It may not be the best policy for the citizens.
In what (or where)?
Why wouldn’t it be?
Explain the benefits citizens would get if we adopted an inhumane attitude towards illegals or asylum seekers.
We get to spend all of that money when the lawsuits emerge.
That is a benefit to the lawyers.
In the mix. We can refer to it.
We would save a lot of treasure for one thing.
How do you figure that?
No need. We just pass a law saying they can’t sue.
As the basis for a philosophy of governance? It always has been.
Come on Jay. Being mean is always cheaper.
You think so?
You sure about that?
No, it was out forever. I think “Creator” was a problem.
Sure. How could it not be.
Well, He doesn’t appear in the Constitution, so not a problem there. That doesn’t negate the Founders’ respect for the basic humanity of all persons (well, the white men, anyway).
We aren’t talking about the Constitution.
As Dieter might say, “I find your circumlocution tiresome.”
MY point is that the founders of this nation cited a respect for all humans’ rights as a basis for its establishment. What is YOUR point in disputing that?
I’m not disputing it. I just want The Creator back in.
Well, you can’t have Him, not in the federal government anyway.
Then you can’t have yours.
I didn’t put basic human rights in the DOI - the Founders did. I didn’t leave God out of the Constitution - the Founders did.
So yes, I can have mine and no, you can’t have yours.
