It’s strange that all the folx who were adamant that every business must provide any service demanded of said business, are silent when Twitter suspends the accounts of conservatives with no warning and no explanation.
Interesting, not really. The double standard is so common that it’s sumply expected.
20 comments:
What the left demands is only what is expected of the right, not the left.
These same folx have accused Trump of using “chemical weapons” on those trying to violently breach our border, were silent when P-BO did the same thing in the same location (much more often).
These folx applaud the killing of a missionary by a primitive tribe for landing on their island to visit, yet decry the US for doing the same thing with non lethal methods.
It’s interesting that these same folx are trying to establish an equivalence between tear gas and mustard gas, nerve gas and other lethal chemical agents.
The poor people seeking refuge in the u.s. here are poor and threatened and seeking Refuge. The missionary seeking to impose his culture is a threat to this small tribe of people. You're comparing apples and oranges. The immigrants coming to our nation's seeking Refuge are not a threat to us. The missionary coming to visit this tribe is a physical threat to their lives.
Perhaps you're not aware of this part of the story but these people have not been exposed to our germs or our illnesses. His mere presence is a physical threat to their lives. Also, these 10 or 20 people have made it clear they're not interested in hearing from him.
This is a man of privilege seeking to push his particular viewpoint on these people who do not want it. It's not the same thing at all with some degree of threat to their lives.
Of course, you're almost certainly not unaware of this. Which makes one wonder why you would play The Devil's Advocate like this...
Also, are you defending our government and choosing to tear gas poor women and children who are seeking safety? If so, do you recognize how monstrous that makes you same?
1. The “poor people” have passed up offers of refuge from both Mexico and the UN according to reports. They are currently engaged in violent attacks on our border. But don’t stray from the narrative.
2. You are making assumptions about the guy’s motives. You have zero evidence that he was planning to “impose” anything on anyone.
3. Re “physical threat”. In the case of the violent mob on the border, you have no proof that everyone in the caravan poses “no threat” to the US. In the case of island guy, you also have no proof of a threat.
4. Yes, they made it clear by killing him. Which you seem to approve of. Or at least aren’t particularly bothered by it.
5. You continue to express your presumptions as if they were fact.
6. Had you bothered to read the post and the comments, I’ve not actually addressed anything about either situation. I’ve only addressed the double standard of folx who are responding to the two situations.
7. I’m not defending the actions taken by our government. I’m not even addressing them. I’m pointing out the hypocrisy and double standards of those who approve of killing to defend one set of borders, while arguing against and defense of another set of borders. Or the hypocrisy of silence while P-BO used tear gas, and the outcry when Trump does.
I guess your silent appproval of murder to protect borders makes you pretty monstrous as well.
Your inability to grasp the point of the post, just makes you seem like you’ve mindlessly bought into a political narrative.
But thanks for the help. Both with making my point, and adding to the irony.
1. THEY are independent thinkers, able to decide for themselves where is the best, safest place to go for refuge. They don't need some old white guy's permission to make up their minds for themselves. Just like YOU don't ask permission from some guy in Kentucky if you can move here if you think it's best/safest for you and your family. Human liberty includes the very basic notion of self determination.
Don't hate on them or attack them just because YOU had the privilege of being born some place that is safe and prosperous. That is not how gracious or decent moral and rational people behave.
1a. "THEY" are not all engaged in "violent attacks." And hell, throwing stones in anger because you are merely seeking safety is a pretty measured response to people trying to BLOCK you from your self determination liberty to seek safety how you see best. That SOME people in frustration are throwing rocks at heavily armed military personnel is meaningless, especially when you take into account that not ALL of them are.
Don't stray from reality and don't defend violent attacks on women and children. Not unless you want to be condemned as a monster.
3. I DON"T NEED any proof that there aren't some "bad guys" in the mix of the migrants. I'll guarantee you that there likely ARE bad actors. Nonetheless, we don't condemn all white conservative men because SOME of them are Nazis and otherwise monsters. Likewise, it is irrational and immoral as hell to condemn all these migrants because SOME MIGHT be "bad guys."
7. If you're NOT condemning the atrocious actions of attacking women and children with tear gas, why the hell not? Step up and be a man and take a stand for righteousness and reason against the known bad, immoral actions of our nation. Or be lumped in with the bad actors.
All it takes for evil to win is for "good" men to remain silent in the face of evil.
Don't remain silent.
1. That’s one assumption. Of course that’s rests on the presumption that they are all rational, intelligent, and have accurate information on which to base their decisions. Pointing out reality isn’t hate or attack. In fact nothing I’ve done indicate either hatred or attacks you just made that part up.
1a. You appear to be arguing that throwing rocks and other forms of physical violence are somehow not violent attacks. Call I guess that’s one way to make your strict pacifism consistent with what we see with our own eyes. Simply re-define words until they fit the narrative.
3. At least you are willing to admit the reality. The question is why would we not screen out the bad people before they come in?
7. Of coarse, that’s not the issue here. It’s not the topic of the post, and it’s not your roll to dictate what I commented on or not on my blog. If you have proof that 100% innocent women and children are specifically being targeted for a tax with teargas, let’s see it.
