Anarchist/“Anti-Fascist” Attacks Detention Center - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15019233
BigSteve wrote:The police stated they were being fired upon.

That's good enough for me...


Not quite.

They stated that someone fired shots.

They could have fired.

They could have been mistaken.

With the evidence we have now, we cannot say that he did fire upon anyone.

You did not know Reagan enacted gun control laws in reaction to the Black Panthers arming themselves?
#15019237
Palmyrene wrote:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act


The Black Panthers hardly qualify as representatives of the entire black segment of society.

You should be more honest. It's not that he didn't want "blacks" to have guns, he didn't want terrorist organizations such as the Black Panthers to have guns. That makes perfectly good sense, especially when you consider that the Black Panthers often targeted cops.

So, yeah, you've proven nothing...
#15019243
BigSteve wrote:The Black Panthers hardly qualify as representatives of the entire black segment of society.

You should be more honest. It's not that he didn't want "blacks" to have guns, he didn't want terrorist organizations such as the Black Panthers to have guns. That makes perfectly good sense, especially when you consider that the Black Panthers often targeted cops.

So, yeah, you've proven nothing...


The Black Panthers were a militant group who desired the autonomy of the black community and the right to run their own institutions. Thus, they targeted cops as a form of self defense rather than due to predatory behavior.

Even though they were MLs they still contributed heavily to the class consciousness of blacks today. I see them as a net positive because of that.

Furthermore, it was racially motivated because the reasoning wasn't that the Black Panthers were up to something but that "those blacks" were up to something.
#15019246
Palmyrene wrote:The Black Panthers were a militant group who desired the autonomy of the black community and the right to run their own institutions. Thus, they targeted cops as a form of self defense rather than due to predatory behavior.


Doesn't matter an iota.

Do you think blacks in this country should've been given the right to run their own institutions, without influence from non-blacks?
#15019261
BigSteve wrote:So black nationalism is okay. Gotcha'.

What are your thoughts on white nationalism?


If you are defining black nationalism as “the right to run their own institutions, without influence from non-blacks”, then the USA has, for most of its history, been a white nationalist country.

Arguably, it still is.
#15019266
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you are defining black nationalism as “the right to run their own institutions, without influence from non-blacks”, then the USA has, for most of its history, been a white nationalist country.

Arguably, it still is.


I've not defined anything thus far, and you've failed to address the question I asked, which was specific to black nationalism...
#15019271
In your question about black nationalism, you implicitly (that means you did not openly say this, but it is something that can logically be deduced from what you said) defined ethnic nationalism as “the right to run their own institutions, without influence from” people who are not of that ethnic group.

The USA, then, would be an example of a white nationalist state.

And since you did not ask me that question, there is no reason for me to answer it.
#15019280
Pants-of-dog wrote:These kids died while in US government custody, when the US government was responsible for them after forcibly separating them from their families.

Children die while in the custody of their parents all the time. To claim that they have killed them, deliberately let them die or neglected them to the point that they died requires evidence. The same applies here and you haven't even begun providing it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This man did not attack anyone and never even fired a shot. He attacked a few vehicles and his intentions were to free families. Unless you have evidence that he attacked someone, your characterisation of him is based on speculation. And again, he seems like the most moral actor in this entire thing.

But how do you imagine he would be able to "free the families" without attacking people and why did he come armed with a rifle and tried to explode a propane tank?
#15019283
Pants-of-dog wrote:government was responsible for them after forcibly separating them from their families

You claim to be a socialist, yet you support the oppressive family institution. Governments that separate families usually do that because the children are abused by their parents, but it is not reported because those abusive parents do not allow their children to report them out of fear. Africans also have the highest domestic abuse rate.

A "socialist" who supports African nationalism and the oppressive family institution should be questioned.
#15019284
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Children die while in the custody of their parents all the time.

Correct.
But how do you imagine he would be able to "free the families" without attacking people and why did he come armed with a rifle and tried to explode a propane tank?

For someone to come with a rifle and attempted to explode a propane tank sounds abusive.
Last edited by SSDR on 18 Jul 2019 22:15, edited 1 time in total.
#15019285
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Children die while in the custody of their parents all the time. To claim that they have killed them, deliberately let them die or neglected them to the point that they died requires evidence. The same applies here and you haven't even begun providing it.


Please see the link I already referenced. Thank you.

The point is that the government should never have been solely responsible for the children. And it is logical to assume that the children would have received medical care sooner if they had been allowed to apply for asylum in a humane manner.

But how do you imagine he would be able to "free the families" without attacking people and why did he come armed with a rifle and tried to explode a propane tank?


By creating a distraction (e.g. blowing up a propane tank) then shooting the locks off the doors (with a rifle he brought for that purpose) while the guards are distracted.
#15019342
Pants-of-dog wrote:So, you have no evidence that he actually attacked anyone, and so your portrayal of him as a violent murderer is misleading.

Again, if you're talking about John Brown, crack open a history book. If you're referring about the attacker, he made the link to John Brown himself, as have members of AntiFA lauding his actions.

