A unique view of the law

[Bob Juch]

I'm thinkin you don't know much about WWJD.

Whoever gives only a cup of cold water to one of these little ones to drink because he is a disciple, amen, I say to you, he will surely not lose his reward.

He was addressing his twelve disciples, not quite the same thing.

[Estonut]

It was THE LAW that Rosa Parks was supposed to sit in the back of that bus.

You are horribly ill-informed on that case, and, as usual, make things up.

Bob, I cannot find such a law. Please cite the one that you found after doing the research for yourself.

[Jeemie]

Selfishness is acting to preserve your own interests. Your self interest isn't necessarily mine. You can't live on SS, so, to protect your future you may want to save and invest.

How is your self-interest served by illegals not entering the country?

I will answer with a question after saying I don't think all current illegal residents need to be deported.
Do you believe in sovereign states and controlled immigration?

I'm just asking a question. You made a claim "Your self interest is not necessarily mine". I'm interested in exploring that claim further.

I want to know how your self interest is served by illegals not entering the country.

Then we can move on to the other questions...thanks!

[Beebs52]

How is your self-interest served by illegals not entering the country?

I will answer with a question after saying I don't think all current illegal residents need to be deported.
Do you believe in sovereign states and controlled immigration?

I'm just asking a question. You made a claim "Your self interest is not necessarily mine". I'm interested in exploring that claim further.

I want to know how your self interest is served by illegals not entering the country.

Then we can move on to the other questions...thanks!

Untracked criminals, disease, overburdened schools and medical facilities, untracked voters

[Beebs52]

I will answer with a question after saying I don't think all current illegal residents need to be deported.
Do you believe in sovereign states and controlled immigration?

I'm just asking a question. You made a claim "Your self interest is not necessarily mine". I'm interested in exploring that claim further.

I want to know how your self interest is served by illegals not entering the country.

Then we can move on to the other questions...thanks!

Untracked criminals, disease, overburdened schools and medical facilities, untracked voters

Oh, in addition, why do I need a self interest? I just thought worries about ss were weird at best.

[earendel]

I'm thinkin you don't know much about WWJD.

Whoever gives only a cup of cold water to one of these little ones to drink because he is a disciple, amen, I say to you, he will surely not lose his reward.

He was addressing his twelve disciples, not quite the same thing.

I hate to intrude on this but Biblical interpretation is sort of my jam.

First off, the larger context of the passage: Jesus is addressing his 12 disciples, giving them a set of instructions as they are going out on their own to spread the word. He expands his words, however, to include "everyone" (verse 32) or "whoever" (verse 37).

Second, verse 42 should be translated as "whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple..." (not "because he is a disciple").

The expectation is that anyone who is one of Jesus's followers will give that drink to a "little one". So although it may be illegal to do so according to the administration, it is not wrong to do so; indeed it would seem to be a Christian duty.

[Bob78164]

It was THE LAW that Rosa Parks was supposed to sit in the back of that bus.

You are horribly ill-informed on that case, and, as usual, make things up.

Bob, I cannot find such a law. Please cite the one that you found after doing the research for yourself.

Dude, I lived in Alabama in the late 1960s.

And if your high school history class didn't teach you that Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to move to the back of the bus, then your education missed something.

In the meantime, it's taken me a while to get this onto the Batphone, but the point I've been making about Social Security is about to get wider dissemination. --Bob

[tlynn78]

“Not to point fingers at California, but why would you give free healthcare to illegal immigrants when your streets are littered with homeless legal residents, trash, and tents?" — Former NFL running back Herschel Walker

[Bob Juch]

“Not to point fingers at California, but why would you give free healthcare to illegal immigrants when your streets are littered with homeless legal residents, trash, and tents?" — Former NFL running back Herschel Walker

The homeless have free healthcare available too.

[Bob78164]

“Not to point fingers at California, but why would you give free healthcare to illegal immigrants when your streets are littered with homeless legal residents, trash, and tents?" — Former NFL running back Herschel Walker

We are extending Medi-Cal to residents under age 26 because we want them getting preventative care before they get sick, rather than waiting until after they get sick and going to an emergency room for treatment.

