No one in the government is doing any harm to these children.
The parents who bring the children along on an illegal border crossing are the ones enforcing negative consequences on these children. Don't cross illegally, and there is no problem.
Large numbers of hispanics cross legally every single day, I guess the racists whom you folks see behind every bush and around every corner are missing the majority of hispanic immigrants to focus solely on the illegal crossers. Wonder if there could be some definite other reason, aside from Racism!, Racism!, Racism!
Obama used to put the kids into real jail with the parents, and oh the wailing and gnashing of teeth that ensued. So now, the kids are not put in jail.
All the parents have to do is get in line and follow the law just like everybody else.
The act of separation itself is doing harm!
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Life is tough, sometimes. The parents cause the separation, keeping the kids with the parents in jail is not ideal, and in many cases the "parents" are not parents, often there is human trafficking involved.
Sure that is a small number of cases but how small a number is acceptable losses?
If only there was some orderly process where people submit passports and ID's and can be interviewed and a decision made, vaccinations given, criminals and crazies screened out, that might make all this problem go away.
It's not illegal to apply for asylum. You should think a lawyer would know such a basic premise.
But you can't simply apply for asylum because you don't like living in squalor. I do believe you have to show you are escaping some kind of actual persecution.
The best part of all this is all the kids who won't continue to end up being victims of human trafficking.
"Hey, I'm a reasonable guy. But I've just experienced some very unreasonable things." -Jack Burton
-It looks like the Harvard Boys know what they are doing after all.
Are you completely out of your mind? That is just not a rational comparison.
Stopped about 30 seconds in. Y'all can go out behind the barn and play in the daisies with that crap.
That's where the very small children and simple-minded adults are sent during adult conversation, for those who are unfamiliar with the reference.
Of course he went there... they always like to deflect from their true nature...
From the summary: Google Redefines The Word ‘Fascism’ To Smear Conservatives, Protect Liberal Rioters. ....Has Google, the world’s most popular search engine, changed the definition of the word “fascism” to protect liberal mobs using violence to silence those who disagree with them politically? The evidence suggest they have. You see it on signs at every protest or riot — liberals accuse President Donald Trump of being a fascist. The word’s association with Adolf Hitler and its use now is no accident, it’s meant to strike fear in people’s hearts of tyranny.
Merriam-Webster defines the word “fascism” as “a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascist) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.” The secondary definition is “a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.”
This definition reflects the fact that Nazis were, in fact, both fascists and of the political left. They were the “National Socialist German Workers Party,” which favored a heavy-handed government in business and the personal lives of its citizens.
The authoritarian government of Nazi Germany not only oppressed opposing political views and used violence to enforce it, they supported a powerful central government which heaped social benefits on its citizens. The second part of Nazism is the “socialist” part, which is very similar to what the modern American political left advocates. For all their bluster to the contrary, Hitler was a man of the extreme left, and so was fellow fascist and Axis Powers member Benito Mussolini.
But if you type the word into Google, the definition they provide is quite different.
The world’s largest search engine pins fascism on the political right, not the left.
Google defines fascism as, “an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.” (emphasis added)
The secondary definition is, “(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.”
That’s a striking difference from how the word has been defined for decades.
Political conservatives advocate for small, less intrusive government where power rests with the states and individuals, and the federal government lives within its Constitutional restraints. Progressive liberals advocate for just the opposite: a powerful central government with authority vested in a strong leader who has the ability to impose decrees from Washington on everything from health care to education.
Google curiously adds “right-wing” to its definition and omits the “severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition” part.
By the traditional Merriam-Webster definition of “severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition,” the violent mobs protesting and rioting over President Trump’s actions are the ones engaging in fascistic tactics.
The exact reason Google has changed the definition of fascism to reflect on the political right rather than the left is unknown. However, Google co-founder Sergey Brin, one of the world’s richest men, has been a vocal critic of President Trump, an activist liberal, and has protested the President’s executive order on immigration.
Many members of the mainstream media have unquestioningly adopted the new Google meaning without explaining why, leaving their audience with the impression that speech or advocacy contrary to liberal orthodoxy is fascistic when, by definition, it is not.
by Derek Hunter - The Daily Caller
"Hey, I'm a reasonable guy. But I've just experienced some very unreasonable things." -Jack Burton
-It looks like the Harvard Boys know what they are doing after all.
There's your issue! He very plainly explains he's not making a comparison to putting people to death. Watch the whole thing or stop speaking about things you're obviously uniformed about.
