Recently, I've seen a lot of people on various media and social media outlets addressing the issue of how to handle the Syrian refugees. Most of the responses from those who would identify as progressive christians tend to go something like this.
"We need to show love for the least of these because Jesus was once a homeless refugee"
Well, that sounds very loving and pious, but what about specifics? How specifically do these folks suggest that we show love to these people?
The most common response I've heard is that we need to bring tens of thousands of these refugees to the US, with out screening them to much because they're refugees.
OK, what then?
What happens after we bring X number of refugees into the US?
I suspect that a number of these people will end up on some sort of public assistance for some undefined period of time. Which, of course, has to be paid for by someone.
So now, this solution looks more like, "We need to borrow billions of dollars to bring X number of refugees into the US and support them indefinitely because Jesus was once a homeless refugee."
Lest anyone think that I am heartless, I realize that there will be situations where it is necessary to do exactly the above. Is this one of those situations? I don't know.
Here's where I have a problem with the progressive christian "solution".
1. It sounds like one more instance of the christian left wanting to make US federal government policy based on what they think Jesus would do. To me that sounds like a call to at least a limited theocracy.
2. While the Bible talks about believers and charity, I'm not sure it ever suggests that the believers obligation to help the less fortunate can be transferred to the federal government and away from the believer.
3. Does it address the why question? Why are their all these refugees and what can be done to solve the problem?
Ultimately it's the why that really get's me. The reason why we have this refugee crisis is that a bunch of radical Muslims want to establish a caliphate and don't appear to care what harm that goal causes for anyone in their way. Or, put another way, "Why do we have this crisis? ISIS.".
So, why don't we invest in actually solving the problem? What would the christian left have to say about the best way to do that?
I haven't actually heard anyone from that side come up with anything that we should do, but I've heard enough about what we shouldn't.
In short, their answer is pacifistic and nonviolent in nature. Don't fight them. Don't drop bombs. Don't make them angry. Turn the other cheek, because Jesus said so.
I guess my questions is what are these folks actually doing about the root problem? Is it enough to simply advocate that the US government address the symptom of the problem (refugees) because Jesus, who was a homeless refugee, wants us to? Or should there be more?
Where are the teams of trained NVDA folks on the ground in the caliphate? Where are the hospitals and feeding centers in the caliphate opened by the American christian left? Where are the American progressive christians standing in front of the armed columns of ISIS fighters showing them love in the name of Jesus? Why is it considered enough to advocate for governmental charity from the safety of suburban America, while not being willing to risk anything by going to where the problem is? Is it really what Jesus called us to to simply advocate for the spending of other peoples money to succor those in need?
Now, I'm not saying that I have any answers. But, I'm also not advocating for any specific governmental policy.
Does the government have a role? Sure it does.
Does the Church have a role? Sure it does.
I'd just like to see and hear some substantive solutions from the christian left, beyond "Let them in because Jesus was a homeless refugee.".
Any chance of getting any specifics?
117 comments:
Specifics:
1. why don't we invest in actually solving the problem? What would the christian left have to say about the best way to do that?
Bombing nations (including innocent bystanders, as has happened to the tune of hundreds of thousands of lives) HELPS ISIS, it feeds into their message that the West is engaged in a war against Muslims, and gives credibility to people who are otherwise viewed as thugs and villains.
Thus, accepting refugees into liberty-loving nations IS one of the better ways to deal with the ISIS/terrorists types. I/we would counter that those who love liberty, democracy, human rights, religious liberty, responsible compassion... that when we live up to our ideals, that our ideals are are strongest weapons we have in the struggle against criminals like ISIS. It demonstrates the greater (I believe) value of human rights and liberty (and yes, actual Christian values of love for enemy and the oppressed) over against the sort of violent cowardice of violent extremists.
Now, I am not opposed to other solutions provided that they actually work to help with human rights. Thus, IF we could provide a safe place in Syria for Syrians and have it actually work, I'm okay with that. I just don't know how we do that and have not heard any solid proposals from anyone else (rational proposals, I have seen "nuke them until it's a desert of glass over there" but I'm talking about actual proposals that are not crazy). Forcing democracies in other nations is not a cheap nor easily accomplished goal, as we have learned from the Bush and Reagan administrations (and, sometimes to a lesser degree, carried on by the Clinton and Obama administrations). In the short term, we have people who immediately need protection, help, sanctuary. We are in a position, here and now to save those lives and that in and of itself would lead to a stronger case against ISIS and help promote democracy and human rights the world over.
The thing is, we can't do nothing and we can't opt for "solutions" that threaten innocent endangered lives. That's what we would say.
2. What happens after we bring X number of refugees into the US?
I suspect that a number of these people will end up on some sort of public assistance for some undefined period of time. Which, of course, has to be paid for by someone.
Obama has talked about receiving 10,000 refugees. One possible solution is to do just what our small church has done: Help these refugees. At our small church with under 100 congregants, we have helped with at least 3 refugee families (10 people) to help establish them here. If our small church can do this, and then each of the other churches, synagogues, mosques and interested organizations did the same thing, we could easily accommodate these 10,000 refugees. Boom! It's done. No great additional cost to government.
