What has happened to us?

[Olde Europe]

That is not hate speech. Most people do NOT consider that hate speech. Some of the rhetoric that goes along with demanding a Wall, now some of that here is damned close to hate speech, the way these folks are described. But wanting the Wall itself and believing in stricter border control is NOT hate speech and anyone saying that it is, isn't worth arguing with.

In case you needed any evidence to prove you wrong, the guys on here exercising their First Amendment rights are in a haste to provide it:

Once they pass Mexico and step into this country, they are no longer refugees but invading illegal border crossers, who have broken the law and need to be shot on sight.

How dare you secure your borders against terrorists, disease & criminals?

See how the oh-so innocent talk about "secure borders" inevitably links with demonizing refugees in the most apocalyptic terms? It's like "busing". All the scare, and scare-mongering, concentrated in one single innocent-sounding term. There should be no deniability for either expression, ever.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

That is not hate speech. Most people do NOT consider that hate speech. Some of the rhetoric that goes along with demanding a Wall, now some of that here is damned close to hate speech, the way these folks are described. But wanting the Wall itself and believing in stricter border control is NOT hate speech and anyone saying that it is, isn't worth arguing with.

In case you needed any evidence to prove you wrong, the guys on here exercising their First Amendment rights are in a haste to provide it:

Once they pass Mexico and step into this country, they are no longer refugees but invading illegal border crossers, who have broken the law and need to be shot on sight.

How dare you secure your borders against terrorists, disease & criminals?

See how the oh-so innocent talk about "secure borders" inevitably links with demonizing refugees in the most apocalyptic terms? It's like "busing". All the scare, and scare-mongering, concentrated in one single innocent-sounding term. There should be no deniability for either expression, ever.

Border security was the most basic form of government.

No border security = No nation after time.

Why don't you Liberals ever tell Mexico & Saudi Arabia to take in more refugees?

 

[Correll]

EVERY TIME, I disagree with a democrat, I am called a vile hateful name of some sort, such as racist or nazis.


That makes me very mad and makes me look at them as the enemy.


You want to stop the hate and division, stop believing that anyone that disagrees with you, has to be Evil.

Are you a racist? A bigot?

Are you trying to be ironic? Or are you just proving my point with your idiocy?

Name calling?

Yep. I point out that it is all you libs do, and you come along and call me names.


You just demonstrated my point. Do you wish to do it again?

We call you out for making racist & bigoted posts.

No, you don't. You seem to think that name calling is a form of debate, and think that shouting someone down, and/or marginalizing them is the only way you can win a debate.

 

[Correll]

Somewhere along the line liberals decided mental hospitals were "mean". They don't understand "unintentional consequences". Having insane people fend for themselves--or loose upon society--can be a lot meaner.

And I have sad news: I love my students, but our special ed professionals have said they often feel like they're running day treatment centers rather than schools, the need is so crushing. I have been teaching for 25 years and have never, ever seen so many students so crippled and needy. It's not going to get better.

PS Kids are still the most superior humans, though. They just are.

Gov Reagan approves your message blaming liberals.

Thanks for seriously addressing the point he raised. Not.

Mine was a serious post. Here, read it: U01: Ronald Reagan and the Federal Deinstitutionalization of Mentally Ill Patients | PSY 533: Ethics and Leadership (Wheeler)

That's better.

Yes, Reagan signed off on it. Your article attacks him for accepting "unsound advice" and assumes a motive for him.

The push for this "deinstitutionazation" was a combination of civil rights over reaction and over ambitious desire to bring more functional patients more into society.

Money was funneled await from large institutions into half way houses, often for people who were completely incapable of benefiting from them.

I had a close friend employed in the field during part of this. It was and is a fucking disaster.


Reagan was a long time ago. If it was just him, we would have fixed this a long time ago (minus 8 years).


Yet we are still right on that page.


Are we in agreement that we should reopen those large institutions for those that really need them? AND make it easier for those who are dangerous to themselves or others to be involuntarily committed?

