"Please define, specifically and objectively, these “basic moral lines”, and explain what authority undergirds them."
The above is a simple direct question that I asked Dan to answer. Please note the terms "specifically" and "objectively" as you consider his response.
DO NOT HARM OTHERS AGAINST THEIR WILL. This is one of the basic moral outlines that is so obvious as to be nearly universal. Of course, there are rules that have changed over the millennia. It used to be acceptable to enslave others or to deny rights to others, but we have progressed, thankfully.
Let's start with the obvious. It states relatively clearly that their are "basic moral outlines" that are nearly universal, then he argues that these "nearly universal" moral lines changed to allow slavery and denial of rights to be moral. This ignores the very basic fact that there are currently more people enslaved than at any time in human history. That various people groups consider killing homosexuals so moral that they've incorporated it into their law. The problem with this vague ethic is that it is at odds with definitions of morality. "Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper. Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal."
In other words, if morality is defined by the "philosophy, religion, or culture", then there is no basis for a morality that transcends "philosophy, religion, or culture". Clearly, as we sit here in 2020 there are philosophies, religions, and culture that consider things like slavery to be moral. Further, science tells us that we are "computers made of meat.", that life has no meaning beyond propagation of ones genes, that altruism has no scientific basis. Given that, how does one ground the above ethic in something specific, objective, transcendent, and authoritative?
What authority undergirds the notion not to harm others against their will? Just basic common sense? Basic decency? Basic recognition of universal human rights?
The three questions above, are based on the assumptions that 1) "common sense" is an objective universal standard, 2) that there is an objective basis for "universal human rights". Essentially it's an assertion of an objective, universal, standard without actually defining the standard or explaining what authority grounds that "universal" standard. It's simply asserting a moral standard that should be followed and accepted simply "because">
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that ALL HUMANS are created equal,
Ok, this is as close as the entire response comes to offering something to under gird the original claims. But let's dig deeper.
"We"- Who is "We"? Is it the authors? The founders? The signers? King George? Louis XVI? Abdul Hamid? Is this a universal statement? I'd argue that if George III believed this then there would have been no need for the document being quoted.
"hold"- Does "hold" mean proven? Is this a claim of objectivity?
"truths"- Again, is this a claim of universal objective truth? If so, then asking for proof might be in order.
"to be self-evident"- Yet, the entirety of the rest of human civilization at the time didn't find these things to be either true or self evident.
"that all men (I see your attempt to reword this to your benefit) are created equal"- I'll just point out that the society/nation that followed this document didn't actually treat "ALL HUMANS" equally.
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
Now this gets interesting. It's clear that these "unalienable" rights are endowed. That these rights are universal and transcendent. Yet, even in the government the writers formed they chose to deny some people these "unalienable" rights. Again, clearly the writers (in practice) denied the very unalienable rights thay claimed were true.
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Yet we live in a country where the right to life is regularly denied to some of "ALL HUMANS". The very writers of these words denied liberty to some of "ALL HUMANS".
What's amazing in all of this is that in his attempt to demonstrate a "universal", "objective", "specific" foundation for "morality" (It's probably a good time to note that Dan has stopped trying to prove "morality"), Dan has provide a stanza from a document that didn't even fully apply to every "HUMAN" in the 13 colonies when it was written. In fact these notions were so far from "self evident" in the 1770's that the very notion led to a prolonged and savage war because the George III was offended by the notion that his subjects had rights not granted by the crown. The reality is that IF the "morality" allegedly under girded by was really "self evident", how different human history would have been.
Do you disagree with the notion that these truths are self-evident, or do you agree?
I'm not sure what me agreeing has to do with you demonstrating the universal "basic moral lines". i was hoping that you would have actually proven the existence of what you claimed exists, as opposed to this incomplete attempt to co opt the US Declaration of Independence to support an alleged "basic moral lines" that apparently don't pre date the Declaration of Independence. Especially since you've cited a formulation that the signers didn't even fully embrace.
Can we PROVE that there is a God? No. Can we PROVE that this God does or does not approve of abortion or gay folk marrying? No.
This has absolutely zero relevance to this conversation.
BUT it IS self evident that self determination, not being harmed, not being restricted from pursuit of happiness (so long as that pursuit does not infringe upon the rights of others) IS a good and necessary thing.
You continue to make this claim without proving it, even though virtually the entirety of human history would suggest that "don't harm others" is anything but self evident.
A few folks to whom this wasn't "self evident"
Muhammed
Saladin
Sultan Suileman
Napolean
Jean-jaques Dessalines
Hitler
Mussolini
Castro
Tojo
Mao
Kim's
I could go on, but I think I make my point.
Do you agree?
I agree that you haven't proven your point. I agree that you've moved the topic away from your original claim. I agree that you've offered nothing "specific", objective", nor any sort of authority that would under gird these "basic moral lines".
The thing that is the single most absurd in this entire pile of blather, is that the authors of the declaration, actually provided the source of the underlying authority and you completely avoided acknowledging it.
I'm leaving the comment below here. It's a comment that Dan deleted, and lied about. I'm leaving it here to contrast how Dan gets treated here, as opposed to how I get treated at Dan's. I know that sometimes reality isn't pleasant, especially when it illustrates someone who claims to follow Christ, yet behaving in a manner devoid of grace.
Dan,
Go ahead and ban me. I literally, factuality, objectivity answered your question at least 4 times before you finally deigned to accept it. The fact that you had to hide/delete multiple versions of my answer doesn’t help your case.
FYI, I’ll be dealing with your vague and subjective answer at my blog. I’ll deal with it there because I choose to allow you the freedom to comment without demanding that you do as I say, or deleting and lying about the deleted comments.
I know that you are 100% correct in choosing to be impatient and demand answers now while accompanying those demands with threats. The fact that you so quickly and generosity answered my one question after days of hoop jumping, lies, and silence, clearly gives you the standing to make your impatient demands and threats back to me.
So, yes I’ll answer your questions. But in s venue that’s a little less restrictive.
Saturday, February 29, 2020
Friday, February 28, 2020
An uplifting philosophical observation
“Language is merely one beast using words as tools to get power over another beast.”
Tom Wolfe
Tom Wolfe
Thursday, February 27, 2020
Flabbergasted
I’m flabbergasted at the shenanigans we’re seeing from the DFL candidates for president.
If you listen to them you’d think that the CDC and other agencies funding has been cut by Trump. In fact the congress (who controls funding) has actually increased budgets in opposition to Trump’s budget requests.
For anyone who claims honesty is something they value in candidates to stay silent is the height of hypocrisy.
If you listen to them you’d think that the CDC and other agencies funding has been cut by Trump. In fact the congress (who controls funding) has actually increased budgets in opposition to Trump’s budget requests.