Further, if the option to accepting refugees is to engage in wars in foreign lands to "pacify" (or rather, ATTEMPT to pacify) the terrorist-types, then that is going to come at a much greater cost than any refugee assistance will raise.
It sounds like one more instance of the christian left wanting to make US federal government policy based on what they think Jesus would do. To me that sounds like a call to at least a limited theocracy.
We are not calling for the federal gov't to do it "because Jesus advocated it." We are calling for solutions because we believe it's what Jesus would do. Now, from there, what solutions are reasonable? Are there some involving private/NGO types? Sure, and we can implement them, because why wouldn't we? Are there some solutions that might involve gov't policy and dollars? Sure, there could be, as long as they make reasonable sense and we're not pushing it SOLELY because "it's what Jesus would do..."
That is, Christians may believe that God doesn't want us to kill people, but we don't create laws against it SOLELY for that reason, but rather, because it is a violation of human rights, whatever you believe about God. Same thing. It's not a theocracy to have religious reasons for supporting laws. It's a theocracy when you want to push laws SOLELY for religious reasons.
2. While the Bible talks about believers and charity, I'm not sure it ever suggests that the believers obligation to help the less fortunate can be transferred to the federal government and away from the believer.
It doesn't. Nor does it ban such a thing. Of course, in the Bible, we are never dealing with democracies, but in the context of the Bible's times, we do see "federal" or State laws that require treating poor folk and refugees with charity and justice (see the Jubilee and Sabbath laws, for instance). Further, we see in the Bible times where STATES were held accountable for their failure to act on behalf of the poor, not just individuals in the state. So, it's not an unreasonable thing to think that we can expect help for the less fortunate at a state level, if one looks at the Bible.
In short, though, the specifics ARE that accepting refugees in does help, non-violently, to deal with the problems of ISIS, and does so in ways that we believe are way more effective than attempts to bomb ISIS (or the Taliban, or Osama, or the thug of the day) can do. Accepting refugees IS a NVDA against the criminal element who'd use violence to try to get what they want.
I'll repeat: What we believe is that our ideals are our best weapon against cowardly criminals. That, and treating them like criminals that need to be arrested and help accountable for their actions, not legitimate state actors where we need to wage a war.
That is a specific, and a significant one, too. That's what we are saying.
Conversely, I am not seeing any specifics from the Right on this one, other than vague, veiled threats from boy-men like Trump who say, from the safety of his bullet-proof life, "They wouldn't do that if I was president..." Or, "I would bomb the shit out of ISIS..." which Obama is already doing.
Yeah, that's helpful.
I have to admit I'm not a "progressive" and don't have any help to offer on your question, but I'm completely baffled by this "Jesus was a homeless refugee" claim. I mean, I know He didn't "have a place to lay His head", but I don't recall Him spending any time trying to find one or asking for help or ... you know, anything that would sound like "a homeless refugee". What are those who use this phrase talking about?
"What are those who use this phrase talking about?"
I suspect it's a way to legitimize the focus on social gospel things. It's certainly become more and more popular especially this time of year.
Dan,
I don't have much time right now, but I will get to your comments at some point. I am going to give you some latitude vis-a-vis your commenting privileges on this thread. I'll hit a couple of things for now.
"Thus, accepting refugees into liberty-loving nations IS one of the better ways to deal with the ISIS/terrorists types."
1. A case could be made that by removing these people from the territory occupied by ISIS that in actuality we are helping them. If we take away all of those who would oppose ISIS it simply allows them more control over the territory they have conquered.
2. Your hunch above might be more logical if you were talking about these people assimilating into the cultures of the countries they were going to. I think that if one looks at Europe and areas in the US with high concentrations of Muslim immigrants it is reasonable to conclude that there is less assimilation than other groups of immigrants.
3. Can you actually provide any support for your hunch? Can you show one instance where a freedom loving nation accepting these immigrants has done anything to stop or slow the expansion of ISIS?
"That's what we would say."
If by "we" you mean the American political left you might want to re-think how much you represent the American political left.
"In short, though, the specifics ARE that accepting refugees in does help, non-violently, to deal with the problems of ISIS,..."
OK, I get that you believe this to be the case. But using ALL CAPS to emphasize your hunch doesn't make it correct. If you have actual real life specific examples, then bring them on. I'd be happy to see them.
More later.
"What are those who use this phrase talking about?"
Jesus and his parents were, according to the Bible, refugees from a crazy, deadly despot King. It's in the Christmas story found in the Bible, perhaps you're familiar with it?
Sorry for the snark, just funnin' with you guys. But seriously, yes, he was a refugee whose parents fled their nation to save his life, remember? That's what they/we are talking about.
. I think that if one looks at Europe and areas in the US with high concentrations of Muslim immigrants it is reasonable to conclude that there is less assimilation than other groups of immigrants.
It is not uncommon for immigrant groups have some difficulties integrating to the new society. Sometimes, it takes a generation or two. Look at our own history. It happens, it's a good thing. I don't know that I've read any hard data to support your hunch.
