# Censoring Free Speech - New York Outlaws Common Terms



## billapong (Sep 29, 2019)

Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/nycgov/status/1177310896344969217

New York City has passed a law stating you can no longer use the term "illegal align" if it's done in a manner that might upset the person you're using the term about. Specifically, if the person who you called an illegal alien thinks that you doing so is harassing them of if they feel threatened by you stating you're going to be calling ICE on them since they are an illegal alien or are in the country illegally. It's up to the victim or witnesses to interpret your use of the word. So basically, if you call someone an illegal alien, regardless if they are an actual illegal alien, and they get offended by it you could be facing a $250,000 fine.

My take: Have any of your read 1984? These thought police can go to hell. Whether or not speech is hateful is subjective. One should be able to say whatever the hell they want to say, regardless if it's offensive to someone else. Hate speech is still protected under the 1st amendment, mainly because of these sorts of fascist laws. You can't control what someone thinks. Hate is a normal human emotion that has uses and can be harnessed for good. I If anyone in New York is reading this than I state "I fucking believe all illegal immigrants should be deported. Fuck them, fuck you and if I find out any are living near me I'm calling ICE".

Jeeze. Imagine if saying you dislike Trump was illegal. That could be considered hate speech too. So could you don't like spaghetti or hate barbie games.

Well, eat this NYC ->

"See an Illegal Alien, call ICE"!!! "See an Illegal Alien, call ICE"!!! "See an Illegal Alien, call ICE"!!! "See an Illegal Alien, call ICE"!!! "See an Illegal Alien, call ICE"!!! "See an Illegal Alien, call ICE"!!! "See an Illegal Alien, call ICE"!!! "See an Illegal Alien, call ICE"!!! "See an Illegal Alien, call ICE"!!! "See an Illegal Alien, call ICE"!!! "See an Illegal Alien, call ICE"!!! "See an Illegal Alien, call ICE"!!! "See an Illegal Alien, call ICE"!!! "See an Illegal Alien, call ICE"!!! "See an Illegal Alien, call ICE"!!!

$250,000 fine each instance. Come and get it.

Edit: For clarification purposes, this law effects New York City and not the entire State of New York.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 29, 2019)

do you even live in NY or is this grandstanding?


----------



## billapong (Sep 29, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> do you even live in NY or is this grandstanding?



I may or may not reside in the city, but regardless it's a general protest. Speech shouldn't be outlawed. It doesn't matter if you don't like what I have to say or it hurts your feelings. Simply saying "orange man bad" is very offensive to some people. Do you think that the Government should have the right to fine someone a quarter of a million dollars for simply stating a simple phrase?


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 29, 2019)

billapong said:


> I may or may not reside in the city, but regardless it's a general protest. Speech shouldn't be outlawed. It doesn't matter if you don't like what I have to say or it hurts your feelings. Simply saying "orange man bad" is very offensive to some people. Do you think that the Government should have the right to fine someone a quarter of a million dollars for simply stating a simple phrase?



you are not allowed to yell "fire" at a theater. Also since recently ICE accidentally deported LEGAL CUBAN citizens to back to cuba.... 
I think it should be thought of twice. 
Also it sounds like you do not live there. Dont worry too much about it.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 29, 2019)

i for one support limiting free speech hate speech has no place in america imo thats why the other parts of the first exist freedom of religion is what i mean because hate speech often directly or indirectly leads to violence even laws like this can lead to violence though look at mlk and jfk their both dead  and why because they forced change for the better even so this topic is in fact a double edged sword


----------



## billapong (Sep 29, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> you are not allowed to yell "fire" at a theater. Also since recently ICE accidentally deported LEGAL CUBAN citizens to back to cuba....
> I think it should be thought of twice.
> Also it sounds like you do not live there. Dont worry too much about it.





chrisrlink said:


> i for one support limiting free speech hate speech has no place in america imo thats why the other parts of the first exist freedom of religion is what i mean because hate speech often directly or indirectly leads to violence even laws like this can lead to violence though look at mlk and jfk their both dead  and why because they forced change for the better even so this topic is in fact a double edged sword



I think that any speech that shines a negative light on Trump or the Republican administration is hate speech. Since you agree that hate speech has no place in America than you must stop using what I consider to be hate speech, otherwise I'll fine you $5,000,000 per instance.


----------



## lisreal2401 (Sep 29, 2019)

Free speech is good but.

If you say things like this you probably should get arrested anyway.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 29, 2019)

billapong said:


> I think that any speech that shines a negative light on Trump or the Republican administration is hate speech. Since you agree that hate speech has no place in America than you must stop using what I consider to be hate speech, otherwise I'll fine you $5,000,000 per instance.


except that your opinion is not law. Not even ordinance in a small city. Talk to your local government for change.


----------



## billapong (Sep 29, 2019)

lisreal2401 said:


> Free speech is good but.
> 
> If you say things like this you probably should get arrested anyway.



I find your statement offensive. You are using hate speech against me. You should be arrested too.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 29, 2019)

billapong said:


> I find your statement offensive. You are using hate speech against me. You should be arrested too.


Ironic because early you were a critic of the classic "orange man bad" now you are resorting to "orange man critic, bad" pick one brother.


----------



## billapong (Sep 29, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> except that your opinion is not law. Not even ordinance in a small city. Talk to your local government for change.



And their law is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has already ruled that what some people consider to be hate speech is still protected under the 1st amendment. If per say, any legal action does come about my Protest I will never plead guilty to anything. I'll stand up for my rights.


----------



## lisreal2401 (Sep 29, 2019)

billapong said:


> I find your statement offensive. You are using hate speech against me. You should be arrested too.


At least I'd go to jail knowing I wasn't a piece of shit.


----------



## billapong (Sep 29, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> Ironic because early you were a critic of the classic "orange man bad" now you are resorting to "orange man critic, bad" pick one brother.



I'm providing examples of how ridiculous trying to outlaw what some people consider to be hateful. Each major side has different definitions. Personally, I think orange man doing better than I expected, but wouldn't want to be orange man's friend.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



lisreal2401 said:


> At least I'd go to jail knowing I wasn't a piece of shit.



Okay, see you there.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 29, 2019)

billapong said:


> And their law is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has already ruled that what some people consider to be hate speech is still protected under the 1st amendment. If per say, any legal action does come about my Protest I will never plead guilty to anything. I'll stand up for my rights.



So if that is the case, what are you protesting?
according to you, you got your way, why are you sore winning?
Do you just want to be offended because a local city passed an ordinance that doesnt go with your world view? (even if according to you it got declared unconstitutional?)
I dont agree with stupid laws in some states but rarely make forum posts to decry them and seek tacit agreement.


----------



## billapong (Sep 29, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> So if that is the case, what are you protesting?
> Do you just want to be offended because a local city passed an ordinance that doesnt go with your world view? (even if according to you it got declared unconstitutional?)
> I dont agree with stupid laws in some states but rarely make forum posts to decry them and seek tacit agreement.



I'm protesting limiting speech or outlawing speech. If this law was coming from Texas and was outlawing Liberals saying they hate Trump I would still have the same reaction.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 29, 2019)

but it didnt get limited, you just said it got determined to be unconstitutional.
protesting on something you already won, is odd to me.
unless you just meant unconstitutional in your non-legal expert opinion?


----------



## billapong (Sep 29, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> but it didnt get limited, you just said it got determined to be unconstitutional.



The Supreme Court ruled that Hate Speech is protected under our Constitution and this law is clearly against the constitution. However, it's a new law that needs to be gotten rid of as soon as possible. It's something a court needs to tackle and ASAP. Laws like this shouldn't exist.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Sep 29, 2019)

Yeah, we live in fucking clown world, what else is new? For fucks sake unless I'm threatening to kill you it should be legal. I remember when I was younger when someone got triggered they were told it was a free country but now we can't have that.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 29, 2019)

billapong said:


> The Supreme Court ruled that Hate Speech is protected under our Constitution and this law is clearly against the constitution. However, it's a new law that needs to be gotten rid of as soon as possible. It's something a court needs to tackle and ASAP. Laws like this shouldn't exist.


Then it would need to be determined in court if what you are saying holds up. You are also saying in a non-legal expert opinion id assume. You just tried to pass your opinion as fact earlier, be careful, thats terrible form when debating.



CallmeBerto said:


> Yeah, we live in fucking clown world, what else is new? For fucks sake unless I'm threatening to kill you it should be legal. I remember when I was younger when someone got triggered they were told it was a free country but now we can't have that.


except that telling people that you will call ice on them can be seen as a threat, and much more so if these people are LEGAL citizens. I would be really pissed off i were bothered by them because some ass clown filed a false report on me.

This could be the same as swatting. Sending authorities after someone based on a report should be cause for corroboration.


----------



## billapong (Sep 29, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> Then it would need to be determined in court if what you are saying holds up. You are also saying in a non-legal expert opinion id assume. You just tried to pass your opinion as fact earlier, be careful, thats terrible form when debating.



Then you misinterpreted what I was saying (or I worded it poorly), which is why I wondered why I was even clarifying it to begin with. The law is brand new and needs to be erased from the books before any other cities get the same idea.


----------



## lisreal2401 (Sep 29, 2019)

I'll see myself the door though

Anyone who thinks saying "go back to your own country" is a fine thing is actually a fuckwad.

Not dealing with the politics of it, just be a decent human being ffs.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 29, 2019)

billapong said:


> And their law is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has already ruled that what some people consider to be hate speech is still protected under the 1st amendment.


An opinion passed as fact, Billapong.
Your former statement followed by the latter makes it seem like courts had made a determination on it.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 29, 2019)

billapong said:


> I think that any speech that shines a negative light on Trump or the Republican administration is hate speech. Since you agree that hate speech has no place in America than you must stop using what I consider to be hate speech, otherwise I'll fine you $5,000,000 per instance.


the guy is breeding hated with a long laundry list of examplesok so maybe *some hate speech is ok like ^&*% the KKK etc* *biggots/hate groups deserve no respect * because they respect no one that *includes trump* weither it's 2020/2024 *HE WILL LEAVE and probably go to prison afterwards* cause and effect


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 29, 2019)

lisreal2401 said:


> I'll see myself the door though
> 
> Anyone who thinks saying "go back to your own country" is a fine thing is actually a fuckwad.
> 
> Not dealing with the politics of it, just be a decent human being ffs.



The most correct statement in all of this thread.


----------



## billapong (Sep 29, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> except that telling people that you will call ice on them can be seen as a threat, and much more so if these people are LEGAL citizens. I would be really pissed off i were bothered by them because some ass clown filed a false report on me.
> 
> This could be the same as swatting. Sending authorities after someone based on a report should be cause for corroboration.



That's if you went through with the threat. There's no reason you'd even need to tell someone you're calling ICE on them and if you're calling ICE you should be certain the person is an illegal to begin with. Although, I'm not the type of person that would call the cops on someone else.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 29, 2019)

by your logic threatening murder would be seen as a threat if you went through with it. NO IN THAT CASE IT BE SOMETHING WORSE.
There has been cases where ICE has been called wrongly on people as well.


----------



## billapong (Sep 29, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> the guy is breeding hated with a long laundry list of examplesok so maybe *some hate speech is ok like ^&*% the KKK etc* *biggots/hate groups deserve no respect * because they respect no one cause and effect



So, it's okay to use hate speech against Trump because he uses hate speech himself? Then, it would be okay to break this law if the person you're calling an illegal alien said something you don't like. For fuck sakes, grow the hell up. We don't need the Government telling us what we can and cannot say to each other. Deal with it like a man. If you're feelings get all hurt then oh fucking well.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 29, 2019)

billapong said:


> So, it's okay to use hate speech against Trump because he uses hate speech himself? Then, it would be okay to break this law if the person you're calling an illegal alien said something you don't like. For fuck sakes, grow the hell up. We don't need the Government telling us what we can and cannot say to each other. Deal with it like a man. If you're feelings get all hurt then oh fucking well.



Sorry, you are right. people should withstand one sided abuse.

us minorities should now our place. I should have known better. I will deal with it like a man.

Humans dont work that way. I am sure you wouldnt either if the shoe were on the other foot.

Also criticizing your guy is not hate speech. you may need to do some growing up yourself.


----------



## billapong (Sep 29, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> by your logic threatening murder would be seen as a threat if you went through with it. NO IN THAT CASE IT BE SOMETHING WORSE.
> There has been cases where ICE has been called wrongly on people as well.



The act of threatening to murder someone is not the same as murdering someone. If it's a creditable threat (meaning you actually meant it and you pose a danger) then you can be prosecuted. Simply stating that you are going to kill someone isn't illegal by itself.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 29, 2019)

A THREAT IS A THREAT. Ask any police officer and they will tell you the same. Plenty of clowns that have said stuff and been arrested even if they did not mean it.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 29, 2019)

oh and by the way remember that census question about being illegal i would check yes i'm illegal just to a)prove the true function of that question trump proposed and b) just to waste ICE's time for s&G's


----------



## billapong (Sep 29, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> Sorry, you are right. people should withstand one sided abuse.
> 
> us minorities should now our place. I should have known better. I will deal with it like a man.
> 
> ...



I don't like when people talk down to me, but you know what, it happens. It's happening right now on this very forum, but instead of whining and calling the cops I deal with it. What I consider to be hateful is a lot different than most people. Hell, it varies greatly between genders, party lines, age, etc .... Outlawing speech is not the way to go about things.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WD_GASTER2 said:


> A THREAT IS A THREAT. Ask any police officer and they will tell you the same. Plenty of clowns that have said stuff and been arrested even if they did not mean it.



It's up to the police to make the arrest and generally they base it off of if the person poses and actual danger. Unsubstantiated threats get thrown out of consideration all of the time, otherwise we'd see tens of thousands of Fortnite players arrested on a daily basis.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 29, 2019)

Nobody is talking down to you. disagreement is not talking down to somebody. Being asked questions and held under scrutiny is not hate speech either. Do not conflate.


----------



## billapong (Sep 29, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> oh and by the way remember that census question about being illegal i would check yes i'm illegal just to a)prove the true function of that question trump proposed and b) just to waste ICE's time for s&G's



It was clearly evident that Trump wanted to use the census to kick criminals out of the country. I don't have a problem with identifying and removing illegal aliens from our country, but that's not what we're discussing.


----------



## seany1990 (Sep 29, 2019)

billapong said:


> It was clearly evident that Trump wanted to use the census to kick criminals out of the country.



If he was so focused on that, he would call Ice on himself, his family and his entire administration


----------



## billapong (Sep 29, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> Nobody is talking down to you. disagreement is not talking down to somebody. Being asked questions and held under scrutiny is not hate speech either. Do not conflate.



Like I said, what I consider to be hateful may not align with your views. Some of these snowflakes think that if you simply state you dislike or disagree with something that you're being hateful (or are experiencing a devastating phobia). This is one of the inherit problems to the entire hate speech debacle as everyone has different values and is impacted differently. Outlawing certain words based on the consensus of a single group of people isn't the answer. Soon we'll only be able to draw from a vocabulary of 500 words or we'll be sent to prison!


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 29, 2019)

billapong said:


> Like I said, what I consider to be hateful may not align with your views. Some of these snowflakes think that if you simply state you dislike or disagree with something that you're being hateful (or are experiencing a devastating phobia).


Yet you consider criticism of Trump hateful. See the Irony?


