Warning: file_get_contents(/home/www/settings/mirror_forum_db_enable_sql): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /var/www/html/content/Forum/functions.php on line 8
rgio made this a binary discussion. And you voluntarily replied. So it is what it is.
At the very least, you are opposed to open borders, otherwise deportation is irrelevant as in "deporting the worst of the worst". That is pure and plain simple logic.
But then again, you only gave a +2 response rather than state that you support deporting the worst of the worst and if you support open borders then your response means nothing.
Handling complexity is not really your thing is it? Here you are flailing around in a sea of chaos, clutching at straws that give you at least a semblance of certainty.
So, no, it was not rgio who made this a binary discussion. Rather, everyone was calling you out on your binary logic and you grasped at it, thinking, all hail the mighty power of binary logic! I'm saved! I can build my castle on the rock of the singular certainty that illegal aliens are bad and we, the legal citizens, are the good guys, and in this castle in the sea, I can place Trump at the throne!
Well, you're not saved. The sea is still chaotic and teeming with conflict and even here, on an issue that you think could not be more black and white, your binary "with me or against me, everything else be damned" approach fails. Nothing is quite that simple. And your chosen saviour of the white race and Christian religion is a pedophile, serial liar who doesn't give a shit about anyone else and certainly not the church. If you are looking for moral certainty and ethical guidance you've chosen a peculiarly bad king to place at the head of your movement.
My ex was a special needs teacher. There was a time just after the Kosovo war when Germany got flooded with refugees. She had a couple of them in her class. One of them had seen his family slaughtered in front of his eyes. In class this kid had a habit of hiding himself in the cupboard and defecating there.
He was severely emotionally and psychologically damaged. Understandably. A lot of people are damaged for a load of different reasons. Every three or months or so in Germany you get reports of some Syrian kid, losing it and attacking people with a knife, or worse. The damaged people who do these things are among the "worst of the worst". Along with the drug dealers, gang members and other Group W types.
Sure, some should be deported. Some just need massive care. Many will never be healed because the scars are just too deep.
Is looking after them going to solve all these problems? No, of course not. But it is the human thing to do.
At the very least, you are opposed to open borders, otherwise deportation is irrelevant as in "deporting the worst of the worst". That is pure and plain simple logic.
Wait, do you want them jailed or deported? I don't see a position farther down the worse scale than 'men who rape children'. Of course there are those with other criminality as well, like 34 felonies (and counting). While I'm sure there are some immigrants worthy of deportation, I think simply submitting them to the criminal justice system is good enough. I'd also note that I think the same standard should apply regardless of immigration status.
You're right, of course: Deporting the worst of the worst is a slap on the wrist. They need to be imprisoned. Maybe in their home countries, assuming we haven't soured relations with them so badly that those governments would let them walk right back to the US to continue whatever it was they were up to. So: jail for the worst of the worst, ideally in some other country, I don't care. That leaves not many that need to be deported and it certainly isn't a priority for me.
There was a time that something like this didn't need to be said. But these are the times we're in, I guess, so: I, ScottFromWyoming, do enthusiastically support deporting the worst of the worst.
While we're stating the obvious, I also support jailing men who rape children.
Wait, do you want them jailed or deported? I don't see a position farther down the worse scale than 'men who rape children'. Of course there are those with other criminality as well, like 34 felonies (and counting). While I'm sure there are some immigrants worthy of deportation, I think simply submitting them to the criminal justice system is good enough. I'd also note that I think the same standard should apply regardless of immigration status.
Based on the way the question was framed, then it is safe to conclude that both of you are opposed to open borders and Sanctuary Cities / States.
You can conclude whatever you like - as your poorly developed reasoning leads you to . I do not live in your binary world, so your presumptions about what I do or do not believe are, as always, invalid.
rgio made this a binary discussion. And you voluntarily replied. So it is what it is.
At the very least, you are opposed to open borders, otherwise deportation is irrelevant as in "deporting the worst of the worst". That is pure and plain simple logic.
But then again, you only gave a +2 response rather than state that you support deporting the worst of the worst and if you support open borders then your response means nothing.
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
Feb 15, 2026 - 9:34am
kurtster wrote:
Thank you for your responses.
Based on the way the question was framed, then it is safe to conclude that both of you are opposed to open borders and Sanctuary Cities / States.
You can conclude whatever you like - as your poorly developed reasoning leads you to . I do not live in your binary world, so your presumptions about what I do or do not believe are, as always, invalid.
