Kilmar should be allowed to live in the houses of any of Techdirt's owners. If he gets to pick his country, he should be allowed to pick his house.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
I knew I could get you to the point where you would hurl invective rather than deal with my argument. Happens all the time.
I note with interest that you pivoted from "no downsides" to "deaths." Maybe there haven't been any deaths in otherwise-healthy people who take the vaccine. I don't take that as a given. However, more importantly, I can think of many things that are a "downsides" that don't rise to the level of death.
I see you want my children to die. I get it. I have many living, productive, intelligent children. They may deserve death; I'm unaware of the reason why, though. However, to frame your response more precisely, if one or all of my children were among the 12 out of 100,000 people to die from measles without vaccination, and if that lack of vaccination prevented 2,500 out of those same 100,000 people from being autistic, then, yes. I would accept that.
I do, however, note that the general status of medical care (vaccines notwithstanding) has improved dramatically. I suspect that the death rate would be much lower than 12 per 100,000 if the population were not forced to accept these vaccines.
I am not a medical, immunological, virological, or other scientific expert or researcher. I am a litigator. I've battled dozens of times to prove crazy things to skeptical juries in the United States (the government I do not trust, btw). I win far more often than I lose. My perspective is important because of this one fact: like the tobacco companies before them, the vaccine manufacturers sought and received immunity from lawsuits in order to provide their poison. How do I know it's poison? Because you wouldn't need immunity from lawsuits for putting beneficial things in people's bodies.
Call me kooky and a conspiracy theorist. Hurl invective. Engage in ad hominem all you like. But just once, let me sue them and let me force them to produce their evidence in a courtroom. I bet I could get 12 people anywhere in this country to agree with me once the evidence is produced. Vaccines are poison.
Hopefully I will die of COVID soon. It will make everyone happy. I AM unvaccinated. Sadly, I've last decades. Long enough to see debate and the pursuit of truth crushed by those who don't grapple with facts. Rather, they impose pejoratives on those with whom they disagree. Kinda Trumpian, if you think about it.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
"There is no real downsides at all to being vaccinated against measles . . . ." Do you have any proof of this?
I know I'm rare in my distrust of the government, but I don't want them in my cell phone OR in my body. There can never be ZERO risk in putting artificial substances in a humans body. This is especially true at scale. I have never seen a true placebo trial of the MMR vaccine. And I have especially never seen one that studies the effects on a human body for 50 plus years.
I applaud your sourcing the chart, however. It does seem to suggest that 12 in every 100,000 people in 1919 died from measles. And death is worse than any condition that leave the human person remaining alive. Accepting all that, one out of every 40ish people are now autistic. When I was a child, the closest thing to autism was me. I realize placing that fact into evidence is enough to make everyone here apoplectic. But it's a truth that should be explored, right? Or should we wait until that number is one out of every one person is autism until we try to figure out why this is?
I love all of the people who disclaim my expertise as if they know me. But, again. I'm the resident whipping-boy because I have independent thoughts.
If we went back to 12 deaths per 100,000 and eliminated autism, I think that would be a net win for society. Here's where you get to lose your mind about how cruel I am. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
I was alive in 1990. I don't remember anyone clamboring for a measles vaccine. I DO remember the pediatrician telling me in 1993 that if I didn't give it to my newborn child, the baby would be taken away for medical neglect.
I honestly don't remember measles being that bad. It felt like a solution in need of a problem when they rolled out the vaccines. Now, mumps and rubella--different story. They could be really bad, deadly even. Measles? Not so much.
But I'm a conservative. All of my opinions should be discounted automatically because I do my own research instead of trusting the science.
Tim, I applaud you for this post. No restrictions or caveats. I applaud you. I respect this post, and it's the reason I come here for your perspective. Thank you.
I'm on pins and needles. Is it the same guy or not? I'm conservative, so I know I'm not allowed to trust my own eyes. I need Techdirt's assistance on this one.
So, any updates?