For anyone who claims honesty is something they value in candidates to stay silent is the height of hypocrisy.
Moral lines
It's been alleged that " We should be able to draw basic moral lines.". The question then becomes on what basis and are those "moral lines" objective? Are they the same for all people, in all cultures, in all times, throughout all history? If the answer is yes, then on what basis does one make that assertion? If no, then how does one determine which version is correct?
Specifically, in the area of sexual assault, how does one deal with the academics and scientists suggesting that sexual assault/rape is hard wired into humans?
" we should be able to draw reasonable moral lines against those sexual predators"
Once again, we ask, on what basis does one draw those "lines" objectively, and what if rape is a "natural biological phenomenon"?
This is just a selection of folx who would assert that science disagrees with the above as it relates to sexual assault.
I've included some quotes and some links. It's not exhaustive, but should be sufficient.
Lets start with the state of Virginia and HB 257, which was passed by the VA house. https://openstates.org/va/bills/2020/HB257/
"Eliminates the requirement for reports to be made to division superintendents and school principals on incidents involving assault or assault and battery, without bodily injury, of any person on a school bus, on school property, or at a school-sponsored activity. The bill also eliminates the requirement that school principals report certain enumerated acts that may constitute a misdemeanor offense to law enforcement. "
Apparently there are a significant number of DFL lawmakers that don't consider sexual assault a "basic moral line".
Back in the days of Clinton's sexual shenanigans, Richard Dawkins explained that our evolutionary ancestors were not monogamous, but were harem builders. Where any male who monopolized power and wealth could also monopolize females thus ensuring the survival of his genes.
Demonic Males: A predisposition to violence "is written in the molecular chemistry of DNA.": Dale Peterson and Richard Wrangham
The Natural History of Rape:Biological Bases of Sexual Assault: Rape is "a natural biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage." it's akin to "the leopard's spotsand the giraffe's elongated neck" Randy Thornhill
Randy Thornhill: If evolution is true, then "every feature of every living thing, including human beings, has an underlying evolutionary background. that's not a debatable matter." NPR Interview
"Human rape appears not as an aberration but as an alternative gene-promotion strategy that is most likely to be adopted by the 'losers' in the competitive, harem-building struggle. If the means of access to legitimate, consenting sex is not available, then a male may be faced with the choice between force or genetic extinction. Wilson, Glenn. The Science of Sex: Glenn Wilson on Rape. The Great Sex Divide, pp. 128–131. http://www.heretical.com/wilson/rape.html
" He also describes some conditions in the ancestral environment during which the reproductive gains from rape may have outweighed the costs:
"High status males may have been able to coerce matings with little fear of reprisal."
"Low status women (e.g., orphans) may have been particularly vulnerable to being raped because males need not have feared reprisals from the woman's family."
"During war, raping enemy women may have had few negative repercussions."
"Men who were low status, who were likely to remain low status, and who had few opportunities to invest in kin may have realized reproductive benefits that outweighed the considerable costs (e.g., reprisal by the woman's family)." http://human.projects.anth.ucsb.edu/epfaq/evpsychfaq_full.html#rape
"Evolutionary psychologist David Buss states that clear-cut evidence for or against rape as an adaptation is lacking. He states that rape may instead be a non-adaptive by-product of other evolved mechanisms, such as desire for sexual variety and for sex without investment, sensitivity to sexual opportunities, and a general capacity for physical aggression."
Buss, David (2019). "Conflict Between the Sexes". Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind (Sixth ed.). Routledge. ISBN 9780429590061.
https://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/merlinos/thornhill.html
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228623286_Why_Do_Men_Rape_An_Evolutionary_Psychological_Perspective
http://human.projects.anth.ucsb.edu/epfaq/rape.html
The interesting thing about these sorts of scientific papers and academic works is that the only option is to be able to provide proof that they're wrong. The biggest problem is that acceptance of this scientism or of the Darwinian based worldview means that intellectual consistency would suggest that by accepting the premise of philosophical/methodological naturalism, and that macro evolution explains life and the diversity of life, then the rest of the worldview simply comes along with the package.
Specifically, in the area of sexual assault, how does one deal with the academics and scientists suggesting that sexual assault/rape is hard wired into humans?
" we should be able to draw reasonable moral lines against those sexual predators"
Once again, we ask, on what basis does one draw those "lines" objectively, and what if rape is a "natural biological phenomenon"?
This is just a selection of folx who would assert that science disagrees with the above as it relates to sexual assault.
I've included some quotes and some links. It's not exhaustive, but should be sufficient.
Lets start with the state of Virginia and HB 257, which was passed by the VA house. https://openstates.org/va/bills/2020/HB257/
"Eliminates the requirement for reports to be made to division superintendents and school principals on incidents involving assault or assault and battery, without bodily injury, of any person on a school bus, on school property, or at a school-sponsored activity. The bill also eliminates the requirement that school principals report certain enumerated acts that may constitute a misdemeanor offense to law enforcement. "
Apparently there are a significant number of DFL lawmakers that don't consider sexual assault a "basic moral line".
Back in the days of Clinton's sexual shenanigans, Richard Dawkins explained that our evolutionary ancestors were not monogamous, but were harem builders. Where any male who monopolized power and wealth could also monopolize females thus ensuring the survival of his genes.
Demonic Males: A predisposition to violence "is written in the molecular chemistry of DNA.": Dale Peterson and Richard Wrangham
The Natural History of Rape:Biological Bases of Sexual Assault: Rape is "a natural biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage." it's akin to "the leopard's spotsand the giraffe's elongated neck" Randy Thornhill
Randy Thornhill: If evolution is true, then "every feature of every living thing, including human beings, has an underlying evolutionary background. that's not a debatable matter." NPR Interview
"Human rape appears not as an aberration but as an alternative gene-promotion strategy that is most likely to be adopted by the 'losers' in the competitive, harem-building struggle. If the means of access to legitimate, consenting sex is not available, then a male may be faced with the choice between force or genetic extinction. Wilson, Glenn. The Science of Sex: Glenn Wilson on Rape. The Great Sex Divide, pp. 128–131. http://www.heretical.com/wilson/rape.html
" He also describes some conditions in the ancestral environment during which the reproductive gains from rape may have outweighed the costs:
"High status males may have been able to coerce matings with little fear of reprisal."
"Low status women (e.g., orphans) may have been particularly vulnerable to being raped because males need not have feared reprisals from the woman's family."
"During war, raping enemy women may have had few negative repercussions."
