David Horowitz: Democrats are the party of hate

Max, as I understand your position, you are opposed to deporting illegal aliens from this country.

Is that correct?

If so, why? Why do you oppose it? Any reasons beyond those Finn summarized?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

It is a matter of wanting to talk to people outside of our respective political bubbles, and seeking an intelligent discussion

Notwithstanding your repeated assertions to the contrary, Max, you don't seem to be the least bit interested in any "discussion" at all.

Although you are willing to assert your preferences, you refuse to defend them or to offer any rational argument as to why anyone should be inclined to adopt your views. Your main "argument" seem to be that you are entitled to your own subjective views, which nobody disputes to begin with.

1 Reply

@layman,

Layman, I am not interested in a partisan mud-slinging conversation with you. Sorry, but we have done that... and it's not fun any more. You seem to want to insist that I continue to engage with you. You aren't that interesting, sorry.

I am inviting Finn and McGentrix to step out of the partisan bubble with me and have a more substantive discussion where instead of mud-slinging, we take a more in-depth look at the strengths and weaknesses of arguments on both sides. Ideally that is what I would like... if I can find someone on the other side who wants to engage in this way. Both Finn and McGentrix have made points that I think are interesting and shows that they are able to think on these issues with more depth than just the partisan talking points.

I would invite you too, but I don't think you have any interest. Correct me if I am wrong.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I would invite you too, but I don't think you have any interest. Correct me if I am wrong.

I ask you very simple, straightforward questions in a seemingly impossible attempt to induce you to "look at the strength and weaknesses of the arguments," but you staunchly resist.

At one point you asked me if I was giving proper consideration to the argument's of the other side. I asked you what those arguments were, and you refused to say. You continue to refuse. Your pretense to seeking "discussion" comes across as hollow and disingenuous.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

It's not that difficult if you would stop trying to change what I wrote.

I never wrote that alleged lawbreakers don't have rights, and even convicted lawbreakers retain rights, but actual lawbreakers should never win aka profit from their breaking of the law.

Or do you disagree?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

I ask you very simple, straightforward questions in a seemingly impossible attempt to induce you to "look at the strength and weaknesses of the arguments," but you staunchly resist.

I don't believe this. You have never once attempted to look at the strength of an liberal argument or the weakness of a conservative argument. You are here to throw mud at liberals; to prove that liberals are naive America haters.

Tell me I am wrong.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

It's not that difficult if you would stop trying to change what I wrote.

I never wrote that alleged lawbreakers don't have rights, and even convicted lawbreakers retain rights, but actual lawbreakers should never win aka profit from their breaking of the law.

Or do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree. There is no general legal principle like this. In a court of law both sides present the evidence and the jury and judge apply the law. Whether of not a lawbreaker ever "wins" is not a consideration. The court makes a decision based on the law and the facts on the case, not based on what "should" happen.

There are a couple of cases where legislatures have written provisions into specific laws to prevent convicted criminals from profiting. But other than that, your principle is wishful thinking.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I don't believe this. You have never once attempted to look at the strength of an liberal argument or the weakness of a conservative argument.

That's all I've done in this thread.

0 Replies

One argument that I've heard (not in this thread) is that no illegal should in any way fear deportation, because if they do, they will not cooperate with police.

Is that an argument you care to adopt and discuss, Max?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

One argument that I've heard (not in this thread) is that no illegal should in any way fear deportation, because if they do, they will not cooperate with police.

Is this intended as a joke? Or are you being serious.

(This made me laugh.)

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quite serious. I see that argument being made repeatedly by the supporters of "sanctuary" cities and states.

I'll have to admit that I find it rather laughable myself, but, still...

1 Reply

@layman,

This is a simplistic caricature of what supporters of sanctuary cities are actually saying. You are putting up a strawman so you can throw mud at it. I see what you are doing. I don't think you are fooling anyone. And, it made me laugh.

There is an real issue, that has some depth, around the impact of immigration enforcement with local police. Many law enforcement officials point out that it is important for local police officers to have the trust and cooperation of the local communities they serve, and that federal immigration enforcement can erode that trust.

There is an issue here that has some nuance. But your interest is to throw up a target for mud slinging about how stupid liberals hate police. Correct me if I am wrong.

Anyone who has poked their head out of the partisan bubble even a little bit understands issues like this on both sides.

But you turn a real issue into a simplistic slogan, not even mentioning that this is an issue with local law enforcement working withing local communities.

Is this anything more than a target to sling mud at? If you are really interested in understand the issue, there are plenty of American police chiefs who can explain the issue far better than I. You could go find them if you were at all interested.

4 Replies

@maxdancona,

How did I mischaracterize any thing? I merely said what you said:

Quote:

..it is important for local police officers to have the trust and cooperation of the local communities

Is it possible for you to be less defensive?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

If you are really interested in understand the issue, there are plenty of American police chiefs who can explain the issue far better than I. You could go find them if you were at all interested.

OK, that's fine. I wasn't trying to force you into defending that position. I merely asked you if that was an argument that you wanted to adopt and discuss.

The answer to that is clearly "no."

So what argument do you want to adopt and discuss?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

The fundamental difference is that you do not believe illegal immigration is wrong and others do.

Can you imagine someone on A2K fighting because they didn't feel rape was wrong? You'd be awful strident in opposition to that I believe. Do you think you could put yourself in a position where you could see the opposite sides point of view?

Yeah, rape is a far cry from crossing a border. I get that.

How about someone arguing that it is ok for a husband to rape his wife as long as she is over 14? Could you get behind that?

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

The fundamental difference is that you do not believe illegal immigration is wrong and others do.

Yeah, Gent, and often that's the only thing it boils down to. All the "rationalizations" are simply different ways of saying "there's nothing wrong with it and there should be no punishment for it." They presuppose that premise as a basis for their conclusion, whatever rationale they are trying to advance.

0 Replies

And, with that in mind, I'll just pose this question to Max:

Is there anything, anything at all, "wrong" with entering this country illegally?

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

I don't get your point McGentrix. There are lots of Americans who disagree with you about illegal immigration, it is a pretty controversial topic (and there are more than two viewpoints with lots of people in the middle).

Yes, you can point to laws against illegal immigration. They are great points for your side of the political debate.

And my side can point to laws protecting "illegal" immigrants, and allowing communities to protect them.

Both sides are gaining some traction on the issue of illegal immigration (whereas there is no one trying to make rape legal). There are a lot of us who are using the laws to protect "illegal" immigrants and communities in court, are lobbying state representatives and using all the leverage that our system of government gives us. We have court fights blocking Trumps executive orders, and Mayors standing up to ICE with the support of American citizens and legislators pushing bills supporting "illegal" immigrants and their families.

That's how democracy works.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

I am just inviting you to step outside of the partisan bubbles we live in and see things from the other point of view. Don't worry, its not that bad here.

The political struggle is played according to the rules. Your side will win some and my side will win some. Nothing that happens here will change that.

That doesn't mean we can't have an interesting discussion between people with different points of view.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

That's how democracy works.

No, not really. For democracy to work, there must be an understanding that, if you disagree with a law, you are entitled to lobby to change it.

But, equally, there must be an understanding that you don't "break" the law, simply because you don't like it. Change it, don't break it.

0 Replies

David Horowitz: Democrats are the party of hate

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know