Hey, there! Log in / Register

Bostonians rally for immigrant families

Protesting immigration policies at City Hall Plaza in Boston

Tens of thousands of Bostonians braved the heat and humidity today to rally at City Hall Plaza and on Boston Common to support immigrant families, especially the ones locked up and separated under the policies of the Trump administration.

Boston welcoming immigrants since 1630

Organizers walked around City Hall Plaza and later the Common with bottles of water for sun-beaten protesters. The speakers' stand was set up in front of the JFK federal building.

Boston immigration rally

This one's for Marco Rubio:

Boston immigration rally: Hell no
Boston immigration rally: Really does care
Boston immigration rally: Nazis took kids away
Boston immigration rally: ICE melts when we turn up the heat
Boston immigration rally: Parents
Boston immigration rally: Never again

Photo by Saxikath:

Boston immigration rally: Never again
Boston immigration rally: Heartless
Boston immigration rally: Hey, Charlie Baker

Among those at the rally: US Rep. Joe Kennedy (photo by Molly Lanza):

Boston immigration rally: Joe Kennedy
Boston immigration rally: 4,100 kids

One of the paths people took from City Hall Plaza to the Common went by the Common carousel:

Boston immigration rally: Carousel

Photo by A. David Lewis:

Boston immigration rally: Whole family

A Trumpie in jeans, a long-sleeved T-shirt and a Patriots cap took a quick swing through the crowds but was chased back to his conclave of about a half-dozen even more warmly dressed Nazis by a group of protesters yelling slogans such as "No hate, no fear, Nazi scum not welcome here."

Down at their little warren, closer to the Brewer Fountain, the Nazis, looking like some Blue Man Group rejects in heavy clothing, stood around as protesters gathered to scream at them. A pushcart vendor who normally plies his wares right there quickly folded up shop and moved away as the mass of protesters arrived.

Boston immigration rally: Nazi

The members of the Blue Kid Group were protected by a cordon of Boston bicycle cops who were in turn surrounded by volunteers from the main protest and Veterans for Peace, who formed a ring to keep the protesters and Nazis separate.

One of the Nazis took out a copy of "Win Bigly" and sat for a spell and at least pretended to read the book as protesters continues to scream "Nazis out!" and "Racist, sexist, anti-gay, Nazi bigots go away!" After ten minutes or so, round 1:10, the blue kids signaled to the police they were done.

The cops lined up around them and escorted them up to Beacon Street, as the protesters followed and yelled at them. The police held traffic on Beacon, then directed the balaclava gang down Bowdoin Street - and used their bicycles to form ad-hoc barricades so that the protesters could not follow them.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Ad:

Comments

Can't the right figure out how to enforce the law humanely?

Can't the left realize we can't have completely open borders?

The best solutions are probably somewhere closer to the middle - but it's hard to get headlines with reason - so the maniacs are out in force on both sides.

up
Voting closed 10

Why, oh why, can't we follow the laws as interpreted by the regime of a sociopath racist swindler who has laughed in the face of the law his whole fucking life?

And when, oh when, will they start putting Canadian kids in cages whose parents sneak across the border to shop at Trader Joe's?

up
Voting closed 6

For the dictionary example of my point

up
Voting closed 4

Sorry, I must have missed it. Must be the weed.

up
Voting closed 33

Probably explains why you retired so young, chauffeur.

Meanwhile, I am outta here in a minute...gotta take the ragtop on a trip.

up
Voting closed 31

Jealous?

up
Voting closed 26

Can't the left realize we can't have completely open borders?

This crisis is Trump-admin. created. They don't believe in asylum because the don't like the people who are coming so they block ports of entry and arrest families that cross elsewhere. Then they separate kids from parents on purpose and unnecessarily which is traumatizing to dissuade asylum-seekers. Then they prosecute the parents for illegal entry and deport them without giving them a cause for asylum hearing, which is their right under US and international law. Meanwhile their kids have been shipped to 17 states and the Trump administration hasn't kept track of which kids belong to which parents.

Zero-tolerance is a bid to shut down asylum by getting Congress to change the law. In the meantime the Trump admin. will violate the law by denying asylum hearings, Humiliate the US in the eyes of the world by taking children from their parents and putting children taken from their parents in child internment camps or one of 17 states.

When you block ports of entry you have closed borders not 'completely open borders.' When you deny asylum seekers a hearing you have completely closed borders. Stevil is ignorant or he is lying.

up
Voting closed 7

That doesn't even make logical sense!?

You draw lines between completely disconnected concepts and then attribute them to me.

And for the record, Trump has humiliated us in the eyes of the world long before he started this crap.

up
Voting closed 11

I believe your point met the actual mathematical definition of a point, being utterly without extent.

up
Voting closed 15

Is that there actually isn't a point. More like a range that vacillates around a statistical distribution close to the mean. And nowhere near the tails.

up
Voting closed 26

The fundamental problem is that enforcement of laws that prevent people from doing things they have strong incentives to do is inherently "inhumane" from the perspective of the person against whom the enforcement takes place.

The guy looking to make a better life for his kids by doing X can always be viewed sympathetically, whether X is swimming across the Rio Grande or breaking into a pharmacy to steal medication or swiping an unsecured bicycle from a front porch to sell for food money.

The question is whether the societal good from making X illegal (and enforcing it, since there's no point to banning something in law without enforement) outweighs the societal good from allowing X to happen. And while there are utilitarian arguments to be made about property rights, or economic opportunities, or the value of uniformly enforced laws and so on and so forth, the question here is whether the societal good that comes from picking and choosing whom we let in outweighs the bad from keeping people out who might otherwise be entirely unobjectionable.

We righties see what's going on south of the border and north of the border and we say yes. Lefties see the same thing and say no. Those are caricatures but the conflict between values is there and the metaphorical middle ground only exists insofar as a leftie can be persuaded that strict border enforcement is a necessary evil that is necessary to guard against the bad outcomes that come from an uncontrolled border or a rightie can be convinced of the opposite.

Where we have done a poor job is in communicating what those bad outcomes can be and why they are a real possibility. That's a hard thing to communicate because this is a rich country and has been for many generations and it is at peace and has been for generations. So the sort of rich white people who scream the loudest online and at these protests are (in my opinion informed by decades of observation) instinctively unable to believe that their material prosperity and physical security can be threatened by anything. Most of them will go back to their secure jobs in their homes in safe neighborhoods regardless of what happens at the border, just like they go back to their secure jobs and safe neighborhoods regardless of what happens on the South Side of Chicago or what goes in at the Mildred Hailey Apartments. Or they believe instinctively that they will.

