I think it was Popeye that said it first.
I think it was Popeye that said it first.
I'm an Indie, not a MAGA
Whoa, a MAGA apologist lying about being MAGA, that's not something you see every day.
Oh wait, yes, it is, you see it every fucking day.
But hey, I get it, you are ashamed, just as you should be.
Constitutionally, what "power" is given to States or Cities to be "sanctuary" for illegal migrants?
one word answer: none.
There you go, confirmation that you do not understand.
When I was a kid, I thought his logs were a lot of fun, plus he's got the car, the penny and the five-dollar bill, and it's probably too late to change Mount Rushmore now.
Cracker Barrell has changed their logo causing the worst MAGA Snowflake meltdown since the Great Mr. Potatohead Crisis of 2021.
The company has also announced menu changes to enhance the brand. New items on the menu include Woke Waffles, He/She Hashbrowns, Gay Grits, and Scrambled Gender Eggs, and introducing Trans Thursdays, featuring half price discounts for men wearing women’s clothes on Thursdays.
Donald Trump said, “For years it has been known that Cracker Barrel’s biscuits are a gateway food to becoming a Drag Queen, and their meatloaf has always been made of people’s pet cats and dogs.”
Sydney Sweeny and Kid Rock vowed to never eat there again, and Lindsey Graham was quoted as saying, “Whoa, Gay Grits sound awesome”.
I'm sorry if I was too thorough and detailed for you to understand.
Did I say I did not undeerestand? See, you jump to conclusions. So do I, so I brand myself with the same accusation, but my one-word question means the answer could be rended in one word: it's brevity I'm after, my friend.
How about you show us a one-word answer to your question that makes any sense at all.
get bricked
What do you mean by "get bricked", I googled the term but what I found didn't really fit your sentence.
It's not art or language, it's a writing system.
Science isn't rational, it's part of a vast left-wing conspiracy.
I asked for a simple answer to a simple, one-word question, not for a text wall.
Oh, it was a "one-word question"?
I didn't realize "ConstitutionallywhatpowerisgiventoStatesorCitiestobesanctuaryforillegalmigrants" was a word, maybe I should get a MAGA dictionary to increase my vocabulary...nah.
I'm not all that interested in the MAGA Dictionary, the Trump Bible, or the MAGA Constitution, I'll stick with all the originals, thank you.
There's a lot more going on to help people avoid federal law in your states than just folded arms. Same thing that happened during your reconstruction period I studied about.
You mean they are allowing immigrants to eat our cats and dogs?
I asked for a simple answer to a simple, one-word question, not for a text wall.
Be frustrated if that is your shtick, but don't blame me for a sim ole question. Get out of your own way6 and answer the3 question. Is that so hard?
I answered the question, and I'm sorry if I was too thorough and detailed for you to understand.
And yes, it's too hard to try to dumb it down for you, you aren't worth the effort.
It's a crime to avoid a legal point of entry. Your government for decades had the right to detain people to verify they had green card papers without citizenship. Not having authorization papers is a crime, according to your Congress. This isn't a new thing, no matter what your activists are telling you.
if the government itself has no record of you ever being processed, then by definition you avoided legal entry and that should be a crime, regardless of whether you personally “lost your papers.”
No shit, so you know what defines an illegal alien, so do I, but that has nothing to do with the conversation, the point being made here is that sanctuary cities and states have a tenth amendment right to deny law enforcement assistance to ICE in arresting and deporting illegal aliens. The tenth amendment is clear that it is the responsibility of federal law enforcement, and not the responsibility of state and local law enforcement.
Your activists can't just erase congressional laws passed 30 years ago.
The only one who is trying to erase congressional immigration laws is Donald Trump with his multiple illegal and unconstitutional executive orders trying to usurp congressional power and the laws congress has passed. There's a reason Trump gets his ass handed to him by federal judges on a weekly basis.
Calling illegal immigration an "invasion" and using alarmist hatemongering rhetoric is a distraction at best, it does not justify dispensing with democracy and illegally denying our constitutional freedoms.
