The Border Crisis: Is Allowing Illegals To Flood In A Good Thing?

[Thebrownblob]

Again you're pushing straw man arguments to bolster your position. That has nothing to do with some teenager with mental health issues putting it out on Facebook or whatever that he's sick of his classmates and will kill them the first chance he gets. Or a 35 yr old who's picked on at work and he puts it out there that this is his last day on Earth and tomorrow he's going to make sure it's his co-workers last day also. Not everyone with homicidal tendencies give advanced notice. Thinking of the guy in Las Vegas who shot all those people at that concert. But enough do that authorities need to closely monitor them and intervene if necessary.

That’s a strawman? That’s not happening? These are people who you trust? in your last post, you want to confine people until they’re “safe” if they say something or do something, the government deems “dangerous”lol I really don’t have that much more to say you are literally not a conservative and not a constitutionalist. Your something very different.

I don’t know why you’re upset about January 6 people not having a fair speedy trial and due process, you seem to be just fine with the government, throwing people away and locking the doors until they deem it “safe” no trial necessary. After all their insurrectionist right? I guess that’s a strawman too? Because it’s not happening?

 

[vantexan]

That’s a strawman? That’s not happening? These are people who you trust? in your last post, you want to confine people until they’re “safe” if they say something or do something, the government deems “dangerous”lol I really don’t have that much more to say you are literally not a conservative and not a constitutionalist. Your something very different.

I don’t know why you’re upset about January 6 people not having a fair trial and due process, you seem to be just fine with the government, throwing people away and locking the doors until they deem it “safe” no trial necessary. After all their insurrectionist right?

That has nothing to do with what I've been saying. For the millionth time I'm not talking about the government not liking your politics. Talking about people who are openly saying they are going to kill a bunch if people, whether randomly or they're targeting specific groups they hate. The Hamas supporters for example who've been threatening Jews in this country. Absolutely unacceptable and authorities should step in to stop that. They can protest all day but once they specifically start making violent threats they should be stopped. Or do you think that's acceptable?

 

[Thebrownblob]

That has nothing to do with what I've been saying. For the millionth time I'm not talking about the government not liking your politics. Talking about people who are openly saying they are going to kill a bunch if people, whether randomly or they're targeting specific groups they hate. The Hamas supporters for example who've been threatening Jews in this country. Absolutely unacceptable and authorities should step in to stop that. They can protest all day but once they specifically start making violent threats they should be stopped. Or do you think that's acceptable?

You’re right it has nothing to do with it lol sure we can trust the government with everything else just not that.

I am part Jewish I don’t want the government to do anything to Hamas supporters that isn’t legal until it’ they break the law, then punish them to the full extent. The speech I hate is the speech that needs to be protected the most.

 

[vantexan]

That’s a strawman? That’s not happening? These are people who you trust? in your last post, you want to confine people until they’re “safe” if they say something or do something, the government deems “dangerous”lol I really don’t have that much more to say you are literally not a conservative and not a constitutionalist. Your something very different.

I don’t know why you’re upset about January 6 people not having a fair speedy trial and due process, you seem to be just fine with the government, throwing people away and locking the doors until they deem it “safe” no trial necessary. After all their insurrectionist right? I guess that’s a strawman too? Because it’s not happening?

I responded before reading all of your post. Your second paragraph has nothing to do with what I've been saying. Total strawman. But to your point if a protester caused physical harm to a Capitol policeman then he should be prosecuted. And I expect the same for all the rioters in 2020 who harmed others, set fires, smashed windows. But that has nothing to do with taking a man into custody who is publicly saying he intends to harm others.

 

[vantexan]

You’re right it has nothing to do with it lol sure we can trust the government with everything else just not that.

I am part Jewish I don’t want the government to do anything to Hamas supporters that isn’t legal until it’ they break the law, then punish them to the full extent. The speech I hate is the speech that needs to be protected the most.

But is threatening to harm others breaking the law? Or is that protected free speech?

 

[Thebrownblob]

I responded before reading all of your post. Your second paragraph has nothing to do with what I've been saying. Total strawman. But to your point if a protester caused physical harm to a Capitol policeman then he should be prosecuted. And I expect the same for all the rioters in 2020 who harmed ithers, set fires, smashed windows. But that has nothing to do with taking a man into custody who is publicly saying he intends to harm others.

It’s only a strawman, because you want a roving band of psychologist and jack booted thugs to lock people away until people who are supposedly in charge deemed their safe.

The intellect of a three year-old to not understand the kind of slippery slope you’re talking.

 

[Thebrownblob]

But is threatening to harm others breaking the law? Or is that protected free speech?

