That story is not to far removed from my old boss. A Palestinian christian (from Palestine), who did very well in school. Received a full scholarship to study computer science in the Soviet Union, then came to America for religious reasons, and has successfully run a business for a couple of decades and has quite a few real estate holdings in the San Francisco Bay Area. Quite wealthy by most standards, and an all around nice upstanding guy.

I have also known many from Mexico who are nice, hard working, successful people. Me thinks you desperately want there to be more differences between complexions than actually exist...

I am saddened that such thinly veiled racist and openly ignorant postings have become so commonplace on this enlightened blog.

@m,as someone who regularly comments on "moral standing" i think you'd appreciate the hypocrisy argument on immigration.

Nailed it. :)

As a matter of fact, I've been told that they came here because they were converts to Mormonism, and at that time, the Mormon leaders were attempting to create their own 'Zion' (no connection to Israel) gathering in the Great Basin (Utah and Nevada).

I'll leave it up to you whether that represented "successful" or "unsuccessful".

So, maybe you're onto something! Perhaps all those Africans, Arabs and Hispanics are heading for more prosperous places because they've joined the Mormon church (but somehow, I doubt it).

Also, remember that when the light-complexioned people came here 3 to 4 generations ago, this place was a gawdam wilderness, and they were pioneers - life was damn tough, there was no such thing as an "easy way out", and there were no dark complexioned people to help with the pioneering. (Of course, there were the Indians, but contrary to what you likely believe, they really weren't all that much help.)

Thanks to their efforts there now IS an "easy way out", so NOW the dark-complexioned people happily show up!!

Merely demonstrating the stupidity of your argument. Interesting that you think light complexioned people would come here because they were industrious but dark complexioned because they want the easy way out.

Lets face it, your Swiss relatives came here for some reason, and that reason was unlikely that they were successful in Switzerland. Why is the same not true just because someone hails from further southern latitudes?

Far as I'm aware, none of the rights codified in our Bill of Rights specifies that they apply to only specific citizens - all are universal. Does your constitution have rights for only certain people??

I can see that I have a lot of work to do. :)

Let me try explaining it this way ... First Nations have their own "Bill of Rights", so to speak, and their own governments, their own cultures and languages, and general way of doing things. These, collectively, are what's known as Indigenous rights or Aboriginal rights.

This concept dates back to when European immigrants first started dealing or 'treatying' with the sovereign nations they found on 'Turtle Island'. The first treaty was the Two Row Wampum Treaty which basically outlines how the indigenous nations and the newcomers would live, side by side, in peace and security, and would not interfere with each other.

You must remember that in Canada, the history with First Nations is different from the experience in your country. Here, in place of Indian wars, there was largely treaty-making. Unfortunately, one of the parties never lived up to their end of the bargain.

First Nations have always done their duty to live up to this treaty. The newcomers did not. And, ever since, First Nations have been struggling to have their indigenous rights recognized and respected.

Here's another way to think about it... being treated equally does not mean being treated the same.

Thanks for the info.

What is the relationship between Native Americans and the federal government? I can't say that I've ever heard much about the interactions between the two, I mean other than the highly publicized confrontations.

I have late middle age diaspora Swiss in-laws. According to them, it's expensive, crowded and the military service requirements used to be very invasive (especially if you had a critical infra structure skill set)... less so now. They hold dual citizenship and go back frequently...if you have a 700 year old barn/house in the family, it's very hard to let it go.

My Swiss connections love The South and acclimated quickly. Red pickup truck (dented) gun rack in the back, fishing gear on the gun rack.

Far as I'm aware, none of the rights codified in our Bill of Rights specifies that they apply to only specific citizens - all are universal.

Does your constitution have rights for only certain people??

They have their own country, their own laws, their own jurisdictions...

Howz that??

Well, Michale, I am not very familiar with the situation in your country but I would be surprised if Native Americans were enjoying the practice of all of their indigenous rights.

I can tell you that Aboriginal peoples in my country are still in a struggle to have their rights recognized and these rights are recognized and affirmed in our constitution!

For me it was only 'threebears' (Paternal great grandpa did not emigrate.) However, the Swiss are notoriously industrious. They are more prosperous than Americans.

Anyway, why do you ask that dumb-ass question? Was that a lame-ass attempt at insult? Pathetic!

