What has happened to us?

[bodecea]

i can only judge people by what i read in what they post . She seems very unAmerican to me Gracy . Sorta like a mrobama or hilary or other lefty in my opinion Gracy . As far as me , hey , American FIRST always and forever Gracy .

She’s a jihadist

-------------------------------------------- i always figured that she is 'muslim' which might mean 'jihadist' . No matter what i see Coyote as unAmerican .

Calling other Americans "unAmerican"....ok, what do you suggest be done with her then?

 

[pismoe]

mornin Bode [chuckle] !!

 

[bodecea]

That's a start.


But until you give up on calling people "racist", it is small potatoes.

Along with homophobe and bigot.

Do't make bigoted posts & you won't be called a bigot.

It is that simple.

Pot meet kettle and GFY RealDumb, you post some of the most bigoted hateful shit of anyone on this forum

More name calling.

You do post some of the most hateful shit on this forum. That was a point, one you utterly failed to respond to.

And one that you would be hard pressed to refute.

Name calling?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Says the one that voted for Obama based solely on his skin color. That's racist, boy.

How do you know that anyone voted for Former President Obama solely based on his skin color?

 

[bodecea]

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

Name calling.

 

[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

Name calling.

I wasn't the one bawling about it, RealDumb was (while name calling)....do try and keep up, Plywood

By the way....have you called anyone a Trumpanzee lately?

 

[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?

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.

I agree with you 100% that refugees are humans and we need to treat them humanely, muster the resources to house and feed them, and maybe help their countries of origin to provide a safer, more humane living environment. Beautifully put.
That does not in any way address the eleven million or so people that are in this country illegally and the many who continue to come and risk that tricky chance every day by sneaking across our border.
That is not refugees. That is people entering the country illegally. Some of them have been deported before, or have criminal histories in their home countries, and would not be permitted to enter. In any event, I think most of us would like to see the people who enter this country to live and work be checked out and enter the country legally with a work permit. Wouldn't you?

 

[pismoe]

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.

I agree with you 100% that refugees are humans and we need to treat them humanely, muster the resources to house and feed them, and maybe help their countries of origin to provide a safer, more humane living environment. Beautifully put.
That does not in any way address the eleven million or so people that are in this country illegally and the many who continue to come and risk that tricky chance every day by sneaking across our border.
That is not refugees. That is people entering the country illegally. Some of them have been deported before, or have criminal histories in their home countries, and would not be permitted to enter. In any event, I think most of us would like to see the people who enter this country to live and work be checked out and enter the country legally with a work permit. Wouldn't you?

------------------------------------------ NO , not me OldLady !!

 

[grainbely]

View attachment 225282

Last week....

A Florida man was arrested after sending mail bombs to prominent Democrats and Trump critics. His online activity was full of hateful rhetoric targeting Democrats and minorities.

A man with a history of violence shot and killed two African-Americans in a Kentucky Kroger store following a failed attempt to barge into a black church.

And Saturday morning, a man shouting anti-Semitic slurs opened fire at a Pittsburgh synagogue, killing 11 people attending Jewish services.

What is happening to us?

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.

Forgive me if I dont just believe your literal accusation. I have a hard time seeing you make an economic argument about the tax cuts and being called a racist or nazi in rebuttal. So here you are dishonestly exaggerating...being part of the problem.

I've certainly been called racist in such discussions, and if not racist, which is the lib go to, then some other "name of some sort".

I am NOT exaggerating.


Every single FUCKING TIME.

Bullshit. Either you are a liar or you are actually mixing in racist statements into your tax rants.

 

[Olde Europe]

I agree with you 100% that refugees are humans and we need to treat them humanely, muster the resources to house and feed them, and maybe help their countries of origin to provide a safer, more humane living environment. Beautifully put.
That does not in any way address the eleven million or so people that are in this country illegally and the many who continue to come and risk that tricky chance every day by sneaking across our border.
That is not refugees. That is people entering the country illegally. Some of them have been deported before, or have criminal histories in their home countries, and would not be permitted to enter. In any event, I think most of us would like to see the people who enter this country to live and work be checked out and enter the country legally with a work permit. Wouldn't you?

Excellent.

"Border security" also doesn't solve the problem of the 11 million undocumented immigrants. The only way to solve that humanely is to expeditiously naturalize them. They've contributed to the U.S. economy, and mostly have been exploited by U.S. corporations, for years or even decades, and parts of the U.S. economy patently wouldn't work without them. Doing right by them is long overdue.

And yes, an orderly process would be preferable, but that's not going to happen for as long as the U.S., and U.S. corporations, provide opportunities, and the wealth and income disparities north and south of the border remain as large as they are. There are always going to be some seeking opportunity where it is, outside that orderly process, and that's only fair considering that the U.S. has had a decisive hand in destroying opportunity "down" there in Central and Southern America.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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.

Last time I checked we've a declared war against terrorism. Which is why Obama bombed so many countries...

Doesn't Obama hold the record for most countries bombed by any US president?

*****SMILE*****

 

[OldLady]

I agree with you 100% that refugees are humans and we need to treat them humanely, muster the resources to house and feed them, and maybe help their countries of origin to provide a safer, more humane living environment. Beautifully put.
That does not in any way address the eleven million or so people that are in this country illegally and the many who continue to come and risk that tricky chance every day by sneaking across our border.
That is not refugees. That is people entering the country illegally. Some of them have been deported before, or have criminal histories in their home countries, and would not be permitted to enter. In any event, I think most of us would like to see the people who enter this country to live and work be checked out and enter the country legally with a work permit. Wouldn't you?

