MMMMMM Advocates Violence Against Americans

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How is deporting someone a violent act?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? It's a violation of self-determination by use of force.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am totally serious. Deportation screams non-citizen. Don't forget that IMPORTANT little bit of information.

[/ QUOTE ]

We were talking about violence, not citizenship status. Forced relocation is violent. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but I am just not following you. I asked how deporting someone is violent. You responded, but failed to do so fully. I think in this case the citizenship status certainly IS important because we are talking about a deportation. Not a "forced relocation". At least those were the words used. If you wanted to talk about something else, perhaps clarifying would have been prudent.

[MMMMMM]

In that thread you linked I advocated no such thing.

In another thread I did suggest something deportation but not violence in certain cases (regarding certain visa holders or immigrants, which I will address below).

Now to respond:

[ QUOTE ]
1) The forced deportation of a citizen for speech is a violent act.


2) MMMMMM advocates the forced deportation of U.S. citizens for speech

[/ QUOTE ]



Firstly, you are greatly stretching the definition of violence.

Secondly, I suggest only the deportation of those who are here on visas or as immigrants AND who also advocate violence or insurrection against the United States (or its citizens or institutions).

England is taking measures to allow for the revocation of citizenships and deportatation of immigrants who later advocate violence against England. Some of the "hate preachers" in London (some who have strong ties to radical terrorist groups) fall under this category. France has recently deported two imams and is getting ready to deport a half dozen more for similar fomentation of hatred and violence.

I think this is a reasonable approach. Why should the host country forever welcome those individuals who are trying to destroy her?

A visa or even citizenship is not granted to a foreigner so that the individual can later attempt to destroy the country to which he is being admitted. In the United States there is an oath of immigration (and pledge of allegiance too, if I'm not mistaken) which is required of all immigrants. If they later urge the tearing down of the United States, or radical violence against its citizens or institutions, they are violating the the spirit and possibly the letter of their Oath of Immigration and Pledge of Allegiance.

The USA does not need to extend a permanent welcome to those foreigners who advocate the overthrow of the United States or who advocate violence against its citizens or institutions. Why should we? They're essentially here as guests by the grace of our goodwill and hopefully on their own merit to be peaceful and productive persons. If they seriously violate that, well then, seeing as they were a guest in the first place, I don't see much wrong with throwing them out.

Would you keep a house guest who began talking about burning down your house or killing your daughter or taking some other action destructive to you? No; you'd kick him out. So why should the USA extend a carte blanche forever welcome to those individuals who came first as guests or visitors and later become radical advocates of violence or insurrection?

I'm not advocating violence against US citizens; I'm suggesting that those we admitted on visas or as immigrants need to NOT advocate violence or destruction against us. If they do so, they're bad guests or bad visitors or even bad naturalized citizens. In my opinion their right to be here should then be terminated and they should be sent back whence they came.

That's not an advocation of violence against them, either. It's a suggestion that the laws should be changed to legally permit the revocation of visas or naturalizations for those individuals who later turn out to be destructive and unwelcome additions, those who advocate the destruction of the USA or violence against its citizens or institutions.

I can see why my view might appear controversial to some but it is clear that I am not advocating violence against these persons.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
LaggyLou and Everyone Else on 2+2 (except possibly pvn) Advocates Violence Against Americans

1. Putting people in jail is a violent act.

2. Everyone supports jailing at least some of the following: murderers, rapists, terrorists, child molesters, thieves, etc., etc.

3. I love pointless but stupid syllogisms.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that freedom of speech is now right there among common crimes.

[LaggyLou]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you read the post that jokerwild made?? Do you understand what he said?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have read all of the posts currently in that thread. I believe I understand them.

[ QUOTE ]
False and defamatory things in that post:
1. You advocate violence against Americans. As you've pointed out, in a tautological way, this is true about MMMMMM and everyone else. Its only reasonable interpretation however, is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, no. You have pointed out a way in which that statement is true about MMMMMM and everyone else. I have pointed out a way in which it is true about MMMMMM and NOT true about most others: MMMMMM advocates the deportation of citizens of the United States for their speech. This use of force is violent in a way that the use of force to imprison murders and rapists is not.

[ QUOTE ]
2. The ATF is watching you. False and defamatory, no one has claimed otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

MMMMMM did not cite this statement as the cause for jokerswild's banning. What he said instead was:

[ QUOTE ]
He claimed I advocated violence against US citizens, which was clearly NOT suggested by my post. Nor have I ever advocated violence against Americans. Jokerswild made this false claim deliberately and in a defamatory manner. That's pretty clearly malicious by any objective standard I would think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moreover, I have no idea whether this is true or false. Do you?

[ QUOTE ]
You are a racist. False and defamatory, no one has claimed otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Opinion, not defamatory. Also not the statement MMMMMM relied on.

[ QUOTE ]
4. You are like Tim McVeigh. See above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Opinion. See above.