There was a time that something like this didn't need to be said. But these are the times we're in, I guess, so: I, ScottFromWyoming, do enthusiastically support deporting the worst of the worst. While we're stating the obvious, I also support jailing men who rape children.
+2
Thank you for your responses.
Based on the way the question was framed, then it is safe to conclude that both of you are opposed to open borders and Sanctuary Cities / States.
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
Feb 15, 2026 - 9:04am
ScottFromWyoming wrote:
There was a time that something like this didn't need to be said. But these are the times we're in, I guess, so: I, ScottFromWyoming, do enthusiastically support deporting the worst of the worst.
While we're stating the obvious, I also support jailing men who rape children.
How about the fact that no one here has said other than you, that they "support deporting the worst of the worst". It's a really easy thing to do.
So I lay out a case that logically explains my assertion and you counter with find a quote. Pretty flimsy on your side. Until someone else here says that they "support deporting the worst of the worst" there are only two saying so.
There was a time that something like this didn't need to be said. But these are the times we're in, I guess, so: I, ScottFromWyoming, do enthusiastically support deporting the worst of the worst.
While we're stating the obvious, I also support jailing men who rape children.
Once you answer this one I will go further with yours, again ...
You didn't answer, as usual, you deflected.
Your a fraud. A troll. No reason.. no logic.. just running interference.
Find one quote from someone here that counters my statement that everyone supports deporting the worst of the worst.
You won't...but it'll keep you from acknowledging that you don't actually support the Constitution...you support Trump.
Stop pretending otherwise, and accept that anytime you say "Constitution" in a response, we all know you're full of shit.
You are an amazing piece of work.
How about the fact that no one here has said other than you, that they "support deporting the worst of the worst". It's a really easy thing to do.
So I lay out a case that logically explains my assertion and you counter with find a quote. Pretty flimsy on your side. Until someone else here says that they "support deporting the worst of the worst" there are only two saying so. You and me. And FWIW, posting a +1 in support to your post does not equal committing to saying the actual words.
Now, onto your other concern ...
rgio wrote:
kurtster wrote:
Here let's take a look at this one now. I did mention that I had some tabs on this matter open for a few months but figured it wasn't worth bringing it up because no one wants to know the truth.
I asked a pretty direct question, like "is the Earth flat", and you responded with "the fastest motorcycle speed ever recorded was at the Bonneville Salt Flats". You appear willing to engage in incredibly detailed analysis of some issues, but I asked about your flip-flopping on the Constitution, and you must have exhausted yourself answering the illegal alien due process rules.
I'll throw you a bone and ignore the fifth Amendment...how about the rest?
The Constitution isn't a buffet ....choose what you like... it's a document that you either support or reject on the whole. If you support it, then you should have issues with this administration regarding ALL of the following:
• First Amendment: Protects speech and petition • Fourth Amendment: Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures • Fifth Amendment: Guarantees due process • Fourteenth Amendment: Equal protection clause • Article I & Separation of Powers: Congressional oversight rights • Elections Clause (Article 1, Section 4) - states run elections • Suspension Clause (Article I, Section 9) - protects habeas corpus • Foreign Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8) • Domestic Emoluments Clause (Article II, Section 1, Clause 7)
So pick a side. Do you support the Constitution or the current administration. It's a binary choice.
So you present me with a binary choice of choosing between Trump or the Constitution, right ? Pretty self righteous demand from someone whose basis for thinking about such matters is bad law is better than no law. Which ironically is germane to this very topic we are currently discussing. And then let us not overlook your total inability to size up Biden's mental health and if there ever was a case for the 25th Amendment of the Constitution, you defended against it. At least until it didn't matter anymore. So in my opinion, your three legged stool is missing two legs of support. And just to be clear, I'm not bringing up Biden to compare him to Trump, it is simply just to question your ability to make sound judgements at all regarding the Constitution and your inability to trust your own lying eyes.
That said, since the immediate subject at hand is dealing with illegal immigration and the mechanisms to deal with the problem, I have presented a detailed summary and explanation of how immigration laws work since so many are flat out ignorant on the subject. And the primary attacks on Trump and the issue itself have been what you and your side cling to the most, a lack of due process with the matter. And the distinction that immigration laws are civil, not criminal proceedings, where the Constitution does not apply to most of the circumstances involved.
So to give you a direct answer to what you demand as a binary choice, I can and do support both Trump and the Constitution on the subject of immigration affairs. They are not mutually exclusive. I trust in the Constitution that the prescribed checks, balances and remedies provided by it will keep everyone involved headed in the right and proper direction. Based upon your arguments so far, you have no faith in the Constitution being properly instituted and therefore want to bend it to suit your needs which among other things are based upon your prime directive that bad law is better than no law.