And, if we're being honest, it's a hard sell too because the left has done a good job in training their people to instinctively close their ears if the person on the short end of the stick has skin of a certain shade.

So what's the point? The first point is to keep your ears open and not dismiss whatever you hear from the other side as dog whistles and hate for the sake of hate.
The second point is be at peace with the unfortunate fact that bad things will happen to good people. No public policy can fix that. Either people get turned away at the border today or the chaos that they're fleeing from will take root here tomorrow.

You can dismiss that as fear, to which I say it is fear, but it is not irrational fear. Most people are perfectly fine, but if one out of a hundred or even one out of a thousand is a sociopath...what's the magic number for you to start locking up your bicycle or locking your door when you're out? What's the magic number for you to start thinking the border needs to be enforced?

up
Voting closed 7

" The first point is to keep your ears open and not dismiss whatever you hear from the other side as dog whistles and hate for the sake of hate."

Which happens to be my forte here and ironically enough, my hearing sucks. I make a point, I'm a nazi, or a moron, or a racist, or whatever I'm not in real life. It's because that's all they got and it ain't good enough...so they just close down and spew hate.
That was a long, well thought out post you wrote.
I wonder if it's pearls before swine.

I have said it before, I will repeat it, but it won't matter... If you present yourself alone, or your family members with you, to a port of call, you will not be separated by the authorities.

up
Voting closed 9

All that BS for just 9 thumbs up.

up
Voting closed 7

But, hey, it isn't undocumented immigrants I'm concerned about when I do but the homegrown idiots who are far more numerous and far more likely to commit criminal acts.

That's because I'm not a terrified little bitch afraid of my shadow and I know what facts and statistics are.

up
Voting closed 38

I mean really really really dense.

Exactly 100% of illegal immigrants are guilty of committing a crime. That crime is illegal entry. Is illegal entry going to break into my house in the middle of the night? Perhaps, perhaps not.

But if today the border is ceded, then that's one bit of the rule of law that's no more. And respect for the concept of the rule of law is eroded that much more. And that might metaphorically break into my house in the middle of the night some years down the line and that is what I would like to see prevented.

up
Voting closed 5

Crossing the border is not a crime. It’s a civil offense. Before you craft an entire ideological argument around something at least get your facts right. Native born Americans commit way more crimes than immigrants. Probably because they spend most of their time working, like three jobs. I think both of those things is what is really driving all this fear from the right. If your issue is immigrants “taking” native born jobs then get on your high horse about enforcing employment laws against employers who are the ones who actually “own” those jobs and can give them to whomever they feel like and hire illegal immigrants. Stop berating a bunch of poor people trying to make a better life for themselves and trying to justify taking children away from their parents. It’s barbaric. You have more in common with these people than you think at least economically.

up
Voting closed 9

Hoping/Crossing the boarder without inspection/etc is a misdemeanor. Overstaying a VISA (which is where much of the undocumented/"illegal" population comes from) is a civil offense, nor criminal.

Furthermore, as defined explicitly by 8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum:

(1) In general. - Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 235(b).

Anyone, irregardless of immigration status or how they entered the country may apply for asylum, which is what many are trying to do (and do completely legally).

up
Voting closed 6

Frivolous applications for asylum result in the applicant getting blacklisted.

"Refugee" is defined in 1101 (42) as persecution on the basis of religion, race, membership in a social group, or political opinion. "My neighbor who looks like me in every way is threatening to kill me" is awful but not grounds for asylum. Reciting magic words that the coyote give you, on the other hand, does look like a frivolous application.

And last of all, despite all that, no one is being prevented from applying.

up
Voting closed 6

Frivolous applications for asylum result in the applicant getting blacklisted.

Would you even know? They're just throwing these people into prison. They're not getting a hearing.

You have no sense of shame, Roman. You came to this country and now you want to slam the door on anyone else coming in. You have no decency and no sense of shame. You are wrong with this country and I'm sorry you got in.

up
Voting closed 7

I've seen what's on the other side of the wall and I'm telling you that it needs to be there. You're welcome to live there for a few years so you can compare instead of just making grand pronouncements from your nice and safe and comfortable perch on the good side of the wall.

up
Voting closed 7

I've seen what's on the other side of the wall

Even though there is no wall? Suuuuuure you have.

I'm telling you that it needs to be there

Toddlers whose families are applying for asylum?

You are a selfish and cruel person, the proverbial dog in the manger. Our country would be better off without immigrants like you.

up
Voting closed 8

"The left" isn't calling for completely open borders! Maybe once you realize the fallacy in your framing, you'll see "the left's" solutions are reasonable. Treating asylum seekers humanely shouldn't be a big ask.

up
Voting closed 52

You aren't standing in the right place to see or hear. I find it funny that my far-right relatives say the same thing about the left. I laugh at both of them. It's the only thing that keeps me from crying.

up
Voting closed 3

So you're saying I'm deaf and blind to what people are saying all around me? You can't give me evidence that the mainstream left is calling for open borders, because there is no one in a position of power on the mainstream left who is saying that. Why are you trying to tell me what my own frigging position is? Just stop, there's nothing to argue here. We already have the middle ground. Join us.

up
Voting closed 12

" Just stop, there's nothing to argue here. We already have the middle ground. Join us."

Nope. Sorry. Just hibernate for thirty years or so. Or get some professional help.

up
Voting closed 6

All you have as an argument are childish insults. As this is classic troll behavior, I'll remember to never take what you say seriously. Have a nice day.

up
Voting closed 37

If you believe that...You aren't standing in the right place to see or hear.

If there is any truth to what you say, you will be able to provide quotations, with context. Do so. Put up or shut up.

up
Voting closed 19

Meanwhile, in New York...

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/62m7LIB.jpg)

"...you'll see "the left's" solutions are reasonable."

Right. You're full of baloney.

up
Voting closed 47

"Abolish ICE" doesn't mean open borders. ICE doesn't even handle border enforcement.
"Abolish Profit" Means don't use for-profit prisons to house asylum seekers. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

up
Voting closed 6

"no borders''

Abolish profit...sure, it works OK...until it doesn't...

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/nUme5Tz.jpg)

up
Voting closed 6

Got any facts? Statistics? Historical analysis?

