I haven't encountered that; back when it was illegal I still heard lots of claims like it cures cancer, or is completely healthy with no negative effects, or that it's not addictive. I haven't noticed an increase in those sorts of claims with legalization and I assume it's all still the same people making them.
I wish people that jeer Musk would decide if he’s running his companies or not. They think he’s an ignorant figure head and a conniving strategist. I don’t care either way just stick to one.
Well it’s weird because there are a 195 counties on the planet and they’re all, to one degree or another, negatively effected by illegal immigration because all countries require legal citizenship.
No, you didnt. You basically said illigal immigration is bad because its illegal. You didnt include positive effects, like economic contribution. That positive conclusion about immigration is scientific consensus btw. Its easy to find if you dare to observe it.
I’m liberal so I believe in governmental regulation which includes legal immigration and labor rights. I believe illegal immigrants shouldn’t be exploited by private businesses and citizens should be paid a living wage.
Add a "well integrated illegal immigrants should have a path to citizenship" and you would contradict your first comment about illegal immigrants being harmful. What legallity is, is not written is stone.
If you’re a conservative capitalist that would sound good but I’m liberal. My understanding of government and liberalism is consistent with that of people like Bernie Sanders and Noam Chomsky. What you’re suggesting, by their standards, is a paradox.
Is either Noam Chomsky or Bernie Sanders a liberal, though? It sounds like you're very confused about what you believe - almost like a conservative's straw man idea of a liberal.
In the US “liberal” is often used as a short hand for “left wing”, Isaiah Berlin calls it ‘negative liberty’. Noam Chomsky describes himself as a ‘libertarian socialist’ and Bernie Sanders describes himself as a ‘democratic socialist’, both of these political stances are left wing, some would says “far left”.
Do you think that observation gives immigration enforcement agencies a right to execute citizens who are exercising their rights, and then completely lie about it?
A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent is authorized to use deadly force by the Department of Homeland Security only when an officer has a reasonable belief that the subject poses an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
People want to know the identity of law enforcement to dox them. Police, federal agents, lawyers, and judges can be pressured by criminals and organized crime. That’s a thing, you know that right?
That is far down the list of reasons someone might want to know who is performing actions against them with the backing of the federal government. Much higher on the list would be accountability if they do something wrong or to reference them in any follow up legal or administrative interactions they might have in the giant immigration system.
Doxxing is the first and most obvious reason. Federal agents aren’t directly subject to the public, their respective agencies and the President hold them accountable.
The current POTUS is on record stating point blank he will not hold ICE and DHS agents accountable.
Currently theer is no effective Federal investigation into the earlier murder by ICE in MN, the DOJ, FBI, etc. have been directed to look to the motivations of the victim rather than the illegal traffic stop and boxing in by agents.
The vice president and Homeland Security Advisor claimed they had absolute immunity, and the Feds refuse to investigate shootings. So there is no accountability.
The president of the US is a convicted criminal - 34 felony counts, no less. He has made or threatened war on several countries, and threatens it regularly against US citizens. Let's get real about who's doing the threatening here.
Then don’t be a cop, if you’re too scared. Law enforcement barely has any accountability as it is. Legit LEO do not hide their identity because they are accountable to the population they serve.
A state and federal judge’s personal information is privileged to protect them from reprisals. Some of the most vulnerable people in the legal system are witnesses, hence witness protection programs which can involve plastic surgery.
People arbitrarily point at periods in the past to say they were worse or better. Some people idealize the Middle Ages over Rome. A Ren Faire is a hodgepodge of Medieval/Renaissance larping. But the past as a sum total is usually worse, hence the concept of progress. While the beginning of someone’s life is usually best and the end is worse. Historically speaking it’s complicated.
She was clearly enabling him and playing him, that’s predatory. A similar thing happened between Kurt Cobain and Courtney Love. The friendship between Heath Ledger and Mary-Kate Olsen was very suspicious too.
No, it’s sexist to read about men being abused by manipulative women and assume misogyny. It stinks of a bias that favors women so intensely that it treats dead men as simply some kind of social breakage. That’s sad.
reply