"Men who were low status, who were likely to remain low status, and who had few opportunities to invest in kin may have realized reproductive benefits that outweighed the considerable costs (e.g., reprisal by the woman's family)." http://human.projects.anth.ucsb.edu/epfaq/evpsychfaq_full.html#rape
"Evolutionary psychologist David Buss states that clear-cut evidence for or against rape as an adaptation is lacking. He states that rape may instead be a non-adaptive by-product of other evolved mechanisms, such as desire for sexual variety and for sex without investment, sensitivity to sexual opportunities, and a general capacity for physical aggression."
Buss, David (2019). "Conflict Between the Sexes". Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind (Sixth ed.). Routledge. ISBN 9780429590061.
https://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/merlinos/thornhill.html
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228623286_Why_Do_Men_Rape_An_Evolutionary_Psychological_Perspective
http://human.projects.anth.ucsb.edu/epfaq/rape.html
The interesting thing about these sorts of scientific papers and academic works is that the only option is to be able to provide proof that they're wrong. The biggest problem is that acceptance of this scientism or of the Darwinian based worldview means that intellectual consistency would suggest that by accepting the premise of philosophical/methodological naturalism, and that macro evolution explains life and the diversity of life, then the rest of the worldview simply comes along with the package.
Have a Corona
As people get increasingly hysterical about the Corona virus spreading to the US, I’m let to wonder...
What if there was a way to control and monitor those who entered our country? What if we could somehow channel people to specific places where they could be screened and processed in ways that would increase the chances the infectious people could be kept out or quarantined? Maybe someone could invent something like this that would help calm people’s fears.
What if there was a way to control and monitor those who entered our country? What if we could somehow channel people to specific places where they could be screened and processed in ways that would increase the chances the infectious people could be kept out or quarantined? Maybe someone could invent something like this that would help calm people’s fears.
Wednesday, February 26, 2020
Bloomie
I listened to Bloomie talk about his commitment to climate change last night, then I see that he’s got the following;
6 planes
3 helicopters
11 houses
42 cars
Sounds like he needs to act before he lectures everyone else.
Maybe get down to
3 planes
1 helicopter
5 houses
21 cars first
I’m guessing the houses are almost all over 5000 square feet.
Surprised
So, last night after I finished watching the new CBS comedy about a bunch of (mostly) senior citizens yelling at each other and raising their hands for bathroom breaks, I ended up watching a show my wife likes.
It's an NBC hospital drama called New Amsterdam, I'm not a fan but value time spent with my wife so I usually stay in the room when it's on.
Last night one of the major plot lines involved a young couple who were planning to get married in about 2 weeks who visited the psychologist with some issues around their impending wedding.
As they go into their story, we find out that they were gifted DNA test kits (leaving aside the fact that that's a seriously bad wedding present) and they took the test. The test revealed that they were half siblings. The problem they wanted help with was that the woman (if I may be so bold as to presume), was understandably not excited to marry her brother. The brother, strangely enough had no problems with the situation. From the very beginning, it was clear that the goal of the psychologist was to facilitate the marriage. (There was a pro forma warning that they shouldn't have biological children, but otherwise it was full steam ahead for this guy.) Eventually he did manage to "convince" the young woman to go ahead with the marriage, and to lie about the situation to friends and family,
The first and most obvious problem is that there are laws about marriage to relatives, see below for NY's.
"A marriage is considered incestuous and void (whether the relatives are legitimate or illegitimate) in the following situations:
The third issue is the rejection of science and law for feelings. In this case, the biology (hard science) is unarguable. The law is unarguable. Yet, the psychologist pushed the woman into making this momentous decision based completely on her feelings. As most of us who are rational adults know, basing a significant, major, life altering, decision on feelings is usually not a good idea. The fact that this is presented as an appropriate medical/psychiatric course of action is ridiculous.
My first response was, "When they get divorced can they sue the Dr. for malpractice?".
The unexplored situation was what happens if she gets pregnant, I suspect that it went unexplored because it wasn't necessary to explain that the only response to that is an abortion. Knowing the reality of how mentally damaging aborting a baby can be to both mothers and fathers, I can't imagine the added layer of knowing that the aborting was indirectly the result of ignoring biology for feelings.
Finally, this post isn't about abortion or incest, it's about a worldview that places feelings over biology. It's also about the fact that the everyone said that "gay marriage" wouldn't lead any further than marriage for gay people. Well, I guess the move to legitimize polygamy, pedophilia, and incest just might have shown those claims to be naive or false, probably some of both. Either way, we've now got network TV actively trying to legitimize incest. Why, because you can't help who you love, and feelings trump biology and law.
It's an NBC hospital drama called New Amsterdam, I'm not a fan but value time spent with my wife so I usually stay in the room when it's on.
Last night one of the major plot lines involved a young couple who were planning to get married in about 2 weeks who visited the psychologist with some issues around their impending wedding.
As they go into their story, we find out that they were gifted DNA test kits (leaving aside the fact that that's a seriously bad wedding present) and they took the test. The test revealed that they were half siblings. The problem they wanted help with was that the woman (if I may be so bold as to presume), was understandably not excited to marry her brother. The brother, strangely enough had no problems with the situation. From the very beginning, it was clear that the goal of the psychologist was to facilitate the marriage. (There was a pro forma warning that they shouldn't have biological children, but otherwise it was full steam ahead for this guy.) Eventually he did manage to "convince" the young woman to go ahead with the marriage, and to lie about the situation to friends and family,
The first and most obvious problem is that there are laws about marriage to relatives, see below for NY's.
"A marriage is considered incestuous and void (whether the relatives are legitimate or illegitimate) in the following situations:
- Marriage between an ancestor and descendant
- Marriage between a brother and a sister (whether whole siblings or half siblings)
- Marriage between an uncle and a niece or between an aunt and nephew.
A person who knowingly and willfully performs an incestuous marriage or aids in the performance of such a marriage can be charged with a misdemeanor and can be penalized accordingly."
The third issue is the rejection of science and law for feelings. In this case, the biology (hard science) is unarguable. The law is unarguable. Yet, the psychologist pushed the woman into making this momentous decision based completely on her feelings. As most of us who are rational adults know, basing a significant, major, life altering, decision on feelings is usually not a good idea. The fact that this is presented as an appropriate medical/psychiatric course of action is ridiculous.
My first response was, "When they get divorced can they sue the Dr. for malpractice?".
The unexplored situation was what happens if she gets pregnant, I suspect that it went unexplored because it wasn't necessary to explain that the only response to that is an abortion. Knowing the reality of how mentally damaging aborting a baby can be to both mothers and fathers, I can't imagine the added layer of knowing that the aborting was indirectly the result of ignoring biology for feelings.
Finally, this post isn't about abortion or incest, it's about a worldview that places feelings over biology. It's also about the fact that the everyone said that "gay marriage" wouldn't lead any further than marriage for gay people. Well, I guess the move to legitimize polygamy, pedophilia, and incest just might have shown those claims to be naive or false, probably some of both. Either way, we've now got network TV actively trying to legitimize incest. Why, because you can't help who you love, and feelings trump biology and law.