There is no money in it. It would have to be run by the State and most State hospitals have been shut down for the private industry. However, once the insurance companies and private hospitals figured out that there was no money in it, they shut down those as well. Further, they are trying to maintain in home so that group of people can get their cut and not do a bloody thing.

You (general you) have to be willing to identify the players, stick to that issue and force the elected officials to walk that back and risk losing donations.

The group homes that have replaced the large institutions are still government funded. I don't know how the totals compare.


I agree that we do need to force the elected officials to walk this shit back, and that it will be very hard to do.

 

[OldLady]

That is not hate speech. Most people do NOT consider that hate speech. Some of the rhetoric that goes along with demanding a Wall, now some of that here is damned close to hate speech, the way these folks are described. But wanting the Wall itself and believing in stricter border control is NOT hate speech and anyone saying that it is, isn't worth arguing with.

Of course, it is hate speech, and there is no mistaking it. "Secure borders" formerly meant the ability to repel another nation's military attack. Deploying the term in the context of migration and refugees depicts them as rampaging, murderous invaders bringing about all the ills and destruction of warfare. It is exactly the apocalyptic, demonizing speech anyone with a hint of sense should stand up against, and normalizing that kind of speech is the way to spread the hate.

Your own verbiage really should give you a hint as to how slippery that slope you're on really is: "believing in stricter border control is NOT hate speech and anyone saying that it is, isn't worth arguing with." So, you've not only excluding those who disagree with you from debate, but you're already denying their "worth". That's how hate speech bears strange fruit even in those who would otherwise reject it.

"Secure borders" still means "secure borders." The people calling it an invasion is a whole 'nother argument that I didn't address. I don't condone use of that term at all.
I am not excluding anyone from debate except morons who aren't speaking from reality. There are strawmen and then there are strawmen. What I said is that anyone believing that stricter border control is HATE speech -- exactly as I wrote it and not how you chose to interpret it -- is full of shit.

 

[OldLady]

We're on it right now, Coyote. Social media and anonymous sites are giving people a chance to nurture their hate. This country has made a poor choice with its interpretation of the 1st Amendment, as well, and allows speech that is way outside the realm of acceptable discourse. Put the two together and you've got.....this past week.

Until people of your ilk can understand that hate speech is not some expressing the opinion of wanting secure borders even if it requires a wall, we are not going to make any progress.

So, first we have to roll over and declare that the thinly veiled xenophobic hate speech - "secure borders" - isn't hate speech. Having done so there is no longer any reason to suspect the brazen demagoguery calling a bunch of refugees "invading hordes" might be hate speech. And for doing so we're then denigrated as slow in the uptake, and an "ilk". Taken together, that's then supposed to be "progress".

Hilarious.

The GOP has gone bonkers. Collectively, all taken together, they have barely a shred of decency left. But then they betray an oversupply of chutzpah, turning around and on those who would point it out. If, in this context, there's anything to be held against Democrats, it's that their attempts at holding the fort are too feeble, to few, too far in between.

There is no compromise with xenophobes and racists. There is, in particular, no compromise with the xenophobes and racists who would whip up xenophobic and racist fears and resentments for electoral gains. That much should be obvious to any person who has a shred of decency left. And no, there is nothing wrong with the First Amendment. Government shall make no law infringing on the Freedom of Speech. And folks should use that freedom, and do so loudly, so that the nation can learn what we're dealing with, what to prepare for, and how to counter their stupid and ugly, hate-filled demagoguery.

Trump, it has been said, is the best thing that could have happened to the U.S. of A., for he exposed for all to see the rot infesting the GOP, how low they could go, the authoritarian impulses festering in their shameful subservience to the American plutocracy, and how much hatred of any Other guides them, and how little by way of reason, Christian and family values was there to begin with. All it would now take for the nation is to end their slumber and open their eyes. So, wake the eff up, already.

You do know that if those coming from South of Mexica are refugees, then Mexico is supposed to provide them with sanctuary? Once they pass Mexico and step into this country, they are no longer refugees but invading illegal border crossers, who have broken the law and need to be shot on sight.

No, not shot on sight. Unlawful entry is not a capital crime.