----------



## billapong (Sep 29, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> Yet you consider criticism of Trump hateful. See the Irony?



A little, but I understand each person is different. I was also just giving a blanket example. I don't think simply disagreeing with Trump is hateful, but using slurs based on the color of his skin, his weight or saying he should be assassinated I do find to be hateful. With that said, I don't think there should be limits on hate. It's a normal and natural human emotion. I mean, everyone hates something. You won't find me telling you what you can and cannot hate or trying to do so by using the Government.


----------



## maddenmike95 (Sep 29, 2019)

It's a pity that it has come to this is a "free" country, even if it is only one state right now. What a damn shame. I have no facts when I say this but I'm assuming that a foreigner who gained his citizenship many moons ago in a high position of power proposed this new law.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 29, 2019)

maddenmike95 said:


> It's a pity that it has come to this is a "free" country, even if it is only one state right now. What a damn shame. I have no facts when I say this but I'm assuming that a foreigner who gained his citizenship many moons ago in a high position of power proposed this new law.


Literally unless you are Native American everyone in this country is a foreigner or descends from one. Come on dude.

Also its NYC not the state of NY. please disseminate the information presented to you folks.


----------



## maddenmike95 (Sep 29, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> Literally unless you are Native American everyone in this country is a foreigner or descends from one. Come on dude.



I have the freedom to say what I want and that is a prime example of freedom of speech. But for real I just think it's sad that government is trying to censor what we can and can not say.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 29, 2019)

maddenmike95 said:


> I have the freedom to say what I want and that is a prime example of freedom of speech


oh you certainly can. I am just pointing out the fact that everybody in this country is a foreigner (outside of Native Americans).  Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from scrutiny.

Also bares repeating: this is NYC not the state of NY


----------



## maddenmike95 (Sep 29, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> oh you certainly can. I am just pointing out the fact that everybody in this country is a foreigner (outside of Native Americans).  Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from scrutiny.
> 
> Also bares repeating: this is NYC not the state of NY



Alright, NYC, but still very wrong in my eyes. Well you say freedom from scrutiny, wouldn't rally's that take place all across the USA that you disagree with be a form of scrutiny. They don't fine people for those or make laws against those.


----------



## RandomUser (Sep 29, 2019)

Why does this reminds me of that "Don't talk, take action" quotes. One of the Police said to me, "instead of threatening to shoot someone, just shoot them to kill, then drag the carcass inside your house". That was back oh gosh back in the 90's in New Mexico. The reason for that is the offending person that you're threatening can get you for well threatening them or harassment even on your own property, can file legal action against you, where if you were to kill them, they cannot do a thing about it and since dragging them inside of your own house affords you to classify as self-defense. I don't know if this is true or not, or is still true to this day. So what it appears to come down to today or in the future is, don't make threats, just act on them. It might get to the point to where it is better to commit a crime then actually make such threat... or keep to yourself.


----------



## billapong (Sep 29, 2019)

RandomUser said:


> Why does this reminds me of that "Don't talk, take action" quotes. One of the Police said to me, "instead of threatening to shoot someone, just shoot them to kill, then drag the carcass inside your house". That was back oh gosh back in the 90's in New Mexico. The reason for that is the offending person that you're threatening can get you for well threatening them or harassment even on your own property, can file legal action against you, where if you were to kill them, they cannot do a thing about it and since dragging them inside of your own house affords you to classify as self-defense. I don't know if this is true or not, or is still true to this day. So what it appears to come down to today or in the future is, don't make threats, just act on them. It might get to the point to where it is better to commit a crime then actually make such threat... or keep to yourself.



In some circumstances it's just best to keep your mouth shut. I wouldn't want to threaten an illegal alien by saying I'm going to call Ice on him and then it turns out he's in MS13, just got done raping a 13 year old and decides to shoot me in the back as I walk away. As per your specific example it is common knowledge that dead people can't testify against you.


----------



## RandomUser (Sep 29, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> oh you certainly can. I am just pointing out the fact that everybody in this country is a foreigner (outside of Native Americans).  Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from scrutiny.
> 
> Also bares repeating: this is NYC not the state of NY


By that definition, it is the foreigners that is making these laws. Native Americans have their tribes with their own laws.



billapong said:


> In some circumstances it's just best to keep your mouth shut. I wouldn't want to threaten an illegal alien by saying I'm going to call Ice on him and then it turns out he's in MS13, just got done raping a 13 year old and decides to shoot me in the back as I walk away. As per your specific example it is common knowledge that dead people can't testify against you.


True, that is the reason why I stated "or keep to yourself."


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 29, 2019)

RandomUser said:


> By that definition, it is the foreigners that is making these laws. Native Americans have their tribes with their own laws.


Yes however I figured there was underlying intent on his statement hence why i brought it up.
You are sharp though.


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 29, 2019)

billapong said:


> My take: Have any of your read 1984? These thought police can go to hell.


I have (multiple times, even). If you have, you should read it again. The limitation of language there serves as a purpose of making thoughts against the reigning  ideology impossible. You seem to understand that purpose, which is strange because it conflicts with this situation.

Why does the NYC limit this? If you ask me, because the hatred against foreigners is getting out of hand. The reigning ideology isn't from illegals being above the law but from the local populace trying to coerce foreigners (illegal or not) into doing their bidding. That's why threatening to have someone deported isn't always a matter of free speech or thought, but in specific cases an actual threat.

I hate to be the guy who blame Donald Trump for everything, but in this case it just applies. Time and time again he bangs on about foreigners that shouldn't be in America. While there is something to be said about protecting borders, it's easy to leave out the context of protecting one self (1) and applying it to make everyone with another skin color a lesser human than 'the great white Supreme Beings'.


(1) this is, of course, the very lenient version of what he says. Like many who don't automatically believe everything he says at first sight, I believe this 'protecting the border' is just a racist's excuse for hate propaganda. Or a 'two minute hate' moment, since you like 1984 tropes


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 29, 2019)

RandomUser said:


> . So what it appears to come down to today or in the future is, don't make threats, just act on them. It might get to the point to where it is better to commit a crime then actually make such threat... or keep to yourself.


How about you do not make threats and comply with your cities local laws and ordinances. I remember last i heard that Republicans are the party of law and order* Anybody that thinks that someone who looks like a foreigner is an MS13 member who needs ICE called on them needs to get himself mentally checked. Also yelling people "I am gonna call ICE on you" in public, what constructive outcome do you expect other than to look like a thug in public?
Also if you commit a crime and get caught enjoy your jail time

*unless it doesnt benefit them


----------



## sarkwalvein (Sep 29, 2019)

This time I agree with the NYC.


----------



## RandomUser (Sep 29, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> How about you do not make threats and comply with your cities local laws and ordinances. I remember last i heard that Republicans are the party of law and order* Anybody that thinks that someone who looks like a foreigner is an MS13 member who needs ICE called on them needs to get himself mentally checked. Also yelling people "I am gonna call ICE on you" in public, what constructive outcome do you expect other than to look like a thug in public?
> Also if you commit a crime and get caught enjoy your jail time
> 
> *unless it doesnt benefit them


I believe you may have missed the point and I should have worded that differently as I am not trying to advocate on committing the crime.
It might get to the point in the future where *if* you are going to threaten them, it might be better to go through with your threats weather then threatening them. You might be serving less jail time by committing vs threatening. I have seen some cases where people that committed crimes got lesser sentencing then the people that made threats, but perhaps that is an anomaly. It is generally better to stay quiet and out of the way.
However I do advocate defending yourself, especially if you are on your own property.


----------



## DuoForce (Sep 29, 2019)

Let's nuke New York and California please


----------



## Mythical (Sep 29, 2019)

Another one for the ignore list


----------



## sarkwalvein (Sep 29, 2019)

There's a mistake here in a forced comparison with a thought police:

Threatening is not a "thought" but an act, it is itself a crime.


----------



## billapong (Sep 29, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> There's a mistake here in a forced comparison with a thought police:
> 
> Threatening is not a "thought" but an act, it is itself a crime.



You're correct, but outlawing words is a method of thought control. The Liberals are trying to outlaw "hate", but only their definition of hate (and not their own hatred). Trying to outlaw hateful thinking is thought control.

Well, good luck trying to outlaw peoples hatred towards Trump. Imagine if it were illegal to criticize the President or even think badly about him? If you start outlawing words then some time down the road you're going to fall victim to those laws. If not will you feel better when your children aren't legally allowed to think or say anything that is perceived negative about something they don't agree with?

I'm not advocating that people go around threatening people and if you do and get the shit kicked out of you then that's just the scrutiny factor coming into play. It would be best to not going around threatening people if you'd like to avoid problems. If you're going to be calling ICE on someone it would be best to do so in private with good reason and without letting the other person know you're going to be doing so.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



MythicalData said:


> Another one for the ignore list



No reason to gloat about your ignorance. Just ignore and move on.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Sep 29, 2019)

It says derogatory use, pretty sure this is if you call a legal mexican american an illegal alien, I find nothing wrong with that, and who the fuck thinks the correct term to call someone is "illegal alien"....


----------



## billapong (Sep 29, 2019)

Ericthegreat said:


> It says derogatory use, pretty sure this is if you call a legal mexican american an illegal alien, I find nothing wrong with that, and who the fuck thinks the correct term to call someone is "illegal alien"....



According to Federal law (the law that supersedes State and Local laws) the correct legal terminology to call someone who is in the country illegally is an illegal alien. It always makes me think of little green men, but that's the wording the law uses. I'd rather they just call them freeloading trespassing scum. I mean, what would you call me if I broke into your house, ate your food, took your money, used your health insurance, called you a transphobic jerk all day long because you refused to have sex with me and when you call the cops they tell you that you'd have to take care of me and you couldn't kick me out and that you would have to buy me a smart phone? Would you embrace me with open arms as your new roommate?


----------



## notimp (Sep 29, 2019)

billapong said:


> I may or may not reside in the city, but regardless it's a general protest.


Go back home.

Also making calling ICE one someone because of discriminatory motives illegal? How dare they.

Mexican Joker


First they came for our racial slurs. Then they came for our derogatory treatment of others, then they took away our code phrase for hatng on foreigners, by making the phrase 'go back to your own country' a punishable offense.

So now we cant character assassinate minorities with our fixed catch phrases no more. Buhuuuu. Freedom of speech my ass.

Do you need that to express, what? Is that an essential part if your dayly argument to represent what?

That minorities would be better suited to the countries they came from?

You liar, you ass, here is free speech for you.

In practice this will not lead to individuals being fined up to 250.000 - it will produce social pressure on people deciding to publicly discriminate based on perceived racial stereotypes.

And you are siding with the 'but I want to - free speech!' side on this?


----------



## billapong (Sep 29, 2019)

notimp said:


> Go back home.
> 
> Also making calling ICE one someone because of discriminatory motives illegal? How dare they.
> 
> ...




If you would have read the 3 out of 3 tweets Trump said that you should go back from the countries you came from, fix the problems there, come back and show us how it's done. I'm not going to debate with someone that leaves out 1/3 of the information contained within someones statement and then try to twist the 2/3 to fit into some out of context made up garbage. Either use the full quote or don't use it at all.


----------



## notimp (Sep 29, 2019)

Here is the directive btw:
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/immigration-guidance.pdf

I'm now reading it to find out the fine 'structuring', if present.

- Its not a punishable offense in private either. So only in public.
In New York City, you cannot be discriminated against because of your actual or perceived immigration status or your national origin in employment, housing, and public spaces such stores, hospitals, and movie theaters. You have rights regardless of your immigration status:


----------



## notimp (Sep 29, 2019)

Here is what they actually did. They closed the racist loophole of pronouncing ''oh no - I'm only a cultural nativist'.



> Discrimination based on immigration status often overlaps with discrimination based on national origin23 and/or religion. The “line between discrimination based on ancestry or ethnic characteristics, and discrimination based on place or nation of . . . origin, is not a bright one,”24 and it is often difficult to disentangle the motivation behind discriminatory animus based on immigration status, national origin, and other protected categories. Individuals who feel they have experienced discrimination may file a complaint under any or all of these categories that relate to their claim.25



Here is the legal reasoning as to why they did it - and what they did exactly.


> Legislative History
> 
> Local Law 97 of 1965 amended the NYCHRL to add “national origin” as a protected category in employment, public accommodations, and housing.27 Two decades later, the federal government passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”)—a statute that changed the landscape of immigration law by creating sanctions for employers who hire undocumented workers,28 legalizing the presence of certain seasonal agricultural undocumented immigrants, and granting amnesty for all immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982.29 After the passage of IRCA, New York City found that some employers, in an effort to comply with the new federal law, were discriminating against immigrant New Yorkers by asking only “foreign-looking” individuals for work authorization documents or hiring only U.S. citizens.30 The New York State Interagency Task Force on Immigration Affairs similarly found that, due to IRCA, New York employers were engaging in practices that disadvantaged or discriminated against noncitizens by refusing to accept legally valid proof of residency, denying employment to those who experienced minor delays in gathering documentation, asking for documents only from individuals who they perceived to be foreign, and refusing to hire individuals not born in the U.S. 31 The City determined that immigrants “are often victims of discrimination and denied rights conferred upon them by the U.S. Constitution and other federal, state, and City law.”32 As a result, the City enacted Local Law 52 of 1989, adding “alienage and citizenship status” as a protected category to the NYCHRL, 33 providing anti-discrimination legal protections to documented and undocumented immigrants alike. 34



So the 'protected' category already existed.

And got extended to harassment:

In the workplace


> As with other forms of harassment, employers are strictly liable for an unlawful discriminatory practice where the harasser exercises managerial or supervisory responsibility.85 Employers may be held liable for a non-managerial employee’s harassment if the employer: (1) knew about the employee’s conduct and “acquiesced in such conduct or failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action,”86 or (2) should have known about the employee’s discriminatory conduct and “failed to exercise reasonable diligence to prevent such discriminatory conduct.”87 Employer threats to call federal immigration authorities can constitute unlawful harassment under the NYCHRL when motivated, in whole or in part, by animus related to the employee’s actual or perceived immigration status and/or national origin. In addition, using the specter of calling immigration authorities or the police to force employees to work in unsafe, unequal, or otherwise unlawful conditions is unlawful harassment under the NYCHRL. 88 While reporting a violation of the law to the police is otherwise permitted, it is a violation of the NYCHRL when such action is taken or threats to take such action are made based solely on a discriminatory or retaliatory motive. If workers have engaged in any protected activity, such reports to authorities may be actionable as retaliation.89



In Housing


> harassment related to immigration status or national origin covers a broad range of conduct and occurs generally when an individual is treated less well because of their actual or perceived immigration status or national origin. Such treatment may be demeaning, humiliating, or offensive. Even a single comment by a housing provider or agent made in circumstances where that comment would signal discriminatory views about immigration status or national origin may be enough to constitute harassment.100



In public accommodation (dont do it in public transportation, racists - BUT ONLY if you are working in public accommodation)


> Harassment by providers of public accommodations because of an individual’s immigration status or national origin, or any other protected category, is unacceptable. Such harassing conduct may include an incident or behavior that makes a patron feel unwelcome, or that fosters an atmosphere that is demeaning, humiliating, or offensive. A single comment made in circumstances where that comment would signal discriminatory views about immigration status or national origin may be enough to constitute harassment.119 Harassment by providers of public accommodations may include comments, or jokes and can occur in public accommodations such as schools, hospitals, or public transportation.




