Pants-of-dog wrote:So ICE has started killing white people too now?
It was the police. Isn't that awesome? See? They aren't racist!
Pants-of-dog wrote:And the Tacoma police force has been killing white people for a while?
Cops pretty much kill anyone who comes at them with a deadly weapon. Here's an example of white cops killing a white guy:
Pants-of-dog wrote:Anyway, what is it about this particular shooting that is interesting?
The guy they shot was a leftist who was triggered by all the media propaganda that ICE was running concentration camps. He said he was with Antifa.
Hong Wu wrote:Getting mentally ill people worked up over these supposed atrocities is shameful.
I'm sure the left will at some point start whining that the perp never got a fair trial unlike James Fields.
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is how you get around the moral quandary of forcibly separating families and the having the children die in the custody of US police.
What moral quandary?
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am not sure he was mentally ill. His actions were consistent with the rational idea that we should not kill children and we should stop others from doing so.
Then, you are suggesting he got information from the media and acted on it?
Doug64 wrote:When you have national leaders and opinion-shapers repeatedly equating our law enforcement with mass-murdering racists, someone is eventually going to respond accordingly.
Yes. I think they may have had transient moment of clarity and realized that they have blood on their hands. It won't last long though.
Doug64 wrote:What is more interesting is how the MSM(D) responds (or doesn’t) to the shooting. After all, their knee-jerk reaction when something similar happens targeting Leftists or minorities is to blame it on Conservative rhetoric, loudly and often.
Well, the major distinction is that the conservatives aren't calling for violence, but the leftists are calling for violence. Once again, they got what they wanted. Except they ended up getting another leftist killed, kind of like the Heather Heyer thing. Only, this time they can't go after the cops, because he clearly had a deadly weapon.
Doug64 wrote:Actually, keeping the families together is wise.
Except in some cases, they aren't really families. There is a market for renting kids to cross the border.
Doug64 wrote:I haven’t heard any reports that this shooter is mentally ill, just a true believer. If you actually believe our law enforcement officers are mass-murdering racists and so a threat to those they incarcerate, physically attacking them is perfectly reasonable. And that’s what the Left has been at least insinuating if not outright saying plainly for ages.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Why are you guys treating asylum seekers as prisoners and creating the conditions where children die?
If you cross more than one nation's borders, you aren't typically seeking asylum. You're just trying to use the asylum process to get a temporary work permit and hoping the overloaded system forgets about you.
Pants-of-dog wrote:This, by itself, is reason enough to free people from immigration detention centers.
I'd support shipping them to Canada.
annatar1914 wrote:Look, here's the real issue you have with this. You hate America, the American Government, and the Capitalist system, the Western world in general.
And inexplicably migrates to the heart of the empire s/he hates... Bizarro.
Pants-of-dog wrote:From the evidence I have seen, this happens less than half the time when looking at people who are suspected of child trafficking, which is only a minority of all family cases.
Yes. However, law enforcement is required to address all cases, and the cheapest and most effective way to do that is to separate the children from the adults. Detention centers aren't a great place to practice family values.
Pants-of-dog wrote:The fact that they applied for asylum within the country rather than at a point of entry (where there is a reasonable chance they will be denied an opportunity to apply for asylum) is a bureaucratic issue, not a criminal one.
It is a criminal issue, because they crossed into the country illegally. Nobody is denied an opportunity to apply for asylum. There is just a reasonable chance that they will not be admitted to the United States while awaiting a hearing. So they enter illegally, because they know that if they are released into the US following detention they will have a temporary work permit, so they even have a leg up over illegal aliens who cross and are not caught by ICE, because now they can work at McDonalds, etc. legally.
Pants-of-dog wrote:If the issue actually is that your system is overwhelmed, then devote more resources to the problem.
Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats control the house and voted against providing additional funds, even for much needed beds, etc.
Palmyrene wrote:Children are dying there.
It's statistically insignificant and it's not because ICE is intentionally killing kids.
Palymyrene wrote:They're refugees. They're running away from that.
Maybe they just need you to explain to them the benefits of anarchy.
Palmyrene wrote:There's a difference between that and running away from persecution to legally obtain asylum which is exactly what they're doing.
They aren't being persecuted. They're just poor and looking for an opportunity to make more money.
AFIAK wrote:So if you park your car in a disabled space for 5 minutes your kids get taken away? That seems reasonable to you?
That's an infraction. So no. If you get pissed off about it and punch the meter maid, then yes.
AFIAK wrote:I find it fascinating the apologetics Americans make for their police state.
Americans don't really oppose a police state, so they generally don't apologize for this. I find it fascinating that people want to come here if they think it is so bad and racist.
Doug64 wrote:We can add US News & World Report to the list of MSM(D) that have actually mentioned the attack, though it has even fewer details than any of the others and fails to mention that he described himself as an “anti-fascist.”
Yeah, they are all on to Trump tweeting about AOC, Tlaib, Omar and that other broad, and completely unaware that they are once again doing Trump's bidding.
Doug64 wrote:No follow-up articles or opinion pieces about it from any of those that have already reported it that I can find, it looks like it’s already headed for the circular filing cabinet the MSM(D) reserves for stories that don’t fit its narrative.
That's because it is a politically motivated crime directed at the government to effect a change of policy, and therefore technically it is a terrorist attack perpetrated by the left.
Doug64 wrote:Meanwhile, Andy Ngo—the journalist assaulted by AntiFA and sent to the hospital with a brain hemorrhage—has linked to AntiFA’s response to the firebomber’s claim to be AntiFA. Apparently, they’re fine with it. He also found video of Van Spronsen at an AntiFA rally in 2018.
Tucker Carlson pointed out that none of the Democratic presidential candidates condemned the terrorist attack. So it seems they are fine with it too. I wonder if they are bothered that the perp is dead as Kelsey's nuts?
Pants-of-dog wrote:Let me know when you are done attacking the strawman and want to deal with the fact that your country is forcibly separating families, and sometimes the kids die while in the custody of US officials.
Well, this thread is about a guy going bonkers about that and getting killed. Most Americans are cool with detaining illegal aliens. We're simply reacting to a guy who was going to use incendiaries and a rifle to light up an ICE detention facility. He might have even got illegal aliens killed if he'd been able to set the buildings on fire.
Pants-of-dog wrote:And that this is a rational reason for attacking a detention center.
Why do you think it's rational to use incendiaries at a government facility that's not made of wood? We certainly have a rational reason for law enforcement killing this guy, don't you agree?
Pants-of-dog wrote:You can play the blame game between Republicans and Democrats, but I do not care. The fact is that you guys are treating asylum seekers as criminals, and that is not only wrong according to the treaties you guys have accepted as law, but also wrong according to Christian beliefs.
People who cross the United States border instead of at a point of entry are breaking the law, whether they subsequently seek asylum or not. So they are being treated as criminals, because they are criminals. The US has a separation of church and state, so Christian beliefs are immaterial to law enforcement.
Pants-of-dog wrote:You can play the blame game between Republicans and Democrats, but I do not care. The fact is that you guys are treating asylum seekers as criminals, and that is not only wrong according to the treaties you guys have accepted as law, but also wrong according to Christian beliefs.
Asylum claims are adjudicated by courts, not border patrol. We also have a separation of powers between the executive (border patrol, ICE, CBP, etc.) and the courts.
Doug64 wrote:Since I do not share your false equivalency of asylum seekers=criminals, then your comparison makes no sense.
They are all free to leave detention if they return to their country of origin or the country from which they entered the US. They choose detention.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden