Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

US and human rights

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
    As yet to be proven they ARE refugees or that they DO flee anything other than their home. What we DO know, however, is virtually all of these people in the Caravan through Mexico have been supported with food and clothing (at least) and they have been coached on what to say when they get to the border.



    AH, yes, that's a great plan. Let's hypothesize, then, but first a question: How many children are you willing to allow to be molested and sexually abused? O.K., while you ponder that, let's hypothesize.

    A predator rents a child from her parent(s) in Honduras. He has every intention of selling her into sex slavery once he gets into the U.S., but he tells the parents, of course, he will send them money once he makes it and help them also migrate into the U.S..

    So, your plan at this point is leave the child with the predator, IN an adult detention center potentially with other predators, while U.S. Customs figures out if she really IS his child?

    To quote the T-Rex from Meet the Robinsons, " I have a big head and little arms. I'm just not sure how well this plan was thought through."


    Wow, not sure from where you got this whole diatribe... but you have clearly had some kind of terrible experience at the hands of conservatives to believe this (I do appreciate the flowery prose you employ, though).

    Speaking of "you too?" accusations, let's talk abortion. You're O.K. ripping THOSE children from the arms (or in that case, the wombs) of their mothers but somehow get your panties all in a pinch when children are separated from their parents while Customs verifies their relationship? You don't see the duality (if not absolute hypocrisy) there? "you" (meaning the alt-left with their short hairs being pulled over this) don't give a rat's ass about "the children." "you" are simply looking for the next outrage you can hurl against the wall, hoping it will stick.
    Let's go to my premise, which is to investigate children's status when they are detained with adults at the border. My statement, "The parents stay with the kids unless there's good evidence the kids are used as pretext for illegitimate claims." ...This agrees with your statement that their status must be investigated (whether they are victims of traffickers etc. or just children who came along with responsible adults). You see, an "investigation" means law enforcement checks for reasonable proof -for or against- an allegation that a crime was committed. Every child can be assumed to be a victim of an adult crime -more serious than going along with their parents- and should be investigated. I can see how you missed this, however. "Unless there's good evidence..." might be interpreted as a cop/donut dilemma: Cop does nothing all the time unless someone else drops evidence in his lap.

    The Mexican dilemma is different, however. You made the assumption that since the caravan was supported, there is enuf proof that immigrants will be safe and supported as a rule within Mexico. Since you know that isn't true (now), I ask that you not repeat that particular lie. Children's lives are at stake.

    As for the abortion issue. Why don't you support making that illegal again? In the meantime, you can re-focus your attention on what to do with children that are walking around and in danger.
    There is no reason a rational conservative would not do both things.

    ?


    • #47
      Originally posted by radcentr View Post
      Let's go to my premise, which is to investigate children's status when they are detained with adults at the border. My statement, "The parents stay with the kids unless there's good evidence the kids are used as pretext for illegitimate claims." ...This agrees with your statement that their status must be investigated (whether they are victims of traffickers etc. or just children who came along with responsible adults). You see, an "investigation" means law enforcement checks for reasonable proof -for or against- an allegation that a crime was committed. Every child can be assumed to be a victim of an adult crime -more serious than going along with their parents- and should be investigated. I can see how you missed this, however. "Unless there's good evidence..." might be interpreted as a cop/donut dilemma: Cop does nothing all the time unless someone else drops evidence in his lap.

      The Mexican dilemma is different, however. You made the assumption that since the caravan was supported, there is enuf proof that immigrants will be safe and supported as a rule within Mexico. Since you know that isn't true (now), I ask that you not repeat that particular lie. Children's lives are at stake.

      As for the abortion issue. Why don't you support making that illegal again? In the meantime, you can re-focus your attention on what to do with children that are walking around and in danger.
      There is no reason a rational conservative would not do both things.
      There's an oxymoron for you a rational conservative. LOL

      ?


      • #48
        Originally posted by radcentr View Post
        Let's go to my premise, which is to investigate children's status when they are detained with adults at the border. My statement, "The parents stay with the kids unless there's good evidence the kids are used as pretext for illegitimate claims." ...This agrees with your statement that their status must be investigated (whether they are victims of traffickers etc. or just children who came along with responsible adults). You see, an "investigation" means law enforcement checks for reasonable proof -for or against- an allegation that a crime was committed. Every child can be assumed to be a victim of an adult crime -more serious than going along with their parents- and should be investigated. I can see how you missed this, however. "Unless there's good evidence..." might be interpreted as a cop/donut dilemma: Cop does nothing all the time unless someone else drops evidence in his lap.