Of course not. Just a picture. And some VERY BIG WORDS IN ALL CAPS ON IT. Swell.

up
Voting closed 9

Put that MIT PhD to work and explain to us in short (preferably four-letter) words how Venezuela, and North Korea, and the Soviet Union, and Mao's China, and Castro's Cuba, and the Khmer Rouge regime, and East Germany, and the rest of them were really a worker's paradise that we country-fried rubes are just too dumb to understand.

up
Voting closed 58

Venezuela, and North Korea, and the Soviet Union, and Mao's China, and Castro's Cuba, and the Khmer Rouge regime, and East Germany really have fuckall to do with one another. Start with that simple lesson, and when you've digested that, we'll go on to more advanced topics. Until then, sit your ass down at the kiddie table, grownups are talking.

up
Voting closed 27

Pay no attention to the men behind the curtains all professing the same ideology and kinship with eachother. Putz.

up
Voting closed 4

You're an idiot, Roman. Once again, you demonstrate it. Want to stop demonstrating it? Stop using words whose meaning you don't know.

Now please, break it down for us. Demonstrate how the individuals in your dumbass meme "all professing the same ideology and kinship with eachother[sic]". You made the claim, burden of proof's on you.

up
Voting closed 26

You do realize that ICE didn't exist before 2003, right? Calling for it to be abolished doesn't mean open boarders - if anything its a pretty conservative thought to roll back the expanded federal powers brought on via ICE in the wake of 9/11 and return to a system that worked before without elevated powers that could impinge upon the Constitutional rights of Citizens. But, then again, like the Patriot Act and so many other ilks and power grabs, the "conservative" party has shown its true hypocritical self in pushing for bigger, stronger, and more consolidated Federal powers where it suites them that trample our Bill of Rights.

up
Voting closed 7

Steevil, which Democratic/left/liberal elected official wants "completely open borders?" I follow this pretty closely, and I cannot think of one.

Can't the left realize we can't have completely open borders?

I also can't think of *any* Democratic agency head, appointee, or SES fed in my lifetime who wants/wanted open borders. But maybe you know of one?

up
Voting closed 4

Probably most of the people that marched today. Or at least those that were carrying signs?

"Abolish ICE", Don't deport families, welcoming immigrants (the ones that sneak across the border? really?), and then they came for the immigrants - again the sneakers?, no human is illegal.

And those are just the signs in Adam's post.

Maybe not fully "open" but definitely - if you sneak over in the middle of the night you get to stay here?

up
Voting closed 7

Ayanna Presley...could be a Congresswoman.
Alexandria Casio-Cortes...will be a Congresswoman.
Kirsten Gillebrand...is a sitting United States Senator.
Jerry Brown...signed a sanctuary state law into effect in California.

That's a whole bunch of powerful government officials saying they don't want to enforce the border. Which while technically is not the same thing as outright calling for an abolition of the border is effectively the same thing. The rhetorical figleaf is there, but it's not much of one.

up
Voting closed 8

None of them are calling for "completely open borders.".
Not one person you named.

up
Voting closed 55

If they are calling for abolishing or defunding the agency whose job is to enforce immigration laws, and they are calling for de facto open borders. Especially when they are against physical barriers being constructed, and when the people supporting them are changing "no borders no nations fuck your deportations."

There's no such thing as a little bit pregnant. Either the border is enforced and there are penalties for crossing it without authorization and law enforcement to enforce those penalties or there aren't.

Liberals love to gaslight this way. Open borders advocacy isn't advocating open borders. "You didn't build that" and "Let's spread the wealth around" don't mean what they mean. Bernie Sanders isn't on video praising Maduro's Venezuela and Castro's Cuba. Hillary Clinton's emails aren't important because they aren't important. Free college is a good idea because too many people wasted their money on worthless degrees so let's print money so more people can waste four years on a worthless degree.

Bull. Shit.

At some point you're either not thinking before you speak or you're knowingly not telling the truth.

up
Voting closed 10

They were important because she straight up ignored the best practices suggested to her by an IT professional. The email thing painted Hillary as somebody who was (and is) going to do as she pleases, maybe to the detriment of the American people.

So, of course, we ended up with a President who does do as he pleases, absolutely to the detriment of the American people. (Expletive) our electorate. This country deserves every bit of scorn and mockery it gets.

up
Voting closed 4

Big difference between calling for ICE to be abolish and reconstituted, and calling for border patrol to be abolished. You know they're not the same, right?

up
Voting closed 32

up
Voting closed 7

You seem pretty triggered there, kid.

up
Voting closed 4

Roman, I had assumed that you are at least middle aged. Perhaps you are too young to remember this, & not much of a history fan, so let's break it down:

If they are calling for abolishing or defunding the agency whose job is to enforce immigration laws, and they are calling for de facto open borders.

Perhaps you missed my response yesterday, but ICE is a fairly new agency. We haven't had open borders since the 1920s. Prior to 2002/03, US Customs & Border Patrol, and INS, had the majority of the responsibility for controlling borders: USCBP patrolled, INS questioned & processed immigrants at entry. Other agencies, like Treasury, also did some border work, although with specific charges, like addressing the import of counterfeit money from Canada during Prohibition.

ICE has only existed since 2002. For 79 years, the border was patrolled, but not by ICE. When Bush II pushed through the shotgun marriage that created DHS, ICE was created as a new department. Abolishing ICE does not, at all, mean that the borders are unpatrolled and unattended. Maybe you did not know that.

Obama decided that he was not going to enforce the border for millions of people (without any legal authority to do so) by using the rhetorical figleaf of prosecutorial discretion.

The borders were fully protected under Obama, on the north and the south, in airports, in harbors, everywhere. The borders were never open, and people could not merely cross at any location with impunity.

No president, since the establishment of border patrols, has advocated open borders.

I suspect that you do not understand what "open borders" means. I think you may be conflating it with immigration policy and enforcement. Strangely, the most de facto liberal immigration policy in modern US history-- the largest number of people entering the US with the least oversight-- was not under Obama, but occurred under Reagan. You probably are not aware that entering the US without the documents required by regulation is not a criminal offense, any more than filing for your Social Security retirement without submitting appropriate proof of a name change is; both are civil issues, but rectifiable. Reagan proposed very broad forgiveness of civil violations of immigration regulations, and signed in the diversity visa lottery program.

Obama strongly enforced deportation of immigrants with criminal violations of US law, including some very minor ones. He did not advocate enforcing deportation for only civil violations. If an unrectified civil violation rose to the level of fraud, though, the immigrant was deported.

