illegally, we will give them the death penalty.


Now...

Since this admin created a huge illegal immigration/residency problem, we will send them back where they came from, with no legal option of ever coming back.
Since this admin created a huge illegal immigration/residency problem, we will murder them.



Yep. That's the preservation of intellectual honesty in its clearest form.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what part of "intentionally extreme example" is twisting you into a 10-paragraph knot but there is nothing dishonest about it
 
#1,105
#1,105
KB5252 said:
What's worse, failing to enforce or ignoring law?

you must choose one over the other............. Do you see how ridiculous that is?

I think it's MUCH worse to cost your taxpayers 150+ billion dollars than it is to deport a few planes full of gang members and associates to their home country without due process. I don't like either but if you forced me to weigh those scales that's where I would fall.........I think most people would agree with me.
Click to expand...
I would much rather give up money, which we spend in an unlimited way anyway, than give up rights. Not much of a discussion for me
 
#1,106
#1,106
whodeycin85 said:
Is he referring to that or is he staying that the meaning of the tattoos is ms13...a teardrop tattoo doesn't spell out that you killed someone either..but you see someone with a teardrop tattoo and you can reasonably assume they have killed someone and or are in a gang..
Click to expand...
Just like a swastika tattoo doesn’t NEED to have the literal word „Nazi“ above it for one to assume that the person has Nazi like views. Some things are just obvious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#1,110
#1,110
KB5252 said:
Your rights weren't infringed, your money however............
Click to expand...
"We're restricting rights and doing whatever we want, but only to the BAD people, don't worry/but it's an emergency so we HAD to, to protect you"
combined with
"These courts can't tell us what to do; they're 'activists' anyway and not doing their jobs so we don't have to listen to them"

could not be more directly lifted out of the Infringing Rights playbook lol
 
#1,111
#1,111
hog88 said:
You are when you fill out your new hire paperwork. When you register to vote, when you fill out a 4473, when you apply for a drivers license, ext.
Click to expand...
I think Drivers license standards vary state-to-state, hence the push (or at least the justification) for Real ID. But yes, I answered that to vote, and, back before I discovered all the loopholes, I had to answer that on the 4473.
 
#1,112
#1,112
NashVol11 said:
"We're restricting rights and doing whatever we want, but only to the BAD people, don't worry/but it's an emergency so we HAD to, to protect you"
combined with
"These courts can't tell us what to do; they're 'activists' anyway and not doing their jobs so we don't have to listen to them"

could not be more directly lifted out of the Infringing Rights playbook lol
Click to expand...
i think there's is some we question as to what is legal vs illegal. If you break into a country bypassing lawful means of seeking asylum or citizenship should you not be removed immediately and returned to your coo?

Expedited removal without full process is and should be rare. This is a case where I can see at least probable cause to deport. These gang members prey on the public at large but most often the most vulnerable and least likely to report......other immigrants.

While I don't like due process being bypassed after reading more about immigration law there are provisions for bypassing some of the steps.

I feel better about it being applied in this instance but expanding this beyond gang members etc is problematic.
 
#1,113
#1,113
volbound1700 said:
It is a little scary in that it sets precedence.

Of course, people will respond to you by pointing out that abc does it as well (seems the popular ones are Obama and Biden and yes they did a lot of shady and horrible stuff too. I will state that some of the worse and most egregious infractions to our Constitution where in 1920s-1950s. I also think the Supreme Court in some of its rulings can violate the Constitution (they haven't here).

The entire 20th and 21st Century haven't been kind to the Constitution. The issue is that Constitutionalists come off to the average people like Cato would in Ancient Rome. They just sound like parroting elites that are out of touch to the suffering. Meanwhile, Americans are turning towards "Caesar" to save us and the Republic (we know how that worked out with Octavian).

USA is morphing into a dictatorship. Also, people get everything mixed up about Fascism and Communism. Fascism/Dictatorships tend to also believe in controlled economy and are very socialists. Nazi Germany had a planned economy more like the Soviet economy than the USA economy. They were heavily anti-Western and anti-Democratic as well. We tend to equate them on the opposite site of the spectrum when Nazi Germany and Soviet Union are far closer to each other than they are to Democracy. This is why, from a socialism perspective, some of MAGA and also some of the Bernie/AOC supporters are starting to have the same viewpoints on a lot more issues than either group wants to admit.

IMO Communism is Far Right and not Left. Socialism is far right. Far Left to me should be Libertarianism. Our society has that all screwed up.
Click to expand...
😂
 
#1,114
#1,114
utvolpj said:
Don't question me. I worked a plumbing counter for 2yrs in AZ during the housing boom. I know very well how to make it look like I speak no English
Click to expand...
Lol
You said what instead of who so it confused me. I consulted the professionals and it confused them too. IMG_2513.jpeg
 
#1,116
#1,116
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol
#1,117
#1,117
utvolpj said:
Asking who would indicate you understood the question.
Click to expand...
Que?

And no it didn’t. I responded to “what” and didn’t realize you meant “who” till you clarified in a post to someone else about me.

You asked what. Not who.
So you meant Quien? And not Que which would have lead to a whole different conversation.
 
#1,119
#1,119
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, volfanhill and NashVol11
#1,120
#1,120
Orangeslice13 said:
Que?

And no it didn’t. I responded to “what” and didn’t realize you meant “who” till you clarified in a post to someone else about me.

You asked what. Not who.
So you meant Quien? And not Que which would have lead to a whole different conversation.
Click to expand...
I posted what I meant. Every one I met trying to pretend he didn't know English said that. I spent almost 7yrs in AZ on jobsites big and small so I know what I said. Not sure where you're going with this but feel free to travel alone
 
#1,122
#1,122
utvolpj said:
I posted what I meant. Every one I met trying to pretend he didn't know English said that. I spent almost 7yrs in AZ on jobsites big and small so I know what I said. Not sure where you're going with this but feel free to travel alone
Click to expand...
Ahh. I understand your dipshitery now.

I guess if you didn’t have your proof of citizenship then “Que” would get you deported.
The proof of legitimacy falls on you.
 
#1,124
#1,124

Should Democrats Visiting Kilmar Abrego Garcia Be on the Terror Watch List?​


One of the more outrageous abuses of the politically weaponized Biden administration was the placement of former Democratic presidential candidate and Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard on a TSA terror surveillance program called Quiet Skies. It's now time for the Trump administration to consider putting Democratic politicians seeking to parlay with MS-13 gang member and accused wife beater Kilmar Garcia Abrego on the same list.

townhall.com

Should Democrats Visiting Kilmar Abrego Garcia Be on the Terror Watch List?

One of the more outrageous abuses of the politically weaponized Biden administration was the placeme
townhall.com townhall.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol
#1,125
#1,125
Franklin Pierce said:

Should Democrats Visiting Kilmar Abrego Garcia Be on the Terror Watch List?​


One of the more outrageous abuses of the politically weaponized Biden administration was the placement of former Democratic presidential candidate and Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard on a TSA terror surveillance program called Quiet Skies. It's now time for the Trump administration to consider putting Democratic politicians seeking to parlay with MS-13 gang member and accused wife beater Kilmar Garcia Abrego on the same list.

townhall.com

Should Democrats Visiting Kilmar Abrego Garcia Be on the Terror Watch List?

One of the more outrageous abuses of the politically weaponized Biden administration was the placeme
townhall.com townhall.com
Click to expand...
That seems a little over the top no?
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top