There is a special clause for whats called Discriminatory Harassment. (Thats the threatening to call ICE onto someone part.)


> Discriminatory Harassment The NYCHRL prohibits discriminatory harassment or violence motivated by an individual’s actual or perceived immigration status or national origin.130 Discriminatory harassment occurs when someone uses force or threatens to use force against a victim, or when someone damages or destroys another individual’s property, because of the victim’s actual or perceived immigration status or national origin. *This form* of discrimination does not require a special relationship, such as employer-employee, landlord-tenant, or between a provider of public accommodation and a customer.



As in all the other instances of harassment noted do require 'special relationship' as in 'holding power over someone', or interacting in a provider/customer relationship in public accommodation.

MEANING THE NORMAL CITZEN IS UNAFFECTED. If he doesnt threaten to call ICE on people.

So f*ck you and f*ck your lying blogs, you lying piece of...



There is also a clause against racial profiling in policework.

There is a clause that extends this to prohibiting Associational Discrimination


> Associational Discrimination The NYCHRL’s anti-discrimination protections extend to prohibit unlawful discriminatory practices based on an individual’s relationship to or association with an individual who actually has or is perceived to have a particular immigration status, or because of their actual or perceived national origin.140 The law does not require a familial relationship for an individual to be protected by the association provision; the relevant inquiry is whether the covered entity was motivated by the individual’s association with an individual who has a particular immigration status or national origin.


But thats not free speech anymore (discrimination only concerns acts of disperate treatment.).


There is no mention in the act as to how large of a fine would be imposed. So in reporting thats probably just the top figure for violating 'protected categories' in general. No case law. No actual fine structures.

I doubt, let me rephrase, I HIGHLY DOUBT, that the normal metro worker engaging in this will be stuck with a 250.000 USD fine.

Also - take this as a very concrete example on how you f*cking right wing blogs lie to you on a daily basis, and you disaminate their crap into other communities for free.

A final f*ck you seems appropriate.

src: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/immigration-guidance.pdf


----------



## SG854 (Sep 29, 2019)

billapong said:


> A little, but I understand each person is different. I was also just giving a blanket example. I don't think simply disagreeing with Trump is hateful, but using slurs based on the color of his skin, his weight or saying he should be assassinated I do find to be hateful. With that said, I don't think there should be limits on hate. It's a normal and natural human emotion. I mean, everyone hates something. You won't find me telling you what you can and cannot hate or trying to do so by using the Government.


Racism against orange people is the worst I’ve seen in my life time. Unlike Hispanics and Latinos from California that talk about being a minority which they are actually the majority in a few cities in that state so they don’t deal with white racism, Orange People are the true minorities. Only one I know of thats ruling our land, they are a rarity.


----------



## notimp (Sep 29, 2019)

Oh and one more thing. If you hadn't ruined journalism by forcing it to become 'opinions in blogs' and react to every story within three minutes instead of half an hour - by following the f*cking teachings of a Zuckyboys facebook news algorithm -

you wouldnt have to rely on random non US citizens, reading themselves into the law proposals on this, explaining your legal system to you - on a sunday morning.

Everything just has become an emotional rollercoaster ride - for all the wrong reasons.

Your news sources bait you - and you still havent learned to follow up on stories, or use sources - that dont.

So sad.

Here the TL;DR for the average New Yorker again: If you are not threatening to call ICE on people in your normal day to day conversations, you are fine. As in unaffected.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 29, 2019)

notimp said:


> Oh and one more thing. If you hadn't ruined journalism by forcing it to become 'opinions in blogs' and react to every story within three minutes instead of half an hour - by following the f*cking teachings of a Zuckyboys facebook news algorithm -
> 
> you wouldnt have to rely on random non US citizens, reading themselves into the law proposals on this, explaining your legal system to you - on a sunday morning.
> 
> ...


Think the largest issue with my country/ United States is that, we only want to hear what we want to hear. And second off people lack self awareness. I really swear people do at times. Then again, I don't know what goes in other people's heads. But there's the fact people don't question a lot of things at all, more specifically why things the way they are, or try read into the multiple layers of a statement.  But then there is the third issue. Stupidity. I'm glad that you are able to keep up with people's stupidity, gives hope that perhaps other people can. Because that's probably the third biggest issue at least, with what I've seen. I can only tell my perspective, which is only factual to my view (and biased) Which is that, when someone of intelligence talks to someone who is... at best uninformed. The uninformed person... yeah no not going to work, screw the euphemism. Moron says something to a smart person, their raw stupidity baffles them to the point it's practically impossible to respond; Where it's so factually wrong in a single sentence that it's just a complete overload.


----------



## billapong (Sep 29, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Racism against orange people is the worst I’ve seen in my life time. Unlike Hispanics and Latinos from California that talk about being a minority which they are actually the majority in a few cities in that state so they don’t deal with white racism, Orange People are the true minorities. Only one I know of thats ruling our land, they are a rarity.



Trump's not the only overly tanned person I've seen in my lifetime, but regardless of the fact he's actually white I was simply pointing out that talking badly about someone due to their skin color is hateful in my book. You could be talking badly about black people, brown people, red people, white people, yellow people, etc ...

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



notimp said:


> Oh and one more thing. If you hadn't ruined journalism by forcing it to become 'opinions in blogs' and react to every story within three minutes instead of half an hour - by following the f*cking teachings of a Zuckyboys facebook news algorithm -
> 
> you wouldnt have to rely on random non US citizens, reading themselves into the law proposals on this, explaining your legal system to you - on a sunday morning.
> 
> ...



Regardless of how the law is actually enforced any law that limits free speech should be eradicated. There should also be no law ever created that restricts human emotions or thought.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



monkeyman4412 said:


> Think the largest issue with my country/ United States is that, we only want to hear what we want to hear. And second off people lack self awareness. I really swear people do at times. Then again, I don't know what goes in other people's heads. But there's the fact people don't question a lot of things at all, more specifically why things the way they are, or try read into the multiple layers of a statement.  But then there is the third issue. Stupidity. I'm glad that you are able to keep up with people's stupidity, gives hope that perhaps other people can. Because that's probably the third biggest issue at least, with what I've seen. I can only tell my perspective, which is only factual to my view (and biased) Which is that, when someone of intelligence talks to someone who is... at best uninformed. The uninformed person... yeah no not going to work, screw the euphemism. Moron says something to a smart person, their raw stupidity baffles them to the point it's practically impossible to respond; Where it's so factually wrong in a single sentence that it's just a complete overload.



I'd like to add that in addition to your observation that the informed person in these particular situations is under no obligation to educate the uneducated. Questioning things requires an active interest in things around you (other than your phone). People are way too trusting as this is one of the main reasons why other people get away with so much shit. It would take time and effort to question things and who want's to take time and effort these days? What the hell do you expect from people that need a TL; DR for a 3 paragraph post?

One problem I see interfering with the reason people just accept this as-is and they aren't being taught independent thinking skills. Sure, they teach critical thinking skills in some colleges, but what ever happened to thinking for yourself? I find both independent and critical thinking skills very useful, especially when combined and when I was going to school they started teaching various aspects of each of them in the 3rd grade.


----------



## billapong (Sep 29, 2019)

notimp said:


> Here is the directive btw:
> https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/immigration-guidance.pdf
> 
> I'm now reading it to find out the fine 'structuring', if present.
> ...



People in the country illegally should have the right to get kicked the fuck out. That's about the only right they need.


----------



## seany1990 (Sep 29, 2019)

It's completely ridiculous that you actually believe that criticising Trump is classed as hate speech. I'm embarrassed for you


----------



## billapong (Sep 29, 2019)

seany1990 said:


> It's completely ridiculous that you actually believe that criticising Trump is classed as hate speech. I'm embarrassed for you



It depends on what the person is saying. If what they are saying is motivated by hate then it's hate speech. Simply stating you "hate carrots" is hate speech. There's no difference between saying you hate soybeans than saying you hate black people. Both are subjects of your hate. So if your hatred for Trump is motivating you to criticize him then it's hate speech.

Well, then there's Liberal hate speech, which is basically anything you might say that goes against their agenda or that they dislike. Although, it's a Liberal, so of course they're going to skew the definition to fit whatever it is they are after. I mean, according to a Liberal calling someone "white trash" is somehow not racist or demeaning in any sort of fashion, but calling someone a "black bitch" is racist. Both contain a reference to ones skin color and both contain derogatory words and if both are motivated by hatred then both are hate speech. Just because you agree with hate speech doesn't make it not hate speech (or vice versa). 

How you feel about what the person is saying is irrelevant - it doesn't matter. You think, because you disagree that using speech motivated by hate against Trump, well, because it's Trump and Trump sucks doesn't make it hate speech. Well, guess what. If it's motivated by hate it's hate speech regardless if if you agree with it or not.

So according to Liberal logic, I could simply state;

"It's completely ridiculous that people actually believe that criticising illegal aliens is classed as racist. I'm embarrassed for you "

... and that would be as accurate as your accusation.

(see how that works) .... : )


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 29, 2019)

If it is as is categorised in the OP that is terribly unfortunate.

I can't see how that would trouble someone's intellectual property rights, be construed as a physical threat or the other usual exceptions, and furthermore I don't especially find the definition of protected classes or hate speech as defined by the New York in question to be a great one over the baseline used elsewhere.

Whether I would have any time for a person caring to make such a statement is a different matter entirely. If nothing else if that is really the best "insult"/comeback/snarl you can come up with then peh.



WD_GASTER2 said:


> Literally unless you are Native American everyone in this country is a foreigner or descends from one. Come on dude.



Is that really a useful metric or distinction? Most of them have been there for long enough that "going home" is something that can't even be contemplated* (for one the country of their grandparents might not even exist any more, to say nothing of border changes or straight up mixing) and furthermore is Native American a particularly useful distinction in and of itself? Quite a few tribes that were self contained (never mind those across the whole US that probably had no clue about goings on for the other coast) and never had anything resembling a unified political, cultural or geographical notion of the US, to say nothing of movements of tribes during various acts of unpleasantness.

*or if you prefer see how laughable the "I'm Irish" notion is.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 29, 2019)

Eh. I don't care. The 'go back to your country' bit doesn't matter. There are other ways to communicate at the end of the day. We have such a massive vocabulary that the outlawing of five or so words in a specific context won't really make a difference. I'm somewhat worried this will set a precedent, though. Where do you draw the line when it comes to hateful speech? What scares me most is if this spirals into a slippery slope and the government tries to compel speech.

1984 is a darn good example. In the book, the fascist/socialist/democratic/republican government creates an entirely new language. Their reason? If you control what people speak, you control what they think. Or at least make it harder for them to contextualize. What is freedom, without the word freedom, after all.

The discriminatory motive bit is very worrying though. How do you define motive? Are they planning to scan the brains of the people involved?


----------



## SG854 (Sep 29, 2019)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Eh. I don't care. The 'go back to your country' bit doesn't matter. There are other ways to communicate at the end of the day. We have such a massive vocabulary that the outlawing of five or so words in a specific context won't really make a difference. I'm somewhat worried this will set a precedent, though. Where do you draw the line when it comes to hateful speech? What scares me most is if this spirals into a slippery slope and the government tries to compel speech.
> 
> 1984 is a darn good example. In the book, the fascist/socialist/democratic/republican government creates an entirely new language. Their reason? If you control what people speak, you control what they think. Or at least make it harder for them to contextualize. What is freedom, without the word freedom, after all.
> 
> The discriminatory motive bit is very worrying though. How do you define motive? Are they planning to scan the brains of the people involved?


Return to the Place from which you came.
Go back to your country of Origin.
Restore yourself to the location you originally came from.


People can conversely say go back to Europe. Send them back. There's illegals from Europe and Africa and Asia. But you hardly hear send them back to White Europeans, lets call Ice on them. Or to Asians.



Just claim every thing is racist that's how you define motive.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Sep 29, 2019)

billapong said:


> According to Federal law (the law that supersedes State and Local laws) the correct legal terminology to call someone who is in the country illegally is an illegal alien. It always makes me think of little green men, but that's the wording the law uses. I'd rather they just call them freeloading trespassing scum. I mean, what would you call me if I broke into your house, ate your food, took your money, used your health insurance, called you a transphobic jerk all day long because you refused to have sex with me and when you call the cops they tell you that you'd have to take care of me and you couldn't kick me out and that you would have to buy me a smart phone? Would you embrace me with open arms as your new roommate?


Is this a joke? At the end of the day the tax difference is really quite minimal.... The transgender (though I agree it's fine to only want to have sex by birth gender) thing makes me think this is a joke.

Also, how do you know which Mexicans are illegal aliens?


----------



## billapong (Sep 29, 2019)

Ericthegreat said:


> Is this a joke? At the end of the day the tax difference is really quite minimal.... The transgender (though I agree it's fine to only want to have sex by birth gender) thing makes me think this is a joke.
> 
> Also, how do you know which Mexicans are illegal aliens?



Well, I was being sarcastic and realized that the topic I created was about limiting free speech. It just so happens that this particular law that limits free speech relates to freeloading scum. So I'll try to veer back on topic.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 29, 2019)

Ericthegreat said:


> Is this a joke? At the end of the day the tax difference is really quite minimal.... The transgender (though I agree it's fine to only want to have sex by birth gender) thing makes me think this is a joke.
> 
> Also, how do you know which Mexicans are illegal aliens?


I could ask you the same thing... Is this a joke?  
When you give your opinions on things such as tax difference being "minimal", maybe give a guideline of what is "minimal" in your mind.  It is estimated that illegal immigration costs the US around $135 billion per year while the illegal aliens only give back $19 billion in taxes.  Do you think $119 billion is "minimal"???

The transgender "thing" is most likely based on the fact that illegal aliens mostly always go the liberal route when they come across the border do to the fact that the Democrats give them free stuff.  Why wouldn't you take the side of those that give you free stuff?  Of course, they are going to start conforming to the ways of their new "saviors".  
If they try to rape you, they can say they are trans and you are transphobic which makes them the victim.  You end up being the one going to jail for a hate crime while they continue living free in your home with your stuff.


----------



## yuyuyup (Sep 29, 2019)

billapong said:


> Hate is a normal human emotion that has uses and can be harnessed for good.


_*ROFLMAO hey genius, uh oh, here comes the libturd to show you what's what.  SOOOOO basically, just telling any hispanic "go back to where you came from" is certainly NOT legal, but apparently you've never heard of the "fighting words doctorine"  And I guess you think you can just simply cherry-pick whatever laws you want to get mad at.  WOW GEE.*_

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words


There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

— _Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire_, 1942

*DARN!  Oh that damn law, so inconvenient to the OP's dummy post ROFLMAO #howembarrassing #duh #checkthelaw #yourenotsmarterthanme #ROFLMAO #greatjob #noreallygreatjobamigo *


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 29, 2019)

The fact people liked my post who I was referring to being a moron, or implying,  just really shows they can't read into a argument. How sad.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



billapong said:


> People in the country illegally should have the right to get kicked the fuck out. That's about the only right they need.