Which hypocrisy argument would that be??

I'm always surprised when indigenous issues don't come up in any discussion on immigration.

Why should it??

Do you believe that indigenous people here in this country are entitled to any more than they have right now??

Or, are you suggesting we give California back to Mexico???

If you are, I am TOTALLY and COMPLETELY 1000% behind you in that.. :D

Is ignorant bigot speech given a pass around here? Is being "nice" and "fair" for registered members only?

Actually, the nice and fair rule IS for registered members only..

However, if you want the rule to apply to EVERYONE and are willing to be "nice" and "fair" to President Trump and all Republicans....

Well....

"My soul is prepared, Doctor Jones. How about yours??"
-Nazim, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

But, it's funny..

You come down on CRS for being mean and give Paula a pass for her hysterical bigotry...

Why is that??

Why did your forebears come to America? Because they were too lazy to succeed is Switzerland?

So, what is a bigot? Is that a person who points out that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are dark-complexioned? Do you equate mention of skin tone with bigotry?

No, can't think of any reason why I would. How would it pertain to separating immigrant kids from their parents, or to the larger question of illegal immigration?

Care to hazard an opinion on the skin tone of Jesus Christ? First Cent. Judeans in general?

The connection is seen from the indigenous peoples' perspective which must seem to them quite ironic in that the original inhabitants of the America's welcomed European immigrants looking for a better life to their shores, including a lost explorer, and now those immigrants are less than welcoming to new migrants looking for a better life.

As for indigenous rights, well, you have a lot to learn and I'm sure that you find that journey as fascinating as I did so many years ago.

A good starting point would be the United Nations Declaration of the rights of Indigenous Peoples:
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf

Another great resource is from Canada: The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

Here is something that may surprise you ... Within the Canadian constitution is a clause, Section 35, in which the aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nation, Metis and Inuit are recognized and confirmed.

Of course, we still have a very long way to go in Canada when it comes to recognizing the Aboriginal and treaty rights, including the inherent right to self-government, of First Nations, Metis and Inuit but, we are progressing.

RE "The indigenous rights of the original inhabitants of the Americans . ."

Not sure where to go with that one. I've heard of 'indigenous people', but never of "indgenous rights".

Far as I know, the Native Americans and their descendants have the same rights as the immigrant Americans and their descendants.

I don't see the connection to the theme of this thread.

Yeah, you may be right. Looking back at the old photos of all my Swiss ancestors, I see a lot of brown natives - OH!, wait, those are the famous cows grazing across the alpine meadows, so likely, not so brown!

So, you did not bother to use that tool I posted in [168]?

OK, about the "teaspoonfull of truth and 8 quarts of bullshit".

How about a little more specific? Like, do you deny that millions of Africans and Arabs are swarming across the Meditranean heading for northern Europe, and thousands of South and Central Americans are flocking to our southern border??? Do you deny that the vast majority of them are "dark-complexioned"???

Or do you admit that they are indeed "dark-complexioned", but you just wish I hadn't said they are because it ain't PC???

You guys aren't fooling anybody, you are just part of the "ad hominems and insults" I foretold in [56]. I saw that coming, and you haven't disappointed me.

And a persistent one. We're all ultimately related anyway, nativists have always been delusional. Imagine the pretzel-logic of our nativists just 150 years ago: these were mostly from British emigre stock, making the same complaints about the Irish that their great-great-great grandchildren are making about today's immigrants, while simultaneously importing dark-skinned people to be farm machinery. Bigotry boggles the mind.

You mean beyond all of it? As I said, there is a teaspoon of truth and eight quarts of bullshit in that post.

Try this tool and see if you can educate yourself on migration patterns. When selecting the US, don't forget to flip between Immigrant and Emigrant populations. Also note 3.4% of the world population are immigrants to somewhere. A tiny drop in the bucket of the total world population...

I read your post in question and it leave me wondering about what your position is on the indigenous rights of the original inhabitants of the Americas and their descendants.

I'm always surprised when indigenous issues don't come up in any discussion on immigration.

Help me out here. Do you disagree with the accuracy/truthfulness of anything whatsoever I said in [56], or do you simply wish I hadn't pointed out what's actually at issue here because it isn't PC?