It's a beautiful day, & a rare Sunday off, for me, so I'm not going to spend more time on this. Have a good weekend.

up
Voting closed 18

You are quite right in that the president has exercised varying levels of discretion allowed the president over the past several decades.

You are way off base in
1. Claiming that the calls to revert back to CBP/INS/whatever are not advocacy of de facto open borders. This claim does not hold water when the signs and the chants that accompany "abolish ICE" are "No borders, no nations, fuck your deportations." That's catchy too, no?

2. The big one. Is it a good policy or a bad policy to exercise that discretion by removing all illegal aliens? I say it is on the grounds that a country with 12 million people and growing flouting the law is not on a trajectory that preserves the rule of law for future generations.

Enjoy the weekend.

up
Voting closed 6

...some chants and signs in a crowd are an accurate and complete representation of the policy position of politicians, activists, academics, citizens, etc. who aren't actually at that rally - a policy position that you set up and scope out with the only reference being tweets and slogans. Make sure you get all that straw tucked in their sleeves. It'll burn that much better.

Those 11-12 million people who have flouted our immigration law are statistically far more law abiding than native born citizens. But I am sure they will be directly responsible for the trajectory of lawlessness in this country. Not Wall Street. Not Washington. The guy working three jobs and supporting his family - he's the criminal.

up
Voting closed 33

Again, what elected officials are calling for "completely open borders?"

And, we didn't have open borders before ICE (and DHS) was established in 2002. We don't need ICE to have control over the borders.

Meanwhile.
We have elected officials, agency leaders,and appointees on the right who have not only not enforced the law inhumanely, but have sabotaged their underlings attempts to do so. I can name Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump, and Kirstjen Nielson off the top of my head.

Are there any Democratic senators or congresspeople calling for open borders? Any leftist senators or congresspeople? Heck, did any appointees under Obama call for open borders?

(edited for typo)

up
Voting closed 5

Where do I mention "elected officials". But many/most of these people seem perfectly happy to open our doors to pretty much anyone - until of course they take their jobs.

Better question - what are people like Ayanna actually proposing to keep people from sneaking across and getting rid of people that do manage to sneak in? I can't tell from her website which is all peace love and kumbaya (I like her -but she is listed in the Guinness book of world records for ratio of words to saying anything actually meaningful).

up
Voting closed 6

There you go again. Just inferring that people want open borders without ANY evidence. Can't you see you're the one who's not being reasonable? I can assure you, pretty much everyone I know on "the left" wants reasonable borders with humane treatment for asylum seekers. That's a good starting point for common ground, right?

up
Voting closed 42

Only elected officials & agency heads have the power to do anything about how the borders are managed, Stevil; that's why it's silly to point to people carrying a sign at a march & think the sky is falling.

Trump could change the border policy. Sessions could. Nielson could modify it and/or could have asked for more time before implementing "no tolerance."

One last note: I didn't see anyone marching today who had an "open borders" sign, so even if you're worried about the grass roots, you can calm your fears.

up
Voting closed 9

Obama decided that he was not going to enforce the border for millions of people (without any legal authority to do so) by using the rhetorical figleaf of prosecutorial discretion. That's an open border. How do I know? With a thought experiment: if the border were being enforced, a person who crossed it illegally would be subject to deportation while if the border were open a person who crossed it illegally would not be subject to deportation. Under Obama, a whole big group of people who crossed illegally were not subject to deportation, thus the border was open for them. Completely.

up
Voting closed 5

Obama was probably the strictest president we have had in decades on the boarder as can be witnessed by the massive amount of deportations and stopped boarder crossing - the most of any president. He, however, generally did them humanely and without treating people like animals.

Do you ever get tired of your lies and propaganda that you have swallowed hook line and sinker?

up
Voting closed 5

I think what you're missing is, when one side is right, and one side is wrong, halfway in between is wrong.

"Separating kids from their parents and putting them in cages on bare floors is wrong" isn't a radical notion. That's the mainstream position.

Halfway between "normal" and "evil" is "less evil but still evil." There ISN'T a compromise when one side's position is already the moderate, normal, mainstream position, and the other side's is whackadoodle crazy.

Only a tiny minority of the people there were for completely open borders, The vast majority was for humane laws enforced humanely. You're asking for a compromise between what you think the compromise is, and what evil is. Somewhere in the middle between the reasonable position and the psychotic position is still wrong.

When someone has shoved the Overton Window so far over that authoritarian fascist xenophobic evil horrible people have fit into the window, going halfway into the window isn't an option any more. You are asking for "Can we just have Evil Lite?"

Look. The COMPROMISE was Hillary Clinton. That was the mainstream, basically corporate, establishment, not crazy compromise.

up
Voting closed 9

The only, and I stress this again, the only two differences between the two of them was the kind of corruption they were going to engage in (but it was going to be corruption and of the same magnitude if a different direction) and the fact that Hillary had better propaganda by virtue of having cultivated uncritical media coverage the way Obama cultivated uncritical media coverage.

up
Voting closed 9

Maybe you missed Herr Trump screaming about his birth certificate and the crack team of still missing investigators he was sending to Hawaii to get the real dope?

You know, Mr Central Park Five himself? And tell me, how many times had the media in the bag for Obama even took two minutes of airtime to ask about any other President's birth certificate before the black guy won?

up
Voting closed 27

The left has been referring to enforcement of laws it doesn't like as fascism or Nazism for the last seventy years. Especially when it can't win on the merits in a calm discussion.

And it's gotten to the point where, if I am to understand correctly, any stance other than a vehement defense of de facto open borders is now considered inhumane and immoral. Anyone who supports anything other than open borders is branded a literal Nazi. And if anyone says "hold on, let's talk this out" then they're branded as defenders of literal Nazis and not worth talking to.

That's just plain immoral to paint a target on people's backs like that for the sole reason that you don't agree/don't understand/choose not to understand their political opinions, which for the record, are literally not Nazism. Calling it literally Nazism is shouting fire in a theater. You shouldn't do that, for reasons I hope are still obvious.

up
Voting closed 40

Roman pops in with the rule of law crap when he's referring to an Administration whose Cabinet members also laugh at the law all day. Like Scott Pruitt. Or Ryan Zinke. Or Wilbur Ross. Or Stephen Menuchin.Or Betsy Devos, who has a pal that makes a nice living in the detention center business.