And see here we go again, not reading into things. Why do they come illegally? Is there anything at all that is factual that we know right now, that is causing them to come to the state illegally? People don't move without reason. People don't break the law without reason.  (source please as part of your defense. And if you're going to talk about a law, link the actual law. And also yes I do know, but I want to see what you know.) As you love 1984 so much, I recommend you read Parable of the Sower by Octavia E. Butler. Because that book actually might just give  some insight.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 29, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Is that really a useful metric or distinction? Most of them have been there for long enough that "going home" is something that can't even be contemplated* (for one the country of their grandparents might not even exist any more, to say nothing of border changes or straight up mixing)



Tell that to the dreamers. There is a bunch of A**holes that keep telling them to go home. Even though they dont know any other place than this one as their home. Many do not speak any other language other than english through no fault of their own. As i said earlier I used that statement to point out the actual intent of the poster I was replying to. Nothing more nothing less.
Also read Notimp's posts on what the law is actually meant to do.


----------



## yuyuyup (Sep 29, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> The fact people liked my post who I was referring to being a moron, or implying,  just really shows they can't read into a argument. How sad.


that threw me off when I saw it


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 29, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> Literally unless you are Native American everyone in this country is a foreigner or descends from one. Come on dude.



"Native Americans" descend from foreigners too.  There's nothing precious or special about having ancestry that goes back further on a particular piece of land over anyone else who's a legit citizen. Not in the USA where we have citizenship by birth, anyway. You're either a citizen, or you're not. (In other countries, where being born there doesn't automatically make you a citizen, maybe you could say there is actual merit to 'ancestral heritage'.)


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 29, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> "Native Americans" descend from foreigners too.  There's nothing precious or special about having ancestry that goes back further on a particular piece of land over anyone else who's a legit citizen. Not in the USA where we have citizenship by birth, anyway. You're either a citizen, or you're not. (In other countries, where being born there doesn't automatically make you a citizen, maybe you could say there is actual merit to 'ancestral heritage'.)


Congratulations for not reading the posts afterwards. You are the 3rd winner in this thread.

For the 3rd time: As i said earlier I used that statement to point out the actual intent of the poster I was replying to. Nothing more nothing less.

read the whole post instead of looking through the thread for things to "PWN"
people on.

check post #47 for context.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 29, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> Congratulations for not reading the posts afterwards.




You mean _this_ post afterwards, where you say the same thing for the second time?



WD_GASTER2 said:


> oh you certainly can.* I am just pointing out the fact that everybody in this country is a foreigner (outside of Native Americans).*  Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from scrutiny.
> 
> Also bares repeating: this is NYC not the state of NY




Anyway, I'm just pointing out that's bullshit. If you're born within the borders of the United States, you're a citizen of the United States. Being a "Native American" doesn't make a person a "more" American. And if you weren't born within the borders of the USA and you're not a naturalized citizen, you shouldn't be here unless you've got a current visa. It's pretty simple.




WD_GASTER2 said:


> Tell that to the dreamers. There is a bunch of A**holes that keep telling them to go home. Even though they dont know any other place than this one as their home. Many do not speak any other language other than english *through no fault of their own.* As i said earlier I used that statement to point out the actual intent of the poster I was replying to. Nothing more nothing less.
> Also read Notimp's posts on what the law is actually meant to do.



It's their parents' fault, for bringing them illegally to a foreign country. They are victims of their parent's crime. It may be no fault of their own, but it's not my fault (or other Americans) either. You want to help a "dreamer" become a citizen? Hire an immigration lawyer for them, and offer to be their green card sponsor. That means you'll be financially liable if they go on any kind of public assistance.





Ericthegreat said:


> It says derogatory use, pretty sure this is if you call a legal mexican american an illegal alien, I find nothing wrong with that, and *who the fuck thinks the correct term to call someone is "illegal alien"....*




The U.S. Code.

And Genesis.


----------



## Viri (Sep 29, 2019)

I should get into better shape and try and join ICE. I pretty much pass all the other requirements. I wonder how the pay is.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 29, 2019)

Viri said:


> I should get into better shape and try and join ICE. I pretty much pass all the other requirements. I wonder how the pay is.


They start out at around $29,000 with overtime/bonus - $41,000.  That's not a lot for the stress they deal with from Dems/liberals hating on them.  You will have to really love this country to protect our borders for so little compensation and get a lot of hate just for enforcing our laws.


----------



## billapong (Sep 30, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> ROFLMAO



I stand by my statement that there's nothing wrong with basic human emotions. Hate can be harnesses and channeled for good. You see this with Liberals who hate Trump that are then motivated to go about doing constructive things to make change. Although, if you let hate consume you and act foolish because of that, then that's a personal problem. You can't stop hate no more than you can stop love and without hate you wouldn't have love. You can't regulate or outlaw emotions. Well, you could try or even do so, but then everyone would be guilty of "feeling".


----------



## yuyuyup (Sep 30, 2019)

billapong said:


> I stand by my statement that there's nothing wrong with basic human emotions. Hate can be harnesses and channeled for good. You see this with Liberals who hate Trump that are then motivated to go about doing constructive things to make change. Although, if you let hate consume you and act foolish because of that, then that's a personal problem. You can't stop hate no more than you can stop love and without hate you wouldn't have love. You can't regulate or outlaw emotions. Well, you could try or even do so, but then everyone would be guilty of "feeling".


What the heck does that have to do with Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire ROFLMAO


----------



## bodefuceta (Sep 30, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> Literally *unless you are Native American* everyone in this country is a foreigner or descends from one. Come on dude.
> 
> Also its NYC not the state of NY. please disseminate the information presented to you folks.


This is incredibly misleading. It's 100% clear that homo sapiens did not originate in the American continent. "Native" americans are no different than "caucasians" who were born in america in terms of nativity, they just have a longer succession line in here. Actually if you consider the Toba Catastrophe, there's probably only one very small region in the whole planet where humans can be called truly "native" in that sense.. Actually there isn't, if the Toba survivors weren't from humanity's birthplace.


----------



## billapong (Sep 30, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> The fact people liked my post who I was referring to being a moron, or implying,  just really shows they can't read into a argument. How sad.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> And see here we go again, not reading into things. Why do they come illegally? Is there anything at all that is factual that we know right now, that is causing them to come to the state illegally? People don't move without reason. People don't break the law without reason.  (source please as part of your defense. And if you're going to talk about a law, link the actual law. And also yes I do know, but I want to see what you know.) As you love 1984 so much, I recommend you read Parable of the Sower by Octavia E. Butler. Because that book actually might just give  some insight.



I liked your post because you made a valid point. Am I not allowed to like something even if you're criticizing or disagreeing with me? I'm not the type of person to get all butt hurt because someone simply disagrees with me. I value opposing points of view. I'm not closed off in some safe space. I can deal with shit.

As for the illegals, a lot of them come across illegally with no intention of following the laws and simply leeching off of society. Hell, one single person doing that is more than should be, let alone hundreds of thousands. Not every single illegal immigrant does this, but there's enough doing so that it's a problem. The fact that the first thing they do is commit a crime when they come into the country should speak loudly about their intentions.

If I'm expected to follow some law that says I can't simply state a simple phrase then people who are breaking into our country should also be held accountable for their actions. If you want to compare the severity of the crimes then costing taxpayers billions of dollars has a much harsher impact on society then simply saying a couple of words.

There's plenty of great things that immigrants bring our country, but they need to do it legally. Get in line just like everyone else and wait your turn. I've got no problem with immigrants as our county has been built by them, but if I'm expected to follow the law than I think other people should too.


----------



## Viri (Sep 30, 2019)

morvoran said:


> They start out at around $29,000 with overtime/bonus - $41,000.  That's not a lot for the stress they deal with from Dems/liberals hating on them.  You will have to really love this country to protect our borders for so little compensation and get a lot of hate just for enforcing our laws.


Oh, I thought it'd be higher. It's crazy how the tough and scary jobs pay like shit. People who work in an Ambulance also make like 10 to 11 dollars an hour. My friend's dad owns an Ambulance company, and his son works for one. The pay is fucking awful for what he has to go through with.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 30, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> you are not allowed to yell "fire" at a theater.


That's not actually true. It's a commonly misused metaphor which originates from Justice Holmes' opinion regarding Schenck v. United States. The decision has since been partially overturned in Brandenbur v. Ohio, the actual legal standard only concerns speech which is _"directed to and can likely cause immediate lawless action"_. For instance, inciting a riot is a form of illegal speech. Calling law enforcement if you suspect a crime has been committed, be it federal or state, is not and should not be illegal. The actual concept of _"shouting fire" _was never binding law in any shape or form, what's actually illegal in such a case is deliberately causing a panic, on the same grounds as a false bomb threat would've been.


----------



## billapong (Sep 30, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> What the heck does that have to do with Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire ROFLMAO



It applies because the intentions of these sorts of laws and controlling speech is a form of thought control. Outlawing emotions isn't far behind, especially considering they are what are fueling your thoughts. I'll hate whomever or whatever I want to hate. I wasn't aware of this particular law, but now that I am I also think it's horse shit.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Viri said:


> Oh, I thought it'd be higher. It's crazy how the tough and scary jobs pay like shit. People who work in an Ambulance also make like 10 to 11 dollars an hour. My friend's dad owns an Ambulance company, and his son works for one. The pay is fucking awful for what he has to go through with.



My brother was in the army and is now a paramedic. He does it because he decided he wanted to help protect our country and the people in it. If money was his motivation he wouldn't be doing what he's doing. It's not like he decided to become a politician.


----------



## Viri (Sep 30, 2019)

billapong said:


> My brother was in the army and is now a paramedic. He does it because he decided he wanted to help protect our country and the people in it. If money was his motivation he wouldn't be doing what he's doing. It's not like he decided to become a politician.


I still think they deserve better pay for what they do. And yeah, I can understand wanting to work in the medical field, because you wanna help people, and save lives.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Sep 30, 2019)

morvoran said:


> If they try to rape you, they can say they are trans and you are transphobic which makes them the victim.  You end up being the one going to jail for a hate crime while they continue living free in your home with your stuff.


You are a strange sad little man.

Also no, the the 119 billion isn't that much, much more just "disappears" every year.


----------



## billapong (Sep 30, 2019)

Viri said:


> I still think they deserve better pay for what they do. And yeah, I can understand wanting to work in the medical field, because you wanna help people, and save lives.



Money isn't everything in life and most people that simply seek fortune are some of the most miserable people alive. I've met some pretty awesome people that live in poverty. They don't own smart phones, they don't have Nike shoes, they cook their own food, they watch broadcast television, they use public transportation and overall they enjoy life.

I agree that making less than $11,000 a year would be hard to do, but being paid what ICE pays would be more than enough to live comfortably. Regardless, if your motivation is to help others you aren't going to be putting emphasis on your own person living conditions. Think about the soldiers who spend half of their lives in some foreign shit hole so spineless Liberals can bitch about how much they hate them.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Ericthegreat said:


> You are a strange sad little man.
> 
> Also no, the the 119 billion isn't that much, much more just "disappears" every year.



Well, if that's the case I want you to send me your money. All of it, right fucking now, because I'm sure you don't have 119 billion, so what you have isn't much. If you don't you're just suffering from westernunionphobia and I'm going to report you to the local authorities.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 30, 2019)

Ericthegreat said:


> You are a strange sad little man.


  I may be strange and a man, but there is nothing sad or little about me, son.   Oh, and send me some of that money that you're going to give billapong, also, since it's not too much money.


----------



## billapong (Sep 30, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I may be strange and a man, but there is nothing sad or little about me, son.   Oh, and send me some of that money that you're going to give billapong, also, since it's not too much money.



Do you notice how Liberals will hate on you all day long, including calling you names, but then if you upset them they need a safe space and will hit the "report" button? Surely it shows how sad and little they are. I declare since Liberals are fueled by hatred we outlaw Liberals.


----------



## yuyuyup (Sep 30, 2019)

billapong said:


> I wasn't aware of this particular law


Why did you even create this thread if you didn't understand actual laws regarding illegal speech, what's the point ROFLMAO  If you're gonna make the argument that "hate can be channeled for good," why make that argument in the context of THIS thread?  In the context of THIS thread, it sounds like you are specifically saying that hatred against Latinos/Hispanics/immigrants should be harnessed and channeled for "good" ("good" obviously by your own bizarre interpretation.)  I'm gonna lay out a Sesame Street-level talking point that even Elmo can understand so try to keep up: We shouldn't hate people based on their race.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Sep 30, 2019)

billapong said:


> Well, if that's the case I want you to send me your money. All of it, right fucking now, because I'm sure you don't have 119 billion, so what you have isn't much. If you don't you're just donationphobic.





morvoran said:


> I may be strange and a man, but there is nothing sad or little about me, son.   Oh, and send me some of that money that you're going to give billapong, also, since it's not too much money.


And how does that 119 billion affect your lives directly? That's not really that much compared to other national expenses, it perhaps raises your taxes a few cents to a couple dollars? So in what way do they affect your life personally?


----------



## morvoran (Sep 30, 2019)

billapong said:


> Do you notice how Liberals will hate on you all day long, including calling you names, but then if you upset them they need a safe space and will hit the "report" button? Surely how's how sad and little they are.



Oh, yes, since the day I started debating people here in a thread where all the liberals were putting down our great President Trump.  No evidence to back themselves up, no facts or truths. Just hate, discord, emotions, and opinions from them.  I even had one person, who hinted at beheading our president, start crying to the mods in the thread that I was showing hate and the things I said were reprehensible.  They thought I should have been censored and banned from the site for sharing my opinions when they were inciting violence against an elected official.

I'm used to it by now and just ignore the hatefully insane folks and their hate/rhetoric.  I collect all the leftist tears at the end of the day in a barrel (had to upgrade from my 30oz thermos as there are oh so many leftist tears here) and drink my fill to keep me invigorated.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Ericthegreat said:


> And how does that 119 billion affect your lives directly? That's not really that much compared to other national expenses, it perhaps raises your taxes a few cents to a couple dollars? So in what way do they affect your life personally?


Oh, that could be used to house the homeless, give hungry kids food, clean up trash piles in liberal ran cities, and 119 billion other ways than to give it to people who aren't even citizens of this country.  
Anything else????


----------



## billapong (Sep 30, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> Why did you even create this thread if you didn't understand actual laws regarding illegal speech, what's the point ROFLMAO  If you're gonna make the argument that "hate can be channeled for good," why make that argument in the context of THIS thread?  In the context of THIS thread, it sounds like you are specifically saying that hatred against Latinos/Hispanics/immigrants should be harnessed and channeled for "good" ("good" obviously by your own bizarre interpretation.)  I'm gonna lay out a Sesame Street-level talking point that even Elmo can understand so try to keep up: We shouldn't hate people based on their race.



I don't hate Latinos/Hispanics/immigrants, but I think all illegal aliens should be kicked out the country and get sent back to where they came from (and unlike Trump, I don't want them to return afterwards). I'm also not racist. I don't care what color your skin is. If you're here illegally get the hell out.

Actually, I'm particularly fond of people from Lebanon (bias, because of past relationships). The last time checked Lebanon isn't located in the USA and their native residents aren't white (not like skin color matters to me, but Liberals seem to focus on it).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



morvoran said:


> Oh, yes, since the day I started debating people here in a thread where all the liberals were putting down our great President Trump.  No evidence to back themselves up, no facts or truths. Just hate, discord, emotions, and opinions from them.  I even had one person, who hinted at beheading our president, start crying to the mods in the thread that I was showing hate and the things I said were reprehensible.  They thought I should have been censored and banned from the site for sharing my opinions when they were inciting violence against an elected official.
> 
> I'm used to it by now and just ignore the hatefully insane folks and their hate/rhetoric.  I collect all the leftist tears at the end of the day in a barrel (had to upgrade from my 30oz thermos as there are oh so many leftist tears here) and drink my fill to keep me invigorated.



