Page 129 of 228 FirstFirst ... 2979119127128129130131139179 ... LastLast
Results 1,281 to 1,290 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #1281
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    Hahaha.

    says the person who tried to claim polyamory is immoral because of the children .... only slightly self-conflicting. if outcome is not related to morality .... what is? and are you just full of shit all the time, or just when its convenient for your argument?
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 11-05-2018 at 01:23 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  2. #1282
    On another note, I hope everyone goes out to vote tomorrow. I think the Brent Taylor said it best:

    "As the USA gets ready to vote in our own election next week, I hope everyone back home exercises their precious right to vote. And that whether the Republicans or the Democrats win, that we all remember that we have far more as Americans that unites us than divides us."

  3. #1283
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Quote Originally Posted by d0cwho View Post
    If I'm understanding your position, and please correct me if I'm wrong, are you saying a policy can be morally agnostic even if the outcome is morally reprehensible?
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    The decision is "effective vs ineffective." There is no morality embedded in the facts.
    Quote Originally Posted by d0cwho View Post
    That didn't answer my question.
    Yes, I did.

    Lots of policies/ laws have outcomes with which we may disagree or find immoral. When we see the outcome there is a due process for rectifying the results... in this particular case, the EO was issued to end the evil that has existed as a byproduct of ineffective immigration law for years. Obama turned a blind-eye to the existence of evil, Trump tried to take a hard-line stance on immigration in general, but when it increased the rate of occurrence of separations he released the EO to fix what pre-dated him but others ignored. The EO provides the mechanism to eliminate the separations totally. So, it's not trivial that we had a policy on the books that allowed ANY families to be separated. I'd rather have a hard discussion about it and then we stop doing it at all. Unfortunately, it turns out that the EO may not be enough to stop it due to the way the Flores settlement agreement was/ is applied.

    The reason Gordon's question is so stupid is that whether it was 1,000, 100 or even 1 family that got separated before Trump, there was an evil byproduct of our immigration laws. Whether 1 or 1,000 it was always evil and I'd suggest pretending it didn't exist, like Obama, is worse then trying to fix the problem. If it all comes to a head under this administration so 0 families are separated systemically, then I support it.

  4. #1284
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    says the person who tried to claim polyamory is immoral because of the children .... only slightly self-conflicting. if outcome is not related to morality .... what is? and are you just full of shit all the time, or just when its convenient for your argument?

  5. #1285
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    not a defense of your self-conflicting arguments.

    swing and a miss.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  6. #1286
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    Yes, I did.

    Lots of policies/ laws have outcomes with which we may disagree or find immoral. When we see the outcome there is a due process for rectifying the results... in this particular case, the EO was issued to end the evil that has existed as a byproduct of ineffective immigration law for years. Obama turned a blind-eye to the existence of evil, Trump tried to take a hard-line stance on immigration in general, but when it increased the rate of occurrence of separations he released the EO to fix what pre-dated him but others ignored. The EO provides the mechanism to eliminate the separations totally. So, it's not trivial that we had a policy on the books that allowed ANY families to be separated. I'd rather have a hard discussion about it and then we stop doing it at all. Unfortunately, it turns out that the EO may not be enough to stop it due to the way the Flores settlement agreement was/ is applied.

    The reason Gordon's question is so stupid is that whether it was 1,000, 100 or even 1 family that got separated before Trump, there was an evil byproduct of our immigration laws. Whether 1 or 1,000 it was always evil and I'd suggest pretending it didn't exist, like Obama, is worse then trying to fix the problem. If it all comes to a head under this administration so 0 families are separated systemically, then I support it.
    I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding your position. The EO requiring all illegal crossings to be charged under federal criminal law is what caused the family separations. Can we agree on that point? Or are we talking about a different EO.

  7. #1287
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,079
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    In the same ways as pretty much any conspiracy that involves George Soros.
    How so? The full interview is right there for you to listen to.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  8. #1288
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    how effective a policy is is directly related to how moral it is.
    Actually, how effective it would be is based on how much it decreases the number of people crossing the border.

    Say, East Germany was very effective. It was not moral. These are different things. Compared to shooting kids, I would say this is significantly morally superior.