Apparently it is now OK to casually insult and denigrate entire classes of people who aren't around to defend themselves. Post 56 being a fine example... and there are plenty more in it's wake

Liz - cleanup on isle 56. Also isles 116 & 132 too.

Is ignorant bigot speech given a pass around here? Is being "nice" and "fair" for registered members only?

So, you are basically saying that the policy has changed because Sessions SAID the policy has changed... But everyone is on record as saying that all of the right are liars.. So why should you believe what Sessions says now???

No, "everyone" is NOT on "record as saying that all of the right are liars." The only thing you prove when you make a ridiculous statement like that is that you'll invent a lie in order to disprove a fact.

The policy changed as outlined in simple English words above and distributed by the Department of Justice, and as any law enforcement officer I know can actually tell you, laws and policies are two different things. While you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts.

The policy has not changed.. It's the same policy started by President Bush, called OPERATION STREAMLINE...

Then why spend so much time criticizing and trashing the leftie President if the policy had not changed? It did change. Under Bush 43, officials were instructed and generally exempted family units and minors from the “Operation Streamline” process where migrants were quickly prosecuted and deported. In 2008, Bush signed a law unanimously passed by Congress that called unaccompanied minors to be released into the “least restrictive setting.”

During the Obama administration, families were most often detained together in administrative ICE custody, but there were obviously exceptions. Under Trump, the policy was changed. See the press release and admit it or choose to remain willfully ignorant. Your choice.

So, no.. There has been no policy change...

Alert the Department of Justice and Jeff Sessions and Your Orange Worship. For some reason he feels the need to reverse their new policy as outlined in their press release. :)

The abortion argument is just another rw-deflection. Why do you guys fall for this so often? Why do you waste time arguing with someone who doesn't believe shit? He just "says" stuff. As soon as you nail him with facts he just shifts to some other deflection.

It is deflection. A left-wing comparable deflection would be to keep bringing up the ridiculous false equivalence that all righties condone the killing of adults in the act of "nation building" while whining incessantly about the value of life and referring to two cells in a petri dish as a "child."

Anti-choicers should be pro-birth-control but they're not. They should support equal-pay for women and other supports for mothers but they don't. They don't give a damn about babies, born or unborn.

I agree with Paula that the vast majority actually don't care about "lives," just mainly interested in how they can exert and exercise control over others lives.

The taking a knee in protest of "lives" mattering is also reframed by them as disrespect rather than "lives" mattering. If they truly cared about "lives" mattering, there'd be no need to reframe the issue as one that fits their false narrative about respect for the National Anthem versus respect for "lives." I believe it is primarily an issue of people feeling like they need to control the "others." They're scared of the others, and BLOTUS obviously feeds this fear every chance that he gets. Sad.

They just want to control women's bodies. They are force-birthers not pro-lifers. Fuck their false frames, their utter hypocrisy, their hubris, their fake-christianity.

Their issue of controlling others being reframed as concern for patriotism. It's just "control" of the "others," and that about sums it up. :)

Ta ta til the morning.. :D

So, you are basically saying that the policy has changed because Sessions SAID the policy has changed... But everyone is on record as saying that all of the right are liars.. So why should you believe what Sessions says now???

The policy has not changed.. It's the same policy started by President Bush, called OPERATION STREAMLINE...

What HAS changed is that there is now zero tolerance in ENFORCING the policy...

This is fact..

So, no.. There has been no policy change...

Operation Streamline is the policy and it's the same policy that was in place that President Bush had started and the Obama had continued...

This is fact..

Have a great night, Kick.. :D

Kick: The policy regarding how illegal immigrants are being handled has changed, Michale.

Michale: No, the policy has not changed..

Yes, the policy has changed. The. Policy. Has. Changed.

I understand you're being told on right-wing propaganda media that the "policy has not changed." This is utter nonsense. Oh, what will it take for you to understand that the policy has changed despite all protestations to the contrary of the lying right-wing media?

Let me try this. The block contains the press release regarding the policy change. Note that the press release refers to it as a "new" policy... just like I did. Note also that the policy change uses the words "escalated effort."