Low expectations
Bernie’s answer to unemployment and “low wages” in minority communities, is that he’s going to help them sell more weed.
Stereotype much?
Stereotype much?
Tuesday, February 25, 2020
Debate idiocy
Is Bernie too stupid to understand that he’s one of the 1%.
If this economy “stinks”, then I’m not sure I know how to define stink.
Cmon Pete, it’s 6 white people.
Not debate. But can you really describe anything that’ll cost 1.5 trillion dollars as free?
Warren lies on the debate stage. People who value honesty still support her unquestionably.
Does Bernie understand that simply yelling until you get your way, isn’t a good look?
Holy buckets, 2 old, rich, white guys yelling, is not a good look. But adding one more, is better.
A bunch of radically pro abortion candidates are criticizing Bloomie for suggesting that a woman get an abortion.
Except they want to abort big chunks of the future, and deny life saving care to infants who survive abortions.
If it’s ok for the DFL to roll back the filibuster, then why shouldn’t the GOP do the same?
Is ignoring the moderators a sign of strength?
In Klobuchar’s Home metropolitan area also has schools where black students significantly underperform white students. This in the bluest cities, the bluest counties, in a very blue state.
What if I don’t want to turn my children and grandchildren over to government mandated child care.
If they don’t have the self control to shut up, turn off the damn mics.
Bloomie is deranged.
How does Biden convince black voters that even thought he didn’t do squat during the P-BO administration.
Biden wants to prevent people from making improvements to their personality owned private property.
Huge pandering alert. Footnote candidate who’s got no chance plays the reparations card.
White guy, on a stage full of white people complaining about the exclusion of blacks.
Bloomie, thinks people are too stupid to make their own decisions about their own health choices.
Casinos and weed, that’s Bernie’s pander to Warren’s people.
US leading the entire world in CO2 reduction, isn’t leading on climate change?
Should I believe Bernie on Cuba, or people who lived through Castro’s revolution.
Authoritarianism is bad, says the guy who wants to give the government more authority.
I’m beating Trump in every poll, look how accurate the polls were in 2016.
Biden just blamed the intelligence apparatus controlled by the executive branch for not giving the head of the executive branch the information they needed to stop the Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Biden just declared war on the NORKs.
I missed this last night, but Biden claimed that half of the US population was killed by guns since 2007.
Also missed last night, but Bloomie saying he “bought” 21 DFL seats and spending millions on electing candidates seems like it could be violation of election law.
Instead of all this yelling, can we just watch the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl over and over?
If this economy “stinks”, then I’m not sure I know how to define stink.
Cmon Pete, it’s 6 white people.
Not debate. But can you really describe anything that’ll cost 1.5 trillion dollars as free?
Warren lies on the debate stage. People who value honesty still support her unquestionably.
Does Bernie understand that simply yelling until you get your way, isn’t a good look?
Holy buckets, 2 old, rich, white guys yelling, is not a good look. But adding one more, is better.
A bunch of radically pro abortion candidates are criticizing Bloomie for suggesting that a woman get an abortion.
Except they want to abort big chunks of the future, and deny life saving care to infants who survive abortions.
If it’s ok for the DFL to roll back the filibuster, then why shouldn’t the GOP do the same?
Is ignoring the moderators a sign of strength?
In Klobuchar’s Home metropolitan area also has schools where black students significantly underperform white students. This in the bluest cities, the bluest counties, in a very blue state.
What if I don’t want to turn my children and grandchildren over to government mandated child care.
If they don’t have the self control to shut up, turn off the damn mics.
Bloomie is deranged.
How does Biden convince black voters that even thought he didn’t do squat during the P-BO administration.
Biden wants to prevent people from making improvements to their personality owned private property.
Huge pandering alert. Footnote candidate who’s got no chance plays the reparations card.
White guy, on a stage full of white people complaining about the exclusion of blacks.
Bloomie, thinks people are too stupid to make their own decisions about their own health choices.
Casinos and weed, that’s Bernie’s pander to Warren’s people.
US leading the entire world in CO2 reduction, isn’t leading on climate change?
Should I believe Bernie on Cuba, or people who lived through Castro’s revolution.
Authoritarianism is bad, says the guy who wants to give the government more authority.
I’m beating Trump in every poll, look how accurate the polls were in 2016.
Biden just blamed the intelligence apparatus controlled by the executive branch for not giving the head of the executive branch the information they needed to stop the Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Biden just declared war on the NORKs.
I missed this last night, but Biden claimed that half of the US population was killed by guns since 2007.
Also missed last night, but Bloomie saying he “bought” 21 DFL seats and spending millions on electing candidates seems like it could be violation of election law.
Instead of all this yelling, can we just watch the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl over and over?
Since
Since the last post got right off track, I decided to separate this as it's own post.
Bernie's Free College For All Scheme
It's been suggested that Bernie's scheme to raid my retirement to pay off student loan debt for (potentially) children who's families could pay off the loans or who make significantly more than I do is a valuable thing to do.
Recent evidence shows us that the best and most uplifting way to help those who are poor or disadvantaged can be summed up by, "Don't do for others what they can do for themselves.". The research shows that to do things for people, that they are able to do for themselves is actually harmful and demeaning.
So we have a situation where people have voluntarily taken out large amounts of debt, which they allegedly can't pay back. I say allegedly because many of these people have an unrealistic expectation that they are owed a job that pays well in their area of study. This premise is completely 100% false. What's not false is that there are other jobs/careers that will allow literally anyone to earn a reasonable living, without even mentioning becoming an entrepreneur.
For the purpose of this discussion, lets assume that this problem is a societal issue that needs to be addressed collectively. Let's also assume that the "Don't do for others what they can do for themselves." is universally true.
Given those assumptions, wouldn't it make sense that giving these folx a bunch of cash might actually be demeaning, fostering dependence, and not the best possible option.
I'm going to throw out a few ideas that might be better, or more uplifting, as some things to consider.
1. If, as I just heard this morning, these loans are "predatory" then wouldn't it make sense to seek recompense from the "predators"? How about 5% of any university endowment over $100,000,000? How about a percentage of the profits of those who loaned the money?
2. What about making student loan debt tax deductible?
3. What about something analogous to the WPA/CCC etc that would allow people to "work off" their loans?
4. What about incentivizing employers to hire these folx?
5. What if there was a 10 year moratorium on collections of student loan debt that would allow for some time to develop a career, or to increase income before payments start?
I'm sure there are other options, but doesn't it make sense to give people a "hand up" rather than a "hand out"?
As parents we (most normal parents) want our children to learn through mistakes, and most times that doesn't include an old, white, millionaire coming through and taking away the problem. we understand that sometimes having to work your way out of the results of a mistake is a valuable, character building experience.
