• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why does the right want to deny basic human rights to US Citizens?

ataraxia said:
Those are thanks to liberal policies providing government protection . Policies that you are working hard to uproot. What do you want to replace them with once you have succeeded in destroying them?
Click to expand...

I am a liberal, for the most part. And you posted as if they were being denied.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
I didn't claim that I can't; I claimed that I saw no reason to bother. Your desire to score points here clearly demonstrates why.
Click to expand...

I know...which in reality generally means, you were wrong and cannot.

It's a discussion forum, it's even your own OP...you have a regular tendency to accuse others of wrongdoing when you reach dead-ends in your claims and OPs.

The purpose of starting an OP on a discussion forum is, in reality, "to bother to support your claims and arguments."
 
trixare4kids said:
Prospective adoptive parents are waiting for babies/ toddlers, children they see coming into their lives with blank slates or so they think...

Supply and demand... Hence, why the demand for babies from countries is higher than for older, legally free children who are already waiting for adoptive homes from care. Getting back to what the other poster wrote though... we do not let children in this country knowingly go without much, including fresh water. He's lying through his teeth.
Click to expand...

I'm sure at least half of those 100,000 are under 1 year to 4 yrs...infant to toddlers. OK, maybe 1/3.

I grew up close friends with with a family in my church who did foster care, and then when I left for college, my parents started taking in special needs foster kids...all under 4. And they ended up adopting twins. I'm familiar with this on more than just a statistical level.
 
American said:
Lower corporate taxes and deregulation have already been done, and jobs are returning.
Click to expand...

In what way is manufacturing jobs returning to the US in any large impactful manner? How come other places outside of the US that did not do that are experiencing similar low levels of unemployment?
 
apdst said:
How many foster children live in your home?
Click to expand...

None. What does that have to do with gutting formal programs to protect orphaned children?
 
Josie said:
Like the rat-infested, typhoid-fever homeless streets of the very liberal, Democratic-lead California?
Click to expand...

Rats at the police station, filth on L.A. streets — scenes from the collapse of a city that’s lost control - Los Angeles Times

Los Angeles Times

By Steve Lopez Jun 02, 2019 | 9:10 AM

Rats at the police station, filth on L.A. streets — scenes from the collapse of a city that’s lost control

snippet

We’ve got thousands of people huddled on the streets, many of them withering away with physical and mental disease. Sidewalks have disappeared, hidden by tents and the kinds of makeshift shanties you see in Third World places. Typhoid and typhus are in the news, and an army of rodents is on the move.

Multiple pictures available in the article.

Roseann:)
 
trixare4kids said:
All libertarians want children to drink dirty flea-infested water.
Click to expand...

It's not so much that you want them to, it's that you just don't particularly care so long as it's not your children.
 
ataraxia said:
Those are thanks to liberal policies providing government protection . Policies that you are working hard to uproot. What do you want to replace them with once you have succeeded in destroying them?
Click to expand...

You and the strawman fallacy. It appears to be your standard fallback when you can't discuss honestly.

There is nobody who wants to destroy gov. protections in place for ALL children.
 
MrWonka said:
It's not so much that you want them to, it's that you just don't particularly care so long as it's not your children.
Click to expand...

You're another who continues to use vapid, wonky rhetoric, AKA the strawman logic fallacy when put to the test in a debate.

Stay in debate#101. Learn something that actually bolsters your argument over the finish line.
 
trixare4kids said:
You and the strawman fallacy. It appears to be your standard fallback when you can't discuss honestly.

There is nobody who wants to destroy gov. protections in place for ALL children.
Click to expand...

I know. But my question is that if charity and the free market are the magic answer to everything, why do you think basic government protections and regulations are OK, even apparently desirable, for this particular problem of orphaned children? Are you admitting that there is at least a place for some basic government safety nets and regulations in some situations?
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
I know...which in reality generally means, you were wrong and cannot.

It's a discussion forum, it's even your own OP...you have a regular tendency to accuse others of wrongdoing when you reach dead-ends in your claims and OPs.

The purpose of starting an OP on a discussion forum is, in reality, "to bother to support your claims and arguments."
Click to expand...

I didn't accuse you of wrongdoing at all. I just know your habit of wanting to pull most discussions away from the main points in favor of focusing on insignificant details, mostly so you can claim, "See? I was right!"

Nothing wrong with that, but I'm really not interested in that game right now. If that's what you want, look for another jousting partner.
 
CharisRose said:
Rats at the police station, filth on L.A. streets — scenes from the collapse of a city that’s lost control - Los Angeles Times

Los Angeles Times

By Steve Lopez Jun 02, 2019 | 9:10 AM

Rats at the police station, filth on L.A. streets — scenes from the collapse of a city that’s lost control

snippet

We’ve got thousands of people huddled on the streets, many of them withering away with physical and mental disease. Sidewalks have disappeared, hidden by tents and the kinds of makeshift shanties you see in Third World places. Typhoid and typhus are in the news, and an army of rodents is on the move.

Multiple pictures available in the article.

