Quit crying around SJW's from America
- Thread starter Johnnny
- Start date
He went on for days about tankers being banned even after Trudeau coughed up $1.5B to prepare for potential tanker spills.
Even informed him of it and he still thought Trudeau was going to do it.
Kinda reminds me of you going on for days about tax credits when you were proven wrong.
And the scientific consensus on climate change.
And Dutch Disease.
And Keystone XL.
And Saskatchewan's economic situation.
So watching CNN and they are at a protest in San Francisco where the organizer just said she is protesting because
"a lot of my friends and family are illegal or undocumented and Trump said he will deport them"...ROFLMAO!!!
Now I may be crazy but I do not get how you can have any intelligence or integrity when denigrating the next president for upholding the law. Isn't the western world based upon rule of law? Do the SJWs believe the law doesn't matter when it comes to their beliefs?
"a lot of my friends and family are illegal or undocumented and Trump said he will deport them"...ROFLMAO!!!
Now I may be crazy but I do not get how you can have any intelligence or integrity when denigrating the next president for upholding the law. Isn't the western world based upon rule of law? Do the SJWs believe the law doesn't matter when it comes to their beliefs?
No, SJWs to you and yours are anyone who suggests that the current Canadian (American, western) system may be less than perfect in providing equality.
The current law in two states says that five or seven Indians are considered a war party, and you may attack them, including killing them, without further provocation than their presence. That being the law, I assume you would acquit anybody who killed a group of Indians and cited this law in defense of murder charges?
Newsflash...not all people are equal. You cannot legislate equality of intelligence or morals or work ethic no matter how hard you try and we shouldn't try to. I have no problem with legislating equal opportunities for all but we cannot force the stupid and lazy to become smart and hard-working with any amount of laws nor should we legislate that I have some obligation to support them. How un-PC of me to tell the truth...LOL
If it's the current law I have no choice but to acquit. Whether the USSC or another higher court would overturn the acquittal on appeal and strike down the law is up to them. My job as a jurist would be to follow the law as it is written not render a verdict that contradicts it.
Personally I think those laws are quite flawed and wrong in present society. You should probably do something to change those laws before someone gets away with killing a war party.
Appellate courts can't overturn acquittals.
Some people think that our current deportation policies are flawed and wrong. And you sneer at them and call them SJWs, which you have yourself said is a term you use in contempt. A young lady was worried about her friends being deported, and thinks the laws should be changed, so you hold her in contempt.
Thank you. I could ask you questions, and endure non-answers, for hours or days without you demonstrating so clearly what you mean.
The contempt is from them thinking that some whining and tears will get them their own way instead of using the system to have the laws changed. It also comes from their attitude that they have the only valid opinion on any subject they choose to embrace and anyone who dissents from that opinion is pure evil.
If she wants to do something to get the law changed then she should go about it productively instead of crying on the street thinking that will get her way. I do not agree with changing laws about deporting people who ignore or circumvent the current immigration laws making themselves criminals nor do I believe in giving amnesty to millions who entered the country without going through the correct process. I myself am an immigrant to Canada but I did it under the law and am legal citizen, why should a person who ignored that law and did not go through the process get the same freedoms and rights I do when they have committed criminal acts in an attempt to gain those freedoms and rights.
And you have decided, without a shred of evidence, that whining and tears is all she does. Perhaps she is politically active in the immigration debate, or perhaps she will become so because of this election. Personally, I see that as a good thing, because our immigration system is dysfunctional. It's hard to see what change could be anything but an improvement.
Yet you reserve your contempt for those who want illegals to be able to stay. You don't have an expression for your contempt for the bellowing fools on the other side of the debate, because you don't have contempt for bellowing fools on the other side of the debate.
Perhaps, but as I said, you don't know that she isn't doing that, or won't do that. And I recollect a time when "crying in the street" worked some pretty profound change in our society. Do you consider Martin Luther King a "SJW?"
The best reason is that any process for deporting them, regardless of how well designed or callously indifferent to their humanity, would be ferociously expensive, on the order of hundreds of billions. Oddly, the Obama administration deported more illegals per year than the Bush or Clinton administrations. Yet Obama got no credit for that, and indeed was considered soft on illegals. And, horror of horrors, he prioritized deporting illegals who had committed crimes, knowing that he couldn't deport more than maybe 500,000 a year or so. But you prefer a blowhard with a promise and no plan, and express your contempt for anybody who considers anything but the "lock 'em up and ship 'em out" solution.
Heck, I got a better solution than that, and it took me about 20 seconds to come up with it. But I'm sure you consider me an SJW, and would rather sneer at me than hear what it is, so I won't bother.
Being a discourteous churl and refusing to listen ain't a sign of strength, Nick. And standing on a moral principle rather than looking for a practical solution ain't a sign of smarts.
I would avoid hanging out with 4-6 of your Indian friends in those states until that question is clarified.
I don't live in those states, I don't visit them (who the f*ck would visit Idaho or South Dakota?), and I rarely hang out with Indians. Indians around here tend to be Federal government employees, and I don't have a lot in common with them.