"One possible solution is to do just what our small church has done: Help these refugees. At our small church with under 100 congregants, we have helped with at least 3 refugee families (10 people) to help establish them here. If our small church can do this, and then each of the other churches, synagogues, mosques and interested organizations did the same thing, we could easily accommodate these 10,000 refugees. Boom! It's done. No great additional cost to government."
I have absolutely no problem with individuals or groups of individuals who freely choose to do what you are suggesting you are doing. I applaud it. The problem is that the American political left is not advocating doing what you are suggesting. If they were I don't think that I would have a problem with it.
I have to ask about the specifics of your actions.
1. Are you covering the entire financial cost of bringing these families to the US?
2. Are you going to provide ongoing financial support for these families?
3. Are you going to provide employment for them or find employment for them?
4. If these families are not Christian will there be any mention of Jesus as the reason why you are doing this?
5. Will there be a long term effort to encourage these families to assimilate?
6. Are you suggesting that this behavior somehow be mandated for others?
1. It depends on the family and situation. Some costs borne by us, some by the families, some by unknown entities.
2. No. These people don't want handouts, they want jobs and have proven adept at getting jobs.
3. See above.
4. No. They know we are christians by our love. Why would we? In at least one case, a Muslim lady attends our church simply because we are friends and good, loving, fun people.
5. These are adults. They will decide for themselves how much they will or won't assimilate and we will respect that because we are adults and not jerks.
More later...
"Bombing nations (including innocent bystanders, as has happened to the tune of hundreds of thousands of lives) HELPS ISIS, it feeds into their message that the West is engaged in a war against Muslims, and gives credibility to people who are otherwise viewed as thugs and villains."
There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anything we do or have done has made any difference into the ability of radical islamists to recruit and continue their war on the world. None. The mere fact that we don't believe absolutely as they do (note the numbers of other muslims fallen victim to the radicals) is all they've ever needed to perpetuate their violent ways. It's not that they hate anything we do. It's that they love only what they believe and intend to force it upon the world.
Thus, taking in any families doesn't have any affect on those who are merely hoping and waiting for the chance to engage in the same nonsense from which they claim to be escaping. What's more, there are far fewer examples of muslims striving to assimilate than there are those insisting on imposing their own notions of islam on whatever nation or state that welcomes them. If it cannot be guaranteed that refugees wish to assimilate (and that is a huge question since if they weren't running from scumbags, they wouldn't be running at all), then the good deluded lefty christians believe they are doing is far outweighed by the risks to our own people. The left hasn't shown it has the brains to even do good things properly.
Thus, taking in any families doesn't have any affect on those who are merely hoping and waiting for the chance to engage in the same nonsense from which they claim to be escaping.
What's more, there are far fewer examples of muslims striving to assimilate than there are those insisting on imposing their own notions of islam on whatever nation or state that welcomes them.
Those are fine theories, Marshall. Do you have one iota of data to support them?
As to my theory, at this point, I would say it's a theory, not provable, but a reasonable one to many people. I believe I have read data and research to support this theory but don't have that data at my fingertips. I will say that it's a theory that is supportable by biblical teaching, though. Jesus, the prophets and Paul all teach us that by being kind to our enemies, it is like pouring hot coals on their heads, it is a way of overcoming evil with good, of shaming people into acting right. But at any rate, I am glad to admit I can't prove it definitively, just as you have no data to prove that "bombing the hell out of them" will make things better, or that ignoring the situation and letting people be killed will make things better. The advantage I have with my theory is that it doesn't involve us taking actions that lead directly to killing innocent men, women and children.
Do you have any data to support your hunches? Of course, I know you don't, so are you glad to admit as much?
Craig, your last question...
6. Are you suggesting that this behavior somehow be mandated for others?
Am I suggesting that we mandate churches do just what we are doing? No, absolutely not.
On the other hand, do I believe that we can reasonably tax one another for projects we deem to be in our national/community interests? Yes, of course I do, as I am sure you do, as well. I believe that education pays off, for instance, and an uneducated nation would be disastrous. So, to that end, I am fine with taxing one another - even people without children - to pay for educational needs. I believe that we need prisons, fire departments, police forces and libraries and am fine with taxing us all, even though I may never need a fire department or a police officer personally. I believe that extending assistance of some sort to refugees is very much like those things. You may or may not agree in the case of refugee-related expenses, but you certainly agree with the concept of taxation for agreed-upon expenses (correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think you disagree).
Does that answer your question?
As to this...
The problem is that the American political left is not advocating doing what you are suggesting.
The American left, by and large, has absolutely no problem with non-profits and private individuals stepping up and helping solve problems. What they go on to say, however, is failing the private sector stepping up and solving these problems, we as a nation have a responsibility to act. Now, IF the private sector takes care of the problem, believe me, the Left is completely fine with it. But we are just not willing to say, "If the private sector doesn't step up and take care of the problem, then we believe the problem should just be left alone to fester. People should be left to be killed, raped, tortured and oppressed.
Don't mistake the Left being willing to act to solve a problem, even if it involves the gov't taking action, with them being opposed to the private sector stepping up.
