[!@#$%!]

lol, asscroft

[tesla69]

Originally Posted by ilduclo

this one?
https://woodgatesview.files.wordpres...shcroft021.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._obverse_1.png

[Severian]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

I have thought about it. Which overreach an I defending by calling it a response to another one? And to which other threats by Trump do you refer?

You're justifying the threatened action of Trump to repeal Daca by executive order based on the premise that Obama implemented it by executive order. You're justifying circumventing the legislative process by saying someone else did it. So your argument against against this kind of overreach, while justifying more overreach to fix it, is flawed to the point of not being much of an argument for anything. You can be against both or neither based on what you've said... unless you've turned the issue into an emotional one for some reason.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

Instead of addressing my argument, you're dismissing it by means of an ad hominem attack falsely imputing odious racial opinions to me. I guess you concede the point.

Good thing you put ad hominem in italics and loosely defined it. Certainly none of us have ever taken an introductory college composition course.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

Rescinding an unconstitutional executive order by means of a new executive order does not, by itself, constitute executive overreach, as he has taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. I would, however, argue that simple rescission of President Obama's order is the limit of President Trump's authority, and that his delayed implementation of the rescission prolongs the original overreach, and is, itself, unconstitutional for that reason.

Yeah, ok, but DACA wasn't truly unconstitutional. You know this. Of course there's an interpretation to all of this nonsense, but the fact of the matter is that the U.S. Constitution and Congress have, always and willingly, given the Executive Office this kind of power. It's a matter of prioritization and the president has the constitutional authority to prioritize an issue by executive order if the legislature can't get its shit together. It's not truly circumventing the legislative process. It's indeed part of the legislative process. It can be undone or blocked by the Supreme Court, and that too is technically constitutional.

Just saying "Daca was unconstitutional, even Obama admitted it" (quoting shittily-written headlines here, not you) is missing the point and simplifying the issue for effect. Emotional effect, actually, which you seem to frown on. The word "unconstitutional" is a reliable gut-punch for the public, and it's wielded far too often.

I'm pretty sure you know this. You've quoted Article II plenty of times. You know both the executive order and the potential rescinding of it are technically constitutional with loads of precedent.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

Instead of addressing my argument, you're dismissing it by means of an ad hominem attack falsely imputing odious racial opinions to me. I guess you concede the point.

your argument is caca

you're an obnoxious dissembler

i concede nothing

Originally Posted by Severian

Yeah, ok, but DACA wasn't truly unconstitutional. You know this. Of course there's an interpretation to all of this nonsense, but the fact of the matter is that the U.S. Constitution and Congress have, always and willingly, given the Executive Office this kind of power. It's a matter of prioritization and the president has the constitutional authority to prioritize an issue by executive order if the legislature can't get its shit together. It's not truly circumventing the legislative process. It's indeed part of the legislative process. It can be undone or blocked by the Supreme Court, and that too is technically constitutional.

Just saying "Daca was unconstitutional, even Obama admitted it" (quoting shittily-written headlines here, not you) is missing the point and simplifying the issue for effect. Emotional effect, actually, which you seem to frown on. The word "unconstitutional" is a reliable gut-punch for the public, and it's wielded far too often.

I'm pretty sure you know this. You've quoted Article II plenty of times. You know both the executive order and the potential rescinding of it are technically constitutional with loads of precedent.

 

[Severian]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

That analysis creates rather massive separation of powers problems, and I would argue that Congressional inaction in the face of Executive usurpation of Congressional powers does not create valid legal precedent; just as I agrued in my Korea thread, it creates a danger of an unconstitutional situation persisting to the point of it acquiring backhanded institutional status on its own, which I view as an intolerable situation. In Korea, as I pointed out, President Truman used UNSCRs 82 and 83 as his declaration of war in direct contravention, not only of the Constitution, but of Section 6 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, which constituted the last Congressional statement of fundamental policy which controlled (or should have controlled) that matter.

In any case, priority in enforcing against illegal immigrant labor should, as I've always advocated, be directed against the employers, as hitting the demand side would tend to take care if the supply side on its own. Further, illegal immigrant labor is only one of many means used by capital to undermine the wage value of American labor. alongside clearly excessive use of prison contract labor as well as abuse of the visa program for skilled workers and the offshoring of American industry.

Wow. Symbols is right. You are a dissembler.

I can't tell if you're deliberately obfuscating my point about the constitutionality of Daca, but you're factually wrong about it being unconstitutional. That's the deal. Period.