And also it's the right thing to do. Why would you want your neighbors to get sick because they can't afford a checkup? --Bob

[Beebs52]

“Not to point fingers at California, but why would you give free healthcare to illegal immigrants when your streets are littered with homeless legal residents, trash, and tents?" — Former NFL running back Herschel Walker

We are extending Medi-Cal to residents under age 26 because we want them getting preventative care before they get sick, rather than waiting until after they get sick and going to an emergency room for treatment.

And also it's the right thing to do. Why would you want your neighbors to get sick because they can't afford a checkup? --Bob

Assuming one takes advantage of preventative care. That is not a given. Ya gots some high profile antivaxers in Ca.

[Bob78164]

“Not to point fingers at California, but why would you give free healthcare to illegal immigrants when your streets are littered with homeless legal residents, trash, and tents?" — Former NFL running back Herschel Walker

We are extending Medi-Cal to residents under age 26 because we want them getting preventative care before they get sick, rather than waiting until after they get sick and going to an emergency room for treatment.

And also it's the right thing to do. Why would you want your neighbors to get sick because they can't afford a checkup? --Bob

Assuming one takes advantage of preventative care. That is not a given. Ya gots some high profile antivaxers in Ca.

And we have a Legislature that has passed one of the strongest laws in the nation to require vaccinations before attending school. Only medical exemptions are accepted. I believe we are one of only two states with laws that stringent.

And based on evidence that some doctors are abusing the medical exemption process, the Legislature is advancing a bill requiring that those medical exemptions be reported to, and approved by, the Department of Health.

There are roughly 40 million people in California. A few of them are bound to be idiots. --Bob

[earendel]

There are roughly 40 million people in California. A few of them are bound to be idiots. --Bob

Wait for it...

[Estonut]

You are horribly ill-informed on that case, and, as usual, make things up.

Bob, I cannot find such a law. Please cite the one that you found after doing the research for yourself.

Dude, I lived in Alabama in the late 1960s.

And if your high school history class didn't teach you that Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to move to the back of the bus, then your education missed something.

You said, "It was THE LAW that Rosa Parks was supposed to sit in the back of that bus." That is not true. The city law was that the first 10 rows on buses were reserved for white people. Rosa Parks was sitting in the 11th row. I have found no law that gave bus drivers authority to compel people to move. As I asked before, Please cite the one that you found after doing the research for yourself. It appears, again, that this is something you "knew," but were wrong about.

[BackInTex]

There are roughly 40 million people in California. A few of them are bound to be idiots. --Bob

At least 8,753,788 idiots.

[Bob78164]

Bob, I cannot find such a law. Please cite the one that you found after doing the research for yourself.

Dude, I lived in Alabama in the late 1960s.

And if your high school history class didn't teach you that Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to move to the back of the bus, then your education missed something.

You said, "It was THE LAW that Rosa Parks was supposed to sit in the back of that bus." That is not true. The city law was that the first 10 rows on buses were reserved for white people. Rosa Parks was sitting in the 11th row. I have found no law that gave bus drivers authority to compel people to move. As I asked before, Please cite the one that you found after doing the research for yourself. It appears, again, that this is something you "knew," but were wrong about.

You're nitpicking. Whether the details of this specific instance of Jim Crow are completely right is beside the point. Or are you saying that it was immoral to require Ms. Parks to move from the 11th row of the bus on account of her race because it wasn't required by law, but it would have been perfectly moral to require Ms. Parks to move from the 10th row of the bus on account of her race because it was required by law? --Bob

[Estonut]

Dude, I lived in Alabama in the late 1960s.

And if your high school history class didn't teach you that Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to move to the back of the bus, then your education missed something.

You said, "It was THE LAW that Rosa Parks was supposed to sit in the back of that bus." That is not true. The city law was that the first 10 rows on buses were reserved for white people. Rosa Parks was sitting in the 11th row. I have found no law that gave bus drivers authority to compel people to move. As I asked before, Please cite the one that you found after doing the research for yourself. It appears, again, that this is something you "knew," but were wrong about.

You're nitpicking. Whether the details of this specific instance of Jim Crow are completely right is beside the point. Or are you saying that it was immoral to require Ms. Parks to move from the 11th row of the bus on account of her race because it wasn't required by law, but it would have been perfectly moral to require Ms. Parks to move from the 10th row of the bus on account of her race because it was required by law?