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Well ...... if you leave out the whole "putting people to death" thing, you know, to make a reasonable comparison, then almost all of the kids at Auschwitz had at least one parent, and often both, plus grandparents and aunts and uncles, standing right beside and with them the entire time. For the rest of their lives, guaranteed, in fact.
Sure, that makes sense. These situations are so obviously closely related, I don't know how I missed it.
Have you ever seen a live human being with a number tatooed on his arm?
It was a LOT of digits. I have wondered if they allocated blocks of numbers for each camp, or started each camp at "1", or what. Germans are so methodical and orderly.
We are not the babysitter or the welfare state for the entire world, and if you come here, we have rules that we insist on being followed, just like anywhere else.
To repeat, lots of hispanics come in every single day with no problems at all, by following legal procedure. This is not Racism!, Racism!, Racism!
I'm pretty sure Hitler separated a few million families during the Holocaust, but it could have been fake news.
Honestly, interment camps are a much better comparison, but we have a hard time of being critical of the US's history, no matter how atrocious it's been.
Just quickly, Nazi Germany was a right wing government. They privatized many industries and their one claim to socialism, besides a name, is their social healthcare system that they inherited from the 1800's. If he was a man of the extreme left then he wouldn't have hated socialism and communism. Also Mussolini had a very public expungement from the socialist party in Italy when he began his Italian unification idea. This was way before he became the leader of Italy. You won't find fascism on the left, because it requires ultranationalism, which the left obviously does not partake in due to their political philosophy.
Just quickly, Nazi Germany was a right wing government. They privatized many industries and their one claim to socialism, besides a name, is their social healthcare system that they inherited from the 1800's. If he was a man of the extreme left then he wouldn't have hated socialism and communism. Also Mussolini had a very public expungement from the socialist party in Italy when he began his Italian unification idea. This was way before he became the leader of Italy. You won't find fascism on the left, because it requires ultranationalism, which the left obviously does not partake in due to their political philosophy.
Just because established socialists weren't socialist enough for Hitler and Mussolini doesn't mean they weren't. They may have privatized industries but it'snot like those industries then operated without the direct intervention of the gov't. If we ever ended up with single payer type of healthcare system, there's a chance that private insurance companies would still handle the processing and claims. That's not the same "privatized" as what we know in a capitalist system.
Ever look in to the history of the Volkswagen Beetle? Hitler reportedly had a little influence in the design. Once settled, there was this push to get Germans to buy the cars. Problem was 1) few Germans could by the car outright and 2) there actually had yet to be any real mass production so availability was an issue. What they then did was sold stamp books. A family would buy the book and on pay day they could purchase a stamp. When the book filled up with stamps, they could then exchange it for a car.
Thing is, they never really built the automotive plants as the people were led to believe. Hitler used the money from the stamp sales to fund the build up of the Nazi war machine instead.
And then you still have to get around the increase in state run programs and the push to make people more reliant on the state.
I don't agree that ultranationalism is a necessary component. I think the concept of victim vs. oppressor is much more key. With the latter you see how easily violence is justified to counter peaceful demonstration. We see it increasingly on the left with groups like ANTIFA and college campuses. The use of violence in opposition to speech was a hallmark of Hitler's rise.
"Hey, I'm a reasonable guy. But I've just experienced some very unreasonable things." -Jack Burton
-It looks like the Harvard Boys know what they are doing after all.
Well ...... if you leave out the whole "putting people to death" thing, you know, to make a reasonable comparison, then almost all of the kids at Auschwitz had at least one parent, and often both, plus grandparents and aunts and uncles, standing right beside and with them the entire time. For the rest of their lives, guaranteed, in fact.
Sure, that makes sense. These situations are so obviously closely related, I don't know how I missed it.
Have you ever seen a live human being with a number tatooed on his arm?
It was a LOT of digits. I have wondered if they allocated blocks of numbers for each camp, or started each camp at "1", or what. Germans are so methodical and orderly.
We are not the babysitter or the welfare state for the entire world, and if you come here, we have rules that we insist on being followed, just like anywhere else.
To repeat, lots of hispanics come in every single day with no problems at all, by following legal procedure. This is not Racism!, Racism!, Racism!
His point was how it all started. 1933 was very similar to today in America. Tribal divides, anger toward immigrants, Populist power hungry new leader, etc. ; somehow I don't think you watched the whole bit or comprehended the message. I don't think Trump is Hitler 2.0, but I absolutely think he wants to be a ruthless dictator. He has as much as said said so himself. Deny that one.