So I have presented a detailed explanation for how immigration law works and so far no one has said what is wrong with it. Just accusations that I am racist. So much for a detailed response.
So once again, here is the link to the summary. Once again, if any of it is incorrect, name it and rebut it with your own cited work in support.
Here let's take a look at this one now. I did mention that I had some tabs on this matter open for a few months but figured it wasn't worth bringing it up because no one wants to know the truth.
I asked a pretty direct question, like "is the Earth flat", and you responded with "the fastest motorcycle speed ever recorded was at the Bonneville Salt Flats". You appear willing to engage in incredibly detailed analysis of some issues, but I asked about your flip-flopping on the Constitution, and you must have exhausted yourself answering the illegal alien due process rules. I'll throw you a bone and ignore the fifth Amendment...how about the rest? The Constitution isn't a buffet ....choose what you like... it's a document that you either support or reject on the whole. If you support it, then you should have issues with this administration regarding ALL of the following: • First Amendment: Protects speech and petition • Fourth Amendment: Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures • Fifth Amendment: Guarantees due process • Fourteenth Amendment: Equal protection clause • Article I & Separation of Powers: Congressional oversight rights • Elections Clause (Article 1, Section 4) - states run elections • Suspension Clause (Article I, Section 9) - protects habeas corpus • Foreign Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8) • Domestic Emoluments Clause (Article II, Section 1, Clause 7) So pick a side.
Do you support the Constitution or the current administration. It's a binary choice.
I did answer your direct question and you did not like my response.
And I asked you a direct question in response which you have yet to answer in any way, shape of form.
kurtster wrote:
So as not to get lost in the sauce I separated my last post into two since the points were unrelated other than to whom I was replying to.
.rgio wrote:
EVERYONE here agrees with the deportation of "the worst of the worst",
This is patently false. It is a safe guess that at least half of the regulars here are for open borders and or Sanctuary Cities / States.
How can anyone with these beliefs support any kind of deportation ? These things are diametrically opposed to each other.
How does deportation work with open borders ? What is the point ?
Sanctuary Cities were established to protect illegals from deportation. They are a vehicle to shield illegals from formal law enforcement and its consequences with the primary consequence being deportation.
So go ahead and square that circle.
Once you answer this one I will go further with yours, again ...
Here let's take a look at this one now. I did mention that I had some tabs on this matter open for a few months but figured it wasn't worth bringing it up because no one wants to know the truth.
I asked a pretty direct question, like "is the Earth flat", and you responded with "the fastest motorcycle speed ever recorded was at the Bonneville Salt Flats". You appear willing to engage in incredibly detailed analysis of some issues, but I asked about your flip-flopping on the Constitution, and you must have exhausted yourself answering the illegal alien due process rules.
I'll throw you a bone and ignore the fifth Amendment...how about the rest?
The Constitution isn't a buffet ....choose what you like... it's a document that you either support or reject on the whole. If you support it, then you should have issues with this administration regarding ALL of the following:
⢠First Amendment: Protects speech and petition
⢠Fourth Amendment: Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures
⢠Fifth Amendment: Guarantees due process
⢠Fourteenth Amendment: Equal protection clause
⢠Article I & Separation of Powers: Congressional oversight rights
⢠Elections Clause (Article 1, Section 4) - states run elections
⢠Suspension Clause (Article I, Section 9) - protects habeas corpus
⢠Foreign Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8)
⢠Domestic Emoluments Clause (Article II, Section 1, Clause 7)
So pick a side. Do you support the Constitution or the current administration. It's a binary choice.
You need a Civics lesson. Traditionally in the US a sanctuary is a church, or in some cases a foreign embassy. A refuge from persecution and arrest. It is not a policy as you state.
Or in the terms you try to apply, that would make the Confederate States of America a Sanctuary to preserve slavery and keep it in place despite federal laws.
So do you cultivate and smoke your dope in church?
You always conveniently forget what this "sanctuary" is... it's your local law enforcement opting to not provide services free of charge to the US Government to enforce federal laws. For example, marijuana use is a federal offense. Should local law enforcement be required to haul your ass into federal custody for them? Or should the feds come get you themselves?
You need a Civics lesson. Traditionally in the US a sanctuary is a church, or in some cases a foreign embassy. A refuge from persecution and arrest. It is not a policy as you state.
Or in the terms you try to apply, that would make the Confederate States of America a Sanctuary to preserve slavery and keep it in place despite federal laws.