You want to keep gov't out of the refugee problem? Solve the problem at the private level. Failing that, get out of the way so somebody can do something.
This seems reasonable to me.
I'd just like to see and hear some substantive solutions from the christian left, beyond "Let them in because Jesus was a homeless refugee.".
For Christians, I wonder what is wrong with just this much? Remembering that Jesus, too, had to escape violence in his own land and that if there was no safe haven for Jesus, he would have been murdered as a child, that seems like a reasonable thing to consider. Just like in the OT, when Israel is constantly reminded, "be welcoming to foreigners for YOU were once foreigners yourselves," is a sufficient reminder in itself. It seems incredibly reasonable, from a biblical and just a humane and humble starting point. We were, indeed, foreigners once ourselves.
I'm also not advocating for any specific governmental policy.
As for me, I'm only advocating that we don't let people die. If there are political or cultural refugees who are escaping from their countries out of fear of their lives, I say that the only humane thing to do - whether you are a believer or not - is not stand by and let them die, to not refuse them entry to your nation (if that's what it takes) and let them die, and to not say, "We want to help, but just not by letting you into our nation" and then failing to provide an alternative and letting them die.
If you are not proposing any specific gov't solutions to a human rights crisis, then please, step aside and let people who are proposing something get the job done. I don't mind someone having alternative ideas that are workable - by all means, propose away! - but having NO proposals and criticizing those who are at least trying does not seem to be a rational, moral or humane approach and we will ignore those sorts of people as meddlers. Not saying that's you, but just to anyone who'd propose "do nothing" when lives are at stake, and then criticize those taking actions. An alternative proposal is your ticket into the conversation.
Lives are literally at stake. And here, I'm not just talking about Syria, but about many of our refugee crisis situations, Middle East, Latin America, etc.
Where are the hospitals and feeding centers in the caliphate opened by the American christian left?
There are progressive Christian organizations and Christian individuals all over the world doing work like this, including in Muslim nations. See PCUSA World Mission, for instance. We do tend to do a "work WITH" approach, rather than a "Work TO" or "Work FOR" approach. That is, we tend to want to work in cooperation with what people actually want and work hand in hand, so we don't tend to force ourselves in situations where we or our services are not wanted (by the people). Basic human respect.
Nonetheless, we are present in nations across the world, including Muslim nations, doing this sort of work. I have friends in Morocco, for instance, doing all manner of good work along these lines. We have a Reclaiming Christmas Project where we encourage our families and friends to give to this project (one in Morocco, one in Nicaragua) to help people help themselves. If you'd like to donate to this effort, just let me know. Of course, I know you do your own work, so I'm not suggesting you have to, just letting you know that we are actively involved in work with Muslims and other at-risk peoples and, should you want to help in that way, I'd be glad to connect you.
Peace.
"As for me, I'm only advocating that we don't let people die."
This from a guy who supports the continued legalization of abortion. By doing so, he is not merely "letting" people die...he is complicit in their deaths. His support makes it easier to have more people killed. Not merely "people", but "the least of these".
More on my position regarding refugees later.
Dan,
RE Your responses
1. By "unknown entities" do you potentially include the government?
2. So these people have taken zero "handouts" from anyone? None of them have availed themselves of any assistance?
3. So, your answer is no. Why is that? Does your church not have any employers who attend there?
4. Again your answer seems to be that you will not mention Jesus or share the gospel with these families.
5. So, you will not even offer encouragement to assimilate? None? Do you not think that a higher degree of assimilation will help them to be successful?
6. So your answer seems to be that you wouldn't force others to follow your example, but that you would increase taxes in order to have "government" bear the cost of resettling at a minimum tens of thousands of immigrants. Given that, it seems that your answer is "Yes, I believe that the taxpayers should be mandated to fund this." You do, of course, realize that we can't tax people enough now to support everything our government does, but you would still like to tax us all more.
1. By "unknown entities" do you potentially include the government?
By "unknown" I mean, I do not know what other sources of assistance they received, if any, in their trip from here to there. I do not have a complete financial affidavit certified by a professional CPA that tells me all of their financial business. Their complete financial history is unknown to me. I, for one, do not need it.
2. So these people have taken zero "handouts" from anyone? None of them have availed themselves of any assistance?
No, we've all ganged in and helped them, as well as them helping us, as well as us helping one another. It's what we do for one another in my community. I have received "handouts" from friends at times and I've "handed out" with friends (old and new) at times. It's called sharing with one another. I am unaware of the total number of "handouts" (assistance and mutual support are less demeaning terms, I'd suggest, if you don't want to be demeaning) that any of my friends have received. I'm not keeping track, as I want to treat people like responsible adults. But all of "our" refugees have gotten jobs and moved on to where, so far as I know, they are not receiving financial support from others, given some time.
3. So, your answer is no. Why is that? Does your church not have any employers who attend there?
I didn't say No. I said they've all gotten jobs of various sorts. I didn't say we didn't employ some of these folks. Just as my friends sent work my way when I was temporarily out of work, so too, we have sent work their way.
4. Again your answer seems to be that you will not mention Jesus or share the gospel with these families.
I do not know what that has to do with the price of tea in China. We're talking about saving people's lives from immediate danger. We are not so crass as to "use" their difficulty as a time to push our religion on them. Again, we believe in treating people like adults, with respect, not as children who need to be preached down to. I'm not sure what you're looking for with this question or what it has to do with anything related to the topic. At all.
5. So, you will not even offer encouragement to assimilate? None? Do you not think that a higher degree of assimilation will help them to be successful?
Again, these are ADULTS, they do not need me to tell them how to behave. I will not tell a Muslim woman that she "ought to" get rid of the burka (if she wore one) to assimilate, any more than I'd tell the Amish man he needs to shave his beard in order to assimilate.
Do I think that a higher degree of assimilation would help? It really depends on the circumstances. They all, to a person, recognize a need to be fluent in English, so there was no need for me to tell these adults what they already know. They all, to a person, were/are working on that. Again, if they are asking me some opinions, adult to adult, I'll be glad to offer my opinions. But these are adults, I do not presume to tell them what they need to do.
Again, I'm not sure what your point is here. Do you presume to tell others how to live or to what degree they need to assimilate? Do you tell them they really ought to start going to a Christian church, for instance, to better assimilate? That they really ought to abandon parts of their belief systems to assimilate? Do you think talking down to them is helpful in some way?
All of the people I have dealt with (admittedly, a small number, thus far), are responsible adults trying to figure things out. One latino friend of mine (who does speak English) would really like to speak English better. I would like to speak Spanish better. We, therefore, strive to chat in the others' language and ask questions all the time. Again, just treating him like an adult. What else would you suggest?
6. So your answer seems to be that you wouldn't force others to follow your example, but that you would increase taxes in order to have "government" bear the cost of resettling at a minimum tens of thousands of immigrants.
IF the private sector is not solving a societal problem, then yes, I have no problem with creating programs to resolve the problems. What do you propose? Ignoring the problem? Refusing to deal with life/death situations? What are you advocating?
Given that, it seems that your answer is "Yes, I believe that the taxpayers should be mandated to fund this." You do, of course, realize that we can't tax people enough now to support everything our government does, but you would still like to tax us all more.
Well, I, for one, would be more than glad to cut out about $400 billion from our defense budget. That would free up a great deal of resources. You, however, believe that the taxpayers should be mandated to fund all that defense budget, am I correct? So, I'm not sure of what your point is. We BOTH believe in taxation to fund programs. We disagree on what programs to fund and to what extent. That's the nature of a free republic. I am just not willing to roll over and say, "well, Craig and his friends want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on these programs, so we really don't have any money to fund the programs that I'd like to fund, so, I'll just be quiet."
Not going to happen. Not when lives are on the line.
Dan,
You keep acting as if the immigrants are the problem, the problem is ISIS and it's drive to establish a caliphate. So, you really need to demonstrate how your claims will solve the problem, not deal with the symptom.
"Bombing nations (including innocent bystanders, as has happened to the tune of hundreds of thousands of lives) HELPS ISIS, it feeds into their message that the West is engaged in a war against Muslims, and gives credibility to people who are otherwise viewed as thugs and villains."
(a) Please provide some actual documented evidence of this claim please? I cannot accept it simply because you have asserted it.
"Thus, accepting refugees into liberty-loving nations IS one of the better ways to deal with the ISIS/terrorists types."
Again, some actual proof of this would be helpful. So far, we've seen hundreds of thousands of people leaving the caliphate and all that has happened is that the caliphate has grown and continued to attract additional fighters. (b) So, can you provided any evidence to support your assertions?
"The thing is, we can't do nothing and we can't opt for "solutions" that threaten innocent endangered lives. That's what we would say."
(c)Who is "we"?
(d)How many innocent lives are "we" willing to accept as "we" try to figure out effective solutions?
"Thus, IF we could provide a safe place in Syria for Syrians and have it actually work,..."
(e) How do you know that "we" are unable to provide a safe place in Syria, have "we" tried?
(f) What efforts have the current administration taken to help these people in Syria/Iraq?
(g) Why are the other Muslim nations in close proximity to Syria not being asked/expected to take care of this problem?
(h) Why is is that Muslim nations have such a terrible track record of helping those who share both an ethnicity and religion with them?
"Further, if the option to accepting refugees is to engage in wars in foreign lands to "pacify" (or rather, ATTEMPT to pacify) the terrorist-types, then that is going to come at a much greater cost than any refugee assistance will raise."
(i) How much will it cost to fight a war to eliminate ISIS?
(j) How much will it cost to take an unknown number of immigrants and resettle them in the US?
(k) How much for Europe? Canada? etc?
(l) How can you declare that it is impossible to destroy ISIS an turn the caliphate back over to it's rightful owners?
(m) Why are you assuming that any military option would be totally borne by the US?
"We are not calling for the federal gov't to do it "because Jesus advocated it." We are calling for solutions because we believe it's what Jesus would do."
So "we" are advocating that the US government make US foreign policy based on your religious views.