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
I absolutely think he wants to be a ruthless dictator. He has as much as said said so himself.
I think he just wants to run the country the way he ran his bidnissez... and doesn't understand/accept the fact that there are rules he must follow as a civil servant. Rules that did not constrain him in the private sector.
The fact that he's binary, intellectually incurious and headstrong to a fault is key in why his presidency has been so rocky and tumultuous. I still believe that it prob won't be the Special Council investigation that will end his presidency. In fact, I've always been of the opinion that he himself will be responsible for his own undoing.
His point was horrible. America today and Germany in 1933 have almost nothing in common.
1918, the return of the army, the losses, Versaille, the stab in the back, anarchy in the streets, barely recovering, then the Great Depression on top of all that. We have experienced nothing remotely similar. Germany had no immigrant problem, illegal or otherwise, the concern here is not immigrants but border control. Germany had no welfare state, and American blacks or Latinos do not control large numbers of banks or consistently have major assets worth stealing. Hitler was not a populist.
Hitler did, however, invent the term "assault rifle", and used it in exactly the same way as American leftists, to frighten and terrify ignorant peasants. He gave the impression it was extremely common, when in reality it was rarely used, almost never in the US case, just like the American left. He also used physical violence, thuggery, and bullying to silence any dissent with proper ideology, just like the American left. His propaganda relied on constant repetition to give credence to ridiculous lies, again, just like the American left.
To suggest such a connection is an absurd exaggeration.
Just quickly, Nazi Germany was a right wing government. They privatized many industries and their one claim to socialism, besides a name, is their social healthcare system that they inherited from the 1800's. If he was a man of the extreme left then he wouldn't have hated socialism and communism. Also Mussolini had a very public expungement from the socialist party in Italy when he began his Italian unification idea. This was way before he became the leader of Italy. You won't find fascism on the left, because it requires ultranationalism, which the left obviously does not partake in due to their political philosophy.
Just because established socialists weren't socialist enough for Hitler and Mussolini doesn't mean they weren't. They may have privatized industries but it'snot like those industries then operated without the direct intervention of the gov't. If we ever ended up with single payer type of healthcare system, there's a chance that private insurance companies would still handle the processing and claims. That's not the same "privatized" as what we know in a capitalist system.
Ever look in to the history of the Volkswagen Beetle? Hitler reportedly had a little influence in the design. Once settled, there was this push to get Germans to buy the cars. Problem was 1) few Germans could by the car outright and 2) there actually had yet to be any real mass production so availability was an issue. What they then did was sold stamp books. A family would buy the book and on pay day they could purchase a stamp. When the book filled up with stamps, they could then exchange it for a car.
Thing is, they never really built the automotive plants as the people were led to believe. Hitler used the money from the stamp sales to fund the build up of the Nazi war machine instead.
And then you still have to get around the increase in state run programs and the push to make people more reliant on the state.
I don't agree that ultranationalism is a necessary component. I think the concept of victim vs. oppressor is much more key. With the latter you see how easily violence is justified to counter peaceful demonstration. We see it increasingly on the left with groups like ANTIFA and college campuses. The use of violence in opposition to speech was a hallmark of Hitler's rise.
Well, it wasn't a one way street. Hitler and Mussolini hated socialism and communism. They weren't just arguing over a name, but had completely different philosophical alignments. That is why arguments that Nazis were socialists never go beyond the name point.
We do need to create a distinction between state economies and socialism/communism though. Just because one has a centralized unit controlling things, doesn't mean that is socialism. For example, the US Government has been the largest driver in industry and technological changes in the private industry, but in no way could be considered socialist.
If you want to make a distinction that buying insurance from one company isn't capitalism, then you need to understand that it is not socialism either. You can not privatize social goods and services and still claim to be socialist.
The idea to create your economy by producing a good to sell back the workers goes completely against the basic premise of socialism. If workers were to seize the means of production, then how could that production be sold back to them? The idea of a stamp book can only be something based in capitalism; "If you buy this good enough times, we will give you a free product. This way you will become an even better consumer than normal."
State run programs can also make more people reliant on private industries. It does not go one way. Centralized power and capitalism intertwined althroughout modern history. When you believe that the left and right are on a 2D plane is when you've already lost your chance to critically think.