Another guy with a little who is too narrow minded to see that he's being used by those with a lot to hate those with nothing and citing the rule of law as interpreted again by people with no morals or respect for the law whatsoever.

up
Voting closed 8

"Roman pops in with the rule of law crap..."

You're a friggin idiot.

up
Voting closed 8

He actually called Roman out over his virtue signaling over rule of law when it comes to immigration, whereas he turns a blind eye to all of the cabinet members Riccio listed. It was well done and a sound argument. It's just blatant hypocrisy on Riman's part. The worst part about it is he knows it, because that's what trolls do.

Sorry it triggered you.

up
Voting closed 54

" It was well done and a sound argument. It's just blatant hypocrisy on Riman's part. The worst part about it is he knows it, because that's what trolls do.
Sorry it triggered you."

Naw, I live for this bullshit from you clowns. He ain't a troll. You, on the other hand are nekulturny.
So, let's see what's up in the exciting world of 'Obama, I didn't do it':
http://abc3340.com/news/local/did-security-set-up-secret-clinton-lynch-t...

"Clinton had wrapped up a fundraiser and roundtable discussion in Phoenix and was set to fly out when sources say he delayed his take off to meet with privately with Lynch.
Fast forward two years and the release of the Office of the Inspector General report regarding various actions by the FBI and Department of Justice before the 2016 election.
Deep in the heart of the more than 500-page report, new testimony generates new questions and provides some answers.
Clinton and Lynch have maintained the meeting was not planned. However, the IG’s report may suggest otherwise. Or at least that not all parties were aware.

"On page 203 of the report, “The OPA (Office of Public Affairs) Supervisor said that he later learned that former President Clinton’s Secret Service detail had contacted Lynch’s FBI security detail to let them know that the former President wanted to meet with Lynch.”"

up
Voting closed 3

Interesting use of nekelturny, comrade. If you think that Clinton meeting with Lynch was a-ok in my eyes, you'd Ben wrong, but that's not even relevant to the topic at hand. What a poor attempt, but not even close to a credible retort.

up
Voting closed 8

I do, however, choose my battles. Trump's cabinet is crooked, but to me it doesn't look worse than Obama, W, or Clinton before him. I don't like any of it, but I'm not going to be of the opinion that a president has to be pure for me to agree with any of his policies.

In fact, to be exact about it, as a Republican I expect corruption out of government, which is why I advocate for less of it. The exception being the legitimate duties of a limited government, of which border enforcement is one. So I come to the end with the assertion that Trump's corruption (and Obama's, W's, Clinton's, etc) are a necessary evil. See the theme here?

up
Voting closed 8

Obfuscate and argue in bad faith. Continually trolling. Thematic, indeed. "They're all corrupt" is a lazy, bullshit argument.

up
Voting closed 36

In fact, I'm doing the exact opposite: I'm acknowledging your point but telling you why it is irrelevant. I am also telling you why the very things you're pointing to and screaming bloody murder about make me believe the things I believe. Your arrogance is your blindness.

up
Voting closed 5

You try to equate the Obama Cabinet with the Trump coterie of thieves and moral reprobates?

Gee, last two guys to be Energy Secretary under Obama were both physicists, unlike the moron from Texas who had to be explained what the fucking Department did after not remembering what the name of it was when he planned for it's closing during the debates.

Good call,Roman. Well done.

up
Voting closed 7

How much I get under your skin.

up
Voting closed 23

Riccio, it's blazing evident to everyone that getting under people's skin is the only thing that ever got you off in your entire life.

up
Voting closed 9

Try not defending throwing children in camps in the desert because their parents committed a misdemeanor, and I think you'll find accusations of Nazism go down probably 85-90%

up
Voting closed 4

That's historical perspective right there.

Tell me, what are we to do with children of citizens who are jailed for misdemeanors? Do we not lock them up behind bars? Do we not take their children away for the duration of their sentence?

up
Voting closed 9

but I don't think DCF is taking kids away from their parents on a humble and locking them up in cages that Betsy Devos' pal can make money from.Yet.

However, I can cite more than a few couples that have been allowed to serve prison sentences separately, usually after the first parent to go in comes out.

That's usually for white people in my experience.

up
Voting closed 12

Not jailing anyone for these misdemeanors? Does that work?

up
Voting closed 12

Since past experience indicates that people don't show up for their court dates or do but don't leave if their asylum claim is denied. Oh, and then they also start demanding mass amnesty.

So again: is the value of an enforced border which necessarily means keeping people out outweighed by the value of letting them in? Or put in another way, does the good of letting people in outweigh the bad in letting people in?

up
Voting closed 9

people don't show up for their court dates or do but don't leave if their asylum claim is denied

I've heard the exact opposite from not only Dem pols but from non-aligned public officials - ie, that the vast majority of people applying for asylum do show up for subsequent hearings. Do you have any kind of cite to back your claim to the contrary?

up
Voting closed 8

if you include the people who apply for asylum at a port of entry so that they aren't even subject to detention to begin with.

If, however, you restrict your statistics to just the people who hop the fence and say "asylum! asylum!" when apprehended you might find a different number.

up
Voting closed 38

Here you go, I did your work for you and found ACTUAL past experience, instead of just your unattributed blather. 99% of people released in the Family Case Management Program showed up for their court dates, including 15 who were deported. So what you said is a lie. https://www.vox.com/2018/6/22/17483230/family-separation-immigration-alt...

So, Roman, will retract your l...sorry mis-statement of fact?

up
Voting closed 10

From your link:

It seemed to work pretty well, according to ICE, though officers never had more than 1,600 people enrolled in the program during the two years it existed (compared to more than 350,000 immigrants who were held in ICE detention centers just in 2016).

The contractor that ran the program said that 99 percent of participants “successfully attended their court appearances and ICE check-ins.” That included the 15 families who were ultimately deported.

So 99 pct of 1600 people showed up for their court dates, all while there is no data on the 350,000 illegals who weren't in the program, and there is ample evidence of people just plain hopping the fence and disappearing, but that cherry-picked sample of 1600 is supposed to prove my concerns invalid?

up
Voting closed 8

It wasn't a cherry picked sample. It was a successful program started for mothers and their children seeking asylum from gang violence that was effective and way cheaper then prisons. Even ICE wanted to continue the program but of course it was shut down by the Trump admin, probably because it worked and wasn't cruel. Facts, they're difficult for you to deal with, aren't they?

up
Voting closed 5

Second illegal entry is a felony.