Their hatred is totally acceptable. When they use words that are fueled by hate that are meant to incite violence it's perfectly okay. It's like Hate Speech. They pick a bunch of words they personally dislike and regardless if actual hatred is involved they outlaw the words. If Republicans were as dirty and fiendish as they were it would be illegal to hate on the Christian minority, White people or people in heterosexual relationships. Republicans realize that outlawing speech is a pathway to hell (figuratively and literally). Liberal hate speech isn't actual hate speech, it's just a bunch of words they don't like.

Every time a Liberal is outraged I smile. That's my daily fix.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 30, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> here comes the libturd


  That was the only true statement in your entire post.

Maybe you should read past the part that only fits your agenda -

In _R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul_ (1992), *the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that *"*arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender*" on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued "any number" of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that "fighting words" could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.

In _Snyder v. Phelps_ (2011), dissenting Justice Samuel Alito likened the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church members to fighting words and of a personal character, and thus not protected speech. The majority disagreed and stated that the protesters' speech was not personal but public, and that local laws which can shield funeral attendees from protesters are adequate for protecting those in times of emotional distress.

Just FYI of an example of something that is illegal, when a father touches their kids in a sick and disgusting manner, even if the kid enjoys it, is illegal and the parent should be arrested and punished.  Maybe you can look up the statutes for this.




billapong said:


> Their hatred is totally acceptable. When they use words that are fueled by hate that are meant to incite violence it's perfectly okay. It's like Hate Speech. They pick a bunch of words they personally dislike and regardless if actual hatred is involved they outlaw the words. If Republicans were are dirty and fiendish as they were it would be illegal to hate on the Christian minority, White people or people in heterosexual relationships. Republicans realize that outlawing speech is a pathway to hell (figuratively and literally). Liberal hate speech isn't actual hate speech, it's just a bunch of words they don't like.



Of course, it's fine since the main stream media is all liberal (even Fox News is becoming liberal more and more each day), and the news can just post hate towards the right while praising everything on the left.   The liberals will just soak it all up and keep believing the lies and propaganda like the sheeple they are.

It's just like that Ukraine Call with Trump, no "quid pro quo", no forcing them to dig up dirt on Biden, nothing wrong in that call, but Trump must be impeached.  Oh, but Biden admits on video to forcing Ukraine to fire a prosecutor or he would withhold millions until it happened, "Everything is fine, nothing to see here".  Adam Schiff lied on live TV and in front of a congressional hearing about the transcript of the call by making up his own story, "oh, it was a parody, just him having fun.  No problems."  If Trump did any of this, he would be impeached the next day.

Just like this topic, if the left doesn't like something the right is doing, they just make up new laws/rules to move to goal post to fit their agendas/rhetoric.

I can't wait until 2021 after we vote all these disgraces out of the capital and get back to business of making this country greater than ever before without all the "impeachment" democrats holding us back.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 30, 2019)

billapong said:


> I liked your post because you made a valid point. Am I not allowed to like something even if you're criticizing or disagreeing with me? I'm not the type of person to get all butt hurt because someone simply disagrees with me. I value opposing points of view. I'm not closed off in some safe space. I can deal with shit..


Alright. I'll respect that. apologize, thought you were lost in the argument. I retract my previous statement.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 30, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> That's not actually true. It's a commonly misused metaphor which originates from Justice Holmes' opinion regarding Schenck v. United States. The decision has since been partially overturned in Brandenbur v. Ohio, the actual legal standard only concerns speech which is _"directed to and can likely cause immediate lawless action"_. For instance, inciting a riot is a form of illegal speech. Calling law enforcement if you suspect a crime has been committed, be it federal or state, is not and should not be illegal. The actual concept of _"shouting fire" _was never binding law in any shape or form, what's actually illegal in such a case is deliberately causing a panic, on the same grounds as a false bomb threat would've been.


thank you for correcting me but ultimately still proving my original point. Which for the intents and purposes of this discussion you cant really say whatever the fuck you want. It has been this way for a long time.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 30, 2019)

billapong said:


> As for the illegals, a lot of them come across illegally with no intention of following the laws and simply leeching off of society. Hell, one single person doing that is more than should be, let alone hundreds of thousands. Not every single illegal immigrant does this, but there's enough doing so that it's a problem. The fact that the first thing they do is commit a crime when they come into the country should speak loudly about their intentions.
> 
> If I'm expected to follow some law that says I can't simply state a simple phrase then people who are breaking into our country should also be held accountable for their actions. If you want to compare the severity of the crimes then costing taxpayers billions of dollars has a much harsher impact on society then simply saying a couple of words.
> 
> There's plenty of great things that immigrants bring our country, but they need to do it legally. Get in line just like everyone else and wait your turn. I've got no problem with immigrants as our county has been built by them, but if I'm expected to follow the law than I think other people should too.


So in regards to immigration. It's not just mexicans, which I bring up intentionally as well... I know someone who is racist in my life, and refers to mexicans as the illegals. When really it's to broad since illegals could be referring to all races. With a lot of these countries, they are going through a lot of issues to say the bare minimum that have deplorable conditions. Crime, gangs, war, economic failings/struggle. And part of it is the fact the states/ more specifically companies take advantage of this. In other not as well developed countries, or countries with a lack of a strong enough government to keep regulations, it's possible to truly pay something far under minimum wage, to the point that you may need to work absurd hours. I know in the animation industry that if a worker doesn't like the pay, the company will outsource that project to people in china or India or insert country here, and not get the same pay, but are so desperate, that they will accept it.


----------



## BlackWizzard17 (Sep 30, 2019)

Isn't that form of harrassment tho? 
I don't think this should be illegal whatsoever, taking away bits and pieces of our freedom of speech is bad. We already have people who want to take away some of our rights to bare arms.


----------



## yuyuyup (Sep 30, 2019)

morvoran said:


> The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued "any number" of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that "fighting words" could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.
> 
> In _Snyder v. Phelps_ (2011), dissenting Justice Samuel Alito likened the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church members to fighting words and of a personal character, and thus not protected speech. The majority disagreed and stated that the protesters' speech was not personal but public, and that local laws which can shield funeral attendees from protesters are adequate for protecting those in times of emotional distress.



Right, the 1992 ruling precisely made it clear that "fighting words" COULD BE PROPERLY REGULATED BY MUNICIPAL OR STATE GOVERNMENTS.  What is the original topic about?  ROFLMAO I guess you didn't read what you told me that I didn't read.  And in Snyder vs Phelps, they gave the thumbs UP to laws that protect funeral attendees from..............  From what, you tell me amigo, could it be...  from the speech.... of the protesters..... ROFLMAO


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 30, 2019)

BlackWizzard17 said:


> Isn't that form of harrassment tho?
> I don't think this should be illegal whatsoever, taking away bits and pieces of our freedom of speech is bad. We already have people who want to take away some of our rights to bare arms.



This is a city mandate. One city has done this. I really would not worry too much about it. States like florida have some real stupid laws and nobody bats an eyelash.


----------



## billapong (Sep 30, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> So in regards to immigration. It's not just mexicans, which I bring up intentionally as well... I know someone who is racist in my life, and refers to mexicans as the illegals. When really it's to broad since illegals could be referring to all races. With a lot of these countries, they are going through a lot of issues to say the bare minimum that have deplorable conditions. Crime, gangs, war, economic failings/struggle. And part of it is the fact the states/ more specifically companies take advantage of this. In other not as well developed countries, or countries with a lack of a strong enough government to keep regulations, it's possible to truly pay something far under minimum wage, to the point that you may need to work absurd hours. I know in the animation industry that if a worker doesn't like the pay, the company will outsource that project to people in china or India or insert country here, and not get the same pay, but are so desperate, that they will accept it.



If we don't have laws and a process to identify the sort of people that are causing the crimes we'll be seeing more of the conditions that these places suffer here in the States. We're also not the World's keepers. We have own own problems. We take in as many people legally as we can help out, but just because you are living in poor conditions doesn't mean you can come here and use resources we could be using to help our own citizens in the same or worse situation. Asylum was meant for a very specific group of people in certain situations, which doesn't include someone who doesn't like where they live. I don't like where I live! What do I get?

Just because illegal immigrants are cheap labor and do jobs that various lazy Liberals don't want to do (like picking produce or landscaping) doesn't justify using them as modern day slaves. So you have the Liberals using the illegals for slave labor hoping to get votes. That's not always the case, because of lot of these illegals can't find or don't want jobs and end up just using public resources.

Just like not all illegal immigrants are Mexicans (most of them aren't from Mexico - a lot are actually from overseas) not all of them are leeches, but I'm addressing the leeches. If you came here illegally it must suck to not be able to legally work, but that's what you get for doing it illegally. We shouldn't be making laws to protect the illegals as that only makes more people think it's just fine. Liberal policies encourage people to take advantage of us (that's not to say there's some Conservative policies that contribute to people not entering in a legal port of entry).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WD_GASTER2 said:


> This is a city mandate. One city has done this. I really would not worry too much about it. States like florida have some real stupid laws and nobody bats an eyelash.



It shouldn't be acceptable regardless of scope. It's the idea behind it that is the problem. I wasn't aware of "fighting words", but the law surrounding that is also bullshit.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 30, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> thank you for correcting me but ultimately still proving my original point. Which for the intents and purposes of this discussion you cant really say whatever the fuck you want. It has been this way for a long time.


Well of course, we have laws that limit speech, or rather, define what free speech is, limiting it to forms of expression, redress of grievances and so on. There's a large range of statements that do not qualify as such, including libel and defamation, incitement and so on. The problem here is that the terms mentioned in the legislation are not normally classified as prohibited speech. The Constitution, or the law in general, is not designed to protect people from being offended - offensive speech must necessarily be permissible in order for speech to be free in aggregate. I object to the idea that speech should be banned strictly on the premise of _"being offensive"_ or _"derogatory"_ - being offensive isn't illegal, it's merely frowned upon. Besides, the idea of what is and is not offensive is nebulous, subjective and impossible to define. The law does not exist to protect people's feelings, it exists to protect their rights. Legislation like this legitimises bizarre oxymorons like _"undocumented migrant"_ which make me personally sigh and shake my head. It's a weird form of Orwellian _"newspeak"_ that we've been warned about in the past, and it never led to anything good. It's forced upon the public as opposed to developing naturally, I consider it a state intervention in language. The correct legal term is, and always has been, _"illegal alien"_. Whether the term is used in a derogatory fashion or not is irrelevant to me - so long as the speech doesn't purposefully incite an _immediate unlawful action_, like for instance a lynching, it should be permissible. We might not like it, but I personally prefer bigots to advertise themselves as such. If all it takes for someone to assume that another person is an illegal alien is a turban or a slightly different shade of skin, they're the assholes. There are social penalties for this kind of behaviour, the state is overstepping its boundaries by effectively creating a thought crime policy. It's certainly an interesting subject with lots to unpack, I can understand both sides of the issue.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 30, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> the state is overstepping its boundaries by effectively creating a thought crime policy. It's certainly an interesting subject with lots to unpack, I can understand both sides of the issue.



correction. THE CITY of NY. not the state.

either way. disagree with you somewhat there because its ignoring what the intent of the law is here. regardless this would go in circles anyways. (you use this forum section for personal entertainment rather than to discuss substance and have gone on record to describe yourself as so. Not gonna engage with you on this for your entertainment .

Also i will see myself out. Pretty much said anything that would contribute to this topic anyways.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 30, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> What is the original topic about?


  Hate speech, not "fighting words".  Telling somebody to "go back to where they came from" is not a phrase that, legally, should incite violence.



yuyuyup said:


> And in Snyder vs Phelps, they gave the thumbs UP to laws that protect funeral attendees from.............. From what, you tell me amigo, could it be... from the speech.... of the protesters..... ROFLMAO


 The majority gave the thumbs down that the federal government could intervene as they felt the local government's laws would suffice.
Just because somebody says something that you don't like, doesn't make it "fighting words" (or "hate speech" for that matter).  What I was trying to highlight for you is that the local government can detain you for "fighting words" if applied to other local laws such as disorderly conduct, but you cannot be convicted for them alone as it is unconstitutional.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 30, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> correction. THE CITY of NY. not the state.
> 
> either way. disagree with you somewhat there because its ignoring what the intent of the law is here. regardless this would go in circles anyways. (you use this forum section for personal entertainment rather than to discuss substance and have gone on record to describe yourself as so. Not gonna engage with you on this for your entertainment .


You misunderstand. I don't mean _"the state"_ as in the State of New York, or _"the state"_, as in the federal government. _"The state"_ refers to a polity, as in the governing political body in context. The mayor of New York, as well as all of its employees, are de facto part of _"the state"_ in that sense, they form the governing body in New York. Minor misunderstanding, so I figured I would post a correction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)

EDIT: As for the entertainment value I draw from discussing politics, I always thought that was the primary drive behind exchanging information in the first place. The pursuit of knowledge is, in and out of itself, am entertaining venture. If you can also do it for sport, that's even better. In regards to the _intent_ of the law, I'm not particularly interested in it, but we can't oscillate back and forth between caring about the intent of the law and caring about the effects of the law - we should probably agree to talk about the law as it is written to avoid misinterpretation - I've always been a textualist.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 30, 2019)

billapong said:


> If we don't have laws and a process to identify the sort of people that are causing the crimes we'll be seeing more of the conditions that these places suffer here in the States. We're also not the World's keepers. We have own own problems. We take in as many people legally as we can help out, but just because you are living in poor conditions doesn't mean you can come here and use resources we could be using to help our own citizens in the same or worse situation. Asylum was meant for a very specific group of people in certain situations, which doesn't include someone who doesn't like where they live. I don't like where I live! What do I get?
> 
> Just because illegal immigrants are cheap labor and do jobs that various lazy Liberals don't want to do (like picking produce or landscaping) doesn't justify using them as modern day slaves. So you have the Liberals using the illegals for slave labor hoping to get votes. That's not always the case, because of lot of these illegals can't find or don't want jobs and end up just using public resources.
> 
> Just like not all illegal immigrants are Mexicans (most of them aren't from Mexico - a lot are actually from overseas) not all of them are leeches, but I'm addressing the leeches. If you came here illegally it must suck to not be able to legally work, but that's what you get for doing it illegally. We shouldn't be making laws to protect the illegals as that only makes more people think it's just fine. Liberal policies encourage people to take advantage of us (that's not to say there's some Conservative policies that contribute to people not entering in a legal port of entry).