[ilduclo]

"undermine the wage value of American labor"

talk to the 1%

[Severian]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

I'm neither obfuscating nor dissembling; I'm disagreeing with your point. I deny that either Section 2 or Section 3 of Article II of the Constitution grants the Executive any authority to exercise any of Congress' Article I Section 8 powers. I aver that any Congressional inaction in the face of such usurpation creates no valid legal precedent.

DACA is caca!

Ok, so you don't like the constitution, or our interpretation of it is flawed. Not my prob. Take it up with a forefather.

[!@#$%!]

habitual drunkard skunk wouldn't be employable even if there were infinite positions to be filled, and as an immigrant and a traitor (he claims to be "german" and loyal to the british crown) he should be deported on that basis alone, instead of being a drain on the public coffers.

but you know how it is with the deplorables-- they'd rather blame someone else than admit and fix their own faults. hate "the guvmint" and "mexicans" but live off disability checks--paid for in part by mexicans. fucking bullshit and drunkard denial is what that is.

fuckem. lazy. racist fuck.

--

eta: no mercy from me for those unwilling to be merciful to young, hard-working, law-abiding young people who through no fault of their own got stuck in limbo in america. if law-breaking is inheritable, then let's try skunk for his great-grandmammy's crimes.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

Once again, you attack me personally instead of debating me on the merits of my argument (save for the legal limbo into which the DREAMers' parents, not I, knowingly brought them), but let's see:

1) Your assessment if me as an habitual drunk would be quite shocking to the people in my building, particularly the nighttime security guards who see me many times each night ever since smoking inside my building was banned: they have never seen me drunk;

2) Were I a racist. I would also have a difficult time living in my building, as it is predominantly minority;

3) As a socialist, I certainly am a statist, hardly opposed to "the gubmint" per se;

4) My unemployability, due to disability, is the reason I'm on disability. Rather tautological, isn't it?

5) Illegal immigrants do not pay into the Social Security system;

6) I am opposed to illegal immigration regardless of race, including Irish and Greek people who overstay their visas (a major problem);

7) What crimes did my great-grandmother commit?

in a hurry, so quickly to say:

bullshit claims of socialism when you lack solidarity. all you want is more government checks: pure self-interest. a confused ayn randite parasite without a job is not a socialist.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business...-taxes/499604/ - say "thank you"

that old bootlegger who stole land from the indians? please! she was here illegally. now you go back to the land of your ancestors.

eat shit. and die.

[h8kurdt]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

in a hurry, so quickly to say:

bullshit claims of socialism when you lack solidarity. all you want is more government checks: pure self-interest. a confused ayn randite parasite without a job is not a socialist.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business...-taxes/499604/ - say "thank you"

that old bootlegger who stole land from the indians? please!

eat shit. and die.

Saying stuff like that just negates any argument you may have. You're better than that; don't stoop to that level.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by h8kurdt

Saying stuff like that just negates any argument you may have. You're better than that; don't stoop to that level.

i know what you mean, and thanks for saying that, but i've lost patience arguing with this sort of weasel.

it's pointless to argue with those who feign reason in bad faith. i called him an obnoxious dissembler and i meant it.

like this shit about "illegals don't pay social security"

utter bollocks and drunken lies--the working undocumented are supporting his entitled jobless existence

but instead of saying thank you he wants to punish a bunch of blameless kids, while claiming "socialism"

i've no time for dialogue with the insincere

and to fulfill godwin's law: how long would you spend "convincing" goebbels?

(godwin btw says it's ok to call nazis nazis)

thanks again friend. i know what you mean. seriously. but it doesn't apply here. or to that shitbird tesla.

there's a time to have a conversation and there's a time to strike back at the vaseline that attempts to slide in the nazi cock. i've had it with the toxic liars.

fuck and destroy "national socialists" and their bullshit "logic".

[greenlight]

as someone said recent Kid Rock speech resembles scene from Idiocracy

[evollove]

Holy shit.

Went to youtube. Looked for vid. Found it, but couldn't stand the applauding comments. "A little less bad language would be nice" was most scathing criticism.

So I go to another channel. Same thing. Another. Another. Another.

They love him.

Jesus fuck he could win.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by evollove

Holy shit.

Went to youtube. Looked for vid. Found it, but couldn't stand the applauding comments. "A little less bad language would be nice" was most scathing criticism.

So I go to another channel. Same thing. Another. Another. Another.

They love him.