It's not a question of legality, it's a question of degree.

So, if someone shows up in the desert with a kid, is he/she really their kid? So, tell me, do you support child human trafficking? Got to be able to tell the difference.

Think of the children. Really.

up
Voting closed 31

Any authoratative evidence to back up this weird claim? It would take just one/very few instances of this for the Trump administration to be parading the kids around as justification for their policies.

It really does seem like you're making up a story to scare yourself and others about south-of-the-border boogeymen.

(I'm not a "just open all the borders!" type, btw. I do think we need comprehensive immigration reform, with reasonable controls. But I also think a huge part of the current problems would be solved if we required employers to provide a true living wage - seems like most undocumented immigrants are basically acting as a huge pool of wage slaves for bigbiz).

up
Voting closed 31

The felony v misdemeanor' claim or the 'prove she's your kid' claim?
Both are valid.

" seems like most undocumented immigrants are basically acting as a huge pool of wage slaves for bigbiz)."

You're starting to get it. The whole E verify thing is unpopular among, wait for it...businesses that exploit the illegal labor in this country. Better to issue visas and protect them.

up
Voting closed 6

E-verify is a website that lets you punch in the contents of your employees' I-9 form (which you're supposed to make them fill out so as to withhold income and payroll taxes) and it tells you if they have work authorization. Nothing more nothing less.

The opposition is because before, the figleaf was that the illegal you picked up from the home depot parking lot gave you a name and SSN, so how were you to know he didn't have work authorization? If E-verify is made mandatory (as it is in some states and nation-wide for many federal contractors), you either have to pay people under the table and be liable for tax evasion or you have to pay wages that Americans will take. Oh the horror.

up
Voting closed 6

this idea that maybe these kids AREN'T the children of the people crossing the border, because they don't have proper documentation.

I've seen it rolled out here, on Reddit and on FB and Twitter today, so I hope you're getting well paid for this blather.

up
Voting closed 6

That's historical perspective right there.

Oh really? Do tell us about this "historical perspective". With data, please.

Two years ago, people calling other living people Nazis in this country was pretty rare. Then we had actual living breathing unrepentant Nazis endorsing a candidate for president, and we had actual living breathing unrepentant Nazis putting on Nuremberg rally reenactments on American soil, and people started talking a whole lot more about Nazis. So please, do give us the benefit of your "historical perspective".

Tell me, what are we to do with children of citizens who are jailed for misdemeanors? Do we not lock them up behind bars? Do we not take their children away for the duration of their sentence?

Bad construction there; clearly you meant the second sentence to be "Do we not lock their parents up behind bars?" The answer is that no, for the most part we don't. Apart from immigration violations, only about 5% of those incarcerated are charged with misdemeanor offenses (and in some of those cases, they're actually felony offenses by virtue of being repeat offenders). So much as you'd like to put on your Sheriff Clark badge and be all law-n-ordery, this seems pretty clearly a case of selective enforcement (and that's giving it the most charitable possible interpretation).

Stop being an apologist for a heinous, unconstitutional policy, Roman. Your position stinks out of the gate and it won't age well.

up
Voting closed 8

Typical of right wingers to vilify the protesters and ignore the issues at hand.

Most of the protesters believe in the rule of law and in sensible immigration policies. We do not believe in unnecessary cruelty, dehumanizing immigrants, or separating children from their parents. That is what the protest is really about.

It is disingenuous for the GOP to claim to want a rational discussion when they ignore facts. Immigration is actually way down from a decade ago. Obama was tough on immigration. This whole crisis was manufactured by the GOP to wind up their base.

Perhaps they should look into their own family histories, they would probably find immigrants a few generations back.

up
Voting closed 7

And how about not equating law-abiding people who went through all the procedures and got permission to enter with people hop the fence and claim to have a right to what's on the other side?

Obama was tough to a certain extent, but he also unilaterally decided that he wasn't going to enforce the law in another sense. He dressed it up with a name, got the compliant media to not question it, and somehow that made it OK.

Immigration is not way down. Legal immigration is about the same. Illegal immigration is marginally lower, but still going strong to the tune of about half a million a year. That's still high. For the record, an acceptable number will be composed of fewer than six figures, and all of them will be zeros.

up
Voting closed 6

Tell you what, why don't you shag your ass over to California and pick some avocados for the hipster toast that they can't seem to find any pure, red blooded Americans to pick.

Then use that rule of law to go after Trump himself who doesn't mind illegals working in his son's winery, or his using of illegal Polish workers on Trump Tower and so on and so on and so on...

up
Voting closed 27

The argument for uncontrolled immigration is that we need to be importing an underclass of people to do menial labor for us.

Believe it or not, Brian, I find distasteful by itself but what makes it truly repugnant is that you're trying to use that as an argument for a more humanitarian approach. Importing slaves or wage-slaves or indentured servants is immoral, no matter who does it or why.

If the hipster doofuses who eat their avacado toast while toasting the ghost of Hugo Chavez and using their iPhones to tweet about how cool socialism is have to pay a little more, I'm all for it.

up
Voting closed 8

All seriousness - they bring in lower cost labor for certain jobs - BUT the employer has to post a bond so that if the person breaks the law or tries to disappear into the underground economy (which is hard in Singapore) - they forfeit the bond.

I think something similar would work here - but probably need the employee to post the bond - not the employer. Would put many of the human traffickers out of biz very quickly, we get low cost labor for menial tasks and the immigrants get a safe and controlled immigration/emigration process that doesn't involve being locked in a trailer. Everyone wins.

Too reasonable. So it will never happen.

up
Voting closed 7

Problem is when you talk to folks that are getting their ox gored. I've talked to people that do not like the H1B visa system, says their getting killed by legal visa holders doing their job for much less.
If there was a visa system for say, apple pickers, where they are here legally and there's no local help available then it's all good.
Roman (and a lot of others, like me) get some semblance of law at the border and Riccio gets someone to pick his organic avocados.

up
Voting closed 31

I'd make all guest worker visas an auction, not a lottery like it is now. There can be different classes of lotteried visa, for different skill levels just like there is now, but instead of people gaming the system with lobbying for different fixed quotas of H1B or H2B or whatever for an artificially low price, an auction would solve the "no Americans would do it" problem by raising the cost of importing guest workers up to the point where Americans would do it. You'd still have a fixed number, but you could have a mechanism whereby if the minimum winning bids exceed some prevailing wage, more would open up.

up
Voting closed 6

"... Immigration is actually way down from a decade ago. Obama was tough on immigration. This whole crisis was manufactured by the GOP to wind up their base. "

The Lightbringer was tough on illegal immigration...he gave them a piece of paper and told them to obey it...and a fourteen year old and a fifteen year old, both in the country in 2014 recently went to jail for a couple of decades.