You cited something as law which was not. I thought that was funny, for someone who views his lawyering skills so highly. Now, a legal point (which, presumably, is your bread & butter) is "nitpicking!"

[Bob Juch]

You said, "It was THE LAW that Rosa Parks was supposed to sit in the back of that bus." That is not true. The city law was that the first 10 rows on buses were reserved for white people. Rosa Parks was sitting in the 11th row. I have found no law that gave bus drivers authority to compel people to move. As I asked before, Please cite the one that you found after doing the research for yourself. It appears, again, that this is something you "knew," but were wrong about.

You're nitpicking. Whether the details of this specific instance of Jim Crow are completely right is beside the point. Or are you saying that it was immoral to require Ms. Parks to move from the 11th row of the bus on account of her race because it wasn't required by law, but it would have been perfectly moral to require Ms. Parks to move from the 10th row of the bus on account of her race because it was required by law?

You cited something as law which was not. I thought that was funny, for someone who views his lawyering skills so highly. Now, a legal point (which, presumably, is your bread & butter) is "nitpicking!"

She was arrested for refusing to follow the orders of the bus driver. Here's what the National Archives has to say:

On December 1, 1955, during a typical evening rush hour in Montgomery, Alabama, a 42-year-old woman took a seat on the bus on her way home from the Montgomery Fair department store where she worked as a seamstress. Before she reached her destination, she quietly set off a social revolution when the bus driver instructed her to move back, and she refused. Rosa Parks, an African American, was arrested that day for violating a city law requiring racial segregation of public buses.

On the city buses of Montgomery, Alabama, the front 10 seats were permanently reserved for white passengers. The diagram shows that Mrs. Parks was seated in the first row behind those 10 seats. When the bus became crowded, the bus driver instructed Mrs. Parks and the other three passengers seated in that row, all African Americans, to vacate their seats for the white passengers boarding. Eventually, three of the passengers moved, while Mrs. Parks remained seated, arguing that she was not in a seat reserved for whites. James Blake, the driver, believed he had the discretion to move the line separating black and white passengers. The law was actually somewhat murky on that point, but when Mrs. Parks defied his order, he called the police. Officers Day and Mixon came and promptly arrested her.

In police custody, Mrs. Parks was booked, fingerprinted, and briefly incarcerated. The police report shows that she was charged with "refusing to obey orders of bus driver." For openly challenging the racial laws of her city, she remained at great physical risk while held by the police, and her family was terrified for her. When she called home, she spoke to her mother, whose first question was "Did they beat you?"

https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/rosa-parks

[tlynn78]

[jarnon]

And we have a Legislature that has passed one of the strongest laws in the nation to require vaccinations before attending school. Only medical exemptions are accepted. I believe we are one of only two states with laws that stringent.

New York State, which has a serious measles outbreak, just eliminated religious exemptions to vaccination. The vote was extremely close. Legislators of both parties struggled to balance parental rights with safeguarding public health.

[flockofseagulls104]

I will tell you one of the worst ways this crisis effects me, and you.
Your whole stupid state is openly defying the laws of this country. Why? Because idiots like you are equating a untenable political position to things like Rosa Parks or Gandhi, and ooze self righteous outrage over anything you can think of relating to it. It is a poitical question, bob-tel. Do we want to control and know who enters this country, or do we want to have open borders. We have a whole section of the federal government set up to manage who gets to come into this country and to oversee non-citizens in this country. (Because we happen to be a sovereign nation). Why do we have that department of government and have always had that function of government, bob-tel? Why are the people who cross our borders in direct violation of our laws get an exemption?

If you want open-borders, bob-tel, tell your representatives to change the existing laws. Perhaps we can do away with a whole government department and save some money. But don't equate a political position with a moral crusade, because it's NOT.

OK, so what's to stop anyone else from defying laws they don't like because they don't like them? You are undermining the rule of law. Remember the law? Supposedly you went to school and it might have been one of the main subjects, after political indoctrination.

[flockofseagulls104]

I will tell you one of the worst ways this crisis effects me, and you.
Your whole stupid state is openly defying the laws of this country. Why? Because idiots like you are equating an untenable political position to things like Rosa Parks or Gandhi, and ooze self righteous outrage over anything you can think of relating to it. It is a political question, bob-tel. Do we want to control and know who enters this country, or do we want to have open borders. We have a whole section of the federal government set up to manage who gets to come into this country and to oversee non-citizens in this country. (Because we happen to be a sovereign nation). Why do we have that department of government and have always had that function of government, bob-tel? Why are the people who cross our borders in direct violation of our laws getting an exemption? Because they're more noble and deserving then those who apply to enter our country in the legal and prescribed fashion? Really? Do you think?