Jesus fuck he could win.

there was a washington post article today about st augustine's "city of god" in light of/remembrance of 9/11-- the writer happened to teach that text that day as the towers crumbled.

one of the points that augustine makes (i'll confess, i've never been much interested in reading him until now) is how civilizations can suddenly collapse. he wrote it seems in the aftermath of the fall of rome, and claimed that those who pursued the mastery of others were doomed to fail in the end.

while some may dispute this and argue that rome actually just changed hands rather than fall, it seems to have been perceived as a sudden collapse of power by augustine and his contemporaries.

i don't know if this is the end of anything at all, but i know that ends can come quicker than anyone expects. so i guess the lesson is to always expect them quickly, and be ready for what may come.

with this im not endorsing alpacalypse scenarios by the way. but history clearly hasn't "ended" as fools claimed at the end of the last century. the shit will keep hitting the fan one way or another, always.

[tw2113]

From my quite 5 minute googling, it looks like it's mostly older generations that voted Trump. The Kid Rock stuff above brought it to mind. It's something that can't be completely blamed on Millennials. Would be interesting how many senior citizens would get behind Kid Rock, who they probably don't know at all.

[ilduclo]

Just as bad, but in a different way, senator Roy Moore

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

I've been a Socialist since I was a teenager, and was still one when I worked for an AV-rated NYC law firm making big bucks. And, solidarity with whom? If you're talking about Multiculturalist "intersectionality", I do not engage in solidarity with lumpenproletariate, which is what illegal workers are. Both of my great-grandmothers who immigrated to the US came legally.

***

That said, I do admit to error concerning illegals paying into the social security system, as I didn't realize that there was a market in fake social security numbers. I apologize.

see, there you go again-- one step forward, 2 steps back. trying to look reasonable but deep down sick with hate.

you meekly admit to your false claims when cornered with evidence-- but not without first claiming some sort of superiority and preaching a perverse brand of selective solidarity. the classist socialist! lol. nazi volksgemeinschaft.

as basically a beggar, you're more lumpenproletariat than the hard-working, enterepreneurial immigrants who are full of revolutionary potential.

just look at those DACA kids-- they're young and hard-working and ambitious and educated and conscious and organized, and they don't mind paying for your disability. whereas all you have to look forward to is your drink and your cigarette smokes and your resentment and your dinosaur politics.

what sort of mental illness makes you think that you're superior to them? they're the ones supporting you with their taxes.

your national socialism is garbage. your claims of superiority are garbage. today's mexican is yesterday's jew/gypsy/slav/assorted "degenerate". same fucking broken record. same loser claims. we can see through your bullshit. nazi punks fuck off.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

You've accused me of being a Nazi, which you certainly know to be false. That is entirely typical of advocates of Multiculturalist/Gender Feminist/Neo-Liberal Economic ideology: dismiss counterarguments with namecalling with no concern for the truth of the accusation. Wjen done by others this is called "othering", but when done by them it's "calling out" in righteous rejection of ideological deviation. Yours is the movement against hate, therefor anyone questioning you can only be a hater. When half the population of this country is having their lives crushed by globalism and votes for Trump, then they must all be haters. But calling half the country haters doesn't make them haters any more than calling me a Nazi makes me a Nazi.

Selective solidarity is the norm for the Multiculturalists: oppression of women and gays is intolerable unless it emanates from the Islamic world, in which case Edward Said denies that imperialist Westerners lack moral standing to criticize the practices of colonized cultures. Just ask the Muslim gays whose criticism of Islamic homophobia got them banned from the Gay Pride parade in Vancouver BC.

I do not consider myself superior to nor inferior to anyone else, neither do I stereotype illegal immigrants as Mexicans as you do, as I have already indicated above that there are Irish and Greeks among them, as well as Fujianese Chinese. I also do not concentrate on illegal immigration as the sole means of devaluing workers' wages, as I have clearly condemned the prison/industrial complex and international trade deals such as NAFTA and the TPP as well as other tactics.

I suppose I could refer to your calling me a Nazi as an ethnic slur, but we German-Americans have lived with that crap for so long it doesn't really affect us any more. But were you to say something analogous to anyone else, you'd rightly stand accused of "otherizing".

Jesus Christ man... You know goddamn well he hasn't calling you a Nazi, because you obviously come to a Sonic Youth board m, and it's highly unlikely that any Sonic Youth fan would not pick up on this reference:
Dead Kennedys - Nazi Punks Fuck Off

He was just saying something, tangential to his previous points. Like a meme, only the old version. With, like, real things.

This is starting to feel like a gang-up though, and I'm not really comfortable with gang-ups. I don't think Symbols is either. But my personal opinion aside from anything anyone else has said is that you're both a troll and a dissemlbler, intentionally missing and obfuscating points, trolling and losing the thread deliberately.

You're accusing someone of "otherizing" because they (gasp) quoted Dead Kennedys in your presence. Probably to be funny. The point of the discussion is now buried under too many layers of shit to adequately proceed with any fruitful discussion.

Not that you want that.