    I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding your position. The EO requiring all illegal crossings to be charged under federal criminal law is what caused the family separations. Can we agree on that point?
    No. What is causing families to be separated was a ruling under Flores and the state of California. It existed and was in affect before Trump was elected president. It happened under Bush and related also. There are a lot of reasons, some of them being a worry that the child was in danger from the parent, others being the child was held in a separate facility while the parent, who was caught breaking a law in a foreign country there were not residents of, were dealing with the court proceedings of that country before being released to the border or allowed passage. It also involves child trafficking laws, and protecting them from parents who are a risk to the child. The original work was done in 2002 under homeland security iirc. Edit - All of this stems from 1996 or so changes to immigration law under Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich.

    The separations had happened before the law. Just on the families who were detained vs being turned back to the border. This has been gone over plenty I would have thought by now.

    Or are we talking about a different EO.
    There was no EO from Trump that caused border separations. Or any EO from Obama, or Bush. It was generated under existing laws for the protection of the children from potential harm, and to shield them from going through the court system. [edit - It has not been driven by any president, but by Congress or state courts.] It all existed before Trump, and he has petitioned the court to reverse that law. I have linked to the EO's for anybody to read, and I have taken out the relevant quotes concerning how children are treated, with previous existing laws.

    At this point there has been plenty of sources on this, and not getting this very crucial part of the argument is kind of on you.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 11-05-2018 at 03:43 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  9. #1289
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Actually, how effective it would be is based on how much it decreases the number of people crossing the border.

    Say, East Germany was very effective. It was not moral. These are different things. Compared to shooting kids, I would say this is significantly morally superior.



    No. What is causing families to be separated was a ruling under Flores and the state of California. It existed and was in affect before Trump was elected president. It happened under Bush and related also. There are a lot of reasons, some of them being a worry that the child was in danger from the parent, others being the child was held in a separate facility while the parent, who was caught breaking a law in a foreign country there were not residents of, were dealing with the court proceedings of that country before being released to the border or allowed passage. It also involves child trafficking laws, and protecting them from parents who are a risk to the child. The original work was done in 2002 under homeland security iirc. Edit - All of this stems from 1996 or so changes to immigration law under Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich.

    The separations had happened before the law. Just on the families who were detained vs being turned back to the border. This has been gone over plenty I would have thought by now.



    There was no EO from Trump that caused border separations. Or any EO from Obama, or Bush. It was generated under existing laws for the protection of the children from potential harm, and to shield them from going through the court system. It all existed before Trump, and he has petitioned the court to reverse that law. I have linked to the EO's for anybody to read, and I have taken out the relevant quotes concerning how children are treated, with previous existing laws.

    At this point there has been plenty of sources on this, and not getting this very crucial part of the argument is kind of on you.
    Two questions.

    Do you agree the executive branch has discretion on how to enforce immigration laws? Do you agree the executive branch has discretion on what penalties it can request for violating immigration laws? Do you agree that prosecutors have the discretion to request pre-trial detention or money bail?
    Last edited by d0cwho; 11-05-2018 at 03:52 PM.

  10. #1290
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Actually, how effective it would be is based on how much it decreases the number of people crossing the border.

    Say, East Germany was very effective. It was not moral. These are different things. Compared to shooting kids, I would say this is significantly morally superior.



    No. What is causing families to be separated was a ruling under Flores and the state of California. It existed and was in affect before Trump was elected president. It happened under Bush and related also. There are a lot of reasons, some of them being a worry that the child was in danger from the parent, others being the child was held in a separate facility while the parent, who was caught breaking a law in a foreign country there were not residents of, were dealing with the court proceedings of that country before being released to the border or allowed passage. It also involves child trafficking laws, and protecting them from parents who are a risk to the child. The original work was done in 2002 under homeland security iirc. Edit - All of this stems from 1996 or so changes to immigration law under Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich.

    The separations had happened before the law. Just on the families who were detained vs being turned back to the border. This has been gone over plenty I would have thought by now.



    There was no EO from Trump that caused border separations. Or any EO from Obama, or Bush. It was generated under existing laws for the protection of the children from potential harm, and to shield them from going through the court system. [edit - It has not been driven by any president, but by Congress or state courts.] It all existed before Trump, and he has petitioned the court to reverse that law. I have linked to the EO's for anybody to read, and I have taken out the relevant quotes concerning how children are treated, with previous existing laws.

    At this point there has been plenty of sources on this, and not getting this very crucial part of the argument is kind of on you.
    no, the trump administration has the power to enforce the law as it pleases. Flores determined the legality of certain enforcement, it did not compel trump to do anything different.

    amazing, the party of personal responsibility is the first to run away from it. yet again.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •