Clearly, Noam Chomsky should not be marginalized as only a linguist. Being an historian and philosopher qualifies him to write, publish, speak on just such things as governance and political systems. So, cheap shot against a respected scholar of far more than linguistics.
Description
Avram Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic, and political activist. Sometimes called “the father of modern linguistics”, Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. Wikipedia
Yes, but you did insist on a sidetrack that only alt-righties may use the term “jackbooted thugs”, and in showing you how very wrong you were, a well established and respected authority was cited.
Which you dismissed out of hand because you don’t agree with his politics. There was no logic behind it, just “Nope, he’s a liberal, I’m sticking my fingers in my ears.”
Same as you dismiss the arguments of the ACLU because you don’t agree with what they advocate.
I don’t dismiss their views because of the political views. I just don’t find their views definitive. They win some cases, they lose some cases. The opposite argument would be you accept their views because you agree with their political slant. As if Noam Chomsky and the ACLU are the sole arbiters what is right or wrong in the world.
It’s not a matter of definitive. It is a matter of you simply dismissing them without even considering the argument, but only by considering their political position.
Did you say, “Well, Chomsky argues this…, but what actually is the case is this…”? No, you said he was a liberal, and that was the entirety of the case that you made.
Where are all the families demanding to know where their loved ones are?
Who are all these people being kidnapped? Not being processed through the normal legal process? Where there concentration camps filled of Portland Hipsters?
That’s because it is an extremely stupid and misleading question that has nothing to do with us wishing to prevent families from missing their loved ones or people being kidnapped and processed through normal legal processes. We don’t want concentration camps.
What you seem to be saying is that you don’t think that we should do anything until these things come to pass. The point I am making is that if you wait till then, it is too late.
You may be assure of your knowledge that the govt will always be warm and fuzzy and take good care of you. And the reason for that is because others remain vigilant on your behalf, allowing you to live a blissful life of naivety and ignorance, while advocating directly against those who fight for your right to do so.
Ah, a disingenuous reason to explain your earlier disingenuous reasons.
And yes, it has well been explained and understood with no obscuring whatsoever that the local authorities do not have the authority to interfere with federal agents.
That does not mean that whatever federal agents do is legal, as you claim.
@kswiss, They are being processed though the normal legal process and being released.
Cite:
Another cite:
And a federal judge isn’t taking action:
While everybody should be condemning the action, no legal response is going to stop it unless the judge or another one comes up with a different ruling. Can we stick to the facts?
Once again, it is your opinion that the legal process is being followed. Many legal scholars disagree with your assertion.
And to point out that there are no concentration camps, when I have already agreed that there are none(unless we are talking about family separation of asylum seekers, which is a different topic), but that I am advocating against the creation of such, is to admit that you have no interest in a productive discussion.
I say for one last time. If you wait until there are concentration camps before you question your unwavering faith in the government, then it will be too late. That’s not a conspiracy theory, and calling it a conspiracy theory does not make it one, it just makes you wrong.
“The State could try to show, for example, that all of Defendants’ seizures are illegal, or that they are under orders to fail to identify themselves or to make random arrests without probable cause,” Mosman wrote. “The state has shown none of this. It has presented no evidence of any official orders or policies and has presented no evidence that these allegedly illegal seizures are a widespread practice.”
Mosman also faulted the state’s lawyers for hyperbolic arguments, including describing those arrested as being “disappeared,” which the judge said evoked the mass murder of tens of thousands of political opponents by a military junta in Argentina in the 1970s and 1980s."
Not my opinion, Federal Judge in a democracy decision.
Y’all might find some solace in the articles too. It is an ongoing legal dispute. While individual cases might get thrown out on the specifics of the case, I seriously doubt any Judge is gonna say the operation as a whole is illegal.
Again, not that I support the policy. Just saying its legal.