I wouldn't call what she put in quotation marks a quote. She put quotation marks around her paraphrase of what Charlie Kirk said and attributed the paraphrasing as a quotation. I'm a dimwit, misogynistic, xenophobic, homophobic idiot. But I do know the difference between quotation and paraphrasing.
Having said that, if anybody can find evidence that Charlie Kirk said those exact words, I will be happy to reaffirm my dimwit status.
Down vote me, y'all. Nobody wants to see truth anymore.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Leave it to Techdirt to analyze complex subjects in an entirely superficial way.
The situation is pretty clear. The majority of people who care enough to vote are conservative. Hurling invective still isn't a way to convince us stupid people to come tl your side. Some of us ignorant, bigoted, misogynistic, dimwits actually don't respond positively to the name-calling. You should try to convince me instead of shaming me.
Until someone on the left can make a cogent, evidence-based argument, I'll just stand here on the sidelines and punch the R button every chance I get.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
If I understand correctly, this is your website. You should really configure it so that registered users don't have to log in each time they want to post or reply. But I appreciate your snarky comment about my inability to navigate your website. I'm clearly not on your intellectual level.
Economic studies that purport to demonstrate illegal immigration is good for the economy are just using illegal immigration as a substitute for the abolition of minimum wage. I agree that employers should be able to pay whatever wage that employees will accept. So, we've found common ground finally.
You denigrate my ability to make sound arguments by flaunting your inability to process my arguments. Okay, I'll play along. I'm ignorant, evil, and xenophobic. I'm probably racist and misogynistic, too. But here's where your self-righteous smugness can be shown to he demonstrably unpersuasive. 2016 and 2024. Trump won those elections. If you ever hope to peel off moderates like me you should stop attacking us for having differing opinions and convince us they are wrong. You don't live in the same world most of us do. We can't afford the luxury of being in favor of bringing in people who are simultaneously above and below the law and who drive down wages. Maybe they are good for the economy of rich people who never have to go to war. They are bad for the poor people who are citizens of the United States.
So, by your logic, we should import MORE immigrants to make our economy better?
I suppose you believe in the strength of American diplomacy and the United States military to impose our will on the polity of every country around the world? You want us to bring more democracy to places like we delivered some in Iraq? You live in an ivory tower of idealism. It's nice that some people can do that. It affords them the luxury of sending the poor people's kids to die so that nobody ever gets tortured in some backwater country. I'm glad we ended it in Iraq. I'm sure we'll end it in El Salvador. However, I doubt you will be brave enough to go do it yourself. You'll send my children to do it for you.
Thank you for the compliment disguised as ad hominem. This is exactly how to win an argument.
If you knew who I am (and I suppose you could figure it out), you'd realize I'm not the person you've built me up to be.
I just think our country is struggling enough on its own. We don't need to be the social worker of the world. We can't afford it. And interfering in other countries' internal political systems is how we've created a lot of the international problems we face today. Let's fix our country first before we start fixing others. You know, the mote and the beam story from the traditional Christian Bible.
Republicans want illegal immigration because it contributes to cheaper labor costs. Democrats want illegal immigration because it contributes to a higher vote count. Everybody wants illegal immigration except the American people.
Let me start by saying I don't practice immigration law, so I may not understand the intricacies. If I understand correctly, our good friend Kilmar was given the legal status of "withholding of removal," after a full hearing. I suspect this would comfort with Due Process. This status means that he was subject to immediate deportation to any country that would accept him, except for his home country, El Salvador. So, when ICE agents picked him up and had him transported to El Salvador without a hearing, they were wrong. However, had the plane landed somewhere else, Due Process would have been fulfilled.
Frankly, I honestly don't give a shit whether a citizen of another country is tortured or wrongfully imprisoned in their country. Maybe he was; maybe he wasn't. It appears Kilmar is a coward for not standing up for his rights at home, and he wants the United States tl fight for him instead of doing it himself. But all of that is pointless and meaningless.