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, April 6, 2018

Attorney General Announces Zero-Tolerance Policy for Criminal Illegal Entry

Attorney General Jeff Sessions today notified all U.S. Attorney’s Offices along the Southwest Border of a new “zero-tolerance policy” for offenses under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a), which prohibits both attempted illegal entry and illegal entry into the United States by an alien. The implementation of the Attorney General’s zero-tolerance policy comes as the Department of Homeland Security reported a 203 percent increase in illegal border crossings from March 2017 to March 2018, and a 37 percent increase from February 2018 to March 2018—the largest month-to-month increase since 2011.

“The situation at our Southwest Border is unacceptable. Congress has failed to pass effective legislation that serves the national interest—that closes dangerous loopholes and fully funds a wall along our southern border. As a result, a crisis has erupted at our Southwest Border that necessitates an escalated effort to prosecute those who choose to illegally
cross our border,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions. “To those who wish to challenge the Trump Administration’s commitment to public safety, national security, and the rule of law, I warn you: illegally entering this country will not be rewarded, but will instead be met with the full prosecutorial powers of the Department of Justice. To the Department’s prosecutors, I urge you: promoting and enforcing the rule of law is vital to protecting a nation, its borders, and its citizens. You play a critical part in fulfilling these goals, and I thank you for your continued efforts in seeing to it that our laws—and as a result, our nation—are respected.”

On April 11, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a renewed commitment to criminal immigration enforcement. As part of that announcement, the Attorney General issued a memorandum to all federal prosecutors and directed them to prioritize the prosecution of certain criminal immigration offenses.

Today’s zero-tolerance policy further directs each U.S. Attorney’s Office along the Southwest Border (i.e., Southern District of California, District of Arizona, District of New Mexico, Western District of Texas, and the Southern District of Texas) to adopt a policy to prosecute all Department of Homeland Security referrals of section 1325(a) violations, to the extent practicable.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-zero-tolerance-policy-criminal-illegal-entry

How it is enforced has...

What part of the word "handled" was confusing?

The laws, the policy, it's what has been in place for decades...

Laws and policies are two different things. The policy has obviously changed because the laws haven't. Obama ran into this same problem. He changed the policy because Congress refused to change the law... DACA. Obama didn't sign an Executive Order like Donald Trump and the right-wing talking heads keep claiming to do this; he simply changed the policy: DACA.

The right-wing propaganda machine doesn't want to admit the policy did indeed change. Their talking point is that everything is business as usual when it isn't remotely. Their policy changed. Above is the press release that documents the change of the policy.

Let us all know you understand this now, please. :)

I'm just sayin'.... :D

Lionel (on his way out the door): I'm going to have to remember that. You don't judge a whole group of people on the actions of a few. You don't judge a whole group of people....

Timely and apropos.... :D

This is the response to a logical and rational discussion....

Their time is past...

Not really relevant to my point..

Those who support abortion do so because they believe that it's not really a child...

Those who support keeping brown people out of this country do so because they believe that they are not really people..

The basis for the beliefs is not relevant..

They are two of a kind...

Lumping them all together into category 3 is inhumane, unfair and stupid - all at the same time.

Ignoring the fact that there are also scumbags and rapists and murderers and druggies who are coming to this country to rape and murder and pillage is also inhumane and unfair and stupid...

THIS is exactly the problem..

The Never Trumpers ignore the very real threat because it doesn't fit into their Party agenda narrative..

Anti-choicers should be pro-birth-control but they're not. They should support equal-pay for women and other supports for mothers but they don't. They don't give a damn about babies, born or unborn. They just want to control women's bodies. They are force-birthers not pro-lifers. Fuck their false frames, their utter hypocrisy, their hubris, their fake-christianity.

My embryology class at Medical School taught me the stark difference between lumps of cells and human beings. If you want to start placing a dividing point on in-uterine development you better get some pretty thick books out and also be ready for a pretty tough discussion with vegetarians about pigs, cows, etc.

You're confusing "allowing" with "supporting".

All "dark-complexioned people"? None are staying where they live?

Do you dispute that fact??

Yes. Most are staying at home.

Also, most of the Syrian refugees are "light-complexioned people".

Classifying people by their propensity to process amino acids into melanin is the definition of racism.

Why don't you look at the reasons people are migrating, regardless of the level of polymerized breakdown products of tyrosine they happen to produce.