As you said, it is a crime "according to our congress" who are tasked by the constitution with determining what constitutes an illegal alien. Trump has overruled congress by using executive orders to transform hundreds of thousands of people that congress had defined as legal aliens into illegal aliens by removing their legal status.
The constitution sets up a governmental structure of three co-equal branches of government and limits the power of them through a process of checks and balances, Trump has crapped all over the constitution with his efforts to grab powers from the legislative and judicial branches of our government, deny the democratic process, and transform the government into an autocracy. It's preposterous that his MAGA zealots like Fauxlaw try to claim there is a constitutional basis for transforming the Executive Branch into an authoritarian dictatorship. No matter what kind of conspiracy theories and manufactured outrage the Trump administration and its propaganda team over at Fox News create, none of it is justified.
which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government..
Doesn't your federal government have the power to secure borders from invasions? Article I, Section 8?
Hell, I'm not even an American, but you seem to know less about your own country than foreigners do!
Apparently not, since Article 1, section 8 refers to the powers of the legislative branch (Congress), as opposed to the executive branch , and has nothing whatsoever to do with the “power to secure borders from invasions”. The only words in the entirety of Section 8 that might apply to immigration are “To establish a uniform rule of naturalization”, which according to the constitution is done by the legislative branch, and Trump has violated that with illegal and blatantly unconstitutional executive orders eliminating “Birthright Citizenship”. as well as removing the legal status of hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants.
they merely deny federal agents
That is texbook aiding and abetting. Most countries consider that a serious crime.
Only if your so called “textbook” is a comic book.
You had to delete 80% of the sentence you quoted to take it so far out of context it is a non-sequitur at best. My full sentence that you are misrepresenting is:
“Sanctuary jurisdictions do not assert any right to actively impede enforcement by federal officials, they merely deny federal agents the assistance of state and local governments, particularly law enforcement agencies and they are well within their Constitutionally granted right to do so.”
Which isn’t even in the same ballpark as “aiding and abetting”, first of all, we are talking about the Constitution here and “aiding and abetting” is not identified as a crime in the US Constitution, it is 18 U.S. Code § 2, which makes it is a crime to intentionally assist in the commission of a federal crime.
Let’s put it back in context, the Tenth amendment establishes the sovereignty of the state and makes it clear they have no legal obligation whatsoever to deploy their own law enforcement resources to assist federal agents in performing their duties. In fact, because the Tenth Amendment says that states only have authority that were not explicitly assigned to the federal government, you could make the case that the tenth amendment is explicit that they are not to enforce immigration laws, it would be weak, but the argument can be made. The strong argument that can be made is that the tenth amendment explicitly states that they are not obliged to assist federal agents in executing their duties in immigration, that right is explicitly granted to states by the constitution.
Now, since you brought it up, let’s talk about “aiding and abetting”, as I already pointed out, much of the administrations draconian efforts to have mass deportations have been through illegal and unconstitutional executive orders, violating the first amendment (deporting students for exercising their right to free speech), fifth amendment (violating due process), and 14th amendment (Denying the constitutional right to birthright citizenship), you could certainly make a sound legal argument that deploying state and local law enforcement to assist ICE with the administration's “mass deportation” efforts would constitute the crime of “aiding and abetting”.
Let’s also recognize that these illegal and unconstitutional executive orders and all the hateful rhetoric designed to incite outrage among the base, have been ineffective as far as actually deporting illegal immigrants. In the final year of the Biden administration, the rate of deportation of illegal immigrants was much higher than the rate Trump has achieved so far. It’s served as performance politics, it’s been divisive, it has been raw meat to the mean-spirited hate mongering base, but in terms of effectiveness, it has been a failure, turns out that so far, Trump has failed to address the problem of illegal immigration where Biden was successful.
In his first presidency, despite all of the hateful rhetoric, draconian measures, separating families, and joyous cruelty, Trump deported less than half the number of illegal aliens that Obama did in either of his four-year terms.