Finally,
1. Why limit this to only those with loans? Why not compensate those who worked hard, and made plans or sacrifices to get through college without significant debt? Since when do we not reward responsibility?
2. Why is this not means tested? It's absolutely absurd that means testing isn't part of the conversation?
3. Why are we not having a serious national discussion about the relative value of college degrees and the career/income potential of options that don't require a degree?
4. Where did we ever get the misguided idea that going to college and being "more educated" is objectively good irregardless or the cost or the benefit.
My other post was about the lie (or the intentionally misleading nature) of Bernie's claims. This is about trying to be more creative that "The rest of the taxpayers will bail you out for your bad decisions">
Bernie's Free College For All Scheme
It's been suggested that Bernie's scheme to raid my retirement to pay off student loan debt for (potentially) children who's families could pay off the loans or who make significantly more than I do is a valuable thing to do.
Recent evidence shows us that the best and most uplifting way to help those who are poor or disadvantaged can be summed up by, "Don't do for others what they can do for themselves.". The research shows that to do things for people, that they are able to do for themselves is actually harmful and demeaning.
So we have a situation where people have voluntarily taken out large amounts of debt, which they allegedly can't pay back. I say allegedly because many of these people have an unrealistic expectation that they are owed a job that pays well in their area of study. This premise is completely 100% false. What's not false is that there are other jobs/careers that will allow literally anyone to earn a reasonable living, without even mentioning becoming an entrepreneur.
For the purpose of this discussion, lets assume that this problem is a societal issue that needs to be addressed collectively. Let's also assume that the "Don't do for others what they can do for themselves." is universally true.
Given those assumptions, wouldn't it make sense that giving these folx a bunch of cash might actually be demeaning, fostering dependence, and not the best possible option.
I'm going to throw out a few ideas that might be better, or more uplifting, as some things to consider.
1. If, as I just heard this morning, these loans are "predatory" then wouldn't it make sense to seek recompense from the "predators"? How about 5% of any university endowment over $100,000,000? How about a percentage of the profits of those who loaned the money?
2. What about making student loan debt tax deductible?
3. What about something analogous to the WPA/CCC etc that would allow people to "work off" their loans?
4. What about incentivizing employers to hire these folx?
5. What if there was a 10 year moratorium on collections of student loan debt that would allow for some time to develop a career, or to increase income before payments start?
I'm sure there are other options, but doesn't it make sense to give people a "hand up" rather than a "hand out"?
As parents we (most normal parents) want our children to learn through mistakes, and most times that doesn't include an old, white, millionaire coming through and taking away the problem. we understand that sometimes having to work your way out of the results of a mistake is a valuable, character building experience.
Finally,
1. Why limit this to only those with loans? Why not compensate those who worked hard, and made plans or sacrifices to get through college without significant debt? Since when do we not reward responsibility?
2. Why is this not means tested? It's absolutely absurd that means testing isn't part of the conversation?
3. Why are we not having a serious national discussion about the relative value of college degrees and the career/income potential of options that don't require a degree?
4. Where did we ever get the misguided idea that going to college and being "more educated" is objectively good irregardless or the cost or the benefit.
My other post was about the lie (or the intentionally misleading nature) of Bernie's claims. This is about trying to be more creative that "The rest of the taxpayers will bail you out for your bad decisions">
It’s not free
When Bernie says that his scheme to subsidize college for people who make more money than I do, involves a “small charge on Wall Street speculation”.
What this means is that people like me, who’ve managed to invest some money for my retirement, are going to have fees added to our investments. I guess tapping my retirement for this scheme seems like a good idea to someone,
What this means is that people like me, who’ve managed to invest some money for my retirement, are going to have fees added to our investments. I guess tapping my retirement for this scheme seems like a good idea to someone,
Monday, February 24, 2020
Vote Bernie
As I was researching what was said around the 2016 election, I came across something that I still believe to be true.
If Bernie wins the presidency, his lack of a constituency on either the house or senate is going to rob him of the ability to actually implement any of his signature schemes. That assumes that his election doesn't cause a loss of DFL seats in congress as some on the left are predicting.
In either case, I suspect that he will be unable to get the degree of ideological purity he'd like in his schemes, which will result in more of the angry old man we've seen on the debate stages.
If his fellow DFLers are so against his programs, why would the GOP support them.
4 years of Bernie is likely 4 years of little to nothing substantial happening.
I believe that, given the lax approach to voting, that I will be allowed to vote for either party in the upcoming primary. I have to say that I'm leaning Klobuchar in the hopes that a win here will throw some drama into the process. Or at least give the "Screw Bernie Again" DNC something to work with.
If Bernie wins the presidency, his lack of a constituency on either the house or senate is going to rob him of the ability to actually implement any of his signature schemes. That assumes that his election doesn't cause a loss of DFL seats in congress as some on the left are predicting.
In either case, I suspect that he will be unable to get the degree of ideological purity he'd like in his schemes, which will result in more of the angry old man we've seen on the debate stages.
If his fellow DFLers are so against his programs, why would the GOP support them.
4 years of Bernie is likely 4 years of little to nothing substantial happening.
I believe that, given the lax approach to voting, that I will be allowed to vote for either party in the upcoming primary. I have to say that I'm leaning Klobuchar in the hopes that a win here will throw some drama into the process. Or at least give the "Screw Bernie Again" DNC something to work with.
Sunday, February 23, 2020
Hypothetically
Is there anyone in the history of the US who is so horrible and needs to be convicted of a crime so badly that they should be deprived of their right to be tried in front of a fair and impartial jury?
While we're on legal theory, is there ever a point where we can balance the current/recent actions of a person with the past actions/allegations and base judgement more on the recent?
While we're on legal theory, is there ever a point where we can balance the current/recent actions of a person with the past actions/allegations and base judgement more on the recent?
Saw this this morning
“The primaries are making me nauseous. There is no chance that Bernie beats Trump. This has nothing to do with his policies. It’s just math. Democrats need moderates to swing left, and they’re not going to do that for Bernie. I like liberal policies as much as any Bernie fan, but I like the idea of never having to listen to Trump give a SOTU again even better.”
“If Bernie wins the nomination I'm voting for him. If Liz wins, I'm voting for her. If Amy, then her. If Petey, then him. Same with Joe. None of them has a platform that I like and honestly, I think all of them will make a terrible president. But that is better than what we have.”
I’m noticing a trend among my friends. We’d rather see bad things happen to our country, than see Trump win.
I heard conservatives having the same discussions over the last several election cycles.
Then there’s this from Donna Shalala.
“I'm hoping that in the future, Senator Sanders will take time to speak to some of my constituents before he decides to sing the praises of a murderous tyrant like Fidel Castro.”