The legal question of whether he should have kicked off the plane in EL Salvador or some other question does appear to raise a question of whether more process was due. They should've taken him to Uganda to begin with. However, the policy question of what Process is due a noncitizen who is subject to a final removal order with "withholding of removal" status is far different than how it's being framed in the press (which was the original post). The press and others on the Left suggest that this could happen to anyone. We all know this is not true. This mistake of landing in the wrong country (granting this, arguendo) can't happen to anyone. It can only happen to people who have been through a deportation hearing and lost. It's not a question of substance: it's a question of remedy.
We really ought to end the importation of all people from other countries completely until this gets sorted out. We are already choked enough with taxes. I don't need to pay more to support people who are not biologically mine.
I mean this in all seriousness. What process was he due that he did not get? Due Process suggests that the process is standardized and codified somewhere. I thought all of the standardized and codified procedures were followed and he was subject to a final order of deportation? What process us due after that? Where am I wrong?
It's clear the edit was made for political purposes. It changes the entire context of what she says. It went from, "we're getting him out of the country because we think he's a bad person," to "we're getting him out of the country because we're retaliating against him "
Regardless, he isn't a United States citizen and thus doesn't belong here. We have enough problems giving our money away to other counties. We shouldn't have to import the problems they don't want. I realize this is an unpopular opinion to vocalize, but it's shared by enough people that it got a deranged person elected for saying he would enforce it.
Actually, it's the other way around. As I understand Article I of the Constitution, Congress makes immigration and naturalization laws. Article II gives the Executive branch power to enforce those laws. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments require Due Process in that enforcement.
As a policy matter, it is a sad day when we have to say, "we're so far down the toilet that it would take 88,000 per person to worry about getting out of the toilet." "Americans" won't do certain jobs because they have the power to go to the Department of Labor if an employer forces them to accept sub-mininum wage salaries.
It's the chicken and egg syndrome. There's a problem. We need to go all-in, one way or another. Everybody should be able to come in, or nobody should. I would bet on the United States. But, this wishy-washy approach certainly hasn't worked. Let's repeal all immigration laws or enforce them. One or the other is fine with me.
Love your baby. Kill it in the womb before it has a chance to be a conservative.
Any* time
The head of the FBI damn well better be able to lie to Congress and time he wants to! Congress isn't the boss of him!
I'm asking this as a serious question. What should be the substantive difference between a citizen and a non-citizen?
Kilmar should be allowed to live in the houses of any of Techdirt's owners. If he gets to pick his country, he should be allowed to pick his house. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Golly gosh. Gee whiz. You got me. But never forget: 9 out of 10 doctors prefer Camel cigarettes!
I knew I could get you to the point where you would hurl invective rather than deal with my argument. Happens all the time. I note with interest that you pivoted from "no downsides" to "deaths." Maybe there haven't been any deaths in otherwise-healthy people who take the vaccine. I don't take that as a given. However, more importantly, I can think of many things that are a "downsides" that don't rise to the level of death. I see you want my children to die. I get it. I have many living, productive, intelligent children. They may deserve death; I'm unaware of the reason why, though. However, to frame your response more precisely, if one or all of my children were among the 12 out of 100,000 people to die from measles without vaccination, and if that lack of vaccination prevented 2,500 out of those same 100,000 people from being autistic, then, yes. I would accept that. I do, however, note that the general status of medical care (vaccines notwithstanding) has improved dramatically. I suspect that the death rate would be much lower than 12 per 100,000 if the population were not forced to accept these vaccines. I am not a medical, immunological, virological, or other scientific expert or researcher. I am a litigator. I've battled dozens of times to prove crazy things to skeptical juries in the United States (the government I do not trust, btw). I win far more often than I lose. My perspective is important because of this one fact: like the tobacco companies before them, the vaccine manufacturers sought and received immunity from lawsuits in order to provide their poison. How do I know it's poison? Because you wouldn't need immunity from lawsuits for putting beneficial things in people's bodies. Call me kooky and a conspiracy theorist. Hurl invective. Engage in ad hominem all you like. But just once, let me sue them and let me force them to produce their evidence in a courtroom. I bet I could get 12 people anywhere in this country to agree with me once the evidence is produced. Vaccines are poison. Hopefully I will die of COVID soon. It will make everyone happy. I AM unvaccinated. Sadly, I've last decades. Long enough to see debate and the pursuit of truth crushed by those who don't grapple with facts. Rather, they impose pejoratives on those with whom they disagree. Kinda Trumpian, if you think about it. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