        The Mexican dilemma is different, however. You made the assumption that since the caravan was supported, there is enuf proof that immigrants will be safe and supported as a rule within Mexico. Since you know that isn't true (now), I ask that you not repeat that particular lie. Children's lives are at stake.

        As for the abortion issue. Why don't you support making that illegal again? In the meantime, you can re-focus your attention on what to do with children that are walking around and in danger.
        There is no reason a rational conservative would not do both things.
        Your assumptions are manifest here, Rad:

        First, IF the adult in whose company the child arrives is a predator, then leaving the child with that predator is both dangerous and ridiculous.

        Second, your "unless there is proof" contingency is flawed by the obvious that these are people who have left their home country where records are uncertain at best: Your "plan" assumes records needed are readily available (or even provided on demand) and I see that as a fatal flaw.

        Third, I'm not sure how you arrived at your conclusion that "... [I] know that isn't true (now)" and I didn't they WILL be "safe and supported" in Mexico: What I said was they HAVE been supported and coached while they crossed Mexico and, yes, children's safety IS at stake and I see your suggestions to only exacerbate the danger to those who are in danger.

        Your suggestion that I also support making abortion illegal is non sequitur and non responsive. What I said was, "You're O.K. ripping THOSE children from the arms (or in that case, the wombs) of their mothers but somehow get your panties all in a pinch when children are separated from their parents while Customs verifies their relationship?" ... to which you had no response OTHER than to encourage me to support making abortion illegal. So here's your opportunity to address the duality (if not hypocrisy) of your position:

        ?


        • #49
          Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

          Your assumptions are manifest here, Rad:

          First, IF the adult in whose company the child arrives is a predator, then leaving the child with that predator is both dangerous and ridiculous.

          Second, your "unless there is proof" contingency is flawed by the obvious that these are people who have left their home country where records are uncertain at best: Your "plan" assumes records needed are readily available (or even provided on demand) and I see that as a fatal flaw.

          Third, I'm not sure how you arrived at your conclusion that "... [I] know that isn't true (now)" and I didn't they WILL be "safe and supported" in Mexico: What I said was they HAVE been supported and coached while they crossed Mexico and, yes, children's safety IS at stake and I see your suggestions to only exacerbate the danger to those who are in danger.

          Your suggestion that I also support making abortion illegal is non sequitur and non responsive. What I said was, "You're O.K. ripping THOSE children from the arms (or in that case, the wombs) of their mothers but somehow get your panties all in a pinch when children are separated from their parents while Customs verifies their relationship?" ... to which you had no response OTHER than to encourage me to support making abortion illegal. So here's your opportunity to address the duality (if not hypocrisy) of your position:
          The last time I checked ripping a child out of a woman's womb was still legal with the consent of the woman. But until Trump changes the law I think kidnapping is still illegal. We are still a country of laws right?

          ?


          • #50
            Originally posted by redrover View Post

            The last time I checked ripping a child out of a woman's womb was still legal with the consent of the woman. But until Trump changes the law I think kidnapping is still illegal. We are still a country of laws right?
            We arent talking about what is legal or illegal, goofy.

            i was pointing out the hypocrisy of you on the alt left, to wit:

            last week, the radical left was moaning and complaining about children being separated from their mothers...
            This week, you are all pinched in your panties fearing you will no longer be allowed to.

            ?


            • #51
              Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

              We arent talking about what is legal or illegal, goofy.

              i was pointing out the hypocrisy of you on the alt left, to wit:

              last week, the radical left was moaning and complaining about children being separated from their mothers...
              This week, you are all pinched in your panties fearing you will no longer be allowed to.
              When I Think of hypocrisy I think of the people who care so much for an unformed unwanted gob of goo in a woman's womb but don't give a hoot about children in Syria and Central America trying to escape violence.Xenophobia trumps humanity every time for republicans.It's funny that you dismiss mass gatherings of people expressing their opinions but when it came to the big rally in Nuremberg back in 1933. You loved that one.

              ?


              • #52
                Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

                Your assumptions are manifest here, Rad:

                First, IF the adult in whose company the child arrives is a predator, then leaving the child with that predator is both dangerous and ridiculous.