Both Obama's and Biden’s immigration policies primarily focused on deporting immigrants with criminal charges and those considered national security threats. By contrast, under President Trump, criminal priorities were eliminated, targeting all undocumented individuals, consequently, in terms of removing immigrants who threaten our country, Trump has failed miserably. Despite the Trump administration’s rhetoric that he is deporting "the worst of the worst”, the fact is, 80% of immigrants taken to detention centers in Trump's second term had no criminal record.
All the hatemongering and cruelty may have given his MAGA base an erection, but it has been ineffective and resulted in a dramatic drop in his overall favorability ratings.
The so called “mind/body” problem has been debated for over two thousand years with little, if any, progress towards clarity or understanding.
It’s become quite clear that physicalism’s traditional a priori commitment to materialist presuppositions, reductionist thinking and mechanistic explanations are counterproductive to understanding consciousness. Physicalism is conceptually inadequate.
Consequently, I am a dualist, I believe consciousness should be taken as a “given”. There is nothing demonstrably false about recognizing our experiential reality is a function of two essentially different kinds of things; those that are mental and those that are physical, and I believe consciousness is simply one of the constituents of reality.
The very process by which physicalism attempts to translate qualitative experiences into measurable quantities that do not themselves exhibit the qualitative constituents of experience, fundamentally changes the subject matter of the investigation such that the resultant account of consciousness is a contradiction in terms. It’s become quite clear that science’s traditional a priori commitment to materialist presuppositions, reductionist thinking and mechanistic explanations are counterproductive to understanding consciousness.
Mental causation is a topic I've been interesting in for a few years now. There are different ways of accounting for it, depending on your perspective on the mind/body problem. It strikes me as being an especially difficult problem for people who take the emergent property view. Emergentism seems to lead to epiphenomenalism.
Physicalism’s so called “explanations” of emergentism and/or epiphenomenalism, are contrived attempts to deny the immateriality of consciousness, they offer no argument or evidence that seriously challenges dualistic alternatives. It can’t even be said that they are working hypotheses, because a working hypothesis is one that will rise or fall on the basis of relevant evidence, and there is no “evidence” that could tell for or against these “hypotheses” because they are not scientific hypotheses, they are only phrased as if they were. Invoking either emergentism or epiphenomenalism equates to “giving up” as far as explaining the mental is concerned.
Most people I've pressed on this issue who subscribe to some form of physicalism tend to want to equate mental states with brain states. They're just different ways of talking about the same thing, or they are different levels of abstraction. That does avoid some of the problems with emergentism, but it doesn't resolve the issue to my satisfaction.
On a material level, Consciousness represents a supervenient structure that bears properties that its subvenient parts do not exhibit. Consciousness is not coextensive with brain, it exists independently of material brain as a higher order structure that cannot be decomposed into its parts and their relationships, so it is an ontologically novel entity. It exists independently of the physical materials and properties of its parts and yet, exerts causal influence on events in the world, exerting a causal influence that its constituent components, in sum, cannot exert. Consequently, it has an ontological status of existence without material components, and it logically follows that it is itself a causal agent as well as an entity that is acted upon by external causes.
The reason is because if mental states are the same things as brain states, then sure, you could say there's mental causation since there is physical causation. But it seems to me that in that case, it wouldn't matter what the mental states were about. All that would matter would be the physical structure of the mental states, as far as causation is concerned. So you'd still be left with semantic epiphenomenalism.
Consciousness has causal influence due to its content, not solely because of the physical aspects of its neural correlates. A continuous conscious state includes desires or intentions; it includes the ability to envision a future state and establish a strategy for attaining that state. That makes it more than a purely physical state, it is a conscious state with reference to a future possibility, and no such reference is part of any purely physical state. The self can exert the force of consciousness to some effect in the material world; such conscious states can have causal effect to bring about further states for the sake of values and purposes. Intents, values, and purposes are not reducible to a purely physical state unless one attributes consciousness to the constituent matter itself; consequently, they exist as properties of a consciousness which clearly entails a distinct ontological existence apart from its constituent material components.