If you want open-borders, bob-tel, tell your representatives to change the existing laws. If you want to convince the American people that we need to let everyone into our country who wants to be here because it will fund their Social Security, knock yourself out. Tell them the truth about why you want open borders. Perhaps we can do away with a whole government department and save some money. But don't equate a political position with a moral crusade, because it's NOT. That seems to be your only tactic. To advance your political agenda, you make it into some kind of moral crusade, and you paint anyone who disagrees with you as an evil or deplorable person. Just as the ASSSHOLE did in a recent post to me. Just as Hillary did to those who didn't want to vote for her. Just as almost every democrat and MSMedia talking head does to trump. And did to GWBush. And Ronald Reagan.

OK, so what's to stop anyone else from defying laws they don't like because they don't like them? You are undermining the rule of law. Remember the law? Supposedly you went to school and it might have been one of the main subjects, after political indoctrination.

(I added to my previous post to make it clearer....)

[Bob78164]

I will tell you one of the worst ways this crisis effects me, and you.
Your whole stupid state is openly defying the laws of this country. Why? Because idiots like you are equating an untenable political position to things like Rosa Parks or Gandhi, and ooze self righteous outrage over anything you can think of relating to it. It is a political question, bob-tel. Do we want to control and know who enters this country, or do we want to have open borders. We have a whole section of the federal government set up to manage who gets to come into this country and to oversee non-citizens in this country. (Because we happen to be a sovereign nation). Why do we have that department of government and have always had that function of government, bob-tel? Why are the people who cross our borders in direct violation of our laws getting an exemption? Because they're more noble and deserving then those who apply to enter our country in the legal and prescribed fashion? Really? Do you think?

If you want open-borders, bob-tel, tell your representatives to change the existing laws. If you want to convince the American people that we need to let everyone into our country who wants to be here because it will fund their Social Security, knock yourself out. Tell them the truth about why you want open borders. Perhaps we can do away with a whole government department and save some money. But don't equate a political position with a moral crusade, because it's NOT. That seems to be your only tactic. To advance your political agenda, you make it into some kind of moral crusade, and you paint anyone who disagrees with you as an evil or deplorable person. Just as the ASSSHOLE did in a recent post to me. Just as Hillary did to those who didn't want to vote for her. Just as almost every democrat and MSMedia talking head does to trump. And did to GWBush. And Ronald Reagan.

OK, so what's to stop anyone else from defying laws they don't like because they don't like them? You are undermining the rule of law. Remember the law? Supposedly you went to school and it might have been one of the main subjects, after political indoctrination.

(I added to my previous post to make it clearer....)

Like it or not, my state is in fact complying with the law -- in particular the Constitution you claim to revere. In particular, under the Constitution, the federal government has no right at all to require states to use their own resources to enforce federal laws or policies. My state has made the political decision to withhold our resources from Donny's efforts, and I can assure you that it's a decision that has majority support within California. If you don't like California's decision, you can either convince us to change our minds or you can convince people to change the Constitution. I won't hold my breath waiting.

And you seem to be utterly unable to resist caricaturing my actual position, presumably because you can't substantively respond to it. So I expect that ultimately my side will win the battle to get the law changed. In the meantime, you can count on me to continue to defend my friends and neighbors any way that's available to me. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

I will tell you one of the worst ways this crisis effects me, and you.
Your whole stupid state is openly defying the laws of this country. Why? Because idiots like you are equating an untenable political position to things like Rosa Parks or Gandhi, and ooze self righteous outrage over anything you can think of relating to it. It is a political question, bob-tel. Do we want to control and know who enters this country, or do we want to have open borders. We have a whole section of the federal government set up to manage who gets to come into this country and to oversee non-citizens in this country. (Because we happen to be a sovereign nation). Why do we have that department of government and have always had that function of government, bob-tel? Why are the people who cross our borders in direct violation of our laws getting an exemption? Because they're more noble and deserving then those who apply to enter our country in the legal and prescribed fashion? Really? Do you think?