Roseann:)
Click to expand...

The city has lost control because their far leftist base, inhabitants of LA are apathetic, or maybe too afraid to be called racists, xenophobes by the politically correct.

The pandering left tried this in Pacific Beach, wanted to get an ordinance reversed where homeless people were allowed to LIVE in their cars and the people who actually live in the neighborhood fought it in city hall. Back to removing their cars after 24 hours again. That's what it is going to take to get LA and SF cleaned up and inhabitable again in the urban areas of these two cities. Neighborhood action! Don't depend on the pandering gutless politicians whose ONLY solution is to keep enabling by throwing money at the problem.
 
Last edited:
trixare4kids said:
The city has lost control because their far leftist inhabitants of LA are apathetic, or maybe too afraid to be called racists, xenophobes by the politically correct.

The pandering left tried this in Pacific Beach, wanted to get an ordinance reversed where people were allowed to LIVE in their cars and the people who actually live in the neighborhood fought it in city hall. Back to removing their cars after 24 hours again. That's what it is going to take to get LA and SF cleaned up and inhabitable again in the urban areas of these two cities. Neighborhood action! Don't depend on the pandering gutless politicians whose ONLY solution is to keep enabling by throwing money at the problem.
Click to expand...

I think the police are just worn down. If they try aggressive policing there is zero support for them at any level.
So they put themselves at jeopardy. Why do that? They do just the minimum required. Slowly society is falling apart.
 
trixare4kids said:
The city has lost control because their far leftist base, inhabitants of LA are apathetic, or maybe too afraid to be called racists, xenophobes by the politically correct.

The pandering left tried this in Pacific Beach, wanted to get an ordinance reversed where homeless people were allowed to LIVE in their cars and the people who actually live in the neighborhood fought it in city hall. Back to removing their cars after 24 hours again. That's what it is going to take to get LA and SF cleaned up and inhabitable again in the urban areas of these two cities. Neighborhood action! Don't depend on the pandering gutless politicians whose ONLY solution is to keep enabling by throwing money at the problem.
Click to expand...

Why don't you sell gas chambers to each neighborhood, Tricky? Solve the problem and make a profit, to boot!
 
Grandpappy said:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Ya. That doesn't work in the real world. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Hey, not bad.

When do you start second grade?
 
ataraxia said:
I know. But my question is that if charity and the free market are the magic answer to everything, why do you think basic government protections and regulations are OK, even apparently desirable, for this particular problem of orphaned children? Are you admitting that there is at least a place for some basic government safety nets and regulations in some situations?
Click to expand...

Stop pretending that you KNOW what I think by using the strawman fail.

Why can't you simply agree that there is NO ONE who wants to remove government protections for our nation's children?
 
trixare4kids said:
Stop pretending that you KNOW what I think by using the strawman fail.

Why can't you simply agree that there is NO ONE who wants to remove government protections for our nation's children?
Click to expand...

I am not making any arguments. I am just asking questions to try to understand the conservative argument and mindset. WHY do you think government protections are sometimes OK, like in this case? Where do you draw the line?

And second of all, I am not sure where you are getting this idea that NO ONE wants to remove government protections for our nation's children. There have been liberterian candidates, some of them even successful, who have run on wanting to cut ALL government funding for schools, guaranteeing clean water, food, or other basic protections for kids. I am sure you know that.
 
Last edited:
Common Sense 1 said:
I think the police are just worn down. If they try aggressive policing there is zero support for them at any level.
So they put themselves at jeopardy. Why do that? They do just the minimum required. Slowly society is falling apart.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with what you have said about our society being on the decline.
Why would the majority of the good police want to see themselves on fake news CNN actually doing their jobs the way they are supposed to be doing them?
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Why don't you sell gas chambers to each neighborhood, Tricky? Solve the problem and make a profit, to boot!
Click to expand...

What's "Tricky" is your constant overuse of lame red herrings.
 
MrWonka said:
Flint water crisis - Wikipedia

The flint water crisis started in 2014 under a Republican Free Market Capitalist. That's not a straw man. That's a fact.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a strawman. You accused me of not caring about children who are drinking flea-infested disease ridden water. Stay on point.

Your delection to the Flint Water problem, another tragedy does not prove your insult toward me correct.
Quote Originally Posted by MrWonka View Post
It's not so much that you want them to, it's that you just don't particularly care so long as it's not your children.
 
ataraxia said:
I am not making any arguments. I am just asking questions to try to understand the conservative argument and mindset. WHY do you think government protections are sometimes OK, like in this case? Where do you draw the line?

And second of all, I am not sure where you are getting this idea that NO ONE wants to remove government protections for our nation's children. There have been liberterian candidates, some of them even successful, who have run on wanting to cut ALL government funding for schools, guaranteeing clean water, food, or other basic protections for kids. I am sure you know that.
Click to expand...

No, you are not asking questions.
You are personally assigning blame by overusing logic fails.

You don't KNOW what I think.
Keep guessing though. I find your shtick mildly amusing in a third grade sort of way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom