Misleading Congress can be a prosecutable offense if a person who makes the statements knows they are false.
Of course, if the person enters the US illegally, then it's OK to make false statements, according to Rotter Logick. So what's the beef? It's a prosecutable offense only if the person is a legal citizen?
A implies B for all A and B .. in the mind of Mr Rot.
My point was, how can you make any kind of moral or legal or judicial argument in this case, when you consistently condone illegal activities, such as crossing the border by armed bandits, who proceeded to kill in cold blood that border guard?
You seem to have a huge blind spot, whereby someone who enters the country illegally not only is not found to have broken the law (pernicious as that is), but, in fact, to be above the law, and be able to kill or maim or attack or rob anyone with impunity -- which is really incomprehensible to me.
No. My problem is with your exaggerating the importance of illegally crossing the border. The law ignores this because among Americans there is only a very small minority that cares much about this infraction of the law.
This is as it should be since many US citizens benefit from illegals' presence here and the illegals that commit serious crimes are a problem for the crimes they commit just like American citizens do. One has to go to bullshit statistics to make any argument at all, and usually that's proof ab initio that there's nothing to say of a moral nature.
Have a look at the rotting food on that Guardian article and try getting moral about that. It's better.
What Herr Rott is saying is that if a cancer is riddling your body, but if opium has so deadened your mind that the pain barely registers, then what's to worry? It's not as if cancer kills, or something.
7 comments:
Misleading Congress can be a prosecutable offense if a person who makes the statements knows they are false.
Of course, if the person enters the US illegally, then it's OK to make false statements, according to Rotter Logick. So what's the beef? It's a prosecutable offense only if the person is a legal citizen?
Misleading Congress is the same as taking the Fifth...in the mind of Tecs.
A implies B for all A and B .. in the mind of Mr Rot.
My point was, how can you make any kind of moral or legal or judicial argument in this case, when you consistently condone illegal activities, such as crossing the border by armed bandits, who proceeded to kill in cold blood that border guard?
You seem to have a huge blind spot, whereby someone who enters the country illegally not only is not found to have broken the law (pernicious as that is), but, in fact, to be above the law, and be able to kill or maim or attack or rob anyone with impunity -- which is really incomprehensible to me.
No. My problem is with your exaggerating the importance of illegally crossing the border. The law ignores this because among Americans there is only a very small minority that cares much about this infraction of the law.
This is as it should be since many US citizens benefit from illegals' presence here and the illegals that commit serious crimes are a problem for the crimes they commit just like American citizens do. One has to go to bullshit statistics to make any argument at all, and usually that's proof ab initio that there's nothing to say of a moral nature.
Have a look at the rotting food on that Guardian article and try getting moral about that. It's better.
Also, moral and legal are different. You refuse to acknowledge this truism.
What Herr Rott is saying is that if a cancer is riddling your body, but if opium has so deadened your mind that the pain barely registers, then what's to worry? It's not as if cancer kills, or something.
yeah, especially the "or something"
Post a Comment