Again, forgetting companies are opportunists again. Liberals and Conservatives have nothing to gain from the exploitation of this sort, unless of course you're someone who already does profit from that. And their conditions are far worse than ours. Being liberal or conservative does not speak to work ethic. Throwing criticism at something you also work in aka a job site doesn't always mean your lazy. HOWEVER getting back immigration. Your saying that immigrants that cross the border are ready to break more laws? What about people with work visas and forgot it expired? Does that mean the moment it expires or that they enter the country they are going to go stab a man, or mow people down? Most people leaving, entering the country illegally don't have malicious intent, they work out of desperation. Out of the fact that in their country they are more likely to get killed, or suffer more hardships. And keep in mind that if you have done something illegal or broke a rule. You want to hide it. That's human instinct. So if you came to the country illegally, you wouldn't want to draw attention to yourself. Which I'd imagine breaking laws would bring attention.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 30, 2019)

Why the fuck is there a "World News, Current Events & Politics" forum anyway? I come here for emu news and the first thing I see is shit like this. It's like every site can't help itself.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 30, 2019)

Osirus said:


> Why the fuck is there a "World News, Current Events & Politics" forum anyway? I come here for emu news and the first thing I see is shit like this. It's like every site can't help itself.


In a lot of ways it prevents the discussion of politics from spilling into other discussions unnecessarily. We're aware that not all users _want_ to discuss politics, so we found it prudent to create a section explicitly dedicated to it in order to cater to the needs of the users who do. This way participation is elective. If you don't fancy it, there's no obligation to post in it - in fact, we offer functionality that allows you to hide any boards you're not actively interested in, as well as watch those that do interest you.


----------



## billapong (Sep 30, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Again, forgetting companies are opportunists again. Liberals and Conservatives have nothing to gain from the exploitation of this sort, unless of course you're someone who already does profit from that. And their conditions are far worse than ours. Being liberal or conservative does not speak to work ethic. Throwing criticism at something you also work in aka a job site doesn't always mean your lazy. HOWEVER getting back immigration. Your saying that immigrants that cross the border are ready to break more laws? What about people with work visas and forgot it expired? Does that mean the moment it expires or that they enter the country they are going to go stab a man, or mow people down? Most people leaving, entering the country illegally don't have malicious intent, they work out of desperation. Out of the fact that in their country they are more likely to get killed, or suffer more hardships. And keep in mind that if you have done something illegal or broke a rule. You want to hide it. That's human instinct. So if you came to the country illegally, you wouldn't want to draw attention to yourself. Which I'd imagine breaking laws would bring attention.



Being a Liberal speaks a lot about your ethics. The essence of a Liberal (what they value) is a prime example of this. Companies do indeed gain from hiring illegal aliens and they should be penalized for doing so. I mentioned that immigrants come from overseas, these are usually Visa holders. I don't find much distinction between someone who crossed the border illegally or who overstayed their Visa.

If conditions are so bad in their own country then how do they afford to pay for a coyote to guide them into the country? The rates vary from $3,000 - $5,000. You're saying the average homeless person walking around San Francisco has that amount of money in their pockets? If someone is coming across the border seeking relief from economic hardships as is wearing nice clothes, a pair of Nike's and has more than $50 in their pocket that should be a red flag to anyone (that's a lot less than a homeless person is going to have in our own country).

I don't think that every single illegal alien is going to commit murder, but if you're hiding from the law then you're a criminal.


----------



## yuyuyup (Sep 30, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Hate speech, not "fighting words".  Telling somebody to "go back to where they came from" is not a phrase that, legally, should incite violence.


How on God's green earth does telling a random Hispanic to "go back to where you came from" not qualify as "fighting words," then what the hell DOES qualify as "fighting words" to you?  Are you gonna walk up to the biggest, meanest random Hispanic you see and tell him to "go back to where you came from?"  NO?  Well why the hell not, seems like it would be a good test case, get someone else to record it though in case it doesn't go as you planned ROFLMAO


----------



## billapong (Sep 30, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> How on God's green earth does telling a random Hispanic to "go back to where you came from" not qualify as "fighting words," then what the hell DOES qualify as "fighting words" to you?  Are you gonna walk up to the biggest, meanest random Hispanic you see and tell him to "go back to where you came from?"  NO?  Well why the hell not, seems like it would be a good test case, get someone else to record it though in case it doesn't go as you planned ROFLMAO



It depends on who you're talking to, the tone of your voice, your actual intent, where you're currently located, the setting, etc ... Just uttering the words "illegal alien" or "go back to where you came from" is not using hate speech, fighting words or is racist. Hell, regarding this phrase, Trump is being intentionally misquoted by Liberals as they leave out 1/3 of what he actually said and simply make it sound racist by using it out of context.

I don't find the phrase "I'm going to kick your ass" as any sort of prevalence to violence. Even if a random stranger came up to me and shouted that in my face (which, happens often around where I live) I'd just shrug it off (and usually just laugh at them). Liberals are picking words and using their own interpretation of them in means to control others. Like I said, Liberal hate speech is just words they personally dislike, not actual words used in a hateful manner.


----------



## yuyuyup (Sep 30, 2019)

billapong said:


> I don't find the phrase "I'm going to kick your ass" as any sort of prevalence to violence. Even if a random stranger came up to me and shouted that in my face "which, happens often around where I live" I'd just shrug it off.


I'm pretty sure you admitted you didn't know anything about the "fighting words" doctrine, I'm pretty sure you're not exactly an authority of what constitutes "fighting words" ROFLMAO


----------



## Ericthegreat (Sep 30, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Oh, that could be used to house the homeless, give hungry kids food, clean up trash piles in liberal ran cities, and 119 billion other ways than to give it to people who aren't even citizens of this country.
> Anything else????


The country could do all those things, have you ever noticed the budgets go up every year, yet we still don't pay for kids lunch's, and teachers still aren't paid close to well enough, and they won't be, every district steals all they can, the mexicans didn't change that. Not saying this is a republican issue, it's a government in general issue.


----------



## billapong (Sep 30, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> I'm pretty sure you admitted you didn't know anything about the "fighting words" doctrine, I'm pretty sure you're not exactly an authority of what constitutes "fighting words" ROFLMAO



As a person who gets into frequent scuffles I'm well versed in fighting words.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Ericthegreat said:


> The country could do all those things, have you ever noticed the budgets go up every year, yet we still don't pay for kids lunch's, and teachers still aren't paid close to well enough, and they won't be, every district steals all they can, the mexicans didn't change that. Not saying this is a republican issue, it's a government in general issue.



I'm at the local Western Union waiting for you to wire me your savings (don't forget anything in your wallet).


----------



## Ericthegreat (Sep 30, 2019)

billapong said:


> I'm at the local Western Union waiting for you to wire me your savings (don't forget anything in your wallet).


Edit: edited because his mom is probably a nice lady.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 30, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> How on God's green earth does telling a random Hispanic to "go back to where you came from" not qualify as "fighting words," then what the hell DOES qualify as "fighting words" to you?  Are you gonna walk up to the biggest, meanest random Hispanic you see and tell him to "go back to where you came from?"  NO?  Well why the hell not, seems like it would be a good test case, get someone else to record it though in case it doesn't go as you planned ROFLMAO


 Why would I walk up to anybody and say that?  What's my motivation?  Am I playing the part of "a liberal prick" and pretending he's a Trump supporter?  Is he here legally and working for his own living or here illegally while being supported by our tax dollars? 

As big a man as I am, I doubt anybody would take what I say as "fighting words" and would just reply "ok, sir".  If they tried anything, I would defend myself and then call the cops on them after I beat the living hell out of them.




Ericthegreat said:


> The country could do all those things, have you ever noticed the budgets go up every year, yet we still don't pay for kids lunch's, and teachers still aren't paid close to well enough, and they won't be, every district steals all they can, the mexicans didn't change that. Not saying this is a republican issue, it's a government in general issue.


  Well, I will say it is a liberal policy caused issue.  If we didn't have all this waste on things like giving illegals free housing and welfare checks, abuse of our welfare systems by people who don't really need it, lowered medical costs, and get people to work (all policies that the Trump admin has been successfully working on), we would be able to take care of our most needy, pay our teachers/policemen/firefighters/etc. what they should be paid, rebuild our infrastructure, and make this country prosperous again.

If you compare republican ran cities/states against liberal democrat ran cities/states, you'll see the difference in how prosperous each is compared to the other(just a hint, the liberal ran cities look like ).   Not all republican cities are utopias, but they are better off than most democrat cities like Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Detroit.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Sep 30, 2019)

I'm not reading the entire thread, and it's probably already been brought up. But this is NOT censoring or taking away anyone's freedom of speech. Period.

Freedom of speech does NOT = freedom from consequences of enacting upon said freedom. HUGE difference. No ones freedoms are being taken away here. Move along. Nothing to see.

If a person walks into their job Monday morning and tells their boss what they REALLY think of them, and they get fired for it, does that mean their freedom of speech was taken away? Or that they were censored? Or limited from saying what they wish? No. This is nothing but complete crock of crap.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Sep 30, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Why would I walk up to anybody and say that?  What's my motivation?  Am I playing the part of "a liberal prick" and pretending he's a Trump supporter?  Is he here legally and working for his own living or here illegally while being supported by our tax dollars?
> 
> As big a man as I am, I doubt anybody would take what I say as "fighting words" and would just reply "ok, sir".  If they tried anything, I would defend myself and then call the cops on them after I beat the living hell out of them.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry CA is very liberal and though we have a homeless issue, we pretty much have universal health care, which is very good for the homeless and those who can't afford meds/doctor visits, people who qualify (most do unless you make a certain % over the poverty bracket) get $0 co-pays, free prescriptions, and get to chose their own in network doctor, which by the way by law has to see them by the next day if they are sick, or within 2 weeks for a non important issue, or a specialist within one month. Seeing people in other states dieing from not having their meds, and not being able to see a doctor is just cruel.... Here in the bay area, the average person does quite well on average, and I think we are the most liberal area in the country.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 30, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> You mean _this_ post afterwards, where you say the same thing for the second time?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



like i said, post 47. However dont let that stop you 



WD_GASTER2 said:


> Congratulations for not reading the posts afterwards. You are the 3rd winner in this thread.
> 
> For the 3rd time: As i said earlier I used that statement to point out the actual intent of the poster I was replying to. Nothing more nothing less.
> 
> ...



Selectively reading my post at its finest


----------



## billapong (Sep 30, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> I'm not reading the entire thread, and it's probably already been brought up. But this is NOT censoring or taking away anyone's freedom of speech. Period.
> 
> Freedom of speech does NOT = freedom from consequences of enacting upon said freedom. HUGE difference. No ones freedoms are being taken away here. Move along. Nothing to see.
> 
> If a person walks into their job Monday morning and tells their boss what they REALLY think of them, and they get fired for it, does that mean their freedom of speech was taken away? Or that they were censored? Or limited from saying what they wish? No. This is nothing but complete crock of crap.



Making a law that outlaws speech, even two simple phrases like these, is a limiting free speech. It's a separate issue than someone doing something because you said something (as the Government would be not involved).

I firmly believe you should be legally be able to tell your boss how you feel and he should legally be able to fire your ass because of it (or *any* other reason they want, because it's their company). If your disrespectful ass can quit whenever you want for whatever reason you want I should be able to fire you whenever I want for any reason I want (or to not hire you in the first place for any reason I specify, that's if I even give you a reason).


----------



## yuyuyup (Sep 30, 2019)

morvoran said:


> As big a man as I am, I doubt anybody would take what I say as "fighting words" and would just reply "ok, sir".  If they tried anything, I would defend myself and then call the cops on them after I beat the living hell out of them.


ok well luckily your feefees have NOTHING to do with the law.  It's hilarious, my argument is "hey maybe you guys should actually check the laws before making dumb-dumb mistakes," and what's the answer I get from you and billapong?  You act like friggin toughguys ROFLMAO  I'm tellin ya, it's feefee city in this thread


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Sep 30, 2019)

billapong said:


> Making a law that outlaws speech, even two simple phrases like these, is a limiting free speech. It's a separate issue than someone doing something because you said something (as the Government would be not involved).



You're not getting it. It's still not censoring or inhibiting anyone's free speech. At all. There is zero debate to be had on it. EVERYone is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT free to go to NYC and "threaten to call ICE based on a discriminatory motive or to tell someone "go back to your country." No one is stopping anyone else from doing so. Zero constitutional rights have been taken away here.


----------



## billapong (Sep 30, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> You're not getting it. It's still not censoring or inhibiting anyone's free speech. At all. There is zero debate to be had on it. EVERYone is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT free to go to NYC and "threaten to call ICE based on a discriminatory motive or to tell someone "go back to your country." No one is stopping anyone else from doing so. Zero constitutional rights have been taken away here.



They've outlawed certain phrases (spoken words), which is limiting free speech, which is protected by the Constitution. If you can't see how this limits free speech by people who obey laws then there's no hope for you. I wonder how people would feel if the federal government started arresting people for saying "I hate Trump", because this is the sort of precedent and thinking that will lead to that.


----------



## DarthDub (Sep 30, 2019)

Won't be long before New York becomes a sanctuary state.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 30, 2019)

To those saying that this is "outlawing" free speech. Let me say this. If I walked up to a man, threatened that I was going to kill him, and then he called the police on me. Does that mean I get out scott free and play the "well it's free speech" card? No. Everything has consequences, cause and effect. Free speech means you can say what you want, however it doesn't mean that it will not come with consequences either socially or by law, especially under the circumstance when another individual is threatened.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Oct 1, 2019)

billapong said:


> They've outlawed certain phrases (spoken words), which is limiting free speech, which is protected by the Constitution. If you can't see how this limits free speech by people who obey laws then there's no hope for you. I wonder how people would feel if the federal government started arresting people for saying "I hate Trump", because this is the sort of precedent and thinking that will lead to that.



Once again, I'll nee to end this conversation with you. You're still free to speak whatever you wish. Where in the Constitution does it state that freedom of speech equates freedom from consequence? Nowhere. I don't think you Trumpites understand ANY of the Constitution. Next you're going to tell me that the slaughtering of children at schools is okay, becasue you know, that 2nd amendment. Or in a less extreme example, that it's okay for people to bully others to the point of suicide, becasue you know, that first amendment. Why do Republicans only use the Constitution when it suits their own reasoning for something? What about all of Trumps Constitutional violations? I'm hearing crickets on those.

Get off your high horse and quit playing poor victim. I thought you Trumpers were tough as nails! All I see is tears. Is your right to be a complete asshole to other human beings being violated? Boo hoo. Cry me a river. What this boils down to is *possible* fines being imposed for bullying & hatred. Which I am in full support of. It has zero to do with anyone's freedom being taken away. You're still free to be a bully.

Thanks. Goodnight.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Oct 1, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> This is incredibly misleading. It's 100% clear that homo sapiens did not originate in the American continent. "Native" americans are no different than "caucasians" who were born in america in terms of nativity, they just have a longer succession line in here. Actually if you consider the Toba Catastrophe, there's probably only one very small region in the whole planet where humans can be called truly "native" in that sense.. Actually there isn't, if the Toba survivors weren't from humanity's birthplace.


Congratulations you are now winner #4. Read post #47 for full context.



WD_GASTER2 said:


> Congratulations for not reading the posts afterwards. You are the 3rd winner in this thread.
> 
> For the 3rd time: As i said earlier I used that statement to point out the actual intent of the poster I was replying to. Nothing more nothing less.
> 
> ...