I'm just curious about your point of view. I'd like for you to tell me what your point of view is on the mind/body problem (e.g. property dualism, substance dualism, emergentism, reductionism, etc.), and tell me how you explain (or deny) mental causation on your view.
With respect to physicalism held as an empirical hypothesis about the mind/body problem, the evidence against it is overwhelming.
Physicalism is an unwarranted and faith-based ontological commitment which buys us nothing in the way of insight or explanation. The self-evident experiential reality of the interaction between the mental and the physical is undeniable; physicalism is based on denial of the evidence. The so-called interaction problem is contrived, simply declaring the observed and experienced interaction between mind and physical reality is metaphysically impossible is not a coherent argument.
The physicalist argument completely overlooks the fundamental experiential aspect of consciousness. We perceive the world as an integrated whole, a singular field of phenomenal experience where consciousness acts as a dynamic force. As causal agents, we have the capacity to interact with, engage in, and influence the universe. Our interaction with physical reality is inherently transactional.
The strongest argument for the existence mental causation is that we all observe it during every conscious moment, it is a fundamental and significant part of our experiential reality at all times, hence it is self-evident. Consequently, the contrived denial of the possibility of the interaction between the mental and the physical is necessarily a rejection of the very concept of empirical evidence, and the argument against mental causation becomes a rejection without “proof”, which eliminates induction as valid. These two aspects of the approach clearly reject the very basis of science and scientific knowledge, leaving nothing but detached abstractions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the real world.
Philosophy is concerned with saying something which is true or significant, science with doing something which is effective. Science is about the real world, grounded in perceiving and doing, the argument against mental causation is completely abstract and invalidates both perception and doing, it is a complete rejection of science as valid, and philosophically it amounts to a rejection of the very basis of truth and significance.
In the end, there is no valid basis upon which the rejection of mental causation can be said to be true of reality.
The Book of Abraham was not written in Middle Kingdom Egyptian hieroglyphs, so, no, I have not read it in that language. The few samples that are concluded in the Book of Abraham do not represent the entire book, so even if that language were universally known, it is not the entire book.
Bullshit, you know damn well that the Book of Abraham was a fraud perpetrated by Joseph Smith.
Joseph Smith supposedly "translated" a set of hieroglyphic documents to produce the Book of Abraham before qualified scholars were able to translate the hieroglyphics, later on, it was examination by professional Egyptologists (both Mormon and otherwise) and the documents were identified as Egyptian funerary texts.
I am fluent in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. It is read left to right, top to bottom as presented here, with stacked glyphs [the last two pairings on the top line, and the middle pairing in the bottom line] read top to bottom in sequence.
So, you can read the Book of Abraham in the original, have you studied it?
Oh, for crying out loud, if you took just some of the effort you spend declaring yourself an authority on constitutional law and instead, put it into understanding the U.S. Constitution and how it applies, you wouldn’t even have to ask this question.
Anyone with even a cursory familiarity with the U.S. Constitution knows that it grants states broad powers, primarily through the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, to the states respectively, or to the people. A number of Supreme Court decisions provide precedent that the 10th Amendment — which states that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States . . . or to the people” — bans federal “commandeering” of state governments, holding, among other things, that state and local governments cannot be compelled to help enforce federal law.
Neither the U.S. Constitution nor any federal statute prohibits policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, consequently, sanctuary jurisdictions are 100% in compliance with federal law. Sanctuary jurisdictions do not assert any right to actively impede enforcement by federal officials, they merely deny federal agents the assistance of state and local governments, particularly law enforcement agencies and they are well within their Constitutionally granted right to do so.
States are responsible for maintaining law and order within their borders, and because many of the Trump administration’s immigration policies are patently illegal and unconstitutional, the states are morally and legally obliged to protect individuals within their state against the harm likely to be caused by the Trump administration’s draconian immigration policies.