I believe that the victim vs oppressor emphasis is just a way for the right to break down power dynamics into easily digestible concepts. In fact Nationalism relies on these hyperbolic power dynamics to create their message. Donald Trump's immigration platform revolved entirely around us and Europe of being victims of immigrants. Even today Trump said he would not let the US become a Migrant tent. Even though he is the most powerful man in America, he still frames the US as a potential victim and that Donny is the only person who can save the US from this fate. Simultaneously whenever he is pressed against, he becomes the victim of a big bad. Whether it is the FBI's investigation or the G7 leaders ganging up on him, he is the victim when things go bad.
Nationalism is easy to create, because it takes an unassuming, banal position like "X country is great." and then continues to hype that idea up in an echo chamber. Of course that position includes many hidden truths. For example, if a country is great, it should have no problem being great, but if there is a problem then the problem is not the country's fault, as the country is great, but the fault lies on some "other". This "other" can than morph into anything that person or nation wants. Salvadorian refugees, Iranian radicals, deep state FBI, globalists. You name it, the other can become it. The "other" in Nazi Germany were Internationalists, socialists, communists and Jews. In Italy they were "anti-fascists"
One thing that also led to the rise of Nazi Germany was hate speech that went left unchecked. Groups like Antifa were crucial to liberating a lot of Europe when no one would fight Italy or Germany.
America today and Germany in 1933 have almost nothing in common.
1. Hitler made allies with other dictators. 2. Hitler was a fascist and a right wing populist. 3. Hitler's policy separated children from their parents. 4. Hitler came to power at the end of a great economic depression/recession. 5. Hitler came to power with a rise of right-wing populism as their conservative party fell apart.
A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives. – Jackie Robinson
not just this thread, but all the other threads the last few days are really depressing.
this board combined with social media has proven to me that this country is truly filled with nothing but heartless bastards who only care about themselves and/or their group and no one else.
i look at some of the past threads about DT meetups, and i just cant. some have proven that you simply do not have the character for me to ever pursue a meaningful friendship with them. the complete lack of respect and compassion for people who simply dont look like you, or not from the same country as you, truly makes me want to throw up in my mouth.
if this is American values today, then we deserve to fall like the Romans.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I apologize for my tone of the previous post, I allowed my emotions to get the best of me. I apologize for not giving people the proper respect when it comes to this discussion.
I will say their isn't any easy answers here. The right thing to do for all parties involved is to send them back to where they came from. Its unfair to force the American Taxpayer into footing the bill for these kids who are not even citizens. On the flip side, its unfair to the kids to send them back to what is most likely deplorable conditions where they really have no chance.
the sad reality is the USA simply can't take in everyone, we simply can't afford it. We are trillions in debt now, and rising. The days of allowing anyone on to immigrate have to end.
you need to have skills we deem valuable, be it a Dr., an engineer, a computer network administrator or code writer, a mechanic, something...there has to be some skill that contributes to our country to grant enter...we are too large now to just take it everyone including people that have a very high chance of never contributing.
I would be perfectly fine if we took these kids under the age of 5 and put them into foster homes with American couples that either want to adopt or simply can't have kids of their own, however...we just can't take in everyone.
i'd love to take in everyone! I would! i'd like to just accept the entire world...but its just not feasible...this is why countries were founded in the 1st place...to mark territory and resources...there is only so much food and resources to go around, and only so many jobs too, we can't sustain everyone and give everyone a job, a large number of people will end up on handouts simply because their isn't enough jobs to meet supply of people and keeping bringing in more just makes this problem worse.
I don't know what we do at this point...this is downside of globalism....im not sure their are any easy answers to fix it sadly...
Trump can end this policy and practice this very hour, but instead would prefer to use these kids as leverage.
I decided to pop in this afternoon and to see so many people on this board defending this behavior as though it's a good thing is saddening to me. All I know is that a big majority opposes this policy source but there is one demo that supports it 55-35: Republicans. They are the only demo to have majority support for Trumps policy of separating parents and children.
not just this thread, but all the other threads the last few days are really depressing.
this board combined with social media has proven to me that this country is truly filled with nothing but heartless bastards who only care about themselves and/or their group and no one else.
i look at some of the past threads about DT meetups, and i just cant. some have proven that you simply do not have the character for me to ever pursue a meaningful friendship with them. the complete lack of respect and compassion for people who simply dont look like you, or not from the same country as you, truly makes me want to throw up in my mouth.
if this is American values today, then we deserve to fall like the Romans.
Yeah, it's harder and harder to laugh at their nonsense the worse they embrace falling into the quicksand of outright white nationalism.
![[Linked Image from thumb0.webshots.net]](http://thumb0.webshots.net/t/34/34/0/73/58/2594073580091396520Miskbz_th.jpg)