Reply With Quote
Why is it racist to call ignorant s ignorant s?
Dear racist, the BigCorps and financial sector are the most serious threat to USA. They exist to bleed our wealth and up the environment.
Why is it racist to call ignorant s ignorant s?
a country is only as great as the people who inhabit it. subs ute 105 average iq inventors and civilized folks for 85iq socialist foreigners and the america you knew will be dead and gone forever.
20-30 years from now there will be this huge unexplained drop in workforce productivity as america slides from 1st world to 2nd world status and the leftists will probably try to blame it on whitey for not working hard since it's not our country anymore
balderdash. Just look at all the successful countries with non-white/non-Asian majorities.
The first generation immigrants are not the problem. They typically have a great family and work ethic.
it's not about that, they are still untermenschen. even if they are exceptional their children will likely revert back to the mean.
a society that is mostly black and mexican is not going to innovate, invent, and create jobs. that is just the facts i'm sorry to break it to those whose feelings may be hurt or offended but it is the absolute truth. the next century belongs to the chinese. they are practicing eugenics while we are doing reverse eugenics.
link?
china has a bad problem with pollution related impotence and people pay top dollar for the sperm of top university students, lawyers, engineers, etc, this is not new and is very well know. here check out this link about chinese genetic research.
http://www.ibtimes.com/chinese-scien...ildren-1137797
our mongrel children won't be able to compete with 180 iq chinese master race
All of Ferguson, population 20K+, Blacks aren't ignorant s.
OTOH, in my more precise estimation, the vast MAJORITY you right wingers are ignorant s.
A company in China is attempting to identify common alleles in the DNA of some of the world’s most intelligent people. If they can be found, the research may let parents select an embryo containing the so-called "most intelligent" DNA, potentially bumping up intelligence by up to 15 IQ points.According to Vice, the scientists and researchers at BGI Shenzhen have taken on the genetic engineering project and are getting close to figuring out the common allele among the "genius" DNA.
Geoffrey Miller, an evolutionary psychologist, is among the 2,000 luminaries who donated DNA to the science of smart.
In an interview with Vice, Miller explains in more detail what exactly the research may be able to achieve, and why China is far more advanced in genetic research.
Miller says that even if IQ is boosted in one generation by a seemingly small increment, the potential of even more intelligent offspring increases as well and can improve society in all sectors. “Even if it only boosts the average kid by five IQ points, that’s a huge difference in terms of economic productivity, the compe iveness of the country, how many patents they get, how their businesses are run and how innovative their economy is,” he said.
China’s past with eugenics has paved a way for current Chinese geneticists and researchers to be leaders in the field, despite what many perceive as controversial science. Under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping in the late 1970s and '80s, managing China’s booming population became a priority. By the time technology allowed for it, prenatal testing and screening for birth defects and gender were common among Chinese parents who only had one chance to have a child because of the one child policy implemented by Deng. And though gender-selecting abortion is illegal in China, this did not stop many parents from killing or abandoning baby girls.
This project, by BGI Shenzhen, Miller said, is rooted in the idea of prenatal screening, but does not cross lines of genetic engineering or adding new genes. “It’s the genes that couples already have,” Miller said, adding that “that kid would belong to that couple as if they had it naturally, but it would be the smartest a couple would be able to produce if they had 100 kids.”
Miller says genetics research is so advanced in China is because of a lack of religious culture that inhibits Western research. “We have ideological biases that say, ‘well, this could be troubling, we shouldn’t be meddling with nature, we shouldn’t be meddling with God.’”
But most Chinese, Miller believes, have no qualms about genetically engineering babies.
“An audience would say, ‘Obviously you should make babies genetically healthier, happier and brighter!’’
no just the ones out rabble rousing and threatening to burn down white neighborhoods. if anyone comes to my neighborhood they're going to have ing big problems.
It's just mind-boggling how she doesn't realize the damage she's making. Wish the GOP would do a better job of weeding some of these people out.
REAGAN AND BUSH 41 PROVIDE NO PRECEDENT FOR OBAMA’S AMNESTY BY EXECUTIVE ORDER
Not a video...
There's actually a mistake in the cite; it is Section 245a(d)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (8 USC 1255a(d)(2)(B)(i)) that grants the President and Attorney General the discretion to waive certain provisions of the law for the sake of "family unity.""Tonight, President Obama will override Congress and effectively declare amnesty for at least several million illegal immigrants. As Scott has noted, Obama himself has repeatedly admitted he lacks the cons utional power to make this move.
"Some of Obama’s defenders claim that the president was mistaken when he acknowledged his lack of power to override the immigration laws. One supporter (I don’t remember who) said that Obama received bad legal advice. Apparently, the “cons utional lawyer” was misled by his legal team.
"The most common argument in favor of Obama’s power to declare amnesty by executive order is that Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush did it. Juan Williams, among others, has made this claim.
"It is baseless. Unlike what Obama is about to do, Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 issued immigration regulations that were expressly authorized by a law passed by Congress.
"In 1986, Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act. The Act required him to adjust the status of certain illegal immigrants to the category of 'alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence.'
"The Act also authorized the Attorney General to allow other illegal immigrants who did not qualify for the amnesty to remain in the U.S. if needed 'to assure family unity.'
"Accordingly, in May 1987, the Justice Department issued regulations that interpreted the the term 'family unity' as calling for the maintenance of the 'family group.' Family group was defined as including 'the spouse, unmarried minor children under 18 years of age who are not member of some other household, and parents who resided regularly in the household of the family group.' Thus, not all spouses and children were included.