 

[OldLady]

That is not hate speech. Most people do NOT consider that hate speech. Some of the rhetoric that goes along with demanding a Wall, now some of that here is damned close to hate speech, the way these folks are described. But wanting the Wall itself and believing in stricter border control is NOT hate speech and anyone saying that it is, isn't worth arguing with.

In case you needed any evidence to prove you wrong, the guys on here exercising their First Amendment rights are in a haste to provide it:

Once they pass Mexico and step into this country, they are no longer refugees but invading illegal border crossers, who have broken the law and need to be shot on sight.

How dare you secure your borders against terrorists, disease & criminals?

See how the oh-so innocent talk about "secure borders" inevitably links with demonizing refugees in the most apocalyptic terms? It's like "busing". All the scare, and scare-mongering, concentrated in one single innocent-sounding term. There should be no deniability for either expression, ever.

If you can't keep the fear mongers straight from those who are actually discussing border security, that's your problem, Olde Europe.
I've been here long enough to pretty much predict what a lot of these alt-righters will say. They are xenophobes like I never knew existed in this country. I certainly am not in their pocket, but you seem to be trying to tell me that by wanting to find an actual solution for the problem, I am "buying in" to their rhetoric. Well that's horseshit.

 

[Disir]

Gov Reagan approves your message blaming liberals.

Thanks for seriously addressing the point he raised. Not.

Mine was a serious post. Here, read it: U01: Ronald Reagan and the Federal Deinstitutionalization of Mentally Ill Patients | PSY 533: Ethics and Leadership (Wheeler)

That's better.

Yes, Reagan signed off on it. Your article attacks him for accepting "unsound advice" and assumes a motive for him.

The push for this "deinstitutionazation" was a combination of civil rights over reaction and over ambitious desire to bring more functional patients more into society.

Money was funneled await from large institutions into half way houses, often for people who were completely incapable of benefiting from them.

I had a close friend employed in the field during part of this. It was and is a fucking disaster.


Reagan was a long time ago. If it was just him, we would have fixed this a long time ago (minus 8 years).


Yet we are still right on that page.


Are we in agreement that we should reopen those large institutions for those that really need them? AND make it easier for those who are dangerous to themselves or others to be involuntarily committed?

There is no money in it. It would have to be run by the State and most State hospitals have been shut down for the private industry. However, once the insurance companies and private hospitals figured out that there was no money in it, they shut down those as well. Further, they are trying to maintain in home so that group of people can get their cut and not do a bloody thing.

You (general you) have to be willing to identify the players, stick to that issue and force the elected officials to walk that back and risk losing donations.

The group homes that have replaced the large institutions are still government funded. I don't know how the totals compare.


I agree that we do need to force the elected officials to walk this shit back, and that it will be very hard to do.

It is going to be hard to do but it can be done. We just have to make it an issue and we have to be willing to research the players and the game and leave out whomever is opining in the news. Sticking to the issue and maintaining rational discourse will force them to follow........instead of the other way around.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

That is not hate speech. Most people do NOT consider that hate speech. Some of the rhetoric that goes along with demanding a Wall, now some of that here is damned close to hate speech, the way these folks are described. But wanting the Wall itself and believing in stricter border control is NOT hate speech and anyone saying that it is, isn't worth arguing with.

In case you needed any evidence to prove you wrong, the guys on here exercising their First Amendment rights are in a haste to provide it:

Once they pass Mexico and step into this country, they are no longer refugees but invading illegal border crossers, who have broken the law and need to be shot on sight.

How dare you secure your borders against terrorists, disease & criminals?

See how the oh-so innocent talk about "secure borders" inevitably links with demonizing refugees in the most apocalyptic terms? It's like "busing". All the scare, and scare-mongering, concentrated in one single innocent-sounding term. There should be no deniability for either expression, ever.

If you can't keep the fear mongers straight from those who are actually discussing border security, that's your problem, Olde Europe.
I've been here long enough to pretty much predict what a lot of these alt-righters will say. They are xenophobes like I never knew existed in this country. I certainly am not in their pocket, but you seem to be trying to tell me that by wanting to find an actual solution for the problem, I am "buying in" to their rhetoric. Well that's horseshit.