Clearly you know all about being silent in the face of these sorts of actions by our nation. You spent eight years in silence, and still refuse to admit that this policy predates Trump.
I won’t be labor the obvious, the fact that you chose to dodge a significant number of my points or that virtually nothing you have said has actually been on topic.
The irony just continues to grow.
1. Of course, you throw out the false equivalence of one US citizen moving from place to place within the US, and thousands on unscreened non citizens violently attempting to force the US border. It’s not apples to apples and you know it. It also ignores your acceptance of deadly force in keeping out a visitor to an island.
3. Of course, I haven’t actually condemned the entire group based on the actions of some percentage of them. Of course, we have to take into account the reports that suggest that the number of women an children is a smaller percentage than the narrative would have us believe.
I’m pretty busy tonight, but I’ll continue to post your comments as I have time and internet access. However, responses will likely be limited.
2. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT this "missionary" might be bringing diseases to these isolated people, leading to their final extinction/extermination?
You are ignoring that critical point.
No need to respond further. IF you can't condemn a people ATTACKING innocent men, women and children/babies with tear gas for the "crime" of seeking safety, I don't give a damn about anything else you have to say.
When Jesus returns, will you be supporting stopping him at the border with a tear gas attack, as well?
Damn.
3. NO ONE IS ADVOCATING NOT HAVING ANY SCREENING.
The point is, we should have lawyers down there processing refugee claims and admitting those in legitimate need. While doing that, you can screen out any bad actors. But of course, ignoring reality helps you sleep at night, I'm sure.
Doesn't make you a good or reasonable man, however.
I'm hoping that if you're a real person, that you will find it within you to side with the refugees LIKE YOUR GOD COMMANDS YOU TO DO, over and over.
You want to take rules in the Bible literally? Start with the MOST repeated command: Love and accept and welcome the immigrants, the poor, the refugees.
If you can't obey the most obvious and redundant "rule" found in the Bible, then it's time to admit you don't give a damn about taking it seriously, let alone literally.
Say Craig...are you using some type of voice thingy to post your comments? That would account for the typos...as if they are auto-corrected. Just wondering. Carry on.
To get to your concluding point, clearly and unmistakably...
There is NO double standard.
We are opposed to causing harm. Consistently.
We are opposed to oppression of the minority. Consistently.
We are opposed to using privilege to do damage. Consistently.
Letting refugees in when they are seeking safety is consistently living up to those standards.
Opposing "missionaries" going in to "preach" their gospel when it will cause physical harm to the target audience is consistently living up to those standards.
Supporting people in being self-determining is consistently living up to those standards.
On occasion I do, are usually try to go back and fix the typos. But not always.
The fact that your last comment just reinforces your double standard is incredibly telling. Your reverence for “self determination” is clearly biased and one sided as is your acceptance of murder to prevent tourism.
Again, too busy to say more, but I’ll enjoy the irony anyway.
1. You seem to be suggesting that there aren’t any lawyers down there doing any processing, ( assuming facts not in evidence).
You’re also ignoring the fact that there are multiple locations in Mexico that they chose to bypass at which they could have claimed asylum.
Personally, I’d say that engaging in violence in the course of trying to illegally cross the border would disqualify the person from entry.
But that’s just me.
Do you understand that what he “might” have been carrying is not justification for murder? Do you understand that you are supporting murder as a means of border control? Do you understand that your presumptions and opinions aren’t facts.
I seriously doubt Jesus will return trying to violently cross the US border.
Of course that raises many, many questions that are even further off topic, and that you wouldn’t answer any way.
Do you understand that this isn’t your blog, and that you giving orders here is not something likely to work out particularly well?
You’re sudden change of heart is puzzling. But I like how you jumble some unrelated texts (mostly from the mythical portion, the OT) to try to cone up with a rule for the secular US government to follow.
I’ve yet to see anyone criticizing the Mexican government for deporting some of these migrants, I guess the Mexicans get a pass.
What Dan fails to acknowledge or accept is that in the case of this caravan situation there are no "refugees" as the terms is commonly understood. There are too many choosing to return home for that "fleeing oppression" narrative to stand.
There are, by percentage, few women and children. But regarding them, they are not at all unlike islamists using them as shields. These people are coached in how to use our system...as well as our general national reputation for generosity and empathy...to game it and make it easy to enter without all the hassle of following laws Dan opposes without reason or argument.
To suggest they are poor, as in, "starving", is belied by the very clothes they wear. I saw two pics that showed the stollers "parents" were using for their kids. The person posting the pics identified the stollers and gave the average price of them. Expensive stuff. More than the wife and I paid for those we used for our kids. Much more.
As Craig stated, they were offered all manner of asylum and such from Mexico and turned it down. Those fleeing oppression are now to be allowed to be choosers?
Overall, Dan's characterization of this situation and the people involved do not at all align with the realities. The stated intentions of the people, particularly by those who are using them for purposes not in the interest of those people, clearly demonstrate that this is not a "refugee/asylum" situation at all, but merely people wanting what they feel is currently unavailable in their home countries and who don't give a flying rat's behind about following ANY established laws, protocols or procedures for accessing their wants in this country. In short, the whole thing is as fraudulent as Dan's position.
Post a Comment