- It's about all the open borders types who live in gated communities or walled estates. It's about the folks who want to ban guns for everyone except their armed private security.ReplyDelete
-
I don't know what Craig is talking about. I'm the person who wrote it. I don't live in a gated community, I live in an urban community next door to folks with mental illness and surrounded by folks from all different cultures.. who is in church relationships with immigrant folks.Reply
So that first comment from Craig is clearly not directed towards me and seems a bit meaningless or out of context here.
And on the second comment, I do not own guns and I do not have an armed private security nor do I know anyone who does. So I have no idea what Craig is talking about, other than just trying to automatically going on the attack, Maybe.
What I'm talking about in my poem is those who would let fear dictate policy rather than reason, Justice or compassion. And when people let fear dictate policy, they often times will come up with irrational nonsensical Solutions like a border wall that all one has to do is go over or go around to beat. -
I assumed you wrote this bit of doggerel, and am responding in a more tongue in cheek way to the larger issue.ReplyDelete
Clearly anyone who would build a wall to stop a bird is insane, but that's not really the point.
What does seem to be the point is that Dan thinks that a wall won't be 100% effective, and he thinks that people seriously might believe that it will be 100% effective. I'll say that teeing off on an argument that isn't being made isn't necessarily effective.
Although, I think that your last actually made my jesting comments on topic. Clearly many people (including those who advocate for open borders) believe that ereact8ng walls will increase their security. Once can only assume that you would criticize the folx that live in gated communities, operate things like stadia, arenas, courthouses, government facilities, are all acting from unwarranted fear and that they should tear down the walls (or similar barriers) immediately.
If you can point out what you believe are peoples motivations for implementing policy, it only seems fair to point out those that hypocritically don't live by the same rules they'd impose on others.
FYI, you're right, the wall Israel build has proven very effective of stopping suicide bombers who espouse the "religion of peace", unfortunately it hasn't worked particularly well at stopping the regular barrages of mortars, artillery, and missiles, lobbed indiscriminately at unsuspecting and innocent civilians. -
Again, my point is, it's rather obvious that a 15 foot wall can be beat by 20 ft ladder. A wall that goes 100 miles can be beat by walking 102 miles. The point is that experts say this is a waste of money and it's a huge waste of money.Reply
Add to that how Trump has made this a racist issue trying to block the brown Invaders, as the new conservatives call them, just makes it evil instead of the welcoming of strangers that more moral and rational people would speak of. That's my point. -
My point is rather obvious. The larger question then is why conservatives would defend the racist reasoning xenophobia in fear behind the current new conservative push for walls to keep out Invaders.Reply
-
Yes Dan, we understand that you believe that there should be no impediment to crossing the borders. Please, provide the actual quotes where the “race” of those who cross our border in violation of our current law is explicitly stated.ReplyDelete
Your point is obvious, it’s just not compelling and not consistent. -
That you don't understand my position or understand how it's consistent doesn't mean that it's not compelling or consistent. It just means you don't understand.Reply
Trump and his racist KKK type supporters have made it clear that this is about race from day one were accused Mexicans of sending rapists and killers. Again that you don't understand the racism involved doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Ask your friends of color to explain it to you. -
Dan, you are right about something. You are correct that no matter what people do to enforce the law or protect themselves, there are other people who will go out of their way to surmount those protective measures.ReplyDelete
You’re definitely right about that. -
If your latest claim is factually accurate, you should have no trouble providing proof of your claim.ReplyDelete
Or are you taking the She Guevara route and trying to say that facts don’t matter as long as you’re “morally right”?
I guess you’d have to admit that it’s possible to be objectively “morally right” first. Or just jump on the “by any means necessary” bandwagon.
But your still right that some folx (see my earlier “religion of peace” comment as an example. -
Craig, what are you talkin about? None of your comments appear to have any relation to the topic of the post. None of your claims appear to be connected to reality.Reply
So I'm not sure what it is you're even trying to say, just sounds like gobbledygook from someone who's not understanding a conversation. It's as if I'm talking about the best recipes for spaghetti and you're offering something like, "...On the other hand, the moonwalk was mostly filmed in Arizona in the 1930s and dainty rabbits are notorious for having bad dandruff issues."
You're not making sense.
What I'm saying is simple.
1. The experts tell us that a wall will be terribly expensive and ineffective.
2. Despite Trump's irrational and fear-mongering claims, we have no emergency On the Border to the South beyond the emergency of people seeking refuge and being blocked from receiving it.
3. There is no huge influx of terrorist or drugs coming across the border that a wall would stop. Trump's claims to the contrary are just false claims.