They were MS13, it was in UHub a week ago. There was some discussion about wether they were DREAMers or DACA. Commenters called them 'neither', so I guess the were just unaccompanied teens looking for the jobs Real Americans won't do. Like chopping people up.

Oh, and the missing word before 'immigrants' is, wait for it...'illegal'.

up
Voting closed 7

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/24/record-number-of-deporta...
"419,384. Number of immigrants deported by U.S. authorities in fiscal year 2012—a record."

This record number of deportations has yet to be broken.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?...
"Obama Has Deported More People Than Any Other President".

That record still stands.

Oh, and Obama did it by telling ICE and US Attorneys to focus on undocumented immigrants who are criminals.

How well do you suppose ICE and prosecutors do finding criminal immigrants now, when they are overwhelmed w/ detaining and prosecuting any and all irregular border crossers?

up
Voting closed 7

“Language: A Key Mechanism of Control"

You're doing some particularly picky cherrypicking, Roman

up
Voting closed 6

And where does "No person is illegal" register on the Bibliotequetress Orwell-o-meter?

up
Voting closed 7

.

up
Voting closed 4

You are both spewing and soaking in it.

The man who got lucky and wasn't ripped from his mother and whose family was not only NOT arrested for seeking asylum legally (like the people being arrested at the border are) but was given so much to help his family migrate and establish themselves thinks all that magically happened because he was super special and all could see the special light of god streaming from his empty head.

Now Mr. DAMMIT I'M SPECIAL seems to be feeling a little insecure about being lucky because that makes him NOT special.

Uh huh.

up
Voting closed 38

the more lucky you are.

Do you know why I wasn't "ripped from my mother," Swirly? It's not luck, it's not fate, it's a simple distinction. Rather than hopping the fence and demanding shit, we applied for entry by presenting ourselves to the US embassy and waited to receive permission before we bought our plane tickets. And when we got off the plane, we presented our entry visa to customs and proceeded to apply for permanent residency and then citizenship once we were allowed through.

We all understood this permission to enter, and permission to reside, and even the granting of citizenship were discretionary, and we were all very grateful for receiving it.

What we did not do was show up in the middle of the West Texas and demand free shit. That's not luck. That's the deliberate exercise of good manners and deliberate demonstration from day zero of respect for the laws of our adoptive country.

up
Voting closed 50

.... you can't apply for asylum at an embassy. You can only apply at a port of entry. So IF your story is true, you weren't asylum seekers, and your situation isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.

up
Voting closed 9

My grandfather had to illegally cross several borders to stay alive in 1938. If he'd been a virtuous man like your family members, he'd have died in Terezin or Oswiecim. Instead, he committed multiple counts of felony refusal to die.

(And got himself trafficked by Zionists. He was 12)

These asylum seekers HAVE BEEN SHOWING UP AT PORTS OF ENTRY AND REQUESTING ASYLUM.

The BCP has simply, and illegaly, been ignoring them. Since Matamoros and Ciudad Juarez are not safe places to be sleeping on the streets waiting for the BCP to actually follow the law, they've been crossing elsewhere.

This is entrapment. The government is breaking the law in order to force these people to do so, in order to have a convenient pretext to criminimalize them and demonize them. So don't get self-righteous.

up
Voting closed 4

Our Attorney General, Mr. Sessions, keeps reminding us how intent he is on enforcing the law.

The funny thing is he isn't so intent on enforcing the law against perjury, otherwise he would be prosecuting himself for the multiple times he lied to the Senate under oath during hte confirnation process.

But yes, it's so important to traumatize toddlers over a misdemeanor count that asylum seekrrs are specifically entrapped into commiting.

up
Voting closed 5

What has to be done to get Jeff Sessions disbarred. He told me "it has to be a client who brings a grievance."

So who's the client when he commits perjury as a Senator seeking to become an AG? The American taxpayer, right? What mechanisms are in place to stop this non-lawyer from being the Attorney General of the United States? Why did people vote for this entire piece of trash set of circumstances?

up
Voting closed 8

The blue folks you’re describing reek of false flag. Any evidence they’re legit nazis?

up
Voting closed 11

I don't think anybody else would have the stomach for that.

up
Voting closed 9

Another one was reading Ayn Rand, and a third one was reading Jordan Peterson while the forth one was handing our poorly Xeroxed copies of James Damore's memo while the fifth one vigorously paging through his copy of Mein Kampf?

Do I get the bingo?

up
Voting closed 5

...who says that? Every tried and true American I know would ask the phrase, "did I get bingo?"

That's a little suspicious...

up
Voting closed 6

In the original Russian.

up
Voting closed 4

Expand your mind man.

up
Voting closed 7

up
Voting closed 25

I am probably a "lefty" but I don't think that I think the border should be completely open.

We have a bigger problem, though, and any conservative trying to feign reasonable about DT at this point is just showing a psychopathic degree of compartmentalization. The guy is out of his fucking mind, the guy's campaign worked with the Russians--that part is already in on Manafort--the guy undermines democracy and undermines elections.

If you are not looking at THAT fucking problem then you are out of your fucking mind.

All of the other issues are also important--and anyone on the right can certainly logically have a different opinion--

But where even good conservatives are beginning to look irrevocably brain-maggot-batshit is in their ability to miss the major Constituional crisis we are heading for in Nov....or rather, by Nov. I guess we are in it already--it will reach a fever pitch.

up
Voting closed 7

First of all, compartmentalization isn't psychopathic, it is a necessary part of life. Third world orphans are, in fact, dying of starvation every day while we're getting worked up over the finer points of Constitutional law. That requires compartmentalization.

Second of all, it's looking more and more like the "Trump worked with Russia" thing was largely manufactured by the media and the prior administration from the kernel of truth that the Russians were screwing with us (the Dems finally rediscovered that the Russians are the bad guys...at least that's a positive).

Third of all, even if it were all true...it would have exactly nothing to do with border enforcement. See my statement above about compartmentalization being a necessary part of life.