----------



## billapong (Oct 1, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Once again, I'll nee to end this conversation with you. You're still free to speak whatever you wish. Where in the Constitution does it state that freedom of speech equates freedom from consequence? Nowhere. I don't think you Trumpites understand ANY of the Constitution. Next you're going to tell me that the slaughtering of children at schools is okay, becasue you know, that 2nd amendment. Or in a less extreme example, that it's okay for people to bully others to the point of suicide, becasue you know, that first amendment. Why do Republicans only use the Constitution when it suits their own reasoning for something? What about all of Trumps Constitutional violations? I'm hearing crickets on those.
> 
> Get off your high horse and quit playing poor victim. I thought you Trumpers were tough as nails! All I see is tears. Is your right to be a complete asshole to other human beings being violated? Boo hoo. Cry me a river. What this boils down to is *possible* fines being imposed for bullying & hatred. Which I am in full support of. It has zero to do with anyone's freedom being taken away. You're still free to be a bully.
> 
> Thanks. Goodnight.



Consequences from what you say is a separate issue than liming what you can say. You can't seem to differentiate between the two, which makes me think you support violating the constitution by outlawing free speech.

Other than @monkeyman4412 no one else in this thread is trying to justify NYC's action by claiming that the law isn't actually limiting free speech. Your position is invalid. I completely realize that saying something comes with consequences, but the constitution guarantees us the right to say whatever we want without Government interference and then face the consequences (this doesn't include making laws outlawing speech, that "consequence" is not an option).

Did you ever ask yourself "what is free speech", "why is it important" or "why it's the first fucking amendment". Well, if you're a Liberal you'd hate the Constitution so I could understand your stance on the fucking rights that give you the right to discuss your opposing view online with me. In China they'd just arrest the owners of this site and throw you in jail for the rest of your life for stating your dislike the President. But, fuck, we don't need no pesky Constitution. Dude, Liberals are sick. They need to seek help. 

Any phrase in existence can be used to provoke someone, as fighting words or in a hateful manner. I do not support limiting free speech. It seems you do so. There's a lot of pure Liberals on this board. I think you'l fall first victim to my God given right to add you to my ignore list.

I hope you choke on your hate.


----------



## bodefuceta (Oct 1, 2019)

I just realized I can contact the ICE myself, and am not subject to any US law. If you want to denounce an illegal alien, I'll be happy to convey the message. Like seriously, stop discussing with liberal crackpots and let's do real work. Only with evidence please, before some liberal tries to troll the system. I won't need your personal information.


----------



## billapong (Oct 1, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> I just realized I can contact the ICE myself, and am not subject to any US law. If you want to denounce an illegal alien, I'll be happy to convey the message. Like seriously, stop discussing with liberal crackpots and let's do real work. Only with evidence please, before some liberal tries to troll the system. I won't need your personal information.



NYC didn't make actually calling ICE Illegal, just saying you're going to. It's like arresting you for threatening to call the cops on someone who just raped your children.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Oct 1, 2019)

bodfuceta:"hello, yes billapong at gbatemp told me xxyy is an Illegal"
*click*
bodefuceta:"hello? Hello? but! but! Bolsonaro!

Seriously dude i dont think it would go as youd think it would, but nice grandstanding as well.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2019)

billapong said:


> Consequences from what you say is a separate issue than liming what you can say. You can't seem to differentiate between the two, which makes me think you support violating the constitution by outlawing free speech.
> 
> Other than @monkeyman4412 no one else in this thread is trying to justify NYC's action by claiming that the law isn't actually limiting free speech. Your position is invalid. I completely realize that saying something comes with consequences, but the constitution guarantees us the right to say whatever we want without Government interference and then face the consequences (this doesn't include making laws outlawing speech, that "consequence" is not an option).
> 
> ...


Talk about malicious much, so you wish me dead... Very insightful.  Here you go again bashing on liberals, and claiming I'm pure. Meanwhile here I stand, abstaining from bashing the other party. So if you call 911 over and over again and it's not a emergency, you shouldn't be in trouble? Does that mean that with free speech I can go swat people freely on stream and expect no consequences? To expect no consequences? So if I go make false allegations on someone, and then get sued because they were false I shouldn't be prosecuted? Free speech has consequence, no where in free speech does it speak about that.


----------



## bodefuceta (Oct 1, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> bodfuceta:"hello, yes billapong at gbatemp told me xxyy is an Illegal"
> *click*
> bodefuceta:"hello? Hello? but! but! Bolsonaro!
> 
> Seriously dude i dont think it would go as youd think it would, but nice grandstanding as well.


https://www.wikihow.com/Report-Illegal-Immigrants-Anonymously#Reporting-Online_sub

Good job, sucker. Nice racism you got there! My english is probably better than yours.


----------



## billapong (Oct 1, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Talk about malicious much, so you wish me dead... Very insightful.  Here you go again bashing on liberals, and claiming I'm pure. Meanwhile here I stand, abstaining from bashing the other party. So if you call 911 over and over again and it's not a emergency, you shouldn't be in trouble? Does that mean that with free speech I can go swat people freely on stream and expect no consequences? To expect no consequences? So if I go make false allegations on someone, and then get sued because they were false I shouldn't be prosecuted? Free speech has consequence, no where in free speech does it speak about that.



I mentioned you in the thread. I want the other dude to choke on his hate (it's not a literal thing). I also don't lie any deny that I hate things and hide behind some fake face. I openly admit I fucking hate Liberals. At least I'm honest.

There's all sorts of language you could use when making false statements. I'm not against consequences for your actions (in this case, making false statements). I'm against limiting free speech. Do you ever realize what free speech is or why we have the 1st amendment? Do you even care?


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Oct 1, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> https://www.wikihow.com/Report-Illegal-Immigrants-Anonymously#Reporting-Online_sub
> 
> Good job, sucker. Nice racism you got there! My english is probably better than yours.



Reporting out of the country using forum accounts will probably get you nowhere fast. 

Brazilian is not a race either. Nice bait though.
I will stop here as I am not gonna get in a flame war. Also if we are talking about probability, if you are a brazilian native, I am as brown as you are.
Either way I digress. Not gonna derail this topic further.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2019)

billapong said:


> I mentioned you in the thread. I want the other dude to choke on his hate (it's not a literal thing). I also don't lie any deny that I hate things and hide behind some fake face. I openly admit I fucking hate Liberals. At least I'm honest.
> 
> There's all sorts of language you could use when making false statements. I'm not against consequences for your actions (in this case, making false statements). I'm against limiting free speech. Do you ever realize what free speech is or why we have the 1st amendment? Do you even care?


https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment
"The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place. "


----------



## bodefuceta (Oct 1, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> Reporting out of the country using forum accounts will probably get you nowhere fast.
> 
> Brazilian is not a race either. Nice bait though.
> I will stop here as I am not gonna get in a flame war. Also if we are talking about probability, if you are a brazilian native, I am as brown as you are.
> Either way I digress. Not gonna derail this topic further.


It's not racism if he ain't liberal plantation whore, right? But racism if he's a poor little ugandan, or even chinese, because that's totally a race, am i right?


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Oct 1, 2019)

Racism is discriminating on the basis of a persons race. Not a persons country. Please tell me how me bringing the name of your countries president, discriminates against you?
Also interesting how this offends you but telling minorities that you will call ice on them does not.


----------



## bodefuceta (Oct 1, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> Racism is discriminating on the basis of a persons race. Not a persons country. Please tell me how me bringing the name of your countries president, discriminates against you?


Very bad attempt at avoiding the issue. You were obviously mixing english and portuguese, using the only word you know, bolsonaro, as mockery to my english skills. It IS racism because it would be racism if I were chinese and you made the same joke.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Oct 1, 2019)

Bolsonaro is the same last name in english as it is in portuguese. It be like me saying, "but, but Trump!"
You are really sensitive for someone willing to call ICE on Minorities.

fun fact: I also know monday is named "Segunda" and the subsequents day of the week as third fourth, etc


----------



## billapong (Oct 1, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment
> "The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place. "



There's a big difference between using the word "fuck" on public television or threatening to kill someone with intent then there is by using the term illegal alien or threatening to call the authorities on someone who committed a crime. This shit coming from NYC is purely politically motivated and they're pretense is plain out wrong. Those precedents you provide don't apply to this situation. Additionally, I think some of them, specifically the fighting words need to be reevaluated. 

"Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien"

"Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien"


----------



## bodefuceta (Oct 1, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> Bolsonaro is the same last name in english as it is in portuguese. It be like me saying, "but, but Trump!"
> You are really sensitive for someone willing to call ICE on Minorities.


And that's why you know it. How nice and tolerant of you to call someone sensitive right after blatantly committing racism.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Oct 1, 2019)

That is just your misperception but that is ok. It seems you are going to cling as that for a defense. Have it your way.


----------



## bodefuceta (Oct 1, 2019)

Wow basically admitting to racism and no apology at all. How tolerant!


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2019)

billapong said:


> There's a big difference between using the word "fuck" on public television or threatening to kill someone with intent then there is by using the term illegal alien or threatening to call the authorities on someone who committed a crime. This shit coming from NYC is purely politically motivated and they're pretense is plain out wrong. Those precedents you provide don't apply to this situation. Additionally, I think some of them, specifically the fighting words need to be reevaluated.
> 
> "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien"
> 
> "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien"


_sigh_ don't get it do you? So let me explain. The reason I linked that is claiming that your going to deport someone through ice, breaks the peace clause of society. By out loud saying, "I'm going to call ICE" in a country that is increasingly racist, will absolutely bring or very likely incite violence. Regardless if the person is there legally or not. It continues to push this alt right agenda that the country has been invaded at a mass scale. When it hasn't. And then there's also people saying that we reaching a tipping point with white americans, that there is going to be less than 50% of whites, therefore been mass invaded. When this ignores the trend across the globe that race has been going down due to natural population control (as in natural. If a species gets to big, or overpopulated, stuff relating to reproduction decreases to stop overpopulation) less children, genetic mixing, so on and so on.


----------



## billapong (Oct 1, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> And that's why you know it. How nice and tolerant of you to call someone sensitive right after blatantly committing racism.



I wouldn't let it bother you. Liberals are racist as hell and are full of hatred. I think you hit a nerve by simply not agreeing with them. Liberals don't like it when you refuse to think like they do. They'll never admit this of course because they are dishonest and have no integrity. Baseless attacks unrelated to the actual issue are to be expected. It's also a Liberal sin to not be a resident of the USA and not support globalism, but Brazil isn't a communist country.


----------



## bodefuceta (Oct 1, 2019)

billapong said:


> I wouldn't let it bother you. Liberals are racist as hell and are full of hatred. I think you hit a nerve by simply not agreeing with them. Liberals don't like it when you refuse to think like they do. They'll never admit this of course because they are dishonest and have no integrity. Baseless attacks unrelated to the actual issue are to be expected. It's also a Liberal sin to not be a resident of the USA and not support globalism, but Brazil isn't a communist country.


Thanks, brother, you have kind words. Stay strong out there too!


----------



## billapong (Oct 1, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> _sigh_ don't get it do you? So let me explain. The reason I linked that is claiming that your going to deport someone through ice, breaks the peace clause of society. By out loud saying, "I'm going to call ICE" in a country that is increasingly racist, will absolutely bring or very likely incite violence. Regardless if the person is there legally or not. It continues to push this alt right agenda that the country has been invaded at a mass scale. When it hasn't. And then there's also people saying that we reaching a tipping point with white americans, that there is going to be less than 50% of whites, therefore been mass invaded. When this ignores the trend across the globe that race has been going down due to natural population control (as in natural. If a species gets to big, or overpopulated, stuff relating to reproduction decreases to stop overpopulation) less children, genetic mixing, so on and so on.



Illegal immigration has nothing to do with race. Stop trying to use race as a fucking excuse for this horse shit. Threatening to call the cops on someone in the country illegally is the fucking right thing to do. It's what we should be doing. It's a currently a political issue and NYC is full of Liberals so they're trying to limit free speech based on their side of the agenda. That's why if this shit ever was brought before the supreme court it would fall flat on it's ass.

"Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" 

Come get me.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2019)

billapong said:


> Illegal immigration has nothing to do with race. Stop trying to use race as a fucking excuse for this horse shit. Threatening to call the cops on someone in the country illegally is the fucking right thing to do. It's what we should be doing. It's a currently a political issue and NYC is full of Liberals so they're trying to limit free speech based on their side of the agenda. That's why if this shit ever was brought before the supreme court it would fall flat on it's ass.
> 
> "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien"
> 
> Come get me.


It has everything to do with that! The alt right painted mexicans as being the primary illegal that enters this country. That they steal, they kill, they take benefits that don't even exist. That's the story that has been painted. Have you not noticed that because of trump practically inciting violence on illegals, which really just means, Mexicans, that violence has spiked again in the last four years? There is more and more racially charged shit.


----------



## bodefuceta (Oct 1, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> It has everything to do with that! The alt right painted mexicans as being the primary illegal that enters this country. That they steal, they kill, they take benefits that don't even exist. That's the story that has been painted. Have you not noticed that because of trump practically inciting violence on illegals, which really just means, Mexicans, that violence has spiked again in the last four years? There is more and more racially charged shit.


I'm not in the USA but surely would know if Trump was racist even one time. This is a total strawman. I suffer from racism daily because I'm not a leftist, and all perpetrators are from the left, in my case, they just can't conceive a black south american man being out of his plantation mindset.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> I'm not in the USA but surely would know if Trump was racist even one time. This is a total strawman. I suffer from racism daily because I'm not a leftist, and all perpetrators are from the left, in my case, they just can't conceive a black south american man being out of his plantation mindset.


Ahem _breath in_
*Muslims*


----------



## bodefuceta (Oct 1, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Ahem _breath in_
> *Muslims*


That's not a race. My skin is darker than every muslim I know by the way.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Oct 1, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> That's not a race. My skin is darker than every muslim I know by the way.


Neither is being a Brazilian. 
whats is your point?


----------



## bodefuceta (Oct 1, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> Neither is being a Brazilian.
> whats is your point?


You'd know if you read the post I quoted.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> That's not a race. My skin is darker than every muslim I know by the way.


Ah you're right let me correct that then
*xenophobia*


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Oct 1, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> You'd know if you read the post I quoted.


you quoted the Muslim post. Your post still does not make sense.


----------



## billapong (Oct 1, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> It has everything to do with that! The alt right painted mexicans as being the primary illegal that enters this country. That they steal, they kill, they take benefits that don't even exist. Have you not noticed that because of trump practically inciting violence that violence has spiked again in the last four years? There is more and more racially charged shit.



That's because the alt-right (like Neo Nazi's) are racist as fuck, but unlike Liberals who are also just as racist at the alt-right is, the alt-right are a small minority. I don't defend racist trash. Fuck Neo Nazi's and fuck Liberals. One that is focused on race is the one that usually brings it up. Saying all illegal immigrants are brown is fucking racist. 

Trump never referred to the race of illegal immigrants. Your country of origin doesn't equal your race. Saying that illegal aliens are criminals isn't racist. Saying that Mexico is sending rapists, criminals and bringing drugs into the United States is what is actual happening. Yes, some illegal immigrants are good people, but you can't just let people come and go through international borders without being checked or let them come into our country and just leech off of the system. 

Liberals are the ones focused on race. They bring it up every chance they get and this has caused a lot of people to simply ignore real racism. Well, there's also the fact that everyone is racist to some extent, but I try not to discriminate against others based on their skin color. 

See, how you think you've distracted me by trying to tie this to race? That's a cheap Liberal tactic. Basically, if you look around, anything they disagree with is racist. Nice try.

"Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien"


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Oct 1, 2019)

Dude you just compared half the country to Nazi's.