1. Some are escaping situations that are life threatening - for example Puerto Ricans who came to Florida after Maria, or fleeing gang violence in central America, or a civil war in Syria. We should treat these people with dignity, check their stories, and help them as best we can.

2. Others are migrants attracted to America because we let our businesses employ them illegally, so they know there is (relatively) well paid work for them.

3. Some are economic migrants who see that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. I don't know many people who support this.

Lumping them all together into category 3 is inhumane, unfair and stupid - all at the same time.

Of course, nothing I just stated here is news to anybody on this board, but there are some who want to keep America a certain color, and so tell themselves comforting lies about immigration because they know coming out and standing with the white supremacists would make them social pariahs and shatter their self image as the "people who really care but know hard choices sometimes have to be made".

OK, so ya'all support abortion because you don't really think it's a child..

And bigots don't want "brown people" in this country because they really think that they are people..

Hmmmmmm

I am trying to figure out the difference in these two positions, but I am really hard pressed to...

It's not even correct entirely on WHAT happened either.

YOU said it was...

I would be the first one to agree that Robert Mugabe took a country, namely Zimbabwe, and ran it into the ground economically through his own sheer incompetence.
-JM

You also know that the reality is that children are being separated from their actual loving parents, and that is never ok.

NOW who is assuming facts not in evidence...

The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade pointed out that assigning 'personhood' to the unborn was actually a recent phenomenon, cooked up out of political necessity.

Yes I do.

Is that your reason for supporting abortion, while at the same time supporting illegal immigrant children??

"Child cruelty sickens all but the most deluded and partisan.

Says the guy who supports abortion.."

I assume you also know that many people hold the position that what is being aborted is in no a "child" in any sense of the word.

Yea, see I don't get it either..

They make comments that are supposed to be referencing things, but they don't make the connection..

You (and various others here, aka neilm) need to quit 'reading between the lines'!

AKA reading what they WANT to read rather than reading what is actually there.. :D

Well yes. There weren't a lot of light-complexioned people in North (or South) America before Europeans arrived. There weren't a lot of whites in Morocco, Siberia or Australia either.

Migration happens, dude.

"He was factually accurate when he described WHAT had happened.

His opinion on WHY it happened, you don't agree with.. That's fine.."

It's not even correct entirely on WHAT happened either.

There are plenty of non-white nations that are economic success stories: Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore...

As well as plenty of White nations that are economic failures: Greece, Argentina, Russia, Belarus....

"So, you would agree that any one person is NOT responsible for the actions of a group.. Yes??"

YES

"So, I'll ask again..

ISN'T it reasonable to confirm family status to PREVENT child sex traffickers being housed with their victims.."

Except that wasn't the question you originally asked. You asked if it was better to separate children from the adults they were with against the assumption of the remote possibility of leaving them with a child abuser.

You know the answer is to never leave a child with an abuser.

You also know that the reality is that children are being separated from their actual loving parents, and that is never ok.

No, the policy has not changed..

How it is enforced has...

The laws, the policy, it's what has been in place for decades...

I always do. :)

Me too! :D

Fair enough.. :D

No, it's not.. But I understand why you want to believe it is..

The policy regarding how illegal immigrants are being handled has changed, Michale. If it hadn't, then Jefferson B. Sessions has lied again about the policy changing, and your Orange Worship is signing an Executive Order to keep the families together now that would be entirely unnecessary if there was no need to further change the policy that was recently changed.

Have a nice day, Kick.. :D

I always do. :)

I assume you realize that you can support freedom of choice without supporting abortion itself,

Even if that CHOICE is to kill a child thru an abortion??

Seems to me to be inconsistent with the SJW stance on illegal immigrants children..

You either protect and cherish the lives of children or you do not..

Or is such protection and cherish the lives to children SOLELY dependent on your Party ideology??

That would seem to me to be the most logical conclusion...

"Ok, I will amend that to...

So, you were wrong...?? :D"

No, I will admit to being imprecise, as you were with your widget comment.

I've no idea what you are talking about. I'm not arguing ANY "racist stereotyp", new or old.

I said the dark-complexioned people are all migrating to the abodes of the light-complexioned people, world-wide. Do you dispute that fact??

I didn't speculate on their motivation (except that they prefer our way of life to theirs), and I did not say skin-tone had anything to do with it.

You (and various others here, aka neilm) need to quit 'reading between the lines'!

