Exactly, it's nothing more than a way to convince morons that humans are a mere statistic.
Liberal logic
- Thread starter Walleye70
- Start date
That's not true. I've seen your stance on religion, marriage, parenting, homeschooling etc.
You care a great deal what other people do.
He does, his real love is arguing for the Democratic party at all costs. He's aborted his own fetus mind.
I know you wish it did on two different accounts, but it works as it was written to be.
That always resolves to whether or not an early-stage fetus should be considered a person. And that's where that debate always grinds to a halt.
But that difference of opinion does not apply to climate change or food stamps or health care. We are talking about unequivocal persons and yet the GOP routinely turns it back on those current and future persons, both born and unborn.
We aren't going to agree on abortion, but why can't we agree of these other killers of unborn babies?
Sorry. A handful of terrorists fall between the cracks and kill a few handfuls of people. Sure, we can do better.
But compare that with the number of guns and the number of gun-related deaths. That's not a system that lets a few people or guns slip between the cracks but otherwise works pretty well - that's an abject failure.
And remember, I'm saying that as someone who owns guns and believes 2A does impart an individual right to own guns.
Should we go with the principle (the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) or with the tyranny of the masses (morality determined by polling)?
Sorry, I couldn't resist throwing "tyranny of the masses" in there. Pretty sure it's those who decry that tyranny who are most insistent in their opposition to voting with the feet. As you have pointed out on numerous occasions, it's all about property rights trumping human rights. I side with human rights. After that, there's a place for property rights. But it's a subsidiary place.
I've often thought the devotees to market rules should favor open boarders. And while I can certainly chart a sound philosophical bases for that position, I don't think it practical, worth the effort or in our best interests to tilt at that windmill.
I have argued here on a number of occasions that open borders is a fundamental libertarian and freedom stance.
Needless to say our pseudo-libertarians get bent out of shape over this.
As a pragmatic left-libertarian, I recognize that totally unregulated borders are a silly idea in today's world. But borders are problematic in their own right, and we should be moving toward the greatest freedom of movement that we can manage if we really value individual liberty and human rights.
Or just move towards free universal wifi and then borders won't matter. Lock everyone in their homes and let Amazon service is with drones.
As an objective fair minded person I think you have a point. But I'm not objective and fair minded. We were all born on 3rd base and I don't want to go back to home and start over. I rather like the advantages being American affords so put me in the pro boarder camp.
The best (and most liberal) responses to border and immigration issues are to help less developed nations achieve the 3rd base life styles most of us enjoy and to stop fighting wars. With less inequality, there's less incentive to vote with your feet. And without wars, there are fewer refugees.
pl
ease tell me what I have said. I do think "home schooling" isa rather retarded idea, but so be it. Religion..is mine and again...don't tell me what I need to think. Parenting...I have done mine with no apparent damage...marriage, I believe in it..I believe everyone should enjoy the benefits of this wonderful institution..Hell, I have tried it three times! Again.....let other folks alone.
Us oldtimers will remember the Great Blackout back in the 70s.
Many people were caught in elevators and such and it became common to ask "where were you during the blackout?"
One of the jokes at the time went like this:
Do you know where President Gerry Ford was during the blackout?
No. Where?
Stuck on an escalator for 4 hours.
I see a slight difference between actively killing someone and failing to help someone who needs it.
Their failure to help those who need the help I agree does lead to children both born and unborn dying.
I won't give you climate change, at least not yet. That may be a failure to properly plan for the future which leaves our children to deal with problems that could have been prevented. But no one to my knowledge has been killed as yet because of climate change.
This is of course the big reason why I can't really get behind either party. One looks at out and out murder and calls it someone's right to do that. The other looks at starving and sick people adults and children and considers it theft that money is taken out of their taxes to help these people. (But are usually cool with the much larger portion of their taxes that go towards the military so that we can blow up Pakistani Children)
Other reasons I can't get behind either party are.
1. Both parties are ok with blowing up Pakistani Children or at the very least their officeholders are. You might not like drone bombings but Obama does and he's the one I'm suppose to vote for.
2. One party gives xenophobes a seat at the table the other party gives the SJW's a seat at the table.
3. Both parties are for the most part too caught up in identity politics. The parties are less concerned with what's been said then who's said it and less concerned about what's being done then who's doing it.
Ex. Biden can say the most racist or sexist things and he's immediately forgiven by liberals who will at the same time never forget that one time a Republican used a poor choice of words.
On the other side the racist rancher who wanted to graze his cattle on federal land without paying for it. Forgive me if I don't remember his name. There this guy was doing the very thing Republicans claim to hate, getting free stuff from the government, but he was quickly defended by republicans in congress because he looked and talked like a conservative.
Smaller ammo can enter the body, ricochet off bones and exit the body (striking another body). This is why the US Military prefers the (MA16a4) 5.56 round vs the (ak47) 7.62 (this has a tendency to travel directly through the body or bury itself into the bone).
Ehh I don't interpret Article 13 that way. The article says "(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
I interpret the right to leave as saying that if there is some other place you can go, within the laws of that nation, the nation you are currently in has no right to stop you from going. (As North Korea often does)
Especially when you combine that statement with the first part where is says that everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. If the UN is advocating open borders why even say borders of each state and specify freedom of movement in the entire world?
Also despite the fact that a bunch of states signed onto the Universal Declaration of Human rights, I know of no state that has actually put into effect totally open borders. I'd find it a hard sell to tell me that all these states drafted and signed onto this entire thing including Article 13 but no one has seriously tried to put it into effect.
Within the provisions of Articles 14 (extending asylum to those under persecution), each country has the authority to control who enters it's borders. But you can't control who leaves absent conviction or at least suspicion of a crime.
I would also note that I believe article 15 includes the right to change one's nationality which I would say is contingent upon another nation accepting you as a citizen. But I would say that if article 13 where taken as an open borders policy then article 15 would essentially provide that one may change one's nationality frequently and often without particular reason or permission. That would essentially make elections very difficult to work with. . . If I am very excited about an election in Canada what would prevent me from stepping into Canada, declaring myself Canadian just in time to vote in their election and then coming back to the US again to declare myself an American and vote in the elections here.
Surely of course this is ad absurdum but you see the point. If Article 13 of the Declaration of Human Rights does advocate open borders then Article 15 advocates an open policy on nationality changes which one could interpret as lacking any requirements such as residence in a country for any period of time, delays, background checks, or questions about loyalty or why a person even wishes to change their nationality.
As usual........you twist the words for your own satisfaction.
It's a sad joke, what you've become.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Brauns, Mulvey Taking Advantage of Added Minutes Down the Stretch
- Latest: Eliot Clough
