Paradox for Conservatives

[domer76]

So, you think living in America is a mistake.

lol

How and where in the fuck did you come to that moronic conclusion?

[TTQ64]

One of the things whites mention is age discrimination, which is a fact. For blacks it differs by types of discrimination. 50% say the have faced discrimination in dealing with police, 45% in trying to rent/buy housing, and 19% trying to vote or participate in politics.

*SIGH*

[Micawber]

lol

How and where in the fuck did you come to that moronic conclusion?

He didn't. His party is tearing crying south american and mexican babies from their mommies,
and he wants you to feel bad about yourself.

[domer76]

lol

The irony is thick!

[domer76]

I cannot wait to see this answer.......

An answer to an enormously stupid conclusion?

He pulled that one completely out of his ass. But, that would be something you can relate to.

[domer76]

He basically thinks that, even though he believes that the Declaration and Constitution are rubbish, he still wants to live here in hopes of one day dragging the country down into third-world status.

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.

[Legion]

He didn't. His party is tearing crying south american and mexican babies from their mommies.

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

[PoliTalker]

Hello and goodbye TTQ64,

Burp...……... I said what I meant and I meant what I said.

Double down = poof for life.

I hope you have a good one.

[PoliTalker]

Hello domer76,

Liars and the willfully ignorant are never helpful.

Look at our President, for example. A near-perfect combination of both.

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?

[Micawber]

Or, if she went to Wisconsin. Or, if she would have given her immigration and gay marriage views from 2012.

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"

[Legion]

But if they are god given they apply t all humanity, Constitution or not!

Are you claiming extra-Constitutional protections for all based on "Divine" right, regardless of nationality, Counselor?

[MAGA MAN]

But if they are god given they apply t all humanity, Constitution or not!

You lie by omission again, Brad.

[Timshel]

It is no more moral to beat a chimp to death as it is another human.

Morality is subjective. That is evident from this forum alone, much less taking a world view of morality.

Good for you in supporting the concept of natural rights. You may well have your personal definition of what that means, but you will not find any sort of consensus on a large scale.

You and I will agree that Trump is a walking lump of human feces, but you'll find many, just on this forum alone, that think he's the best thing since sliced bread. (Back to the subjective nature of that morality thing)

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.

[domer76]

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.

[Timshel]

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.