(n) So why are your religious views about what in your opinion "Jesus would do" appropriate as a basis for US government policy, when others religious views (on abortion for example) are not?
"So, it's not an unreasonable thing to think that we can expect help for the less fortunate at a state level, if one looks at the Bible."
Since the "state" in question was the Hebrew theocracy, it seems as if the only way to support your point is to encourage another theocracy.
"In short, though, the specifics ARE that accepting refugees in does help, non-violently, to deal with the problems of ISIS, and does so in ways that we believe are way more effective than attempts to bomb ISIS (or the Taliban, or Osama, or the thug of the day) can do."
(o) I've asked you for support for this beyond using ALL CAPS for the word "ARE", but I haven't seen it, when will you provide such support?
"Accepting refugees IS a NVDA against the criminal element who'd use violence to try to get what they want."
(p) How is removing anyone who might resist ISIS stopping them from "getting what they want"?
(q) How has removing anyone who might resist stopped them previously from expanding their caliphate?
(r) At what point will this effective NVDA strategy actually stop the expansion of the caliphate?
"What we believe is that our ideals are our best weapon against cowardly criminals. That, and treating them like criminals that need to be arrested and help accountable for their actions, not legitimate state actors where we need to wage a war."
(s) How have your ideals actually stopped anything ISIS has done so far?
(t) What jurisdiction is in place to punish the "criminal" actions perpetrated by ISIS?
(u) Who is going to nonviolently arrest, prosecute and detain ISIS?
(v) What other criminal organization has established a de facto state and raise an army complete to tanks and artillery to establish, expand, and defend it?
(w) Why should anyone take your "belief" seriously, given the fact that it hasn't been an effective deterrent anywhere, ever?
"That is a specific, and a significant one, too. That's what we are saying."
(x) It may be a specific belief, but so far it hasn't translated into any specifi action that actually solves the problem.
(y) Who is "we"? It's certainly not the democrat president or presidential candidates, is it?
That takes care of your initial three comments.
I will add that many of our friends (refugees, homeless, just one another) have had, at one time case workers, social workers, medical advisors and others who've more closely monitored specifics, when it was needed. It's not like we have a drug addict and we just give them cash when they ask for it. There is appropriate monitoring when appropriate. But in all instances, we strive to treat one another like a responsible adult. By and large, that works best, in our experience. Plus, it has the benefit of being more consistent with our faith tradition.
Respect, grace, mutual support, love, acceptance... great and practical ideals to live by, thanks be to God.
Now, your questions. Even those the appear rhetorical.
"Now, from there, what solutions are reasonable?"
As long as your preconceptions preclude solutions that don't line up with said preconceptions, then I'd argue that you can't declare your "solutions" reasonable to the exclusion of all others.
"Are there some involving private/NGO types?"
I'm sure there might be.
(z)Sure, how do you propose to keep ISIS from beheading the NGO types once they show up?
(aa) How do you deal with the fact that ISIS is unlikely to allow "christian" NGO's into its territory?
(bb) Where are the motivated by Jesus NVDA types on the ground in the caliphate right now?
(cc) If they're not there, why not?
"Sure, and we can implement them, because why wouldn't we?"
I'm sure there are plenty actually helping people right now.
"Are there some solutions that might involve gov't policy and dollars?"
From your standpoint I'd assume the answer is yes. I'd suggest that any real solution will. But it seems to make sense that these dollars be directed at the most effective solution to the actual problem. So far I've seen little from the left.
There, all of your questions from your first three comments answered.
"Jesus and his parents were, according to the Bible, refugees from a crazy, deadly despot King. It's in the Christmas story found in the Bible, perhaps you're familiar with it?"
If one accepts that God is sovereign, and once one realizes that Jesus family going to Egypt was a fulfillment of prophecy, then it's hard to come to any conclusion but that which suggests that the trip to Egypt was part of God's plan.
Further, it's just a way to stir up an emotional response and to try to guilt people into responding in a certain way on certain political issues.
"Where are the hospitals and feeding centers in the caliphate opened by the American christian left?"
(dd) I saw this question from MA, and noticed that you didn't actually answer it, would you care to?
(ee) You did mention some places where things are being done outside of the caliphate, so how about answering the question as asked?
"By "unknown" I mean, I do not know what other sources of assistance they received,..."
So, the "unknown" assistance could include governmental assistance. Why not just soy so.
"No, we've all ganged in and helped them..."
This is great, but it doesn't preclude these folks availing themselves of govt aid also.
"I didn't say No..."
I specifically asked if people in your circle had given them jobs, you didn't answer yes, so now you are.
"I do not know what that has to do with the price of tea in China."
Curiosity. It seems to me that if I was being motivated by Jesus to do certain things I'd want to let people know how much my commitment to Jesus means to me, and how I'm doing what I'm doing because if the effect Jesus has had on me. But to each his own, I guess.
"Again, these are ADULTS, they do not need me to tell them how to behave."
I didn't ask what you tell them, I asked if you encourage them. Which, to judge by the rest of your response, you do. Wouldn't it have been easier to just say yes you do rather than to jump to the wrong conclusion.