It is such a minor violation of law that this separation of families is obviously a gross overreaction.

Except that it isn't a "minor violation of law"--in FY 2016 the average cost of deportation was $10,854 per person deported. If we don't deport them, the average lifetime drain of public resources of each adult undocumented alien would be an average of $65,292. And that doesn't cover the public costs of their children.

And an asylum claim is not fraudulent simply because it is rejected. For example, someone may be fleeing homophobic violence, and the it would be rejected simply because of Trump’s new polices and not because they do not need asylum.

No, it's fraudulent when it's made just to get into the country. It's not like the US asylum laws are classified, do you really think that most of those making those claim don't know they don't meet those standards? Do you really believe that those telling these people what they need to claim to file a claim don't know that they don't meet those standards? Like bringing their families, it's the latest scam to try to get into the country. And by the way, to be granted asylum requires a reasonable fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, national origin, political opinion, or membership in a social group. People fleeing economic collapse or gang violence don't fit any of those categories.

So you agree that officials are not hearing asylum claims. They are instead putting people on waiting lists and letting them suffer as illegals in Mexico for months a a time, including families.

Officials are hearing asylum claims, as many as our resources allow. Does the fact there's a waiting line mean no one is being processed?

And why do you need the Left to get the government to do the honorable thing?

Because they apparently run the House and the Democratic side of the Senate, with its "60% to pass anything" rule.

This is basically a concession that the new policies concerning asylum seekers are merely a racist ploy to deter immigration.

There's no "ploy" about it, it's an attempt to enforce our immigration laws and so discourage those that want to violate them. What's racist about that? And it doesn't deter immigration at all, because immigrants are those that come here legally and are granted permanent residency status. An undocumented alien is not an immigrant.

Yes, I am aware that Trump has recently changed the policies so that people fleeing violence and that fear for their lives are not considered asylum seekers who are fleeing for their lives.

This is probably why so many claims are rejected, and not because they are not fleeing threats to their lives and safety.

Trump didn't change anything, the limits on those that will be considered for asylum claims predate his election victory.

And for the third or fourth time, this lawbreaking is so minor as to be irrelevant, and they would not even need to do that if Trump was not trying to get re-elected by playing the racist card and not allowing people to apply.

Again, $10,854 each to deport them, $65,292 each if we don't. That isn't minor.
#15019396
Doug64 wrote:If you're referring about the attacker, he made the link to John Brown himself, as have members of AntiFA lauding his actions.


I am not concerned about what he said. I am concerned about whether or not he attacked anyone.

Apparently, he did not. Since he never attacked anyone, it is dishonest to portray him as violent.

Except that it isn't a "minor violation of law"--in FY 2016 the average cost of deportation was $10,854 per person deported. If we don't deport them, the average lifetime drain of public resources of each adult undocumented alien would be an average of $65,292. And that doesn't cover the public costs of their children.


The amount of money required to help an individual has no bearing on whether or not they broke the law or how severely.

You probably cost the government x amount of dollars, but that does not mean you are breaking the law, or you are break the law more severely when you, for example, jaywalk.

No, it's fraudulent when it's made just to get into the country. It's not like the US asylum laws are classified, do you really think that most of those making those claim don't know they don't meet those standards? Do you really believe that those telling these people what they need to claim to file a claim don't know that they don't meet those standards? Like bringing their families, it's the latest scam to try to get into the country. And by the way, to be granted asylum requires a reasonable fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, national origin, political opinion, or membership in a social group. People fleeing economic collapse or gang violence don't fit any of those categories.


This does not change the fact that most asylum claims are not fraudulent. The vast majority of people are fleeing violent persecution, bt your government has made itself loopholes so it can deny these people.

Officials are hearing asylum claims, as many as our resources allow. Does the fact there's a waiting line mean no one is being processed?


No, but it does mean that many people are not processed, and all of them have to suffer as illegals with no support in Mexico while your border people do nothing to help them.

Because they apparently run the House and the Democratic side of the Senate, with its "60% to pass anything" rule.


If you mean Democrats, why do you call them the Left? They are not leftists.

Either way, it is still your government that is failing to do the right thing.

There's no "ploy" about it, it's an attempt to enforce our immigration laws and so discourage those that want to violate them. What's racist about that? And it doesn't deter immigration at all, because immigrants are those that come here legally and are granted permanent residency status. An undocumented alien is not an immigrant.


Yes, it is a ploy.

If you wish to pretend it is not, go ahead.

Trump didn't change anything, the limits on those that will be considered for asylum claims predate his election victory.


Trump has been continually changing asylum laws to make them more restrictive.

Here is the latest:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tr ... s-n1029866

Again, $10,854 each to deport them, $65,292 each if we don't. That isn't minor.


Yes, it is.

And Trump is deliberately changing laws to make it harder for asylum seekers, and he is doing it to get support from his racist supporters.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 15

One of the SNPs great grudges is that under Londo[…]

The Irishman...

Artists are left-wingers because: - Financial succ[…]

I feel a bit bad for Jewish Americans, since Epst[…]

Free trade is like free love. If you have diffe[…]