MAMEWorld Forums - Welcome to the War Room - Re: Joe Rogan props open the mouth of every Republican and shits down their throat

> > And whichever of the 2 examples of phrasing one would use - that's never going to
> > change the outcome.
> >
>
> I don't understand what you mean here.
>

By "consequences" I mean the outcome of being detained by the Border Patrol and having any minor child not also being detained in a cell for... people that broke the law that says you're not allowed to walk into this country just willy-nilly. I'm sure something similar happens when a parent or parents also break the law here in the U.S., have to be jailed, and their child/children have to be put in some form of protective custody. Be it another close relative, or form of temporary foster care. Are we supposed to put the children in with the parents? All for the sake of a "separation issue"?

And if you were confused by my using the term "phrasing" - that referred to either of the remarks... One being insensitive; (e.g.) "Don't break the law", or the more careful statement of; "Go ahead, break the law, but...." The point was - whichever statement one used, that's not going to have any effect on the outcome of someone's actions. That's why I made the point of "political correctness"... They're just words. So there's no reason to get one's panties in a twist when someone says "Well you shouldn't have broken the law!"

People will still break the law. Breaking the law will always have consequences.

>
> > I'm thinking he's upset about the callousness of such a remark as "Don't break the
> > law" and the idea of it being used in some smug, pious way.
> >
>
> I'm thinking he's simply actually a decent human being so he cares about others and
> doesn't like seeing his country turn into a racist shithole and doesn't like idiots
> saying they can do absolutely anything as punishment, no matter how barbaric, to
> someone who commits a misdemeanor based on the fact that they are fleeing for their
> life out of a drug war ravaged, well, war.
>
> > I'm not defending such remarks and attitudes, and he and anyone else is free to
> > disassociate themselves with anyone that does.
> >
> >
> > What about this?.... Is the momentary inconvenience of the separation of a mother
> and
> > child worth the cost of leaving a shit-hole country?
>
>
> You're missing the point completely and asserting that everyone leaving their country
> are just doing it because their country isn't as good as the US. Your question
> shouldn't be a question that has to be asked.
>
>

In one statement you're saying a country is a bad place. Then I (also) assert that a country is a bad place with my question. Then you say the question isn't valid because I'm saying the U.S. is better than the place they're fleeing (which must be a shitty place or else they wouldn't be trying to leave it in the first place). So I don't see how that question is "invalid".

So why even come here if Mexico isn't any better than the U.S.?... why even risk detainment and separation of parent and child?

But... there is one flaw with my question. For them having been caught and detained means they'll have to go back to where they came from at some point.

> > Is it like the mother and child will never be united ever again? Of course not.
> > Buuuut... I can't say I know how long they'll be separated for.
>
> OK so first you're ignoring the cases where the kids are so young that after a month
> they no longer recognize their real parents, but even if that wasn't there, you're
> clearly a monster for in any way thinking it's ok to tell a mother you are going to
> give her kid a bath and then separate them as a scare tactic. Jeff Sessions is so
> inhumane that his own church voted to kick him out. He's just an absolutely terrible
> human.
>

If they're so young that they forget who mom and dad are, they probably wouldn't know the difference after being reunited with them for a short while, or it would jog their apparently fragile memory.

How is giving a kid a bath and the parent going to a cell a "scare tactic"?

> > I suppose the real issue is the separation itself.
>
> The real issue is Republicans are deep racists and hate immigration of any kind on
> account of it.
>

Riiiight. "KKK all the way baby!"

> > I'm absolutely certain Joe is a Libertarian. But what is "free" about compulsory
> > health insurance?
>
> Firstly you can't say he's a Libertarian

Oh. I shouldn't assume he's Libertarian just because I've heard him say he is, and this...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Rogan#Advocacy

Yeah. You're probably right. Just because something walks and talks like a duck, doesn't mean it should be called a duck. Therefore Joe ≠ Libertarian.

>
> The best way to pay for it is clearly by cutting "defense" spending in half and
> pulling out of 8 wars that no citizen wants so in addition to the fact that your
> coverage will cost less, you wouldn't necessarily pay a thing for it if we can get
> the government to pull their heads out of their ass, so in that case you'd save 100%
> of the cost, or in a worse case scenario of your taxes getting raised, you'd pay
> about half.
>

I agree.

> As far as your argument of freedom, that is a criticism of Obamacare which is very
> flawed and simply better than nothing, but anyway you already don't have this
> "freedom" you mentioned if you are paying taxes at all, and you don't have freedom in
> your car if you have to pay for insurance on it, you don't have the freedom to own
> your house if you can lose it to the government if you don't pay property tax, and
> you don't have freedom to just walk around doing whatever you want if there are
> thousands of laws that dictate whether your "freedom" leads to you going to prison.
> That's just a bullshit talking point with nothing underneath it. Wow what a great
> "freedom" to have the right to break a limb and just have it heal at a 45 degree
> angle and look like a retard.

Very well. Point taken... But there's still the issue of some people not being able to afford Health/Medical Insurance, and there still being a fine for not having it. If that isn't a paradox - I don't know what is.

And I guess I shouldn't proclaim that the fine is more than it would've cost to pay for the insurance. Either way and with either one - it's still a matter of money... or a lack thereof.

LEVEL-4