And Chris Matthews.
“MSNBC host Chris Matthews fumed over Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) performance in the Nevada Caucuses on Saturday, comparing his apparent inevitable victory to Nazi Germany taking over France during World War II. “It looks like Bernie Sanders is hard to beat right now,” Matthews said. “I’m with Carville all the way in terms of the dangers of what lurks, what lies ahead in November. I’m very much aware that they’re sitting on so much oppo research on Bernie, what he said in the past about world affairs, how far-left he is … they are going to make the most of that in terms of world politics. They’re going to kill him.” Matthews continued, “I was reading last night, Brian, I know you’re a history guy too, I was reading last night about the fall of France in the summer of 1940, and the general, Renault, calls up Churchill and says, ‘It’s over.’ And Churchill says ‘How can it be? You’ve got the greatest army in Europe. How can it be over?’ He said, ‘It’s over.’ So I have that suppressed feeling. I can’t be as wild as Carville, but he is damn smart, and I think he’s damn right on this one.”
“If Bernie wins the nomination I'm voting for him. If Liz wins, I'm voting for her. If Amy, then her. If Petey, then him. Same with Joe. None of them has a platform that I like and honestly, I think all of them will make a terrible president. But that is better than what we have.”
I’m noticing a trend among my friends. We’d rather see bad things happen to our country, than see Trump win.
I heard conservatives having the same discussions over the last several election cycles.
Then there’s this from Donna Shalala.
“I'm hoping that in the future, Senator Sanders will take time to speak to some of my constituents before he decides to sing the praises of a murderous tyrant like Fidel Castro.”
And Chris Matthews.
“MSNBC host Chris Matthews fumed over Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) performance in the Nevada Caucuses on Saturday, comparing his apparent inevitable victory to Nazi Germany taking over France during World War II. “It looks like Bernie Sanders is hard to beat right now,” Matthews said. “I’m with Carville all the way in terms of the dangers of what lurks, what lies ahead in November. I’m very much aware that they’re sitting on so much oppo research on Bernie, what he said in the past about world affairs, how far-left he is … they are going to make the most of that in terms of world politics. They’re going to kill him.” Matthews continued, “I was reading last night, Brian, I know you’re a history guy too, I was reading last night about the fall of France in the summer of 1940, and the general, Renault, calls up Churchill and says, ‘It’s over.’ And Churchill says ‘How can it be? You’ve got the greatest army in Europe. How can it be over?’ He said, ‘It’s over.’ So I have that suppressed feeling. I can’t be as wild as Carville, but he is damn smart, and I think he’s damn right on this one.”
Friday, February 21, 2020
How does this work
DFL debate “Billionaires shouldn’t exist”.
Also DFL debate “We’re going to tax billionaires in perpetuity to pay for free stuff.”
Does that mean billionaires should exist (maybe even more of them), or that the first statement is rank stupidity?
Also DFL debate “We’re going to tax billionaires in perpetuity to pay for free stuff.”
Does that mean billionaires should exist (maybe even more of them), or that the first statement is rank stupidity?
Genius
“I believe in the separation of church and state. Completely. Some of the biggest “Christian” hypocrites are politicians. I don’t want issues of morality being decided by government (not talking about obvious crimes like murder, rape, assault, felonies.....) Just my 2 cents.”
So, we have a genius who doesn’t want “issues of morality decided by the government”, except for the “issues of morality” that he thinks are really immoral.
If we live in a world where morality is subjective, then morality will always be imposed by the majority (those in power or the government), there isn’t really any other option.
If we live in a world where morality is objective, then the most government does is recognize the fact that certain behaviors are immoral and institute punishments for transgressing those things.
The comment seems to imply that “the state” is always bad (with the exceptions noted) at deciding “issues of morality”, and that the “church” is the appropriate place to decide those issues. Or, that the state shouldn’t be influenced by the church. Or something else.
Wonder what the commenter thinks of Islamic law?
So, we have a genius who doesn’t want “issues of morality decided by the government”, except for the “issues of morality” that he thinks are really immoral.
If we live in a world where morality is subjective, then morality will always be imposed by the majority (those in power or the government), there isn’t really any other option.
If we live in a world where morality is objective, then the most government does is recognize the fact that certain behaviors are immoral and institute punishments for transgressing those things.
The comment seems to imply that “the state” is always bad (with the exceptions noted) at deciding “issues of morality”, and that the “church” is the appropriate place to decide those issues. Or, that the state shouldn’t be influenced by the church. Or something else.
Wonder what the commenter thinks of Islamic law?
I want free stuff, if you don’t you can’t be my friend
“When my mom died, the hospital bill was 300 thousand dollars for a single 36 hour span. The healthcare industry and pharmaceutical industry are literally evil and I will never vote for a candidate who doesn’t support free healthcare in my entire life, no exceptions. Going into debt because of your human body is objectively immoral and if you don’t support Medicare for all, you’re not on my team and never will be.”
Without knowing any specifics of the circumstances of the person who put this on Twitter today, and acknowledging that their frustration/anger are appropriate, I just have a couple points/questions.
I have to wonder how old his mother was, and what kind of insurance she had/had access to, and if/why she didn’t access what was available.
Calling two entire industries, and by extension everyone in those industries, “evil” seems to be a bit extreme.
There is no such thing as “free healthcare”.
If morality is not objective, then how can something be “objectively immoral “?
Virtually everything anyone goes into debt for is somehow related to the human body. Why aren’t those things “objectively immoral”?
If going into individual debt to pay for medical care is “objectively immoral”, then wouldn’t going into societal debt be at least equally “objectively immoral”?
There’s some math going around that points out that Bernie’s healthcare plan is actually a net financial loss to someone who’s making $15.00/hour.
I guess I’m wondering if it’s possible to express frustration with the situation without calling people “evil”, and without destroying relationships.
Wednesday, February 19, 2020
Health Care?
https://winteryknight.com/2020/02/19/uk-nhs-government-run-healthcare-only-available-for-people-who-agree-with-the-government/
Without commenting on the veracity of the claims in this post, I'll note that it raises a significant issue with some potential negatives about government health care. How does one guarantee that health care won’t be rationed to people’s political opponents?
Without commenting on the veracity of the claims in this post, I'll note that it raises a significant issue with some potential negatives about government health care. How does one guarantee that health care won’t be rationed to people’s political opponents?
Debate madness
Bernie Sanders just trashed Carter, Clinton, and P-BO. This debate is like a SNL sketch.
Do these rich white folx realize that a bunch of rich folx demonizing rich folk, sound incredibly stupid.
Everyone on stage, “Bloomberg is a vile, evil, billionaire.”
Also Everyone, “Bloomberg may be evil, but we’re going to support him.”