Once again, answers to all of your questions.
"Do I think that a higher degree of assimilation would help?"
I assume you do.
"Do you presume to tell others how to live or to what degree they need to assimilate?"
No, in my personal work with dozens of immigrant families I have not presumed to tell any of the hundred plus people what they must do. I have given them advice, encouragement, and many other things as I was building homes for them.
"Do you tell them they really ought to start going to a Christian church, for instance, to better assimilate?"
No, but that doesn't stop me from encouraging them to do just that.
"That they really ought to abandon parts of their belief systems to assimilate?"
No, but given the right circumstance I would have a conversation about the relative merits of Christianity v. Islam and encourage them to thoughtfully consider Christianity.
"Do you think talking down to them is helpful in some way?"
Never said I did. I try really hard in dealing with the hundreds of immigrant families I personally deal with to avoid doing just that.
"What else would you suggest?"
Nothing specific, I'm just trying to figure out what you are actually doing.
(ff) Do you understand what encourage means?
(gg) Do you understand the difference between encouraging someone to do something and demanding that they do something?
"I have no problem with creating programs to resolve the problems. What do you propose?"
I propose that taxing people to do things based on your religious views is something that usually is frowned upon by the left. Except in this situation. I would propose funding things that actually work, as opposed to simply throwing money at some undefined goal.
"Ignoring the problem? Refusing to deal with life/death situations? What are you advocating?"
No, I'm advocating that we not tax people more because Jesus said we should do this.
"You, however, believe that the taxpayers should be mandated to fund all that defense budget, am I correct?"
I do agree that constitutionally mandated things should be funded. (hh)It seems as though you are suggesting that we simply abandon the constitutional mandate for the defense of the country and do what exactly?
"Not going to happen. Not when lives are on the line."
(ii) So how do you justify any limits on using US tax dollars to save any lives?
(jj) How can you justify excluding some methods of saving lives?
(kk) Do you absolve every other nation of saving these lives?
(ll) What are you advocating to encourage the Muslim nations to embrace this "Save all lives at all costs" philosophy?
OK, I've spent about 90 minutes responding to your comments, answering virtually every question you've asked (through 12/14 @8:52 AM), and asking you for some clarification, follow up and support. (I even provided you a handy key to identify my questions for you)
I can only hope that you will have the grace to respond in kind.
I did delete your personal attack on MA.
Dan,
FYI, I am personally involved in a couple of places where I am providing assistance for people in need.
In one case, the organization I work for provides affordable home ownership opportunities for low income families. This is an organization founded on Biblical principles and is based in the Christian faith. Currently the vast majority of the families we serve are Muslim immigrants. I think it's safe to say that I have a significant amount of personal experience with this situation. A few parts of the process.
1. Every prospective home buyer goes through a series of classes that includes both things that they "should" do as well as a number of things they "must" do.
2. Every single family that buys a home is told specifically that the underpinning for everything that happens is the Christian faith.
3. Every single family receives a Bible.
I am also involved with a group that provides multiple services to the people in the NW zone of the country of Haiti, I specifically am involved with a group os eye surgeons who travel twice a year to St Louis du Nord and provide eye care for almost 2000 Haitians per year.
1. Every single patient who gets treatment is specifically prayed with and for.
2. Every patient is aware through a variety of different methods that the motivation for the services they receive is the Christian faith of the providers.
Are people in either case refused if they aren't Christians, no. Are they forced into anything for the most part, no. (Home buyers are required to accept some things, but none of them involve anything Christian)
So, I'd suggest that if one is motivated by ones faith to help people it is something that is perfectly appropriate to make a part of the process. Not just in some amorphous non-specific, osmosis kind of way but as an integral part of the process.
Oh, I do happen to live in a city with a significant population of Muslim immigrants and I spend quite a bit of time both in the communities where they live and interacting with individual Muslim immigrants. So, while I would not claim to be an expert by any means, I do think that I have a degree of experience that allows me to make some observations that are not without value.
I know it's not helping 3 families, but it's not nothing either.
You keep acting as if the immigrants are the problem, the problem is ISIS and it's drive to establish a caliphate.
Of course, the problem is those who'd engage in violence. We need to deal with the problem, no one is saying otherwise. But the immediate problem is that there are people whose lives are at risk, here, now. We must deal with the immediate problem and not engage in wishful thinking that maybe if we bomb ISIS targets (and keep hitting innocent bystanders in the process, making us part of the threat) that this will somehow magically stop the threat and make these people safe.
One of the people who is part of our community is a Muslim woman who escaped death threats in the middle east. She sees clearly that the problem are the thugs who'd try to enforce their religious zealotry with violence and oppression. Being here, now, she is in a place to speak out against it as a Muslim opposed to extremists. And she does. Involving peace-loving Muslims is a reasonable step to reaching out to all Muslims, including ones who might be seduced by violent extremists.
(a) Please provide some actual documented evidence of this claim please? I cannot accept it simply because you have asserted it.
Off the top of my head, I can't (although I have read research that helps make the case). So it is my/our opinion, given a reasoned and experienced history of the human condition. It seems rational and moral to us, we, the ones you are speaking of.
