Red Mosquito

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:they don't even rhyme

How the hell do you say "Greg?"?

the right way

Cray-g

bart wrote:Cray-g

That is offensive

McParadigm wrote:

Ok... that is... I mean... all of the shit we've dealt with and witnessed over the last... but this is... I mean... WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?!

Lighting one's self on fire has to be my favorite form of protest.

aw huh

durdencommatyler wrote:aw huh

Yus I understaassyind

bune wrote:

I almost shared this too. The whole thread is worth reading.

McParadigm wrote:

bune wrote:

I almost shared this too. The whole thread is worth reading.

He’s not wrong.

Please flood sanctuary cities. Let these people feel the consequences of their actions for once.

Bi_3 wrote:Please flood sanctuary cities. Let these people feel the consequences of their actions for once.

I love everything about this idea.

1. ICE is upset about it, because of the massive operational costs involved in transporting immigrants all over the country.

2. It says everything you need to know about these people’s worldview, that they think sanctuary cities would subsequently be mired in rapists and killers and totally sad about it.....not, in fact deeply relieved that they have a chance to provide some compassion to people who would otherwise be in the hands of those who see them as less than human and who have no real oversight.

3. The idea polls even lower than family separations with non-affiliated voters in every. single. state.

4. Cities have open borders. Go ahead and send em to the sanctuary cities, but then, like, enjoy the new immigrant neighbors you’ll definitely be getting shortly, you incredibly dumb fucks.

5. Republicans get to go into 2020 with the slogan “immigrants are an existential invasion that we must stop but also we let a bunch of them in as a joke because we thought it would own the libs and now they’re in your white trash neighborhood sorry about that”

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Please flood sanctuary cities. Let these people feel the consequences of their actions for once.

I love everything about this idea.

1. ICE is upset about it, because of the massive operational costs involved in transporting immigrants all over the country.

2. It says everything you need to know about these people’s worldview, that they think sanctuary cities would subsequently be mired in rapists and killers and totally sad about it.....not, in fact deeply relieved that they have a chance to provide some compassion to people who would otherwise be in the hands of those who see them as less than human and who have no real oversight.

3. The idea polls even lower than family separations with non-affiliated voters in every. single. state.

4. Cities have open borders. Go ahead and send em to the sanctuary cities, but then, like, enjoy the new immigrant neighbors you’ll definitely be getting shortly, you incredibly dumb fucks.

5. Republicans get to go into 2020 with the slogan “immigrants are an existential invasion that we must stop but also we let a bunch of them in as a joke because we thought it would own the libs and now they’re in your white trash neighborhood sorry about that”

This is quite a wordy way to say “not in my backyard”

That's a weird way to interpret what he said, Bi_3.

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Please flood sanctuary cities. Let these people feel the consequences of their actions for once.

I love everything about this idea.

1. ICE is upset about it, because of the massive operational costs involved in transporting immigrants all over the country.

2. It says everything you need to know about these people’s worldview, that they think sanctuary cities would subsequently be mired in rapists and killers and totally sad about it.....not, in fact deeply relieved that they have a chance to provide some compassion to people who would otherwise be in the hands of those who see them as less than human and who have no real oversight.

3. The idea polls even lower than family separations with non-affiliated voters in every. single. state.

4. Cities have open borders. Go ahead and send em to the sanctuary cities, but then, like, enjoy the new immigrant neighbors you’ll definitely be getting shortly, you incredibly dumb fucks.

5. Republicans get to go into 2020 with the slogan “immigrants are an existential invasion that we must stop but also we let a bunch of them in as a joke because we thought it would own the libs and now they’re in your white trash neighborhood sorry about that”

This is quite a wordy way to say “not in my backyard”

Don't sanctuary cities have many illegal immigrants already? They chose to be sanctuary cities out of compassion for those already in their presence, not out of some ignorance or theoretical situation. I've found that my friends who have the biggest problem with immigrants are the ones who are most removed from them. I'm proud to live in a sanctuary city and I believe my city (Boulder) would be happy to have more asylum seekers reside here while they wait to find out their fate.

Bi3 is kind of a lunatic, though.

Does dumping these people off in San Francisco or somewhere keep them from leaving somehow? Seems to me they'd just relocate to wherever made the most sense for them. It's not worth the logistical nightmare even if you ignore how disgusting it is on a moral level.

Hatfield wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Please flood sanctuary cities. Let these people feel the consequences of their actions for once.

I love everything about this idea.

1. ICE is upset about it, because of the massive operational costs involved in transporting immigrants all over the country.

2. It says everything you need to know about these people’s worldview, that they think sanctuary cities would subsequently be mired in rapists and killers and totally sad about it.....not, in fact deeply relieved that they have a chance to provide some compassion to people who would otherwise be in the hands of those who see them as less than human and who have no real oversight.

3. The idea polls even lower than family separations with non-affiliated voters in every. single. state.

4. Cities have open borders. Go ahead and send em to the sanctuary cities, but then, like, enjoy the new immigrant neighbors you’ll definitely be getting shortly, you incredibly dumb fucks.

5. Republicans get to go into 2020 with the slogan “immigrants are an existential invasion that we must stop but also we let a bunch of them in as a joke because we thought it would own the libs and now they’re in your white trash neighborhood sorry about that”

This is quite a wordy way to say “not in my backyard”

Don't sanctuary cities have many illegal immigrants already? They chose to be sanctuary cities out of compassion for those already in their presence, not out of some ignorance or theoretical situation. I've found that my friends who have the biggest problem with immigrants are the ones who are most removed from them. I'm proud to live in a sanctuary city and I believe my city (Boulder) would be happy to have more asylum seekers reside here while they wait to find out their fate.

Pizzeria locale

verb_to_trust wrote:Does dumping these people off in San Francisco or somewhere keep them from leaving somehow? Seems to me they'd just relocate to wherever made the most sense for them. It's not worth the logistical nightmare even if you ignore how disgusting it is on a moral level.

It makes no sense; it's exactly the kind of thing you'd see from some guy on Twitter who lives to own the libs. Which is probably where he saw it. Ironically, I think that the obsession with owning the libs actually gets in the way of him actually being able to enact a far-right immigration strategy like it seems he would want to.