                Second, your "unless there is proof" contingency is flawed by the obvious that these are people who have left their home country where records are uncertain at best: Your "plan" assumes records needed are readily available (or even provided on demand) and I see that as a fatal flaw.
                That has nothing to do with proper treatment of children who are detained by customs and immigration officials. Any adults detained with the children must be investigated on two points. The possibility that a law enforcement officer might encounter difficulty while investigating their allegation of refugee status are not relevant to the adult's status as a parent. The investigation of their status as parent of a child also in custody is less problematic than you seem to believe. There are records kept by the local gov't. and/or local religious group for almost every birth. Their status as a potentially incompetent parent would also be kept by law enforcement (fe accusation of spousal abuse), and these adults can most likely provide contact information of local priests/pastors or employers who could vouch for their character. You seem to confuse evidence for refugee status, with evidence for competency or qualification as a parent. The evidence to demonstrate qualification as a parent isn't that difficult.

                Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
                Third, I'm not sure how you arrived at your conclusion that "... [I] know that isn't true (now)" and I didn't they WILL be "safe and supported" in Mexico: What I said was they HAVE been supported and coached while they crossed Mexico and, yes, children's safety IS at stake and I see your suggestions to only exacerbate the danger to those who are in danger.
                No. People don't leave their home country on a lark, after paying the crossover to someone with known ties to violent, criminal organizations, . They are less apt to do so with their own children. It is more than likely that even the poorest, least educated person in Latin America has been informed about worse-case scenarios with "coyotes" who don't protect those who try to get to the US. How do you come to the conclusion that that I would make children's situation worse? I would be doing that if I encouraged a policy of open borders, but to get to our border the kids have to go thru the usual gauntlet. To correct any false assumption, understand that I advocate for immigration enforcement. I also advocate for keeping detained children with their parents or other qualified custodian that came with them. Separating them for long periods after detention only encourages people to think it doesn't matter if their kids flee the home country with an adult; they'll get separated in the US anyway, and maybe the US gov't. will take a softer stance against unaccompanied children.

                Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
                Your suggestion that I also support making abortion illegal is non sequitur and non responsive. What I said was, "You're O.K. ripping THOSE children from the arms (or in that case, the wombs) of their mothers but somehow get your panties all in a pinch when children are separated from their parents while Customs verifies their relationship?" ... to which you had no response OTHER than to encourage me to support making abortion illegal. So here's your opportunity to address the duality (if not hypocrisy) of your position:
                I assume you oppose abortion. If you don't, your inclusion of the issue here is a mystery. If you do oppose abortion, I'd repeat my invitation for you to support both that position and a policy of keeping children with qualified adults in their company whey they cross the border. A policy of consistency is important, whether the person believes in righty or lefty political platforms. You should simply accuse me of being inconsistent, while claiming your own consistency on proper treatment of children. As it stands, you seem to claim an inconsistency on your part would be "washed out" by an inconsistency on my part, therefore you would get some advantage with the argument about undocumented child immigration. My point is, you should advocate for gov't. encouragement of strong family bonding in cases of child immigration, while throwing an insult at the lefty position on abortion as a casual aside. That way, you might claim a consistent position.

                In short, detain people illegally crossing the US border. Prosecute all of them as part of a 'no tolerance' policy, but keep children with adults they came with, after verifying they are qualified to care for the children. The adults -if convicted on violation of basic immigration law- are deported back to their home country with the kids. The ones who complicated immigration policy with child cruelty was the current righty administration, not previous administrations (left or right).

                ?


                • #53
                  Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                  That has nothing to do with proper treatment of children who are detained by customs and immigration officials. Any adults detained with the children must be investigated on two points. The possibility that a law enforcement officer might encounter difficulty while investigating their allegation of refugee status are not relevant to the adult's status as a parent. The investigation of their status as parent of a child also in custody is less problematic than you seem to believe. There are records kept by the local gov't. and/or local religious group for almost every birth. Their status as a potentially incompetent parent would also be kept by law enforcement (fe accusation of spousal abuse), and these adults can most likely provide contact information of local priests/pastors or employers who could vouch for their character. You seem to confuse evidence for refugee status, with evidence for competency or qualification as a parent. The evidence to demonstrate qualification as a parent isn't that difficult.