Fourth of all...and most important...this is a media-manufactured crisis as well. The detention centers have been there for years and the cages were on Obama's watch...but he was the good guy so the media kept quiet. The protests are astroturfed and happened now as opposed to last month for no reason other than to distract from the apparently good news in Korea. And lookie here...the Democratic party is fielding Congressional candidates that are open communists--sorry "Democratic Socialists"---but their long march toward making this place Venezuela North needs to be papered over with a trendy cause...and what's trendier than being against bad things happening to kids (never mind the circumstances...just listen to that whaling child!!!!1!).

So no. Sorry. Not buying any of it, and neither should you. Trump is a jackass, but a jackass is what's necessary at the southern border. The big-hearted approach has been tried for thirty years and it has yielded poor results.

up
Voting closed 3

It is largely manufactured by the media? There are not grand juries impaneled? Are you fucking kidding me? Manafort worked for free? NO, he actually was looking to recoup 10 million. If you think Trump didn't okay the collusion you are even more fucking crazy.

Roman has the brain maggot. It is not more complicate than that. Like Ben Shapiro. Maybe he is Ben Shapiro.

up
Voting closed 7

Based on what's looking more and more like manufactured evidence with reporting of bits and pieces of that manufactured evidence that were leaked to the media used as "corroboration." If anyone had anything real, that wouldn't have been necessary.

up
Voting closed 25

Based on what's looking more and more like manufactured evidence with reporting of bits and pieces of that manufactured evidence that were leaked to the media used as "corroboration."

Roman, you have gone full-on Infowars. Are you ready for the 4th? I sure am!

up
Voting closed 8

WBZ reports.

up
Voting closed 6

FIIRE!

Federal Illegal Immigrant Roundup and Eviction!

The exclamation point would be part of the agency name.

But in all seriousness, this is why I voted against that woman six years ago and why I will be voting against her this year. Replace/redirect/defund/whatever is either moving the deckchairs while staying the course (stupid pandering, not to be rewarded) or deliberate obstruction of border and immigration law enforcement (also stupid pandering, but also dangerous in the short and long term for reasons I've described in my other posts).

up
Voting closed 3

...she drives you crazy because she's not in a kitchen somewhere.

up
Voting closed 6

haven't you?

Well congratulations! You're privy to a secret few others have been able to divine. We like our women subservient to the point of caricature, our ethnic minorities out of sight, our firearms deadly-accurate and more liable to kill the shooter than hit the target, especially when handled properly and aimed carefully. Oh, and we love private property so much, we regularly evict ourselves from our own homes when we run out* of tenants to kick out of our slums!

*Because they're all illegals and we had them deported!! Hahahaha. We also dug up the graves of our own immigrant ancestors and deported them posthumously for good measure!

Also, the shovels we used were made by third-world orphans legally owned by multi-national corporations with majority stakes held by the Koch brothers. And the ships that delievered them here were powered by good old Appalachian coal laundered by the North Koreans at Sakhalin to look like it came from Russia!

up
Voting closed 5

You're nothing but an Eliza bot.

up
Voting closed 19

The Globe reports that after the Common protest, several hundred people marched to the South Bay jail, where the Suffolk County Sheriff's Department rents cells to ICE. Scott Eisen reports some protesters were arrested.

up
Voting closed 6

The protestors are driving away the Democratic base...

https://twitter.com/stewardshipamer/status/1013102208269803520

What about Americans?

up
Voting closed 10

You know, the guy links to his own Web site from his Twitter page; it's not like he's hiding who he is - you'd also realize that from scrolling further down his Twitter feed.

up
Voting closed 10

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/i...

And polls showing that most people don't blame ICE for enforcing the law:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/i...

So one would infer that this would not transfer into support for rearranging the deckchairs on the USS ICE or ramming her into an iceberg on purpose.

up
Voting closed 7

A company whose polling consists of calling anyone who has a landline and actually opens Val-Paks and loves the Lawrence Welk reruns on PBS Saturday nights.

up
Voting closed 31

But be honest Brian. If they called, you'd talk their ear off.

up
Voting closed 30

a talk show for that. You know, one where people can put a face to my posts and actually call me and debate me instead of hiding behind screen names and making childish insults.

Yet none of you ever do...

up
Voting closed 14

I'd give away my real name or phone number to. Nothing you've ever said here makes me question your ability to make a distinction between "sticks and stones" and "words." Not one thing.

up
Voting closed 7

Have a nice day.

up
Voting closed 8

I’m libertarian...

up
Voting closed 25

Implied in "libertarian" as it's popularly known in the US is "[right] libertarianism." And, yes, there is such a thing as left-libertarianism. It's just SpOoKy to conservatives in the US because it looks a lot more like socialism (think in the style of worker owned companies, i.e. workers owning/controlling the means of production. You know, what socialism was originally defined as).

So, uh, yeah, you fit right in with Adam's question, if he was asking rhetorically.

up
Voting closed 4

A Trumpie in jeans, a long-sleeved T-shirt and a Patriots cap took a quick swing through the crowds but was chased back to his conclave of about a half-dozen even more warmly dressed Nazis by a group of protesters yelling slogans such as "No hate, no fear, Nazi scum not welcome here."

...and people can't figure out why I root against the Patriots. Thank god the Eagles beat them!!

For those that are not into sportsball...Kraft (patriots owner) and Tom Brady (patriots footballer) support donald trump.

up
Voting closed 5

Right. Because one asshole who wears a Patriots cap defines all Patriots fans. Once again you prove you are just a a self serving fraud who regularly posts about how much better you are than everyone else. You don't give a shit about immigrants, race issues or anything other then yourself. Grow up and pull your head out of your ass.

up
Voting closed 7

Because one asshole who wears a Patriots cap defines all Patriots fans.

nope. never said that.

it does take a certain type of person to look passed the owner and star player supporting a fascist and then still support the team.

so if you wear patriots gear and you say you support immigrants and racial equality...you are a hypocrite or in your words....a fraud.

- a bostonian who keeps it 100.

up
Voting closed 26

Jerkface.

up
Voting closed 30

So, out of all the human tragedy of children being separated from their parents and put into cages, and out of all the crucial moment in American history that this is...all you got out of it was some dud ammunition to lob at a Boston sports team?

I want to put you and Roman on a raft in the Charles and charge for views. it'd be hilarious.

up
Voting closed 7

the 5 from boston free speech AREN'T nazis. apparently anyone who disagrees with the anti government protesters are nazis. but they aren't

up
Voting closed 9