If you're not commenting on these points, you're off topic. Stop going off-topic or go away. -
In spite of your hateful spin on it, you are right in your understanding standing of my point if you're saying that, if people are escaping danger and they come across a wall they WILL go over it. Because, of course they would. They would be stupid and immoral not to do so.Reply
To hell with f****** walls that stop people seeking Refuge. That is just a basic reasonable moral position to take. Before you comment here any further can you clarify that you agree with that reality? That it is immoral to build a wall to stop people seeking Refuge from harm? -
To reiterate, the wall does not stop terrorists, does not stop drug dealers... neither of which tend to use these open spaces for Crossing.Reply
And they don't stop people seeking Refuge, either, although they probably do make it more difficult for the poor folks trying to do that. Certainly the xenophobic and fear-mongering demonization of refugees and immigrants does make it more difficult. That is what is stupid and evil because it is evil to stop people from seeking safety. Do you agree with that notion? I would say it's also evil to make it difficult for people seeking safety. Do you agree with that reality? -
The question put to you, Craig, was do you agree that is evil to stop people or make it difficult for people to seek safety? It's a pretty simple question that any right-thinking moral person should be able to answer because the answer is clear and obvious. The balls in your Park.Reply
Tuesday, January 8, 2019
Thursday, January 3, 2019
I probably shouldn't
Feo,
You know that your comments won't be posted until you do what you've been asked. You know that I'm not a Trump supporter, didn't vote for him, won't vote for him, and have been critical of him more than I've been supportive. Given the fact that you appear to be somewhat intelligent, why would you continue to post off topic, anti Trump comments, over and over again?
I really don't need, want, or expect an answer. Nor do I need, want, or expect the deluge of absurdity you will certainly unleash.
But, I thought I'd remind you that insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.
You know that your comments won't be posted until you do what you've been asked. You know that I'm not a Trump supporter, didn't vote for him, won't vote for him, and have been critical of him more than I've been supportive. Given the fact that you appear to be somewhat intelligent, why would you continue to post off topic, anti Trump comments, over and over again?
I really don't need, want, or expect an answer. Nor do I need, want, or expect the deluge of absurdity you will certainly unleash.
But, I thought I'd remind you that insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.
Friday, December 21, 2018
Reactions
Trump is doing two things that many on the left should support.
He’s pulling troops out of Syria and signing a crime bill that will adjust sentencing for non violent offenders.
I’m guessing that very few will be able to put aside their hatred of the man to honesty evaluate the actions.
He’s pulling troops out of Syria and signing a crime bill that will adjust sentencing for non violent offenders.
I’m guessing that very few will be able to put aside their hatred of the man to honesty evaluate the actions.
Wednesday, December 19, 2018
Can we know things?
I regularly hear people question our ability to "know' something, and see demands for "proof" of whatever is being discussed. The ultimate questions being raised are really about how we "know" things and is it really possible to "know" things. This is a small excerpt from a good answer to the questions of "knowing".
"Third, being less than 100% certain doesn’t mean we can’t truly know. We can have
highly plausible or probable knowledge, even if it’s not 100%
certain. We can know confidently and truly, even if not absolutely or exhaustively.
The problem with global skeptics is they have set the standard for knowledge way too high, which ironically leads to the very skepticism they are engaging in! There is no compelling reason to embrace the skeptic’s dubious assumptions"
http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/How_do_you_know_you%27re_not_wrong.pdf
Poor Jesus
This time of year, we hear many folx who use the birth narrative of Jesus as a means to advance a political agenda relating to the poor and homeless. Specifically, the claim is that Joseph and Mary were forced into the stable because they were "homeless".
The problem with this narrative is that it isn't consistent with the story.
In the story, Joseph and Mary were forced to leave their home in Nazareth and travel to Bethlehem due to a census. The reason for the census was to imposed additional taxes on the people who lived in territory captured by Rome. One could reasonably say that the "tax and spend" policies of the emperor and his subordinate government officials were the only reason why Joseph and his family were in Bethlehem. (That and prophecy)
The reality of Jewish custom is that Joseph either had, or was in the process of building a home for his family in Nazareth, when a tax hungry government forced him to visit Bethlehem temporarily.
The situation in Bethlehem wasn't that they were homeless, it was that the forced census (to tax people) had caused a temporary shortage of temporary lodging. Similar to all the hotels in a town being full during a large event.
Finally, was Jesus "poor"? Great question. The simple answer is that we don't know. It seems safe to say that his family wasn't "rich", but beyond that we really have nothing concrete on which to base any dogmatic claims. We know that Joseph was a builder, but beyond that, not much.