If you want open-borders, bob-tel, tell your representatives to change the existing laws. If you want to convince the American people that we need to let everyone into our country who wants to be here because it will fund their Social Security, knock yourself out. Tell them the truth about why you want open borders. Perhaps we can do away with a whole government department and save some money. But don't equate a political position with a moral crusade, because it's NOT. That seems to be your only tactic. To advance your political agenda, you make it into some kind of moral crusade, and you paint anyone who disagrees with you as an evil or deplorable person. Just as the ASSSHOLE did in a recent post to me. Just as Hillary did to those who didn't want to vote for her. Just as almost every democrat and MSMedia talking head does to trump. And did to GWBush. And Ronald Reagan.

OK, so what's to stop anyone else from defying laws they don't like because they don't like them? You are undermining the rule of law. Remember the law? Supposedly you went to school and it might have been one of the main subjects, after political indoctrination.

(I added to my previous post to make it clearer....)

Like it or not, my state is in fact complying with the law -- in particular the Constitution you claim to revere. In particular, under the Constitution, the federal government has no right at all to require states to use their own resources to enforce federal laws or policies. My state has made the political decision to withhold our resources from Donny's efforts, and I can assure you that it's a decision that has majority support within California. If you don't like California's decision, you can either convince us to change our minds or you can convince people to change the Constitution. I won't hold my breath waiting.

And you seem to be utterly unable to resist caricaturing my actual position, presumably because you can't substantively respond to it. So I expect that ultimately my side will win the battle to get the law changed. In the meantime, you can count on me to continue to defend my friends and neighbors any way that's available to me. --Bob

State your actual position without pontificating or emotionalizing and I will respond in kind.

[Bob78164]

I will tell you one of the worst ways this crisis effects me, and you.
Your whole stupid state is openly defying the laws of this country. Why? Because idiots like you are equating an untenable political position to things like Rosa Parks or Gandhi, and ooze self righteous outrage over anything you can think of relating to it. It is a political question, bob-tel. Do we want to control and know who enters this country, or do we want to have open borders. We have a whole section of the federal government set up to manage who gets to come into this country and to oversee non-citizens in this country. (Because we happen to be a sovereign nation). Why do we have that department of government and have always had that function of government, bob-tel? Why are the people who cross our borders in direct violation of our laws getting an exemption? Because they're more noble and deserving then those who apply to enter our country in the legal and prescribed fashion? Really? Do you think?

If you want open-borders, bob-tel, tell your representatives to change the existing laws. If you want to convince the American people that we need to let everyone into our country who wants to be here because it will fund their Social Security, knock yourself out. Tell them the truth about why you want open borders. Perhaps we can do away with a whole government department and save some money. But don't equate a political position with a moral crusade, because it's NOT. That seems to be your only tactic. To advance your political agenda, you make it into some kind of moral crusade, and you paint anyone who disagrees with you as an evil or deplorable person. Just as the ASSSHOLE did in a recent post to me. Just as Hillary did to those who didn't want to vote for her. Just as almost every democrat and MSMedia talking head does to trump. And did to GWBush. And Ronald Reagan.

OK, so what's to stop anyone else from defying laws they don't like because they don't like them? You are undermining the rule of law. Remember the law? Supposedly you went to school and it might have been one of the main subjects, after political indoctrination.

(I added to my previous post to make it clearer....)

Like it or not, my state is in fact complying with the law -- in particular the Constitution you claim to revere. In particular, under the Constitution, the federal government has no right at all to require states to use their own resources to enforce federal laws or policies. My state has made the political decision to withhold our resources from Donny's efforts, and I can assure you that it's a decision that has majority support within California. If you don't like California's decision, you can either convince us to change our minds or you can convince people to change the Constitution. I won't hold my breath waiting.

And you seem to be utterly unable to resist caricaturing my actual position, presumably because you can't substantively respond to it. So I expect that ultimately my side will win the battle to get the law changed. In the meantime, you can count on me to continue to defend my friends and neighbors any way that's available to me. --Bob

State your actual position without pontificating or emotionalizing and I will respond in kind.

I'm entirely comfortable with how I'm expressing myself. It's not going to change. Whether you change how you express your views is on you. --Bob