"Child cruelty sickens all but the most deluded and partisan.

Says the guy who supports abortion.."

I assume you realize that you can support freedom of choice without supporting abortion itself, and that the two are not necessarily the same?

Wow! Good for you. Thanks.

So, you are NOW saying it's not a "medical emergencies" decision but rather a personal decision for the mother only..

So, if the mother doesn't want her tits to sag, she can kill her child and you don't have a problem with it..

OK, that's fine.. I respect your position..

I just point out that it's a little inconsistent with your OH MY GOD, THINK OF THE CHILDREN" position you take regarding illegal immigrants..

How would the Von Trapp Family (from The Sound of Music) fared?

Let's see: eight children separated by age, and poor Maria charged with suspected trafficking because she isn't genetically linked to any of them. The eldest daughter (16 going on 17) closely questioned for suspected abuse issues...

I don't usually link to charitable causes, but this is topical and on point:

Note - they were at $6M this morning and are closing in on $12M already - and it is heartening to see so many heartland conservatives donating.

Thank you for the link, Neil. I'm in for $5,000. Nobody tell Don... oh, wait... everybody tell Don. :)

Trump is easily the most evil person we've had in he White House in a generation. Child cruelty sickens all but the most deluded and partisan.

Agree 100%. Thanks again. I had not seen that fundraiser. :)

Usually it's part of standard grade school education to learn the history of the native peoples of your area.

I'm guessing you're not envisioning stone-age, right?

You would be guessing wrong.

You've no doubt forgotten that the horse, the rifle and even the glass beads on his buckskins, all came from the evil Palefaces!! '

And the small pox, don't forget the small pox...

I'm just pointing out that it is hard to take your opinion of darker skinned cultures seriously when you can't be bothered to learn about the history of the ones that lived in the area you now call home...

I wouldn't have thought you would be the first one to make personal attacks, Neil..

Well, obviously you wouldn't since you were... in point of fact… the first one to actually make a personal attack yesterday less than 30 minutes after promulgating rules whereby those who did so should be banned from the board. You.

No, I don't. But since you mention it, the law is that it's a PRIVATE decision to be made between the patient and her doctor, and we have no right to intervene or second guess her or her doctor's decision or its motivations.

But, since you butted in..

That should have had a :D with it.. :D

You're right..

It's about confirming paternity to make sure that the "family" in question really is a family..

I can't help but wonder WHY anyone would oppose such testing???

Keep the government out of it.

I wasn't asking you...

But, since you butted in..

about what constitutes a medical emergency up to the mother, who is, after all, the ONLY one with a legal and moral right to make that decision.

You don't think a DOCTOR is more qualified to make that decision??

I mean, the mother might think that ruining her figure constitutes a "medical emergency"...

Okay..

A. The policy of charging EVERY illegal immigrant with a crime actually makes it HARDER to sort the traffickers, the mules, and the gunrunners from the larger group, according to an interview with the former head of ICE this morning.

B. The DNA thing isn't about child trafficking. I'd guess it's to cover the fact that infants simply refuse to memorize their assigned ICE numbers, even when it is hurriedly taught to them.

The difference being that Republicans would narrowly define the term 'medical emergencies' to restrict nearly all abortions, while Democrats would leave the decision about what constitutes a medical emergency up to the mother, who is, after all, the ONLY one with a legal and moral right to make that decision.

Keep the government out of it.

“WE SHOULD RIP BARRON TRUMP FROM HIS MOTHER’S ARMS AND PUT HIM IN A CAGE WITH PEDOPHILES AND SEE IF MOTHER WILL WILL STAND UP AGAINST THE GIANT ASSHOLE SHE IS MARRIED TO,”
-Peter Fonda

Peter Fonda is now having a nice long chat with the Secret Service...

"The life of those brown people who use(d) to live here . . ." was, I presume, equivalent to whatever life any and all stone-age people anywhere lived, right?

I'm not personally intimately acquainted with the details of typical stone-age people's lives, but it shouldn't be hard to research.

I'm guessing you're not envisioning stone-age, right? You're more likely imagining the Hollywood image of the "noble savage", right? Proudly mounted on his Apaloosa stallion, clad in his beaded vest and moccasins, with his Winchester rifle held aloft and his eagle feather bonnet streaming in the wind!