I don't deny that it makes a nice story, but I'm not sure the story squares with what we know.
Just in case people don’t actually read the post, I’m specifically referring to the birth narrative and the condition of Jesus family at that point. Clearly He laid aside riches and power unimaginable in the incarnation. Just as clearly, during the period of His active ministry He had virtually no earthly possessions. Those things are clear from the text. It’s the part of His life where the text is silent and fold want to impose an agenda that I’m speaking of.
The problem with this narrative is that it isn't consistent with the story.
In the story, Joseph and Mary were forced to leave their home in Nazareth and travel to Bethlehem due to a census. The reason for the census was to imposed additional taxes on the people who lived in territory captured by Rome. One could reasonably say that the "tax and spend" policies of the emperor and his subordinate government officials were the only reason why Joseph and his family were in Bethlehem. (That and prophecy)
The reality of Jewish custom is that Joseph either had, or was in the process of building a home for his family in Nazareth, when a tax hungry government forced him to visit Bethlehem temporarily.
The situation in Bethlehem wasn't that they were homeless, it was that the forced census (to tax people) had caused a temporary shortage of temporary lodging. Similar to all the hotels in a town being full during a large event.
Finally, was Jesus "poor"? Great question. The simple answer is that we don't know. It seems safe to say that his family wasn't "rich", but beyond that we really have nothing concrete on which to base any dogmatic claims. We know that Joseph was a builder, but beyond that, not much.
I don't deny that it makes a nice story, but I'm not sure the story squares with what we know.
Just in case people don’t actually read the post, I’m specifically referring to the birth narrative and the condition of Jesus family at that point. Clearly He laid aside riches and power unimaginable in the incarnation. Just as clearly, during the period of His active ministry He had virtually no earthly possessions. Those things are clear from the text. It’s the part of His life where the text is silent and fold want to impose an agenda that I’m speaking of.
Question
I'm wondering if anyone can come up with any circumstance where it would be appropriate for an 11 year old girl to dance at a nightclub full of heterosexual men and have them throw dollar bills at her?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The answer, again, is that it is wrong to “stop people from seeking safety”. Calling it “evil” (or my comments “hateful”), simply diminishes actual “evil” and “hateful”.
Of course, I’m not (nor is anyone else) suggesting that people be “stopped” from seeking safety. Further, no one is suggesting that “race” is the primary factor in this debate.
The problem you have is that you can’t prove the premises underlying your position, so you’ve decided that you just won’t and instead will attack me.
And yet, there is no wall.
Explain that, please. Using fact based evidence.
_____
Regarding race, was the poll tax or citizenship question entry to vote in the South explicitly racist? No. Was slavery explicitly racist? No. Marshall claims the slavery cannot even be found in the Constitution, so, to him - and perhaps yourself - the Constitution isn't explicitly racist.
But, as Chris Wallace hammered Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Fox: Sanders: “We know that roughly nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists come into our country illegally..." Wallace: "Wait wait, ’cause I know the statistic,” he said. “I didn’t know if you were going to use it, but I studied up on this. Do you know where those 4,000 people come or where they’re captured? Airports... The state department says there hasn’t been any terrorists found coming across the southern border from Mexico."
_____
One more question: do you think the Republicans would have nominated a candidate with an illegal immigrant wife from a Latin American country?
"Let me tell you one thing,” President Trump said. “She has got it so documented, so she's going to have a little news conference over the next couple of weeks.” That was August 2016, when questions about Melania Trump's immigration history first cropped up. It has now been 28 months, and that news conference has not happened.
I still have the comment on my email. What you literally said was,
"I agree that no wall will stop people from seeking safety. It might help regulate how people seek safety, but it won't stop people who seek safety."
In other words,you literally did not answer the question. Do you understand that reality?
In reality, I did answer the question by saying that it’s not about stopping, it’s about regulating.
But, I have to compliment you. You actually provided actual evidence to support your claim. You should do that more often.
Of course, Craig will ignore me. It hurts his pride to have to answer to someone who uses facts rather than merely naming their - somewhere - existence
Another fact. We do not have open borders. Haven't had since the 1880s. What we have, like most other countries, are controlled borders. What we will never have, which Marshall and Craig seem to want, are closed borders where there is a fence around everything.
BTW, even Bernie Sanders is against open borders. Get your facts right, Craig before you enter a mature conversation.
This focus on the "wall" from both sides is simplistic and more of a diversion than anything. If the conversation is simply going to focus on one part of a multifaceted bigger picture, it's probably not worth having.
Unfortunately "walls" work. If these sorts of barriers didn't work, they wouldn't be everywhere. They aren't the be all and end all, but as one part of a larger strategy, they work.