LOL Supporting US law on immigration doesn't make one a xenophobe you crazy old hag

 

[Olde Europe]

Why don't you Liberals ever tell Mexico & Saudi Arabia to take in more refugees?

Yeah, liberals should really do that. After all, making others love the neighbor you prefer to besmirch, denigrate, and hate, is the Christian thing to do.

 

[Olde Europe]

If you can't keep the fear mongers straight from those who are actually discussing border security, that's your problem, Olde Europe.

Refugees are not a problem of border security. Making it appear as such, framing the refugee problem as one of border security, is a clear-cut case of hate speech, as "border security" was always managed by shooting at those approaching. It is not surprising that our righty friends end up exactly with that "solution" to the problem. That you fail to realize that is decidedly not my problem.

 

[OldLady]

That is not hate speech. Most people do NOT consider that hate speech. Some of the rhetoric that goes along with demanding a Wall, now some of that here is damned close to hate speech, the way these folks are described. But wanting the Wall itself and believing in stricter border control is NOT hate speech and anyone saying that it is, isn't worth arguing with.

In case you needed any evidence to prove you wrong, the guys on here exercising their First Amendment rights are in a haste to provide it:

Once they pass Mexico and step into this country, they are no longer refugees but invading illegal border crossers, who have broken the law and need to be shot on sight.

How dare you secure your borders against terrorists, disease & criminals?

See how the oh-so innocent talk about "secure borders" inevitably links with demonizing refugees in the most apocalyptic terms? It's like "busing". All the scare, and scare-mongering, concentrated in one single innocent-sounding term. There should be no deniability for either expression, ever.

If you can't keep the fear mongers straight from those who are actually discussing border security, that's your problem, Olde Europe.
I've been here long enough to pretty much predict what a lot of these alt-righters will say. They are xenophobes like I never knew existed in this country. I certainly am not in their pocket, but you seem to be trying to tell me that by wanting to find an actual solution for the problem, I am "buying in" to their rhetoric. Well that's horseshit.

LOL Supporting US law on immigration doesn't make one a xenophobe you crazy old hag

No, actually it doesn't. Certain other rhetoric, like calling the caravan an "invasion force" is xenophobic in the extreme, though.

 

[OldLady]

If you can't keep the fear mongers straight from those who are actually discussing border security, that's your problem, Olde Europe.

Refugees are not a problem of border security. Making it appear as such, framing the refugee problem as one of border security, is a clear-cut case of hate speech, as "border security" was always managed by shooting at those approaching. It is not surprising that our righty friends end up exactly with that "solution" to the problem. That you fail to realize that is decidedly not my problem.

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?

 

[bodecea]

Oh you mean the kids raped by ms13?

All kids matter. What about the hundreds of thousands raped by catholic priests and facilitated by the catholic church ?

So many people for you to hate! How do you find the time to do anything else? Or do you?

Why not continue with your laughter over rape victims. ?

I was laughing at your bizarre posts trying to justify the rape of children by Muslims because some non Muslims have done the same. Your kind of hysterical faux liberalism always makes me laugh.

The majority of paedos are non muslim, you just dont hear much about them in your echo chamber. Chuckle away you dumb fuck.

More and more of them are christian priests....as we are finding out almost daily.

 

[Denizen]

Donald Trump is not the solution, he is the problem.

Donald Trump used slogans of hate and insults against opponents in his campaign and is continuing it and in fact intensifying it in office.

GOP lawmakers fear him so much they are climbing over each other to kiss his anus and bless him for the opportunity.

Abject cowardice among GOP lawmakers is enabling Trump.

 

[Olde Europe]

If you can't keep the fear mongers straight from those who are actually discussing border security, that's your problem, Olde Europe.

Refugees are not a problem of border security. Making it appear as such, framing the refugee problem as one of border security, is a clear-cut case of hate speech, as "border security" was always managed by shooting at those approaching. It is not surprising that our righty friends end up exactly with that "solution" to the problem. That you fail to realize that is decidedly not my problem.

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?

I did not.