Depends on what you mean by harm? In a postmodern society words don’t mean anything anymore. a parent trying to protect their child, is now threatening their child. I am in no way in favor of giving a bureaucratic system the right to take my constitutional rights away before I’ve done anything wrong or anyone else. Because it will never stop.

 

[vantexan]

It’s only a strawman, because you want a roving band of psychologist and jack booted thugs to lock people away until people who are supposedly in charge deemed their safe.

The intellect of a three year-old to not understand the kind of slippery slope you’re talking.

So you're good with someone making threats to harm others and he should only be arrested after he harms others? Good to know.

 

[Thebrownblob]

So you're good with someone making threats to harm others and he should only be arrested after he harms others? Good to know.

People get arrested all the time for making threats. They get charged they get a court date they go home and get a lawyer they don’t get thrown away forever and the rights stripped from them but I’m glad that’s what you want. Good to know.

 

[vantexan]

Depends on what you mean by harm? In a postmodern society words don’t mean anything anymore. a parent trying to protect their child, now threatening their child.

Have the courage of your convictions and tell us that someone openly threatening to kill people has that right under the 1st Amendment. And that his right to say anything of a threatening nature supersedes the rights of the general public to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Thebrownblob]

Have the courage of your convictions and tell us that someone openly threatening to kill people has that right under the 1st Amendment. And that his right to say anything of a threatening nature supersedes the rights of the general public to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I have plenty of courage lol there’s numerous decisions, that show the different level of what could be considered an illegal threat.

What constitutes a true threat? - Free Speech, Rights and Responsibilities

A true threat is not protected by the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court defined true threats in Virginia v. Black (2003) as “statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence …

uwm.edu

 

[vantexan]

People get arrested all the time for making threats. They get charged they get a court date they go home and get a lawyer they don’t get thrown away forever and the rights stripped from them but I’m glad that’s what you want. Good to know.

Again with the straw man and distortion of my posts. There have been repeated mass shootings where the perpetrator was making either online or public threats but no one took it seriously until he/she acted out. And you seem to think if we address that before he/she acts out then we're threatening 1st Amendment rights, gun ownership rights, etc. What it comes down to is you're convinced the government never acts in our best interests so they must be restricted from taking any preemptive actions.

 

[vantexan]

I have plenty of courage lol there’s numerous decisions, that show the different level of what could be considered an illegal threat.

What constitutes a true threat? - Free Speech, Rights and Responsibilities

A true threat is not protected by the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court defined true threats in Virginia v. Black (2003) as “statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence …

uwm.edu

Seems that link bolsters my argument. Anyone making a true threat to harm a person or group isn't protected by the 1st Amendment. And the authorities thus have the right to take him into custody. Where am I going wrong?

 

[Thebrownblob]

Again with the straw man and distortion of my posts. There have been repeated mass shootings where the perpetrator was making either online or public threats but no one took it seriously until he/she acted out. And you seem to think if we address that before he/she acts out then we're threatening 1st Amendment rights, gun ownership rights, etc. What it comes down to is you're convinced the government never acts in our best interests so they must be restricted from taking any preemptive actions.

I don’t think it’s because they weren’t taking seriously I think it’s because we have a constitution. And I am absolutely convinced the federal government rarely act in my best interest because that’s not even their role.

Seems that link bolsters my argument. Anyone making a true threat to harm a person or group isn't protected by the 1st Amendment. And the authorities thus have the right to take him into custody. Where am I going wrong?

I think you’re going wrong when you want to start throwing people into cells until they’re deemed safe with no due process , if you’re not understanding that then I think that’s the problem. Even in this case, this guy wasn’t locked away before his court case. But someone like you would say he threatened a president. He’s too dangerous put him in prison for years on end with a psychological evaluation and maybe will give him a trial eventually. After all he did make a threat, right? Good thing the courts actually deemed it was not really a threat.

 

[vantexan]

I don’t think it’s because they weren’t taking seriously I think it’s because we have a constitution. And I am absolutely convinced the federal government rarely act in my best interest because that’s not even their role.


I think you’re going wrong when you want to start throwing people into cells until they’re deemed safe if you’re not understanding that then I think that’s the problem. Even in this case, this guy wasn’t locked away before his court case. But someone like you would say he threatened a president. He’s too dangerous put him in prison for years on end psychological evaluation and maybe will give him a trial eventually

That guy who threatened the president wasn't making a true threat according to that article. Has nothing to do with what I've been saying. If you go online posting you intend to kill a bunch of people you aren't protected by the Constitution. You are subject to arrest, search and seizure. And likely in a mental state that would require evaluation, confinement, and treatment. And if you own guns they should be taken away from you until such time you are no longer perceived a threat.