Excellent.

"Border security" also doesn't solve the problem of the 11 million undocumented immigrants. The only way to solve that humanely is to expeditiously naturalize them. They've contributed to the U.S. economy, and mostly have been exploited by U.S. corporations, for years or even decades, and parts of the U.S. economy patently wouldn't work without them. Doing right by them is long overdue.

And yes, an orderly process would be preferable, but that's not going to happen for as long as the U.S., and U.S. corporations, provide opportunities, and the wealth and income disparities north and south of the border remain as large as they are. There are always going to be some seeking opportunity where it is, outside that orderly process, and that's only fair considering that the U.S. has had a decisive hand in destroying opportunity "down" there in Central and Southern America.

I think naturalizing the illegals who are already here would probably encourage a lot more border jumping. I think we have to be more realistic about the number of laborers we need here to run some of our businesses LEGALLY and we need to be a lot more serious about enforcing the laws about hiring illegals. I agree it is hard, but I do not believe in throwing up our hands and saying "It can't be done." It should be done. We put caps on the number of folks we allow into the country in a given year, and there are reasons for it. To simply allow as many people as can manage it to sneak in is not the solution.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

but anyway , you Coyote loving guys and girls that appreciate Coyotes KINDNESS , well that ok with me but Kindness towards Invading third worlder ' Invader Columns ain't worth a pinch of zhit' , !!

I can only speak for myself, of course, but I would rather extend kindness towards the victims of Islamic barbarity instead of the perpetrators.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

My White lady friend had a Black lady customer make up some racist story to get her fired.

The company didn't want to take any chances so they did fire her.

It's definitely BS though because I've never heard her say anything racist, or mean to anybody.

You have a friend?!

I had not considered the possibility.

 

[Disir]

And yes, an orderly process would be preferable, but that's not going to happen for as long as the U.S., and U.S. corporations, provide opportunities, and the wealth and income disparities north and south of the border remain as large as they are. There are always going to be some seeking opportunity where it is, outside that orderly process, and that's only fair considering that the U.S. has had a decisive hand in destroying opportunity "down" there in Central and Southern America.

Then that is where the focus needs to be. Specifically, challenging international relations that exploit other nation-states via neoliberal policy. Not, driving down the wages or creating a class of displaced workers and asking the population to continuously suck it up for decisions that they didn't make.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

I don't care if there "is no money in it" I care about the health and well-being of society and Mental Institutions need to be reopened. The sheriffs and prisons will lose funding, they won't like that.

I agree with you 100% that refugees are humans and we need to treat them humanely, muster the resources to house and feed them, and maybe help their countries of origin to provide a safer, more humane living environment. Beautifully put.
That does not in any way address the eleven million or so people that are in this country illegally and the many who continue to come and risk that tricky chance every day by sneaking across our border.
That is not refugees. That is people entering the country illegally. Some of them have been deported before, or have criminal histories in their home countries, and would not be permitted to enter. In any event, I think most of us would like to see the people who enter this country to live and work be checked out and enter the country legally with a work permit. Wouldn't you?

Excellent.

"Border security" also doesn't solve the problem of the 11 million undocumented immigrants. The only way to solve that humanely is to expeditiously naturalize them. They've contributed to the U.S. economy, and mostly have been exploited by U.S. corporations, for years or even decades, and parts of the U.S. economy patently wouldn't work without them. Doing right by them is long overdue.

And yes, an orderly process would be preferable, but that's not going to happen for as long as the U.S., and U.S. corporations, provide opportunities, and the wealth and income disparities north and south of the border remain as large as they are. There are always going to be some seeking opportunity where it is, outside that orderly process, and that's only fair considering that the U.S. has had a decisive hand in destroying opportunity "down" there in Central and Southern America.

GFY with that shit. They got Reagan with that one, now instead of 3 million, it's 11 million? PLUS the 3 milion he granted amnesty then.

Fuck that. Make it maybe a tad easier to become a citizen, but no more concessions like blanket amnesty.

That was a mistake Reagan made, he was supposed to get a border wall for granting the amnesty, too. Where is it? Hmm? Democrats lied, and a wall has already been fully funded at least twice, yet never built.

 

[Disir]

I don't care if there "is no money in it" I care about the health and well-being of society and Mental Institutions need to be reopened. The sheriffs and prisons will lose funding, they won't like that.

I agree. In fact, I think that it will be more cost effective to reopen them.
The jail and prison system doesn't want them. They just get stuck with them.

 

[Coyote]

i can only judge people by what i read in what they post . She seems very unAmerican to me Gracy . Sorta like a mrobama or hilary or other lefty in my opinion Gracy . As far as me , hey , American FIRST always and forever Gracy .

She’s a jihadist

-------------------------------------------- i always figured that she is 'muslim' which might mean 'jihadist' . No matter what i see Coyote as unAmerican .

I am sure in your book treating people humanely and rejecting persecution and discrimminstion is very unAmerican.

 

[Coyote]

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.

The immigration debate seems full of strawmen.

 

[pismoe]

yeah , i have no use for invading third worlders and they have been invading since ' reagan bush' amnesty and i don't want to give the invaders other Americans or My Kids stuff and money Coyote . --- but here , good news as it looks like YOUR people are getting combative , assertive and are carrying guns and bombs --- Second migrant caravan storms into Mexico | Daily Mail Online --- and YOUR people aren't going to take it anymore Coyote . [feckin Gringos eh]