Disagreeing with you does not mean that you’re reading their mind. There are more than 2 positions (and 2 motivations/intentions/feelings) about these kinds of issues. You’re basically guessing – someone could disagree with you for a whole host of reasons, but you’re assuming it’s the worst (or silliest) one.
The trend had been building for a long time, arguably since the Republicans’ Southern Strategy in 1968 created its enduring partnership with the Southern Baptist Convention - the religious self-righteousness just comes in a package with its racism. Goldwater’s quote, combined with his own history, was just to put them into clearer perspective.
Yes, if there were no law, he wouldn’t have been breaking it. No one disagrees.
You need to drop this and find a relevant example, okay?
You know, it’s possible to understand what a person is saying, yet still disagree. You know that, right?
I wouldn’t give them a “free pass”. I would be quite disturbed if there were medical providers doing this in my area. I would dissociate from any organization that endorsed this policy and individuals that participate in such a policy. What is your idea of a free pass?
I agree, though I would refrain from displaying such ignorance about religion.
Sure they could. Do you think I only advocate that liberal statists move to friendlier areas?
No I’m not assuming anything, but thanks for your input.
Okay. Your assertions about the motivations of liberals/progressives regarding sanctuary cities and protesting community injustice in general are, for the most part, wildly incorrect. If you’re interested in why progressives/liberals push certain issues, then I would be happy to answer any questions about it from the point of view of a progressive/liberal.
Others have already offered their reasoning for opposing political migration. Thanks for the offer though.
Nevertheless I always do a double take when someone uses “liberal” in a pejorative manner. And we didn’t learn about “modern liberalism” in school, we learned about “progressivism”. FDR, LBJ, MLK, etc. weren’t normally described as “liberals”, they were “progressives” (although they were liberals in the classical sense, too). Mind you we never learned about conservatism in school, except maybe one paragraph about Barry Goldwater stating that he opposed the New Deal and LBJ but lost. Then suddenly school was out and we had to turn in our textbooks.
~Max
If I may, that is totally not what Andy offered you. Wow.
I think he meant to write, “other liberals/progressives have already offered their reasoning for their political views on immigration.” It still smacks of disdain, but this way it is more relevant to the preceding post.
As written now, WillFarnaby’s response is a little out there.
~Max
This is absolutely false. Multiple mayors publicly stated they were happy to welcome those migrants to their cities.
It is possible to simultaneously be willing to accept migrants, while being angry that Trump sees migrants as a punishment, and thinks he’s entitled to punish cities who disagree with him, and the idea that he’s entitled to use desperate, vulnerable people as weapons. All of these are stupid, hateful, and autocratic beliefs.
It’s pretty insane to see staunch conservative dual-sovereignty defenders cheerfully do a complete 180 when it comes to using local law enforcement for federal policy. I look forward to your enthusiastic support when future Democratic presidents decide to employ this precedent for their own purposes.
An aside: I asked a paramedic a while back what would happen if they had a patient near-death (but saveable!) in the ambulance and, en route to the hospital, they see a person literally bleeding out on the side of the road.
The paramedic told me it is a shame, but medical ethics indicated they could not always interrupt the care of the patient already in the ambulance. The life of the patient is assumed to be just as valuable as the life of the person on the side of the road. I asked if they could let off an EMT to stop the bleeding then continue to the hospital. He pointed out that a lone EMT might not be able to provide adequate medical care and this would be a point of liability, doubly so if the patient in the ambulance dies and the hospital is sued for letting the EMT off (which either adds time to the route or deprives the patient care team a critical set of hands). Thus hospital policy says that the ambulance must drive on in all but the most extreme cases, such as if a group of people are bleeding out or the person in is able to consent to a stop.
~Max
I’m not aware of anyone in this thread “opposing political migration”. Haven’t seen a single such post. Care to cite?
I paid very little attention to politics, especial the personalities of politicians, until retirement. I came of age under Nixon, but hardly paid attention to Watergate. It was Gingrich and Judge Starr’s spending millions tracking down the semen-stained dress that awakened me. But I was still willing to give Dubya a chance until the hypocrisies of the Iraq War became impossible to overlook.
Nowadays I come in contact with very few Americans; those few are mostly older white males. I smile but no longer say Hello: odds are they are Trumpists.
I know OP specifically passed that the thread be ABOUT vitriol rather than vitriolic itself, but we’re here to try to stamp out stupidity right? Thus …
What are the strongest synonyms of wrong and stupid that are allowed outside the Pit? 
The Ds are specifically the Party of Inclusion. They favor extending rights to women as well as men, to blacks and whites, to gays and straights, to rich and poor. Inclusion. The GOP almost brags about being the Party of Exclusion. Look up Inclusion and Exclusion in a dictionary for heavens’ sake.
The infuriating ignorance in an unfounded Tu Quoque like we see from Velocity provokes my vitriol.
Which the GOP will no longer be allowed to do if the Dems have their way.
They’re having their rights to strip away the rights of other people stripped away.
It’s the same ‘but’ one finds between “I hate to be rude” and something rude, so I disregarded what followed.
There is nothing “practical” in advice to people to pick up and move so that your tender feelings are not hurt because they are protesting.
It is (generally) easier nw, in the U.S. than in former times. I never demanded that there be no costs. (There are costs for protesting, as well.) The clear solution is to promote change, not run and hide.
I am not claiming martyrdom; that is your straw man.
As to the Underground Railroad, that pretty clearly falls under my notation of who can or will move: that group being one that requires a move to escape persecution. Although, it must be noted that the vast majority were lacking the facilities and support to employ moving. And both those fleeing slavery and those fleeing Naziism were physically restrained from doing so. However, not unexpectedly, you are changing the subject from those who are participating members of society seeking to improve their position in it (to whom you do not choose to listen) to a different class of people: those physically constrained to slavery of one sort or another.
(I realize that in your world, paying taxes so that merchandise and people can employ roads for communication and trade along with requiring vaccinations to prevent the suffering and deaths of millions is a form of slavery, but the rest of us live in the real world and do not share your odd beliefs.)
I don’t pretend that strawman arguments are real. No one in this thread made the claim you’re asking me if I support, and I’m not going to treat your question as a valid one. Incidentally, I’m also not going to do the Libertarian Definition Dance as far as definitions go either. Especially since you’ve made the absurd claim that Nazis aren’t in favor of violence.
[quote]
Since I neither shrugged it off or whined about that, you have no reason to be horrified. [/qutoe]
You did, in fact shrug it off; you’re shrugging it off in this post. The fact that you’re not horrified by the behavior and instead endorse protecting the people who engage in it from consequences is part of what I’m referring to as ‘shrugging it off’.
The administration sure is going to great lengths to not provide information behind the totally innocuous rationale for adding this question then, huh? Can you provide some reasonable explanation for why they would invoke executive privilege to keep this completely innocent proposal under wraps?