You've no doubt forgotten that the horse, the rifle and even the glass beads on his buckskins, all came from the evil Palefaces!! '

That crossed the line, Balthasar.. My apologies..

Amend that to read..

So, the question is.. Why would ANYONE support the policy of sexual exploitation of children over confirm family ties???

Again, my apologies....

Facts to support???

But Michale is still defending the policy.

Yes..I am defending the policy that allows to CONFIRM paternity and family connections rather than allow children to be sexually abused by someone who CLAIMS they are his/her children..

So, the question is.. Why do YOU support the policy of sexual exploitation of children over confirm family ties???

I would not flee to a place that employs "child cruelty"...

Uh... yea.. It's a litmus test for the Left Wing...

Did one of us just step into an alternate reality??

I think abortion should be safe, legal, and very rare, because it isn't needed except in medical emergencies.

OK, so you support abortion only in the case of medical emergencies...

OK I have to admit, I am shocked.. I am more Left Wing on that issue than you. :D Who would have thunked it..

Michale: if you watched your neighbors kids killed because they wouldn't join a gang, and your kids were threatened in the same was and your only option was to flee, would you consider yourself a child abuser?

Senate Republicans, however, were about to give Trump an earful. And he folded like a cheap card table.

Trump has seen the (political) error of his ways, and signed an Executive Order. Or, he could have picked up the phone and told Sessions to stop, since it was a discretionary policy anyway.

But Michale is still defending the policy. Oh wait! Trump just reversed himself (again). Dilemma: argue in favor of the old policy or in favor of the new policy?

Of course not. Does anybody? It is like supporting appendectomies. If they are necessary then perform them, but preventing the need for them is far better for everybody.

I think abortion should be safe, legal, and very rare, because it isn't needed except in medical emergencies.

However banning them just adds to total human suffering because with today's contraceptive technology women are pushed underground and into unsafe practices.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/20/1773833/-Trump-administration-bans-members-of-Congress-from-talking-to-kids-in-detention-centers

No, it's not.. But I understand why you want to believe it is..

Have a nice day, Kick.. :D

Any parent who willingly subjects their children to such "cruelty" DESERVES to have their children taken away...

I mean, think about it people..

This country has tens of thousands of workers dedicated to this very thing..

"Ripping children from the arms of parents" who do a shitty job of taking care of their children..

It's called CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES...

So, the hysterical and hypocritical claims of the NeverTrumpers are nothing but a partisan agenda at work..

It's obvious that you would like to think your point is valid because you posted it..

My point was a fact. If you don't believe it, then you're the one who would like to think your point is valid when it's simply the lunacy of the "Hysterical Right"... to borrow your phrasing.

You don't support abortion??

I have already done so...

I don't allow you people to push my buttons anymore.. :D

"And I am feeling MUCH better now..."
-John Astin, NIGHT COURT

:D

Really? I want abortion to be eliminated, I just want a different path to it than you do.

It's introspective time. If you want the old days, you have to change your posting behavior to the old days.

HELL NO!! The conclusion they actually arrive at is that that would likely be too damn hard and require too damn much work, so instead, what they actually do is decide the easiest thing would be to migrate north and simply move in with the more happy people, in hopes their happiness will trickle down to them!

Bullshit. The misery level of the dark-complexioned parts of the world was far greater prior to colonialism, and has degenerated back to prior levels post-colonialism.

Stucki, I will tell you essentially what I told Michale: You really don't know what I'd say or what I think or believe unless I tell you. Also, people's views change over time based on various factors which I will not attempt to explain due to time constraints. Stucki, you get bonus points for at least explaining that you were anticipating my "rebuttal" rather than just making a statement about me as if it was a fact, but I think it would be a novel idea if those who claim to know how I feel or what I think would stop pretending to value "facts" while doing so much speculation.

Wow, Stucki. It appears to me as if you likely haven't travelled much outside the United States and maybe haven't travelled much inside it either.

As for the majority of your ridiculous assumption wherein you're arguing a point with me that I never made, I have two words: Oprah Winfrey.

Hey, Stucki, I wonder if Oprah feels the same way about those dirt poor "white-complexioned" "happy people" in a large portion of America as you do about the "dark-complexioned." /sarcasm off