[ QUOTE ]
5. 2+2 was stupid to make a right-wing extremist like you a moderator. False, but not defamatory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Opinion. See above.

[LaggyLou]

[ QUOTE ]
In that thread you linked I advocated no such thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's put your cheering of Mr. "dove season" aside for a moment (we'll get back to it at the end of the post). As your justification for banning, you stated that that you never had advocated violence against Americans as part of your explanation as to why Jokerswild's statement was "defamatory".

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, you are greatly stretching the definition of violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

1. "Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing" . . . 4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power

[/ QUOTE ]
--American Heritage College Dictionary 1531 (4th Ed. 2002)

So you say. I say that you are mistaken.

[ QUOTE ]
In another thread I did suggest something deportation but not violence in certain cases (regarding certain visa holders or immigrants, which I will address below).

[/ QUOTE ]

Specifically, you advocated the deportation of not only "visa holders", but naturalized citizens. Right?

The rest of your post depends on the deporting of citizens for speech not being deemed a violent act. As set forth above I believe that you are wrong. Now, this disagreement can be characterized as one about an objective fact (the meaning of "violence") or as one of opinion regarding whether deporting citizens under the circumstances you describe is "abusive" or "unjust". But what my statement cannot be described as is "defamatory".

And neither can jokerswild's, for similar reasons. You own him an apology for the banning. He might well owe you one for the content of his post, but that is neither here nor there. Your banning of him was an abuse of power.


P.S. I see that jaxmike made several replies to my posts. Someone please remind him that I have him on "ignore".

[mackthefork]

Hi MMMMMM

[ QUOTE ]
I can see why my view might appear controversial to some but it is clear that I am not advocating violence against these persons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you would have these peoples freedom of speech taken away, under threat of deportation? Your reasoning for this is that they may have had a different nationality at one time, how do you reconcile this with the fact you claim your suggested actions are not borne (sp) out of racist views?

Regards Mack

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I can see why my view might appear controversial to some but it is clear that I am not advocating violence against these persons.

[/ QUOTE ]



Because you would have these peoples freedom of speech taken away, under threat of deportation? Your reasoning for this is that they may have had a different nationality at one time, how do you reconcile this with the fact you claim your suggested actions are not borne (sp) out of racist views?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I would hold the same view completely irrespective of their race or religion: they could be Eskimo, Chinese, Polish, Ethiopian, Moroccan, atheist, Muslim, Christian, green, blue, brown, yellow or whatever.

If they came here and swore oaths of citizenship and allegiance to the United States in order to be granted citizenship, and then they turn around and advocate destructive violence or insurrection against us, in my opinion they have violated the oath and pledge they initially took. They wouldn't have been grtanted citizenship had they made their views known at the time they applied.

The United States has a fairly open immigration policy but it is not intended to be subverted for the purposes of admitting radical insurrectionists or those intent on destroying the country. They are granted naturalized citizenship based in part of certain presumptions (to which they swear) and if they egregiously violate that deal I think the United States should have the option to revoke her end of the bargain too.

[MMMMMM]

I didn't advocate violence against Americans. My suggestion that legal changes be made to allow the deportation of certain individuals is not equivalent to the advocation of violence. You may find my elaboration elsewhere in this thread.

I think in your case you may just be a little confused about all this.

In jokerswild's case however I believe he deliberately and maliciously misrepresented the views of another poster which is a different matter altogether. This in fact is exactly what I had forewarned him about. Please note that this is consistent with jokerswild's pattern of past posts regarding not only myself but other posters, as is his pattern of terrible name-calling.

[LaggyLou]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't advocate violence against Americans.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you advocate is clear. Whether it is "violence against Americans" or not is a matter of opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
In jokerswild's case however I believe he deliberately and maliciously misrepresented the views of another poster which is a different matter altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I believe I have shown, what jokerswild said is a matter of opinion. It is not defamatory. Indeed, in the original thread you have admitted as much, and have said that the difference is in interpretations of the meaning of firing a shot into the air.

If what jokerswild said was not defamatory, he should not have been banned. I shall change my avatar and location in protest of your actions.

[MMMMMM]

What jokerswild said is false and defamatory.

He said I advocated violence against Americans and then used a Tim McVeigh reference to me in his name-calling, so clearly he wasn't meaning that I was only suggesting changing some law regarding deportation. The McVeigh reference fits perfectly with a claim regarding *real* violence. So, this shoots down your theory, I think.

edit: oops, jokerswild didn't make the claim regarding deportation. But his use of the McVeigh reference combined with his claim that I advocate violence against Americans makes it a seriously defamatory accusation (and one which is clearly false). No matter what he, you or anyone else think of the dove-hunting incident interview, you all know that I do not advocate violence against Americans--and especially not in the McVeigh sense. So you must have missed that reference in your analysis.

If you don't agree, fine, but that's my firm opinion.