Look, you are trying to make the case that it is possible, short of an imminent attack by Mexico, innocently to discuss "border security". That is not possible, and those who frame the refugee problem as a border security issue are fear mongers, as they are implying an imminent invasion. If that is not obvious enough, it should be pointed out time and again. Loudly, clearly, and until everyone got that. Finally.

I am sorry if you feel misrepresented, when all I am trying to point out is the implications of the kind of debate we're having, and the verbiage we're being made to endure. Refugees are humans - also a point that needs to be made often. The problem they are posing is one of treating them humanely, to muster the resources to house and feed them, and maybe helping their countries of origin to provide a safer, more humane living environment. Whoever brings "border security" in that debate dehumanizes refugees, makes them essentially disappear as humans in need, and hints at shooting and the ravages of war. That's just plainly what all that is. While I mostly, as far as I have seen, agree with you, in this instance I find you are catastrophically wrong, and I don't know whether it's naivete, or a case of BothSidism, or whatever.

 

[caddo kid]

America has become RADICALIZED by Trump & the GOP.

This is nothing less than TERRORISM.

 

[bodecea]

All kids matter. What about the hundreds of thousands raped by catholic priests and facilitated by the catholic church ?

So many people for you to hate! How do you find the time to do anything else? Or do you?

Why not continue with your laughter over rape victims. ?

I was laughing at your bizarre posts trying to justify the rape of children by Muslims because some non Muslims have done the same. Your kind of hysterical faux liberalism always makes me laugh.

The majority of paedos are non muslim, you just dont hear much about them in your echo chamber. Chuckle away you dumb fuck.

Is there a study somewhere that you can cite?

Or is this just your own personal observation of the pedos you know, who are in your own circle?

and now, accusing posters of being pedophiles.

 

[bodecea]

You know that during times of declared war these laws are legal, right? Like martial law.

So now you're going to justify laws that violate a persons rights because the United States was in a state of war?

Funny... As I recall we've been in a state of war since about 09/16/01 so any law passed to prevent possible terrorists, even if it violates their rights or profiles, should be allowed if we go by your reasoning.

Hell!!! We could pass laws that prevent people from speaking or writing in any language other than English. We could most likely fortify and arm our border to prevent people who shouldn't be here from entering and kick those who are here illegally out.

Go Trump!!!

*****CHUCKLE*****

Yes...in a declared war...I will. But we haven't had one of those since WWII, you know. It's called being on a Total War footing.

 

[bodecea]

Trump is not doing that. If gays get any perks for being gay, then non gays are being discriminated against


Now get your AIDS TEST STUPID

What "perks" are they getting? Being able to have the legality of marriage is not an "extra." It is what every heterosexual already takes for granted as a right. It is simply an equal rights thing.

No one hasbeen able to come up with a single or perk gays get that does not also apply to heteros.

------------------------------------------ I think that IRosie did in her post number 684 Coyote !!

Let's see...the right to claim discrimmination based on sexual orientation Pis?

What law denies hetros the same right?

You know what? I got fired from a job because a Puerto-Rican dyke lied on me just to get another Bori in there.

After I saved the whole place from burning down. At least the owners acknowledge that.

My friend got me the job, I didn't care that much about it. So yeah, I saved the whole place from burning down, and then a Puerto-Rican dyke manager lied on me to make room for another Puerto-Rican at the place.

I'm not mad at him, but what that skunt did was wrong. My friend that got me that job is long dead anyways, and I did good by her, so fuck it. I showed up to that shithole more often than I had to, just to not make my friend that got me the job look bad. She was a good friend. I didn't want to let her down.

The owners probably didn't even believe the lying dyke, but had to go along with it because of Affirmative Action.

Ah.....I see now.

 

[bodecea]

The day after the bomber was arrested trump was abusing a bomb recipient on twitter. There is no leadership.

Thank you for your obviously foreign interference. Now, go have a vodka and warm up by the fire.

Your country is run by a pig. It will get worse.

Your country is run by ignorant cucks, already is worse, and will continue to be worse, while the US will get better, Tommy Faggot.

name calling