If Trump was even reasonably aware, he'd stop talking about the wall and expand the discussion. If the left was serious about anything but blocking Trump, we would have seen something more comprehensive by now.
One additional problem that both sides have is focusing on one relatively small slice of the reasons why people cross the border in violation of US law. Some focus on only those who cross for bad reasons and try to project on the rest. Some focus on the "refugees" and try to project their feelings across a broad spectrum.
In all honesty, this problem has been kicked down the road by multiple administrations and congresses. As long as the debate is more about bashing Trump than about making progress, it's simply a colossal waste of time.
Chris Wallace: "Wait wait, ’cause I know the statistic,” he said. “I didn’t know if you were going to use it, but I studied up on this. Do you know where those 4,000 people come or where they’re captured? Airports.
It’s not that I didn’t answer, as much as my disagreeing with your premise.
No, it's LITERALLY that you didn't answer the question that was asked. It was an easy question that any moral rational person should be able to answer. It establishes a basic human rights and justice principle as a starting point for this conversation.
Last time to answer directly and clearly, Craig...
1. Do you agree that you literally did not answer the question that was asked of you?
2. Do you agree that it is wrong/evil/immoral/atrocious to try to prevent people from seeking refuge from harm?
Simple questions. Answer both with the only right answer there is or I'll remove your comments as they are not being offered in good faith.
As to the "focus on the wall," the ONLY reason that Dems are focusing on the wall is because the idiot and perverted liar in charge keeps trying to build it and keeps repeating the lies that it's there to prevent terrorists and invading brown people from entering, playing upon racist tropes that his racist supporters (the KKK types) rally around and which his other followers keep defending, even though it is a racist trope he's offering.
By all means, END the attempts to "build a wall" and deal with the problems of WHY are there refugees and immigrants at the borders... the dire straits of people seeking refuge and a better life. Make entry easier, not more difficult, for people seeking refuge. If you want to fund something to make a difference, FULLY FUND the "legal" ports of entry so that there are plenty of people to process refugee claims in a prompt and timely manner, for instance. Work out the citizenship plans for DACA folk. Those are actually helpful actions that IF Trump supporters focused on THOSE sorts of things, THEN you wouldn't be participating in Trump's and the KKK types of folk's dog whistles and racist actions/plans.
A wall "works" to keep people out when one builds a secure wall all the way around whatever it is you're trying to protect.
A wall fails - and is wrong and evil - when it prevents people from seeking safety.
A wall fails if all you have to do is climb over it.
We are a nation of doors, not walls. Let us live up to our better ideals, not cave to racist fears.
One other requirement, Craig: Admit that this is a bullshit claim that you CAN NOT support with data (the suggestion that the refugee problem is only a "small slice" of the explanation of why people are crossing our borders) or provide data that shows it's factually not a large problem for many of those coming from Latin America (and other places, as well, but Trump's been focusing mainly on the brown people from the South).
"In that case, about 1,500 people started their journey in southern Mexico, but the caravan dwindled down to a few hundred by the time they reached the Mexican border with California in April. And according to federal data, most of them did exactly what they said they were going to do: presented themselves at U.S. ports of entry and applied for asylum.
According to data and congressional testimony from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials, 401 members of that caravan requested asylum at ports of entry, a legal right enshrined in U.S. law and international conventions the U.S. is party to.
Federal officials interviewed those asylum-seekers and found 374 of them, or 93 percent, passed the first test on the path toward asylum, where they must demonstrate that they have a “credible fear” of returning to their home country. That’s higher than the 76 percent approval rate that all asylum-seekers received in fiscal year 2018, according to Citizenship and Immigration Services data."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/10/23/migrant-caravan-how-many-sought-asylum/1741030002/
More facts and data for you to consider, Craig, before making other false or dubious claims...
https://www.wola.org/analysis/fact-sheet-united-states-immigration-central-american-asylum-seekers/
2. No, I don’t think trying to regulate immigration is “evil”. Again, I don’t agree with your premise. I agree that people have a legitimate right to seek safety, although it’s not an unlimited right. I agree that to preempt people from “seeking” a safer situation is wrong. I disagree with the term “evil”. It minimizes real evil, and it’s an attempt to smear people with s loaded emotional term simply because they disagree with you. I disagree with the term “evil” because you haven’t laid a foundation that allows for an objective standard of “evil”.
I understand your determination to resort to threats and intimidation in order to force me into agreeing with you. I suspect you’ll delete these comments regardless of how many times I answer you, unless I simply parrot your unfounded claims.
I get it, it’s an old tired game, but I get it.