"There is no real downsides at all to being vaccinated against measles . . . ." Do you have any proof of this? I know I'm rare in my distrust of the government, but I don't want them in my cell phone OR in my body. There can never be ZERO risk in putting artificial substances in a humans body. This is especially true at scale. I have never seen a true placebo trial of the MMR vaccine. And I have especially never seen one that studies the effects on a human body for 50 plus years. I applaud your sourcing the chart, however. It does seem to suggest that 12 in every 100,000 people in 1919 died from measles. And death is worse than any condition that leave the human person remaining alive. Accepting all that, one out of every 40ish people are now autistic. When I was a child, the closest thing to autism was me. I realize placing that fact into evidence is enough to make everyone here apoplectic. But it's a truth that should be explored, right? Or should we wait until that number is one out of every one person is autism until we try to figure out why this is? I love all of the people who disclaim my expertise as if they know me. But, again. I'm the resident whipping-boy because I have independent thoughts. If we went back to 12 deaths per 100,000 and eliminated autism, I think that would be a net win for society. Here's where you get to lose your mind about how cruel I am. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
I was alive in 1990. I don't remember anyone clamboring for a measles vaccine. I DO remember the pediatrician telling me in 1993 that if I didn't give it to my newborn child, the baby would be taken away for medical neglect. I honestly don't remember measles being that bad. It felt like a solution in need of a problem when they rolled out the vaccines. Now, mumps and rubella--different story. They could be really bad, deadly even. Measles? Not so much. But I'm a conservative. All of my opinions should be discounted automatically because I do my own research instead of trusting the science.
Tim, I applaud you for this post. No restrictions or caveats. I applaud you. I respect this post, and it's the reason I come here for your perspective. Thank you.
I'm on pins and needles. Is it the same guy or not? I'm conservative, so I know I'm not allowed to trust my own eyes. I need Techdirt's assistance on this one. So, any updates?
I wouldn't call what she put in quotation marks a quote. She put quotation marks around her paraphrase of what Charlie Kirk said and attributed the paraphrasing as a quotation. I'm a dimwit, misogynistic, xenophobic, homophobic idiot. But I do know the difference between quotation and paraphrasing. Having said that, if anybody can find evidence that Charlie Kirk said those exact words, I will be happy to reaffirm my dimwit status. Down vote me, y'all. Nobody wants to see truth anymore. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Leave it to Techdirt to analyze complex subjects in an entirely superficial way. The situation is pretty clear. The majority of people who care enough to vote are conservative. Hurling invective still isn't a way to convince us stupid people to come tl your side. Some of us ignorant, bigoted, misogynistic, dimwits actually don't respond positively to the name-calling. You should try to convince me instead of shaming me. Until someone on the left can make a cogent, evidence-based argument, I'll just stand here on the sidelines and punch the R button every chance I get. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
If I understand correctly, this is your website. You should really configure it so that registered users don't have to log in each time they want to post or reply. But I appreciate your snarky comment about my inability to navigate your website. I'm clearly not on your intellectual level. Economic studies that purport to demonstrate illegal immigration is good for the economy are just using illegal immigration as a substitute for the abolition of minimum wage. I agree that employers should be able to pay whatever wage that employees will accept. So, we've found common ground finally. You denigrate my ability to make sound arguments by flaunting your inability to process my arguments. Okay, I'll play along. I'm ignorant, evil, and xenophobic. I'm probably racist and misogynistic, too. But here's where your self-righteous smugness can be shown to he demonstrably unpersuasive. 2016 and 2024. Trump won those elections. If you ever hope to peel off moderates like me you should stop attacking us for having differing opinions and convince us they are wrong. You don't live in the same world most of us do. We can't afford the luxury of being in favor of bringing in people who are simultaneously above and below the law and who drive down wages. Maybe they are good for the economy of rich people who never have to go to war. They are bad for the poor people who are citizens of the United States.