“Right to live is the basic right to everything.” What a load of crap.
Bernie on his promise to release “all” his medical records, claims he has. Another load of crap.
If Bloomie was to “stand on his record”, he’d probably look taller,
Bloomie, is completely unprepared to answer the questions he’s being asked by the other candidates.
Warren is sympathetic to forgetting things, she forgot she wasn’t Native American.
Bloomie, just ignored the actual, scientific, fact that the US lead the world in CO2 reductions. Beating everyone who signed the Paris Agreement.
All this magic fantasy money they so blithely throw out, isn’t enough to fund all the new spending they want.
Y’all think Bernie really wants to send billionaires to gulags, like his campaign staff?
Bernie trying to suggest that he, as a millionaire long term congressman/senator is going to lead the fight against a “top down” system is absolutely lacking in self awareness.
Virtually every successful presidential campaign has been able to come up with a positive slogan or catch phrase that sums it up. We've seen "Hope and Change", "Thousand Points of Light", "Shining City on a Hill" in the past. Based on last night, the 2020 theme is going to be, "It's the End of the World as We Know It".
Do these rich white folx realize that a bunch of rich folx demonizing rich folk, sound incredibly stupid.
Everyone on stage, “Bloomberg is a vile, evil, billionaire.”
Also Everyone, “Bloomberg may be evil, but we’re going to support him.”
“Right to live is the basic right to everything.” What a load of crap.
Bernie on his promise to release “all” his medical records, claims he has. Another load of crap.
If Bloomie was to “stand on his record”, he’d probably look taller,
Bloomie, is completely unprepared to answer the questions he’s being asked by the other candidates.
Warren is sympathetic to forgetting things, she forgot she wasn’t Native American.
Bloomie, just ignored the actual, scientific, fact that the US lead the world in CO2 reductions. Beating everyone who signed the Paris Agreement.
All this magic fantasy money they so blithely throw out, isn’t enough to fund all the new spending they want.
Y’all think Bernie really wants to send billionaires to gulags, like his campaign staff?
Bernie trying to suggest that he, as a millionaire long term congressman/senator is going to lead the fight against a “top down” system is absolutely lacking in self awareness.
Virtually every successful presidential campaign has been able to come up with a positive slogan or catch phrase that sums it up. We've seen "Hope and Change", "Thousand Points of Light", "Shining City on a Hill" in the past. Based on last night, the 2020 theme is going to be, "It's the End of the World as We Know It".
Saturday, February 15, 2020
Questions
Is “putting children in cages” something that would disqualify someone from being elected president?
If a hospital treats a patient based on their gender identity, rather than their biology, can they be sued for malpractice?
Does talking about women servicing someone sexually disqualify that person from serving in elected office?
If a hospital treats a patient based on their gender identity, rather than their biology, can they be sued for malpractice?
Does talking about women servicing someone sexually disqualify that person from serving in elected office?
Thursday, February 13, 2020
I've said for a while
I've posted on this before, but I just saw this story and if it's correct it is an example of what I'm talking about.
The DFL is a coalition of a lot of disparate groups, some of which have goals that are opposed to others.
The most obvious is organized labor (not government employee unions). Clearly the interests on the UAW and Greenpeace will reach the point where their differences can't easily be bridged.
Now we see a Nevada union who is being attacked by Bernie supporters because they don't want to give up their health insurance for "Medicare for All". They've gone to great lengths to negotiate what sounds like amazing health insurance for their members and for some reason they (selfishly) don't want to sacrifice their gains for others.
At some point, it seems logical that organized labor will realize that they have as much space in the DFL as he Pro Life folks, the School Choice folks, and a few other groups.
As before, how many millions of voters can the DFL exclude from their platform, yet still expect them to automatically vote straight DFL? If the 21 million pro life dems sit out, can the DFL candidate win? What happens if the 14 million plus union members decide to sit out? Can the DFL really lose up to 35 million voters and win national elections? Beyond that, what happens if the black vote goes from 95% DFL to 85% DFL?
Obviously, I'd prefer a GOP candidate to win in any presidential race, but politics in generally interesting and I can't see how long any party can hold together a coalition of groups with such differing agendas.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/powerful-nevada-union-says-its-members-were-viciously-attacked-by-bernie-supporters?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=mattwalsh
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/12/bernie-sanders-nevada-culinary-union-114687
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/2/12/1918805/-Powerful-Nevada-union-says-Sanders-supporters-viciously-attacked-it-over-health-care-differences
Multiple links to blunt the "biased source" criticism that is so often used to ignore news that's unpleasant.
Not exactly related, but it's been announced that the US led the entire world in reducing CO2 emissions. Despite this good news, I suspect we'll continue to hear that it's all our fault and that we should do more, and Paris. The problem is that profit (which means willing consumers) is a much better motivator than threats of government punishment.
I’ve seen multiple videos this morning showing people destroying GOP voter registration tents. Saying that the left is nonviolent is simply a lie.
The DFL is a coalition of a lot of disparate groups, some of which have goals that are opposed to others.
The most obvious is organized labor (not government employee unions). Clearly the interests on the UAW and Greenpeace will reach the point where their differences can't easily be bridged.
Now we see a Nevada union who is being attacked by Bernie supporters because they don't want to give up their health insurance for "Medicare for All". They've gone to great lengths to negotiate what sounds like amazing health insurance for their members and for some reason they (selfishly) don't want to sacrifice their gains for others.
At some point, it seems logical that organized labor will realize that they have as much space in the DFL as he Pro Life folks, the School Choice folks, and a few other groups.
As before, how many millions of voters can the DFL exclude from their platform, yet still expect them to automatically vote straight DFL? If the 21 million pro life dems sit out, can the DFL candidate win? What happens if the 14 million plus union members decide to sit out? Can the DFL really lose up to 35 million voters and win national elections? Beyond that, what happens if the black vote goes from 95% DFL to 85% DFL?
Obviously, I'd prefer a GOP candidate to win in any presidential race, but politics in generally interesting and I can't see how long any party can hold together a coalition of groups with such differing agendas.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/powerful-nevada-union-says-its-members-were-viciously-attacked-by-bernie-supporters?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=mattwalsh
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/12/bernie-sanders-nevada-culinary-union-114687
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/2/12/1918805/-Powerful-Nevada-union-says-Sanders-supporters-viciously-attacked-it-over-health-care-differences
Multiple links to blunt the "biased source" criticism that is so often used to ignore news that's unpleasant.
Not exactly related, but it's been announced that the US led the entire world in reducing CO2 emissions. Despite this good news, I suspect we'll continue to hear that it's all our fault and that we should do more, and Paris. The problem is that profit (which means willing consumers) is a much better motivator than threats of government punishment.
