TTQ64 (06-19-2018)
Still tossing out your laughable fecal material, I see. Your comprehension skills are quite pitiable. Were you homeschooled? Somebody sure fucked up on your language skills.
Try this, moron. Search my posts and find any evidence where I referred to either the Constitution or Declaration as rubbish. Or anything of the kind. I'll save you the time, punk. You won't.
So, that places you in good standing with the other liars on this forum. Just the type I was discussing with Politalker.
Like this?
Obama told an audience in El Paso that deportation of immigrants would focus on “violent offenders and people convicted of crimes; not families, not folks who are just looking to scrape together an income.”
Two weeks ago, however, the Department of Homeland Security released a report that flatly belies the new policy.
From January to June 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed 46,486 undocumented parents who claimed to have at least one child who is an American citizen.
In contrast, in the entire decade between 1998 and 2007, about 100,000 such parents were removed. The extraordinary acceleration in the dismantling of these families, part of the government’s efforts to meet an annual quota of about 400,000 deportations, has had devastating results.
Research by the Urban Institute and others reveals the deep and irreversible harm that parental deportation causes in the lives of their children. Having a parent ripped away permanently, without warning, is one of the most devastating and traumatic experiences in human development.
These children experience immediate household crises, starting with the loss of parental income. The harsh new economic reality causes housing and food insecurity. In response to psychological and economic disruptions, children show increased anxiety, frequent crying, changes in eating and sleeping patterns, withdrawal and anger.
In the long run, the children of deportation face increased odds of lasting economic turmoil, psychic scarring, reduced school attainment, greater difficulty in maintaining relationships, social exclusion and lower earnings. The research also exposes major misconceptions about these parents.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/21/opinion/deporting-parents-ruins-kids.html
Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.
Hello domer76,
Liars, agreed.
And of course the president is hurting the country, agreed.
But so is the polarization.
Look at the bigger picture.
Americans hating one another, the nation bitterly and dysfunctionally divided, is exactly what Putin wants.
America needs to find a way to pull together. We must reach out, try to keep lines of communication open where possible.
Some will not cooperate. They are a lost cause. No need to run others off. That just helps Putin destroy America. Do you want Putin to put another Trump in office?
Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hi...n-and-a-woman/
Not quite. You need to go back to 2000 to get a man woman only position from her, then 2007 she voiced support for
civil unions, then in 2013 gay marriage. So her track appears to be a clear case of finger to the wind.
Hatred for Hillary isn't issue based, it is the result of a concerted effort to destroy her by using propaganda by Limbaugh,
Fox and other assorted far right mouthpieces. I've always found very little from opponents of Hillary to be fact based
almost entirely emotional argument. I've never understood it, since she so carefully positions herself to be "mainstream"
TTQ64 (06-19-2018)
Truth Detector (06-19-2018)
Why does consensus matter? Anyway, I would guess, a large majority believes people have basic rights.
So would you say to those that argued for the idnividual rights of blacks, women, homosexuals, etc. that they had none and should not make such normative statements because morality is subjective.
Frankly, I think there is a paradox for those on the left who argue there is no such thing as natural rights while maintaining that the rights of individuals should be expanded for formerly/currently oppressed groups. Further, with this cold argument that the only rights that exists are those recognized by the state does it even matter that immigrants do have rights under our laws, if the authorities refuse to recognize them?
Without the concept of natural rights liberty and freedom are doomed. It's a nihilistic rejection of moral premises for government which will lead to fascism.
The proof of natural rights is in the pudding. They work and are effective in establishing a just society.
It is odd that the adherents of natural rights can’t identify exactly what they are. Nor can they demonstrate they are universal, which, by definition, they are required to be.
The rights of those individuals DO need to be expanded, but that is done by legislation.
Nope, liberty and freedom are fine without the existence of natural rights. And morality no more needs natural rights than it needs a creator.
I have identified what they are. Again, it's a normative statement not a positive one. I can not put it on display. I can only give my arguments for why they should be recognized.
It's interesting that the opponents of natural rights fail to answer how they would argue for any rights of the oppressed without making normative statements. Why should I support legislation to expand the rights of those groups and on what basis do you claim they have rights? Without a normative statement the only argument is a threat of force.
Please give an example of where in this world you detect liberty and freedom without a concept that argues that humans have rights. Such a place does not exist, never has and never will.
Bookmarks