So, by your logic, we should import MORE immigrants to make our economy better? I suppose you believe in the strength of American diplomacy and the United States military to impose our will on the polity of every country around the world? You want us to bring more democracy to places like we delivered some in Iraq? You live in an ivory tower of idealism. It's nice that some people can do that. It affords them the luxury of sending the poor people's kids to die so that nobody ever gets tortured in some backwater country. I'm glad we ended it in Iraq. I'm sure we'll end it in El Salvador. However, I doubt you will be brave enough to go do it yourself. You'll send my children to do it for you.
Thank you for the compliment disguised as ad hominem. This is exactly how to win an argument. If you knew who I am (and I suppose you could figure it out), you'd realize I'm not the person you've built me up to be. I just think our country is struggling enough on its own. We don't need to be the social worker of the world. We can't afford it. And interfering in other countries' internal political systems is how we've created a lot of the international problems we face today. Let's fix our country first before we start fixing others. You know, the mote and the beam story from the traditional Christian Bible. Republicans want illegal immigration because it contributes to cheaper labor costs. Democrats want illegal immigration because it contributes to a higher vote count. Everybody wants illegal immigration except the American people.
Let me start by saying I don't practice immigration law, so I may not understand the intricacies. If I understand correctly, our good friend Kilmar was given the legal status of "withholding of removal," after a full hearing. I suspect this would comfort with Due Process. This status means that he was subject to immediate deportation to any country that would accept him, except for his home country, El Salvador. So, when ICE agents picked him up and had him transported to El Salvador without a hearing, they were wrong. However, had the plane landed somewhere else, Due Process would have been fulfilled. Frankly, I honestly don't give a shit whether a citizen of another country is tortured or wrongfully imprisoned in their country. Maybe he was; maybe he wasn't. It appears Kilmar is a coward for not standing up for his rights at home, and he wants the United States tl fight for him instead of doing it himself. But all of that is pointless and meaningless. The legal question of whether he should have kicked off the plane in EL Salvador or some other question does appear to raise a question of whether more process was due. They should've taken him to Uganda to begin with. However, the policy question of what Process is due a noncitizen who is subject to a final removal order with "withholding of removal" status is far different than how it's being framed in the press (which was the original post). The press and others on the Left suggest that this could happen to anyone. We all know this is not true. This mistake of landing in the wrong country (granting this, arguendo) can't happen to anyone. It can only happen to people who have been through a deportation hearing and lost. It's not a question of substance: it's a question of remedy. We really ought to end the importation of all people from other countries completely until this gets sorted out. We are already choked enough with taxes. I don't need to pay more to support people who are not biologically mine.
I mean this in all seriousness. What process was he due that he did not get? Due Process suggests that the process is standardized and codified somewhere. I thought all of the standardized and codified procedures were followed and he was subject to a final order of deportation? What process us due after that? Where am I wrong?
It's clear the edit was made for political purposes. It changes the entire context of what she says. It went from, "we're getting him out of the country because we think he's a bad person," to "we're getting him out of the country because we're retaliating against him " Regardless, he isn't a United States citizen and thus doesn't belong here. We have enough problems giving our money away to other counties. We shouldn't have to import the problems they don't want. I realize this is an unpopular opinion to vocalize, but it's shared by enough people that it got a deranged person elected for saying he would enforce it.
Actually, it's the other way around. As I understand Article I of the Constitution, Congress makes immigration and naturalization laws. Article II gives the Executive branch power to enforce those laws. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments require Due Process in that enforcement. As a policy matter, it is a sad day when we have to say, "we're so far down the toilet that it would take 88,000 per person to worry about getting out of the toilet." "Americans" won't do certain jobs because they have the power to go to the Department of Labor if an employer forces them to accept sub-mininum wage salaries. It's the chicken and egg syndrome. There's a problem. We need to go all-in, one way or another. Everybody should be able to come in, or nobody should. I would bet on the United States. But, this wishy-washy approach certainly hasn't worked. Let's repeal all immigration laws or enforce them. One or the other is fine with me.