 

[Thebrownblob]

That guy who threatened the president wasn't making a true threat according to that article. Has nothing to do with what I've been saying. If you go online posting you intend to kill a bunch of people you aren't protected by the Constitution. You are subject to arrest, search and seizure. And likely in a mental state that would require evaluation, confinement, and treatment. And if you own guns they should be taken away from you until such time you are no longer perceived a threat.

Yes, but in your scenario, we put him in jail first for as long as necessary, give him a psychological evaluation and make him fight with one armed tie behind his back for his rights. While he loses everything including his job, his home and his family. Thankfully You’re not in charge of much.

 

[vantexan]

Yes, but in your scenario, we put him in jail first for as long as necessary, give him a psychological evaluation and make him fight with one armed tie behind his back for his rights. While he loses everything including his job, his home and his family. Thankfully You’re not in charge of much.

So you're saying a person who makes threats to kill others shouldn't be arrested? Exactly what would you do in that situation? And again I'm not talking about a dispute between individuals where one gets angry and threatens to kill the other in the heat of the moment but nothing happens. I'm talking about someone ranting online or in public that such and such groups need to be killed and he's going to do it. You're wanting to protect that individual from arrest? We've already established that he doesn't have 1st Amendment protection in that situation. And let's remember it's his fault for being arrested and held. It's not the state's fault. The state has a vested interest in protecting the public. Don't you agree?

 

[Thebrownblob]

So you're saying a person who makes threats to kill others shouldn't be arrested? Exactly what would you do in that situation? And again I'm not talking about a dispute between individuals where one gets angry and threatens to kill the other in the heat of the moment but nothing happens. I'm talking about someone ranting online or in public that such and such groups need to be killed and he's going to do it. You're wanting to protect that individual from arrest? We've already established that he doesn't have 1st Amendment protection in that situation. And let's remember it's his fault for being arrested and held. It's not the state's fault. The state has a vested interest in protecting the public. Don't you agree?

Sure, if you could limit it to that but it’s not and you can go through lots of court cases where you’re very childish and immature idea of how this works. Does not pan out. It’s actually very complicated question, you’re asking.

For example, I have a friend whose ex-wife accused him of beating her and threatening to kill her. He never did any of those things but he was put through a legal gauntlet and nightmare of red tape, trying to prove his innocence, and the loss of his rights simply based on someone’s claim that he was dangerous..

He did eventually win but he lost everything based on a lie and the authorities, deciding he needed to be “ evaluated” he was never tried and convicted of any crime, and it took him four years to clear his name. This is what you approve of?

There’s tons of red flag, and yellow flag laws on the books that do not get followed. You want to give these people more control when they can’t even use the laws they’ve already got?

I believe you and I agree on more things than we do not, I will have to agreed to disagree on this.

 

[vantexan]

Sure, if you could limit it to that but it’s not and you can go through lots of court cases where you’re very childish and immature idea of how this works. Does not pan out. It’s actually very complicated question, you’re asking.

For example, I have a friend whose ex-wife accused him of beating her and threatening to kill her. He never did any of those things but he was put through a legal gauntlet and nightmare of red tape, trying to prove his innocence, and the loss of his rights simply based on someone’s claim that he was dangerous..

He did eventually win but he lost everything based on a lie and the authorities, deciding he needed to be “ evaluated” he was never tried and convicted of any crime, and it took him four years to clear his name. This is what you approve of?

There’s tons of red flag, and yellow flag laws on the books that do not get followed. You want to give these people more control when they can’t even use the laws they’ve already got?

When did he make online or public threats to kill her? Because if he didn't then it's a very different situation from what I'm talking about.

While we're at it you keep calling me immature but it's you who is doing all the name calling. Pretty much happens every time we have a disagreement. I'm defending my point of view but you're trying to squash my point of view. Seems you only want to hear your point of view stated publicly so that others might not get the chance to agree with anything I'm saying. And that is exactly why I'm persisting. Was going to drop it, but you keep mischaracterizing my position. So up to you amigo. I've got all day unless the moderators shut me down.

 

[Thebrownblob]

When did he make online or public threats to kill her? Because if he didn't then it's a very different situation from what I'm talking about.

While we're at it you keep calling me immature but it's you who is doing all the name calling. Pretty much happens every time we have a disagreement. I'm defending my point of view but you're trying to squash my point of view. Seems you only want to hear your point of view stated publicly so that others might not get the chance to agree with anything I'm saying. And that is exactly why I'm persisting. Was going to drop it, but you keep mischaracterizing my position. So up to you amigo. I've got all day unless the moderators shut me down.

Didn’t really say you were immature I said your thoughts were immature about the subject. But perhaps I made it seem that way.
Seems like you have a blind trust for people and authority, even though we’ve lived through four years of watching that trust, dissolve. Just the way I see it.