                  No. People don't leave their home country on a lark, after paying the crossover to someone with known ties to violent, criminal organizations, . They are less apt to do so with their own children. It is more than likely that even the poorest, least educated person in Latin America has been informed about worse-case scenarios with "coyotes" who don't protect those who try to get to the US. How do you come to the conclusion that that I would make children's situation worse? I would be doing that if I encouraged a policy of open borders, but to get to our border the kids have to go thru the usual gauntlet. To correct any false assumption, understand that I advocate for immigration enforcement. I also advocate for keeping detained children with their parents or other qualified custodian that came with them. Separating them for long periods after detention only encourages people to think it doesn't matter if their kids flee the home country with an adult; they'll get separated in the US anyway, and maybe the US gov't. will take a softer stance against unaccompanied children.


                  I assume you oppose abortion. If you don't, your inclusion of the issue here is a mystery. If you do oppose abortion, I'd repeat my invitation for you to support both that position and a policy of keeping children with qualified adults in their company whey they cross the border. A policy of consistency is important, whether the person believes in righty or lefty political platforms. You should simply accuse me of being inconsistent, while claiming your own consistency on proper treatment of children. As it stands, you seem to claim an inconsistency on your part would be "washed out" by an inconsistency on my part, therefore you would get some advantage with the argument about undocumented child immigration. My point is, you should advocate for gov't. encouragement of strong family bonding in cases of child immigration, while throwing an insult at the lefty position on abortion as a casual aside. That way, you might claim a consistent position.

                  In short, detain people illegally crossing the US border. Prosecute all of them as part of a 'no tolerance' policy, but keep children with adults they came with, after verifying they are qualified to care for the children. The adults -if convicted on violation of basic immigration law- are deported back to their home country with the kids. The ones who complicated immigration policy with child cruelty was the current righty administration, not previous administrations (left or right).
                  Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                  That has nothing to do with proper treatment of children who are detained by customs and immigration officials. Any adults detained with the children must be investigated on two points. The possibility that a law enforcement officer might encounter difficulty while investigating their allegation of refugee status are not relevant to the adult's status as a parent. The investigation of their status as parent of a child also in custody is less problematic than you seem to believe. There are records kept by the local gov't. and/or local religious group for almost every birth. Their status as a potentially incompetent parent would also be kept by law enforcement (fe accusation of spousal abuse), and these adults can most likely provide contact information of local priests/pastors or employers who could vouch for their character. You seem to confuse evidence for refugee status, with evidence for competency or qualification as a parent. The evidence to demonstrate qualification as a parent isn't that difficult.

                  No. People don't leave their home country on a lark, after paying the crossover to someone with known ties to violent, criminal organizations, . They are less apt to do so with their own children. It is more than likely that even the poorest, least educated person in Latin America has been informed about worse-case scenarios with "coyotes" who don't protect those who try to get to the US. How do you come to the conclusion that that I would make children's situation worse? I would be doing that if I encouraged a policy of open borders, but to get to our border the kids have to go thru the usual gauntlet. To correct any false assumption, understand that I advocate for immigration enforcement. I also advocate for keeping detained children with their parents or other qualified custodian that came with them. Separating them for long periods after detention only encourages people to think it doesn't matter if their kids flee the home country with an adult; they'll get separated in the US anyway, and maybe the US gov't. will take a softer stance against unaccompanied children.


                  I assume you oppose abortion. If you don't, your inclusion of the issue here is a mystery. If you do oppose abortion, I'd repeat my invitation for you to support both that position and a policy of keeping children with qualified adults in their company whey they cross the border. A policy of consistency is important, whether the person believes in righty or lefty political platforms. You should simply accuse me of being inconsistent, while claiming your own consistency on proper treatment of children. As it stands, you seem to claim an inconsistency on your part would be "washed out" by an inconsistency on my part, therefore you would get some advantage with the argument about undocumented child immigration. My point is, you should advocate for gov't. encouragement of strong family bonding in cases of child immigration, while throwing an insult at the lefty position on abortion as a casual aside. That way, you might claim a consistent position.

                  In short, detain people illegally crossing the US border. Prosecute all of them as part of a 'no tolerance' policy, but keep children with adults they came with, after verifying they are qualified to care for the children. The adults -if convicted on violation of basic immigration law- are deported back to their home country with the kids. The ones who complicated immigration policy with child cruelty was the current righty administration, not previous administrations (left or right).
                  I would really have the people who are advocating for open borders. I have never heard a single person ever say what this country needs is a wide open border but apparently that is what right wingers hear when we say we wish you wouldn't treat children with such cruelty.

                  ?