I’ve seen multiple videos this morning showing people destroying GOP voter registration tents. Saying that the left is nonviolent is simply a lie.
Quote of the day
"Desires for things God has forbidden are a reflection of how sin has distorted me, not how God has made me."
Sam Allberry
This might be a problem for some.
Sam Allberry
This might be a problem for some.
News
For a while now we’ve heard about how many people have been convicted of crimes with connections to the Trump administration. So, while I agree that those who commit crimes should be prosecuted, it appears that there may be more to the story.
1. We’ve heard that the underlying “evidence” that led to a FISA warrant wasn’t as accurate and truthful as most people would prefer before issuing a warrant to surveil someone. The applicable legal doctrine is “Fruit of a poison tree”.
2. We’re hearing that a juror on the Stone jury was explicitly biased, and potentially lied about it on the jury questionnaire. Obviously if they lied and hid the bias, that’s on them. If they were honest and acknowledged the bias, then the judge failed miserably.
In any case, it would be a shame if monomaniacal zeal to damage Trump, results in people who might have actually committed crimes going free. It would also be a shame if the legal process was perverted in an attempt to bring about political harm.
1. We’ve heard that the underlying “evidence” that led to a FISA warrant wasn’t as accurate and truthful as most people would prefer before issuing a warrant to surveil someone. The applicable legal doctrine is “Fruit of a poison tree”.
2. We’re hearing that a juror on the Stone jury was explicitly biased, and potentially lied about it on the jury questionnaire. Obviously if they lied and hid the bias, that’s on them. If they were honest and acknowledged the bias, then the judge failed miserably.
In any case, it would be a shame if monomaniacal zeal to damage Trump, results in people who might have actually committed crimes going free. It would also be a shame if the legal process was perverted in an attempt to bring about political harm.
Sunday, February 9, 2020
Ldfps
“you’re a lying dog-faced pony solider”
It seems that Joe Biden thinks this phrase is a good way to garner support during the DFL primaries. I think it may be one more sign that he’s losing it.
The bigger question is who else can we apply this to?
It seems that Joe Biden thinks this phrase is a good way to garner support during the DFL primaries. I think it may be one more sign that he’s losing it.
The bigger question is who else can we apply this to?
Monday, February 3, 2020
Rush
Full disclosure, I haven’t listened to political talk radio in years. It sounds like Rush announced that he’s been diagnosed with lung cancer and will be out sporadically for treatment. I wish him the best, and that he’ll become closer to God during this time.
Having said that, here’s what one leftist had to say.
“Good. I hope it's painful and slow and he loses his voice so he can stop spewing the same poison for 30 years.”
I don’t understand the desire to publicly wish additional pain and suffering on another human being.
At least Tulsi Gabbard has a little class and compassion.
“To Rush Limbaugh: I and my family send our love and best wishes to you and your loved ones at this difficult moment in your life. May your hearts and minds be filled with and strengthened by God's love.”
So much better than hate.
Having said that, here’s what one leftist had to say.
“Good. I hope it's painful and slow and he loses his voice so he can stop spewing the same poison for 30 years.”
I don’t understand the desire to publicly wish additional pain and suffering on another human being.
At least Tulsi Gabbard has a little class and compassion.
“To Rush Limbaugh: I and my family send our love and best wishes to you and your loved ones at this difficult moment in your life. May your hearts and minds be filled with and strengthened by God's love.”
So much better than hate.
Sunday, February 2, 2020
50 years
After 50 years, the Kansas City Chiefs won the Super Bowl! Looking forward to the celebration on Wednesday!
What does it say...
What does it say about us as Christians, if what non Christians primary see is us...
Putting our differences of politics ahead of our commonalities in Christ?
Identifying primarily as a ______________. Christian, rather than simply a Christian?
Conversations between Christians marked by rancor, argument, vitriol, and division?
If anyone has anything else, chime in.
Putting our differences of politics ahead of our commonalities in Christ?
Identifying primarily as a ______________. Christian, rather than simply a Christian?
Conversations between Christians marked by rancor, argument, vitriol, and division?
If anyone has anything else, chime in.
Saturday, February 1, 2020
What???
Conservative activist organizes clean up in San Francisco, for some reason liberals protest.
Evil
The NYP is reporting on a fine, upstanding young man who raped the twin 4 year old daughters of his girlfriend leaving them with a special gift to remember him by, gonorrhea.
Of course the prosecutor has to ask for more than the maximum sentence because there’s no option for something like the death penalty.
This is heinous, but abortion is not only legal, it’s celebrated.
Of course the prosecutor has to ask for more than the maximum sentence because there’s no option for something like the death penalty.
This is heinous, but abortion is not only legal, it’s celebrated.
Busses
I see a lot of my liberal friends posting a meme that compares voting to catching a bus. The point is to emphasize that even if the bus doesn’t get you all the way from A to B, that you get on the bus anyway because it gets you closer to your destination than if you turn around and go back home. Surprisingly to some, I completely agree. You’ll never find the 100% perfect candidate, so you vote for the one you agree with more.
Where I find this amusing, is that it perfectly describes a lot of people I know who voted for Trump. I’m wondering if they really understand (or care) that this meme applies both ways and that maybe we should be extending grace to people who don’t vote the way we do. Maybe we could acknowledge that people have (in their own opinion) good, logical reasoning that informs their vote, and that they are not wrong, evil, racist, or deplorable for their choice.
Maybe if we just acknowledged that the folx or the other side of the aisle are imperfect, fallible, sincere people who are voting for the candidate of their choice for their reasons.
When I was young, and went to vote with my parents, I’d ask who they voted for and they’d always tell me that our votes are private. Maybe that’s not a bad thing, keeping our votes private. Or if not, maybe we shouldn’t attack people and malign their character because of who they vote for.
If I’ve done this, my goal is to stop.
Where I find this amusing, is that it perfectly describes a lot of people I know who voted for Trump. I’m wondering if they really understand (or care) that this meme applies both ways and that maybe we should be extending grace to people who don’t vote the way we do. Maybe we could acknowledge that people have (in their own opinion) good, logical reasoning that informs their vote, and that they are not wrong, evil, racist, or deplorable for their choice.
Maybe if we just acknowledged that the folx or the other side of the aisle are imperfect, fallible, sincere people who are voting for the candidate of their choice for their reasons.
When I was young, and went to vote with my parents, I’d ask who they voted for and they’d always tell me that our votes are private. Maybe that’s not a bad thing, keeping our votes private. Or if not, maybe we shouldn’t attack people and malign their character because of who they vote for.
If I’ve done this, my goal is to stop.
Say it isn’t so!
The DNC open up a debate spot for an old, white, billionaire while blocking candidates of color. They also appear to be trying to screw Bernie for the second consecutive campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)