I am done here. I will probably get disciplined by the moderators for all the bickering in the last couple of posts but this has just been absurd.

Yet I am being accused of hating on groups of people here. I will see myself out.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2019)

billapong said:


> That's because the alt-right (like Neo Nazi's) are racist as fuck, but unlike Liberals who are also just as racist at the alt-right is, the alt-right are a small minority. I don't defend racist trash. Fuck Neo Nazi's and fuck Liberals. One that is focused on race is the one that usually brings it up. Saying all illegal immigrants are brown is fucking racist.
> 
> Trump never referred to the race of illegal immigrants. Your country of origin doesn't equal your race. Saying that illegal aliens are criminals isn't racist. Saying that Mexico is sending rapists, criminals and bringing drugs into the United States is what is actual happening. Yes, some illegal immigrants are good people, but you can't just let people come and go through international borders without being checked or let them come into our country and just leech off of the system.
> 
> ...


Liberals... racist... You know let me ask this before I laugh my ass off. To which race are they racist to?


----------



## billapong (Oct 1, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> You'd know if you read the post I quoted.



I'm not trying to tell you how to go about things, but just letting you know these Liberals you're talking with are using race as bait. They're trying to distract you. Seems to be working. If you take a step back, whenever Liberals disagree with someone the person they disagree with is "racist". It's a cheap tactic. Like I said, I'm not trying to tell you what to do, but I would just not respond to their race-baiting.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2019)

billapong said:


> That's because the alt-right (like Neo Nazi's) are racist as fuck, but unlike Liberals who are also just as racist at the alt-right is, the alt-right are a small minority. I don't defend racist trash. Fuck Neo Nazi's and fuck Liberals. One that is focused on race is the one that usually brings it up. Saying all illegal immigrants are brown is fucking racist.
> 
> Trump never referred to the race of illegal immigrants. Your country of origin doesn't equal your race. Saying that illegal aliens are criminals isn't racist. Saying that Mexico is sending rapists, criminals and bringing drugs into the United States is what is actual happening. Yes, some illegal immigrants are good people, but you can't just let people come and go through international borders without being checked or let them come into our country and just leech off of the system.
> 
> ...


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...p-accused-stoking-racial-tensions/1766715001/
also read this have fun


----------



## bodefuceta (Oct 1, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Ah you're right let me correct that then
> *xenophobia*


...Thats the cause of violece, now? Really?


WD_GASTER2 said:


> you quoted the Muslim post. Your post still does not make sense.


Because you still didn't read it. Try reading the post below this one of yours, maybe you'll understand! Or are you just trying to piss me off.

It's not fun suffering racism every damn time I talk to liberals.


----------



## billapong (Oct 1, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Liberals... racist... You know let me ask this before I laugh my ass off. To which race are they racist to?



Every race and have an extra hatred for White people (specifically, white men, so they are sexist too). That's it. I'm done playing with your bait.

Edit: Fuck it. I thought there was hope for you. 2nd person on ignore.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Oct 1, 2019)

I did. It still makes no sense. People differing from your beliefs is not racism. Criticism and scrutiny is not racism.


----------



## bodefuceta (Oct 1, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> I did. It still makes no sense. People differing from your beliefs is not racism. Criticism and scrutiny is not racism.


Making racially charged joked about someone's country and communication skills is, though. Not apologize and pretend to not understand what they're saying IS STILL racism.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Oct 1, 2019)

billapong said:


> Consequences from what you say is a separate issue than liming what you can say. You can't seem to differentiate between the two, which makes me think you support violating the constitution by outlawing free speech.
> 
> Other than @monkeyman4412 no one else in this thread is trying to justify NYC's action by claiming that the law isn't actually limiting free speech. Your position is invalid. I completely realize that saying something comes with consequences, but the constitution guarantees us the right to say whatever we want without Government interference and then face the consequences (this doesn't include making laws outlawing speech, that "consequence" is not an option).
> 
> ...



Blah blah blah. F this. Blah blah blah. F that. Blah blah blah. Liberals hate the constitution. Blah blah blah. F everything. Blah blah blah. You mad bro?

"Consequences from what you say is a separate issue than liming what you can say. You can't seem to differentiate between the two, which makes me think you support violating the constitution by outlawing free speech."

I know I said I was done, but I stepped in for one more. YOU are the one not understanding. No one is limiting what can be said, as you are STILL completely free to say it. The only thing I cannot differentiate between is a rock and your brain.

Ignore list? Oh no! Was that supposed to be some sort of silly threat? "Better look out! I'll ignore you!" LMAO! Please do, as things are obviously becoming too intense for your fragile self to handle, so you'll just cut out anyone who doesn't agree with you. Sounds EXACTLY like your orange fuhrer. Why am I not one single bit surprised?

And "I hope you choke on your hate."? What's wrong kiddo? That sounds quite hateful. I understand that it's easy for hurt to come out as anger, but really? You need to calm down, son. Maybe you just need a hug. It's quite amusing though, the person in full support of the most hateful and unconstitutional "President" in the history of the USA, talking about the Constitution and hatred. Hypocrite. Isn't it past your bedtime little one? I ask only because your responses are so helplessly sleepy.

Tata. Here, I'll toss you a roll of paper towels on my way out, for that hurricane of tears you seem to be having. Sweet dreams, sweetheart. xoxoxoxo


----------



## yuyuyup (Oct 1, 2019)

billapong said:


> Basically, if you look around, anything they disagree with is racist. Nice try.


Hey man I called you out on how you know NOTHING about laws regarding speech, why are you STILL pretending like you know better?  This entire stupid thread was off-topic before the first response, you should be arguing against laws and rules established in 1942-1992 instead of thrusting your finger at Latinos.  But no, you want your worthless FEEFEES to run the show, just like you said earlier in this stupidass thread "DURRRRH hatred should be harnessed 4 good!"  YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THE FUCKING LAW ROFLMAO.


----------



## morvoran (Oct 1, 2019)

Ericthegreat said:


> I'm sorry CA is very liberal and though we have a homeless issue, we pretty much have universal health care, which is very good for the homeless and those who can't afford meds/doctor visits, people who qualify (most do unless you make a certain % over the poverty bracket) get $0 co-pays, free prescriptions, and get to chose their own in network doctor, which by the way by law has to see them by the next day if they are sick, or within 2 weeks for a non important issue, or a specialist within one month. Seeing people in other states dieing from not having their meds, and not being able to see a doctor is just cruel.... Here in the bay area, the average person does quite well on average, and I think we are the most liberal area in the country.



Of all the issues that are wrong in California, I can't say I'm surprised you brought up the liberal medi-cal system.  As far as it being "successful" or not right now, that is a matter of opinion.  (Just like the saying goes about a-holes and opinions, every liberal is one.)  
It's just Medicare for low income people (instead of them using the federal Medicaid system) that only covers a third of the state's population.  I would like to see how wonderful you think it is after all illegal aliens (just FYI, I don't live in New York) and the remaining two thirds of the state are on it.  
Just like all liberal policies, it looks good on paper but a failure once implemented.  It has been declining in its effectiveness since it began and may soon bankrupt the state.
Speaking of issues with California, that state had a water shortage even though it has an ocean right next to it.   How does that happen?  Ever heard of desalination? 
Liberals couldn't solve an issue if the solution was right in front of them.

If your liberal leaders worked on actually solving issues, such as removing illegal aliens and preventing more from coming over, rather than making things worse, California would become a great state again.  

On topic, turns out this New York law also forces people to have to do work on illegal alien's property or else you can be charged.  If an illegal aliens asks you to do work on their property such as renovation on their house, you are obligated to do so even if you just don't want to regardless of their citizenship.  If you decline, the illegal can accuse you with a hate crime, and you can be fined.  This is getting more ridiculous by the day.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Oct 1, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Of all the issues that are wrong in California, I can't say I'm surprised you brought up the liberal medi-cal system.  As far as it being "successful" or not right now, that is a matter of opinion.  (Just like the saying goes about a-holes and opinions, every liberal is one.)
> It's just Medicare for low income people (instead of them using the federal Medicaid system) that only covers a third of the state's population.  I would like to see how wonderful you think it is after all illegal aliens (just FYI, I don't live in New York) and the remaining two thirds of the state are on it.
> Just like all liberal policies, it looks good on paper but a failure once implemented.  It has been declining in its effectiveness since it began and may soon bankrupt the state.
> Speaking of issues with California, that state had a water shortage even though it has an ocean right next to it.   How does that happen?  Ever heard of desalination?
> ...


Well... The other 2/3 that aren't covered by medi-cal mostly have jobs or cant afford to pay for their own insurance, there are small buisness buisness who probably fit in and aren't qualified, though would still get insurance like everyone else through covered california. And it is in no way bankrupting the state, if anything, I don't know that much about this, but I've heard illegal aliens can only qualify for a different version, that only allows them to go to the emergency room, and the state pays the hospitals a set price per year, so I'm pretty sure we actully save money by the immigrants not just making huge ER bills like the other states, but I'm not certain how many immigrants actully sign up for it. There's a big push every once in a while to get the homeless signed up, also did you know a big percentage of our homeless are not illegal immigrants, they are people with mental issues, some mentally disabled, and did you also know they are sent here from other states. Now I do believe these people should be institutionalized until they can be put on meds for a while, but this is an entirely different issue.


----------



## billapong (Oct 1, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> Hey man I called you out on how you know NOTHING about laws regarding speech, why are you STILL pretending like you know better?  This entire stupid thread was off-topic before the first response, you should be arguing against laws and rules established in 1942-1992 instead of thrusting your finger at Latinos.  But no, you want your worthless FEEFEES to run the show, just like you said earlier in this stupidass thread "DURRRRH hatred should be harnessed 4 good!"  YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THE FUCKING LAW ROFLMAO.



I'm well versed in the first amendment, but you can't expect everyone to know everything about the law. Everything I've read prior to learning about his new law that restricts free speech never included fighting words or I didn't notice them. Even if they did it doesn't make it right. This law is simply motivated by the intolerant Left who are openly admitting to ignoring federal law. They're criminals trying to justify their behavior by making it a crime to threaten to turn in actual criminals. Fuck them. 

I'm not thrusting my finger at any particular race. I'm done playing games with race baiting idiots.

I've found the 3rd person to put on my ignore list. Go screw yourself.


----------



## morvoran (Oct 1, 2019)

Ericthegreat said:


> Well... The other 2/3 that aren't covered by medi-cal mostly have jobs or cant afford to pay for their own insurance, there are small buisness buisness who probably fit in and aren't qualified, though would still get insurance like everyone else through covered california. And it is in no way bankrupting the state, if anything, I don't know that much about this, but I've heard illegal aliens can only qualify for a different version, that only allows them to go to the emergency room, and the state pays the hospitals a set price per year, so I'm pretty sure we actully save money by the immigrants not just making huge ER bills like the other states, but I'm not certain how many immigrants actully sign up for it. There's a big push every once in a while to get the homeless signed up, also did you know a big percentage of our homeless are not illegal immigrants, they are people with mental issues, some mentally disabled, and did you also know they are sent here from other states. Now I do believe these people should be institutionalized until they can be put on meds for a while, but this is an entirely different issue.



Well, I'll give you that the program isn't bankrupting the state since California is already bankrupt (I'm sure a state can't be "more bankrupt").  If it wasn't for the federal government paying two thirds of the bill, California wouldn't be able to afford to be so generous.

When I mentioned illegal aliens, I said wait until they are on the program along with the other 2/3 of the population.  It is on the liberal governor's agenda to add them, just give it time.  If you live in California, I hope you don't have a job or small business because you won't be able to afford to live there anymore after half your income starts being stolen through your taxes.

I'm not arguing with you about these policies because they're "mean spirited" (I'm not arguing at all).  I'm concerned for the citizens who try to make a living in a state they love too much to leave that are being taken advantage of while the free loaders are pushing/supporting these policies that only steal from the "haves" to give to the "give me because you have more than me" people.


----------



## billapong (Oct 2, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Well, I'll give you that the program isn't bankrupting the state since California is already bankrupt (I'm sure a state can't be "more bankrupt").  If it wasn't for the federal government paying two thirds of the bill, California wouldn't be able to afford to be so generous.
> 
> When I mentioned illegal aliens, I said wait until they are on the program along with the other 2/3 of the population.  It is on the liberal governor's agenda to add them, just give it time.  If you live in California, I hope you don't have a job or small business because you won't be able to afford to live there anymore after half your income starts being stolen through your taxes.
> 
> I'm not arguing with you about these policies because they're "mean spirited" (I'm not arguing at all).  I'm concerned for the citizens who try to make a living in a state they love too much to leave that are being taken advantage of while the free loaders are pushing/supporting these policies that only steal from the "haves" to give to the "give me because you have more than me" people.



Taxes on small businesses already come close to 50% of your gross income. It's a fucking joke right now. I can't imagine 90% like the Liberals want. Imagine the quality of the product or service with that amount of taxes on it. The fucking Liberals take half of your money right now and then want to tell you how to do business. Fuck them. A way around this is to open multiple small businesses that are taking advantage of a current trend and cash out quick. If any Liberals give you shit during these short term situations give it back and then vanish. They won't get shit from you. If we go for socialism you'll soon be giving 90% of your profit to the Liberals and they will be telling you what company you have to run as they'll take that freedom away too. Want to run a store selling video games, well that's too bad. You'll have to fucking sell barbies dolls are far as they're concerned. Of course, I'm paranoid or delusional, but that's simply what the fucking retards are trying to push on others because they have no clue about how shit works. I mean, they even believe it themselves. Talk about delusional.

#fuckliberals

"Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien" "Illegal Alien"


----------



## notimp (Oct 2, 2019)

billapong said:


> Taxes on small businesses already come close to 50% of your gross income. It's a fucking joke right now. I can't imagine 90% like the Liberals want. Imagine the quality of the product or service with that amount of taxes on it. The fucking Liberals take half of your money right now and then want to tell you how to do business.


You could see it in the context of international competition.

Taking 50% away is used for pension systems and social nets, infrastructure and science. But meeee moneys!

Taking 90% away is lobbied only as progressive income tax - meaning to haircut the rich - who wouldnt feel it physically - but certainly in ego, and intellectually, and in terms of a reduction of influence. So that outcome, in general isnt likely -at all.

If you'd tax the middle classes at 90% youd have revolutions at hand. No one ist going to do that. Like - ever.

So you are selling bulshit again. What - once per thread not enough?
-

But 50% so muuuuch! Argument:
- Not historically for the US.
and even in the recent past - it turned out, more like
- US in income tax always 10% behind the rest of the world, to draw in all the assholes (with investment capital).

Just that recently this didnt seem to have produced the economic development that you'd have liked. With all your 2/3s of new jobs were Mac Jobs creation past 2008 financial crisis, and the country without social security nets.
-

Thats a rough cut of what happened.

If you are ever into not just following empty statement that are there to sound nice on the surface level, to gain popular following - maybe you'd not be so dumb anymore.

Same as with mistaking politics for 'public faces in debates', 'simple political slogans' also isnt politics. Its populim.

If you want to run  this community on populism...


----------



## notimp (Oct 8, 2019)

billapong said:


> Taxes on small businesses already come close to 50% of your gross income. It's a fucking joke right now. I can't imagine 90% like the Liberals want. Imagine the quality of the product or service with that amount of taxes on it. The fucking Liberals take half...


Read this:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html


----------