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by redrover View Post



                    I would really have the people who are advocating for open borders. I have never heard a single person ever say what this country needs is a wide open border but apparently that is what right wingers hear when we say we wish you wouldn't treat children with such cruelty.
                    Actually, I've heard the "no borders" argument from two groups; One is part of the libertarian crew, that claims borders are just another unneeded law. The other is more clearly leftist, which supports a society based on laws, but doesn't want borders because they keep oppressed people from getting into better places (like the US).

                    Neither group addresses the problem of the "violent neighbor". That is, a neighboring country is a failed, or near-failing state. There is too little or no law enforcement to minimize impunity, so violent criminals fill the void to exploit the weaker individual. Naturally, the weaker individual (eg, few legal or financial resources to ensure their own security) will find a way to leave his country if he believes his chances are better.

                    Without border enforcement, violent criminals enter just as easily as the oppressed. Also, there is no organic reason for the failing state to reform itself; the weaker individuals who can leave, will leave at increasing numbers. However, if the objective is to minimize the international consequences of a failing state, one tactic requires sending their most corrupt (gov't. or private sector) to jail. By ignoring the failed state, we get immigration crisis around the world. The "no borders" crowd join the Rilly Big Wall crowd, to form a larger group of ignorant people who choose to pretend the failed state will not have a direct and negative impact on their lives. The closer the failed state (to a neighbor), the bigger the impact. There is no way around it, especially in the long-term.

                    The ignorance-of-neighbors crowd reminds me of the "Red Meat" cartoon satire. Link: https://www.redmeat.com/
                    Suppose this failed state were just a "failed neighbor". Not just any failure, these neighbors get violent with their family members. If I were to play the ignorant neighbor (a non-failing state) named Bob, my reaction would be thus:
                    -(Reading the morning paper) "Dear, could I have another cup of coffee?" (Bullets, fired from the neighbor's impressive collection of AK-47 automatic rifles, tear thru the wall. Bob seems unimpressed; turns the page of newspaper)
                    -(Wife): "OMG, Bob!!!! Aren't you going to do anything about the neighbors???"
                    -(Bob): Don't worry dear, I have it all under control. I'm wearing a bullet-proof vest. You're right about the neighbors, though. Make sure the doors are locked so their kids don't come crying for help."
                    Psychosis and ignorance -a really bad combination.

                    ?


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                      Actually, I've heard the "no borders" argument from two groups; One is part of the libertarian crew, that claims borders are just another unneeded law. The other is more clearly leftist, which supports a society based on laws, but doesn't want borders because they keep oppressed people from getting into better places (like the US).

                      Neither group addresses the problem of the "violent neighbor". That is, a neighboring country is a failed, or near-failing state. There is too little or no law enforcement to minimize impunity, so violent criminals fill the void to exploit the weaker individual. Naturally, the weaker individual (eg, few legal or financial resources to ensure their own security) will find a way to leave his country if he believes his chances are better.

                      Without border enforcement, violent criminals enter just as easily as the oppressed. Also, there is no organic reason for the failing state to reform itself; the weaker individuals who can leave, will leave at increasing numbers. However, if the objective is to minimize the international consequences of a failing state, one tactic requires sending their most corrupt (gov't. or private sector) to jail. By ignoring the failed state, we get immigration crisis around the world. The "no borders" crowd join the Rilly Big Wall crowd, to form a larger group of ignorant people who choose to pretend the failed state will not have a direct and negative impact on their lives. The closer the failed state (to a neighbor), the bigger the impact. There is no way around it, especially in the long-term.

                      The ignorance-of-neighbors crowd reminds me of the "Red Meat" cartoon satire. Link: https://www.redmeat.com/
                      Suppose this failed state were just a "failed neighbor". Not just any failure, these neighbors get violent with their family members. If I were to play the ignorant neighbor (a non-failing state) named Bob, my reaction would be thus:
                      -(Reading the morning paper) "Dear, could I have another cup of coffee?" (Bullets, fired from the neighbor's impressive collection of AK-47 automatic rifles, tear thru the wall. Bob seems unimpressed; turns the page of newspaper)
                      -(Wife): "OMG, Bob!!!! Aren't you going to do anything about the neighbors???"
                      -(Bob): Don't worry dear, I have it all under control. I'm wearing a bullet-proof vest. You're right about the neighbors, though. Make sure the doors are locked so their kids don't come crying for help."
                      Psychosis and ignorance -a really bad combination.
                      I imagine that is pointless to show the statistics that prove there is no invasion of illegals and the trend has been downward for the past twenty years. Facts just don't carry any weight with certain folks here.