President Donald Trump’s new administration has illegally stripped hundreds of thousands of legal migrants of status, in an effort to make them eligible for deportation. Trumps executive order invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1789 to give him the authority to remove people without due process is both illegal and unconstitutional. The Fifth Amendment prohibits such abuses requiring that “no person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” it says person, extending these legal protections beyond just citizens. Trumps Executive Orders ending constitutional birthright citizenship directly blatantly violates the 14th Amendment. Trump has repeatedly claimed that Article II of the Constitution grants his the power to violate the Constitution, create or change congressional statutes, and override U.S. Supreme Court decisions, which is just his authoritarian wet dream, the U.S. Constitution is explicitly designed to check the power of the executive branch and protect our democracy against such an authoritarian dictator wannabe.
Your constant attempts to misrepresent the constitution to support this lawless authoritarian regime is blatantly dishonest and morally reprehensible.
Perhaps the way to "integrate these many ideas into coherent whole" is by understanding the concept of polar opposites. Quite often our mind perceives polar opposites as mutually exclusive opposites, but that distinction is only in our minds, it is an illusion. Our thoughts and our language divide them, but these opposites are artificial constructs of our minds, in reality they are describing an unbroken whole. The problem is that in its search for brevity and clarity, the mind describes a complex or circular idea by reference to the terms, ends, or extremities of a single unified whole.
It is vital to understand that many things that appear to be opposites are in fact inseparable opposites; they constitute a whole. They are not mutually exclusive at all, in fact they are mutually sustaining, reciprocal in their true nature. Our mind thinks of them as basically separate from each other but in reality, they constitute a whole in the same way that the earth’s poles are the ends of a single entity. There is a reciprocal, transactional relationship being described. Polar opposites don’t even exist without each other, they are contingent upon each other, you just can’t have the one without the other. Polar opposites are like the two sides of a coin, or the two ends of a stick; they reference two opposing aspects of one and the same thing.
I’m not speaking philosophically here. I’m talking about hard science; I’m talking about reality. Science talks about unified and polarized fields, especially when they are talking about fundamental things. Newtonian physics explains the nature of the world as fundamentally a tension of opposites; its basic forces being “action” and “reaction”. The “hardest” science we have is physics and when the physicists finally reduced the world down to its most primary components, they found light to be fundamental. It turned out that matter was nothing but a special state of light, “frozen light” if you will. Energy and matter, and even matter and space turned out to be just different aspects of the same fundamental reality. And light (and therefore matter) was proven to have the properties of both a wave and a particle. The scientific foundation of everything in the material universe, the “primary stuff” of physical existence has the properties of a wave, something intangible, distributed across a large region in time, and it also has the properties of a particle, a tangible, discrete unit, independent of time. This is logically inconceivable, a wave is the opposite of a particle, and particle and wave are “mutually exclusive” properties. The only way to reconcile this absolute contradiction is to recognize that they are, in fact, “polar opposites”.Light was also found to have certain “absolute” properties such as its speed and this profoundly revolutionized science, resulting in the theory of relativity. In order to "integrate these many ideas into coherent whole" we need to incorporate this idea of polar opposites into our thinking.
I first read the Constitution at age 5
That explains why you misrepresent the Constitution like a whiney five-year-old who didn't get his way.
Your dishonest attempts to use the Constitution to justify Trumps lawlessness are childish.
Current Insult list so far:
Transphobe
Retard
Facsist
Xenephobe
Nazi
Satire
Evil
Pathetic (bolded because it's new)
You forgot "boring" and "dumb as a post".
You don't have to type "rage bait" on these, marking them offensive is enough.
Yeah, but if he doesn't mark it as rage bait, how would anybody know? Does he even know what rage baiting is, or what it's supposed to do? If he does know what rage baiting is, then why is he so incredibly bad at it.
I mean, if it's just boring as shit and nobody cares, how is that "rage" bait"?
Maybe he should mark them all "dumbass" baiting, or maybe "desperate for attention" baiting.
More incel blather
What is an Incel? Like, by definition. Involuntarily celibate. I'm celibate by choice, so your definition is inaccurate and rejected.
Of course you aren't an incel, you chose to have all women reject you LOL.