- The original Substack piece:
- Ok, from the title, asking for DNA might be too much.
> He says he wanted to join Americans at the “No Kings” rally .
> Larson said he felt there was a good chance he’d be turned away at the border, “but I didn't expect the treatment that I got,”
OK, what did he expect by explicitly stating that he wanted to bring disruption to a country?
However you feel about the US situation, I think any border agent in the world would consider you a liability if you explicitly state that you want to take part in a demonstration against the elected government.
- A border agent sensing that someone attempting to enter is a ''liability'' can and should simply turn the person around and forbid them entry. That's how it has always been done. This collection of DNA from a non-citizen for the FBI's use is an outrageous and awful new event.
- > “At no time did they question the intent of my visit," he said. "They never challenged that whatsoever.”
I wonder how they knew. Social media?
- > ...if you explicitly state that you want to take part in a demonstration against the elected government.
Cambridge Dictionary's definition of a free country: a country where the government does not control what people say or do for political reasons and where people can express their opinions without punishment.
- They were talking about citizens there, not random people from other countries.
- > OK, what did he expect by explicitly stating that he wanted to bring disruption to a country?
Exactly right! Order above all else, even rights. If you break the rules, you no longer deserve rights. Rights are based on your adherence to the state, not on natural or universal law.
- Lol. Great comment. I think people missed the sarcasm.
- Was it sarcasm? I wondered if it was satire.
- 1. A protest is not "disruption".
2. The "elected" government is explicitly prohibited from policing speech, and mostly strongly political speech.
3. That restriction is framed in terms of natural rights that apply to all human beings, not merely citizens.
Sorry, there is no "however you feel about" both-sidesism to be had in this situation. The time for discussing and debating differing political viewpoints is after we've ousted the fascists and restored our Constitutionally-limited government bound by the rule of law.
I'm a libertarian, so I think many of the policies and narratives pushed by Democrats leave much to be desired. In fact I was both-sidesing up until 2020 or so (5d-chess and all). But at this point, I'm no longer going to be suckered by any of the fascists' dishonest appeals to things that I care about. In fact, I am going to criticize them even more because they are burning the credibility of appeals to individual liberty.
- Luckily these fascists control the SCOTUS so they can politely say "Mindslight, you're wrong because we can ignore previous case law whenever we want". Well, luckily for them, not for the rest of us.
- Sure? That is obviously one of the things that needs to be remediated as part of reclaiming our country.
My original comment was talking about what ought rather than what is, in case that wasn't clear.
39 points by geox 4 hours ago | 12 comments