                      ?


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by redrover View Post
                        I imagine that is pointless to show the statistics that prove there is no invasion of illegals and the trend has been downward for the past twenty years. Facts just don't carry any weight with certain folks here.
                        Don't know much about statistics and statisticians do you.

                        Great to refer to their "work" on whatever issue you want to support though isn't it ?

                        You could sell anti-freeze car coolant as a refreshment drink to your neighbors kids using "statistics" the right way LOL

                        another tool to sell garbage & bad ideas

                        ?


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by redrover View Post

                          I imagine that is pointless to show the statistics that prove there is no invasion of illegals and the trend has been downward for the past twenty years. Facts just don't carry any weight with certain folks here.
                          So what?

                          IF you believe showing those statistics will convince anyone you know what youre talking about, then by all means, bring it.

                          Before yo7 do, however, bear in mind you dont (know what youre use talking about). See, even if you ARE, this once, telling the truth and illegal numbers really are falling, it doesnt matter. ANY number is too many. THAT is what the rest of are talking about while you try to change the subject to yeah, but not as many...

                          however, strictly for amusement, I will momentarily indulge you... So IF, as you say, the numbers of illegals are falling... that means whatever Trump, ICE, the DOJ and DHS are doing, is working. So your major contribution to this conversation is affirming this current administration. Well done.

                          (hint: Thats your cue to change the subject again)

                          ?


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                            Don't know much about statistics and statisticians do you.

                            Great to refer to their "work" on whatever issue you want to support though isn't it ?

                            You could sell anti-freeze car coolant as a refreshment drink to your neighbors kids using "statistics" the right way LOL

                            another tool to sell garbage & bad ideas
                            Yes I do know a little bit about statistics I needed them when I wrote my master's thesis. Fascinating study of the effects of heat and cold applications on the strength of isometric contractions Tracking border crossings doesn't require anything that sophisticated. Simple counting will do the job. No need for high powered computer analysis. Trump doesn't like numbers that do not support his xenophobic agenda.

                            ?


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by redrover View Post

                              Yes I do know a little bit about statistics I needed them when I wrote my master's thesis. Fascinating study of the effects of heat and cold applications on the strength of isometric contractions Tracking border crossings doesn't require anything that sophisticated. Simple counting will do the job. No need for high powered computer analysis. Trump doesn't like numbers that do not support his xenophobic agenda.
                              Yeah. His "xenophobic agenda."

                              Sorry, but your Knowledge of stats shows itself to be lacking. There is an invasion of illegal aliens into America that has been ongoing for many decades.

                              Only because too many of us have tolerated the lies and foolishness of confused folks like yourself.

                              I have a solution !

                              You and all of those who support open borders, get to live in neighborhoods where these people tend to congregate the most.

                              We'll take it on faith that you mean to stay consistent and ALWAYS be in support of this open borders idea, so you get to stay there for the rest of your life !

                              You and all your liberal friends and politicians get to be sprinkled all over the country with these wonderful people, so you can enjoy that diversity you love so much !!!!

                              You'll get to learn another language, enjoy another culture ... there's no downside. Off you go now, have fun !!!

                              ?


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                                Yeah. His "xenophobic agenda."

                                Sorry, but your Knowledge of stats shows itself to be lacking. There is an invasion of illegal aliens into America that has been ongoing for many decades.

                                Only because too many of us have tolerated the lies and foolishness of confused folks like yourself.

                                I have a solution !

                                You and all of those who support open borders, get to live in neighborhoods where these people tend to congregate the most.

                                We'll take it on faith that you mean to stay consistent and ALWAYS be in support of this open borders idea, so you get to stay there for the rest of your life !

                                You and all your liberal friends and politicians get to be sprinkled all over the country with these wonderful people, so you can enjoy that diversity you love so much !!!!

                                You'll get to learn another language, enjoy another culture ... there's no downside. Off you go now, have fun !!!
                                Sorry to pop your fantasy bubble. What is your source? Lyin' Donald Trump or the lyin' American thinker? If you don't like this link there are many more. Some come directly from government sources When you say invasion are you thinking of something like the British invasion back in the early 60's when groups like the Beatles and Stones hit it big in the states?http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...on-in-the-u-s/

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X