"This regulation was not an exercise of prosecutorial discretion or the assertion of a generalized right to suspend 'oppressive' immigration laws. Rather, the administration made it clear that it was carrying out the direction of Congress. It even cited the section of the law that provided this direction (section 245(d)(2)(B)(i) of the 1986 Act).
"House Democrats, including one of the authors of the 1986 Act, criticized Reagan for interpreting too narrowly the executive authority they had granted him. They wanted all spouses and children to receive amnesty in the name of family unity. If anything, then Reagan acted too cautiously, exercising less than the full discretion afforded him by Congress.
"Enter President George H.W. Bush. In 1990, he expanded the Reagan DOJ’s interpretation of 'family unity' to encompass all spouses and children. Like Reagan, Bush merely interpreted the 1986 Act, as Congress called on the executive to do.
"Bush’s interpretation was the more expansive one that Democrats had urged the Reagan administration to adopt. Both the Reagan and Bush interpretations were reasonable, though differing, attempts to effectuate congressional intent.
"Obama, by contrast, will not be fulfilling a congresional mandate to interpret a new statute. He will be overriding the immigration law in the name of 'prosecutorial discretion' on the ground that Congress hasn’t enacted a new statute.
"It will be an unprecedented, unlawful, and dangerous assertion of executive power. It might well create a cons utional crisis."
Look it up, do your due diligence before claiming Reagan and Bush did the same thing as Obama is proposing to do tonight.
I expect this to be litigated, tbh... we'll see what the arguments are.
Also, I don't think any of these people that qualify for this enforcement exception can actually become citizens?
But, I think the point is, Obama doesn't have the legal or cons utional authority to make the enforcement exceptions in the first place. He's not citing any provision of any law that says he has such discretion. In fact, he's claiming to act because there is no law that does what HE thinks should be done.
Even a benevolent dictator is, nonetheless, a dictator.
As someone said earlier, this has less to do with what he's doing than how he's doing it. If we're a nation of laws, he should follow them.
Well, it's a very important distinction for two reasons:
1) It's not amnesty. Amnesty allows the amnestied people to become citizens.
2) It's a temporary measure, relatively simple (compared to granting citizenship anyway) to undo by his successor if he/she so chooses.
As far as how he's doing it, I'll let the courts decide that. Never been a fan of EOs (implementation of the NSA dragnet comes to mind), and wouldn't want an expansive interpretation to set foot.
The expansion of executive power spearheaded by Cheney was damaging, IMO, and this would be more of the same.
"1) It's not amnesty. Amnesty allows the amnestied people to become citizens."
Amnesty!
Ebola!
ISIS!
Benghazi!
thugs!
Megyn Kelly's Startling Immigration Admission Subverts Months Of Fox Fearmongering, Including Her Own
Fox News host Megyn Kelly undermined months of claims from her network peers when she admitted to guest Jennice Fuentes that President Obama's upcoming executive action does not cons ute "amnesty." Kelly, who has herself used the "amnesty" label to discuss the president's coming order, acknowledged that the term is a dog whistle conservative media have exploited to stoke opposition to immigration reform.
Obama is set to announce a new set of executive actions that will allow as many as 5 million undo ented immigrants to apply for protection from deportation based on the time they have been in the U.S. and their family ties.
On the November 19 edition of The Kelly File, Kelly acknowledged that the president is not actually pursuing "amnesty," because "amnesty is citizenship and that's not what [Obama] is talking about." Kelly also explained how conservatives purposely misuse the word "amnesty" for political gain: "That's a hot-button term that the right uses to sort of get people upset."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/11...sion-su/201644
We may simply have to disagree. Temporary or not, amnesty or not, it's clearly a move by the Executive to enact policy without any legal basis.
Refresh me on the "NSA Dragnet." Exactly what was done that did not have statutory backing? You and I may both agree that the federal police state has grown way out of proportion but, sadly, Congress passed laws that allowed the Executive to exercise those powers. The U.S. Patriot Act and FISA and the Department of Homeland Security are all creations of Congress.
The NSA dragnet was the mass interception of communications in the US post 2001 (which I believe it's what's call the metadata program today). The program was implemented in secrecy by the Executive under an EO. Years later, when the program was leaked out to the public (by the NYTimes IIRC), and phone companies were about to get sued for complying with it, Congress enacted new law legalizing the program and granting phone companies retroactive immunity. Obviously, it had to be retroactive, because there was no such law by Congress when the EO was created.
BTW, Barry voted in favor of that program and the retroactive immunity. IIRC, that vote was in 2008. At that point I knew he was more of the same.
Melting ice caps!
Running out of fossil fuels!
The 1% !
Gays!
Uterus!
don't act like both sides dont play the same game, booboo
Women's groups and the gay community are the democratic parties cons uents. That is not the same thing.Melting ice caps!
Running out of fossil fuels!
The 1% !
Gays!
Uterus!
don't act like both sides dont play the same game, booboo
This is not to say that dems are not lying pieces of especially amongst the leadership but generally they do not do the same media and campaign practices of the GOP. People like to conflate Fox News and MSNBC but MSNBC is not chaired by the DNC's former media strategist.
when somebody's campaign was so geared towards that one issue to the point where his nickname became "Mark Uterus" i think its a valid point
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