Contrariwise, you can provide no data that Bush's invasion of middle eastern nations has done the slightest to decrease the problem of terrorism. It's all opinion, at this point. We CAN state that Bush's invasions did not end terrorism. That is a demonstrable point of fact. We can say that no one solution will be a perfect solution to end all violence. That is a demonstrable fact. Beyond that, we have opinions.
I am glad to admit as much. Are you?
cont'd...
(c)Who is "we"?
The progressive community of which you were addressing your questions, or at least many of us in the progressive realm.
(d)How many innocent lives are "we" willing to accept as "we" try to figure out effective solutions?
We know, as a point of observable reality, that doing nothing will lead to deaths of innocents. You fear that letting in political refugees may possibly perhaps sometimes, maybe, lead to some possible theoretical terrorists getting in to our nation who may then, possibly, try to do bad stuff. Given that reality, I favor saving the lives that we know to be threatened by admitting those in danger over the possible, perhaps risk of maybe some of these refugees might do bad stuff, maybe.
The thing is, any humans we admit to our nation may possibly do bad stuff. So, short of not letting ANY people in, that's not really something we can worry too much about. Of course, people already here may possibly do bad stuff, so if the fear of "letting in people who might do bad stuff" is our criteria for refusing admission, we would not let anyone enter our neighborhoods or houses or communities. We opt not to live in fear of what might happen, not when real threats are happening to actual innocent people.
By all means, screen, take precautions, follow up. But we are a nation built upon the notion of liberty and justice and being a beacon to all those who are poor, tired, huddled masses yearning to breathe free. I think - in my opinion - that living up to our ideals is the best chance we have for facing actual violence in this world. What else can we do? Give up? Live in fear?
Not me.
(e) How do you know that "we" are unable to provide a safe place in Syria, have "we" tried?
I have not said we can't. I am open to reasonable proposals. Just as long as they have some chance of being workable. In the meantime, we have actual lives being threatened and I am not willing to stand by and refuse to help with what we know we can do. That is, in my mind, cowardly and immoral.
And, as a point of fact, we do know we can admit refugees and that will lead to safety and an immediate end to the primary, initial threat. Then, with that immediate threat alleviated, we can proceed to find better, long term answers to the problems of terrorism and deadly violence (on all sides).
More later.
"Of course, the problem is those who'd engage in violence."
(mm) So are you drawing some sort of moral equivalence between the ISIS fighters and the people who are in the duly constituted militaries of the nations who oppose ISIS?
"We need to deal with the problem, no one is saying otherwise."
Of course if we deal decisively with the real problem, then we wouldn't have the immigrant problem.
'We must deal with the immediate problem and not engage in wishful thinking that maybe if we bomb ISIS targets (and keep hitting innocent bystanders in the process, making us part of the threat) that this will somehow magically stop the threat and make these people safe.'
(nn) You keep making this claim, will you ever support it>
(oo) Are you aware that the strategy which you claim is not working, actually appears to be working based on several news reports from today?
(pp) Are you aware that the leadership and potential future leadership of your party, disagree with you?
"One"
Wow, you know one whole Muslim, that makes you an expert right?
"Off the top of my head, I can't.."
(qq) Will you be modifying your claim now that you have admitted that you have no factual basis to make it?
"Contrariwise, you can provide no data that Bush's invasion of middle eastern nations has done the slightest to decrease the problem of terrorism."
I've never made that claim, so why would you expect me to provide evidence to support it. Why not deal with the current situation.
"I am glad to admit as much. Are you?"
You've admitted that one of your major claims of fact, can't be backed up with evidence, so what. The fact that you've made a claim that you admit you can't back up undoubtedly calls into question all of the other unsupported claims you have made here. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to admit, since the only thing you've been specific about is something I haven't actually claimed.
"The progressive community of which you were addressing your questions,..."
The fact that the elected leadership of the "progressive community" as well as the two major presidential candidates supported by the "progressive community", disagree with you calls into question your ability to speak for the "progressive community".
(rr) Can you explain the disconnect between your claims and the actual actions of the "progressive community"?
(ss) Can you demonstrate one instance of the "progressive community" using NVDA tactics on the ground in the caliphate?
(tt)Especially one that has successfully caused any negative consequences for ISIS?
"You fear that letting in political refugees may possibly perhaps sometimes, maybe, lead to some possible theoretical terrorists getting in to our nation who may then, possibly, try to do bad stuff."
Actually I live in a metropolitan area that the FBI considers a significant source of "refugees" doing exactly what you dismiss.
(uu) How can you deny that in both the US and Europe we already have "refugees" who are actively and successfully recruiting people for and engaging in acts of jihad?
"We know, as a point of observable reality, that doing nothing will lead to deaths of innocents."
Since no one is advocating "doing nothing", one wonders why the straw man. Of course, the course of action you advocate guarantees that there will be plenty of "deaths of innocents".
(vv) So what makes your vague and unspecific course of action superior?
"Given that reality, I favor saving the lives that we know to be threatened by admitting those in danger over the possible, perhaps risk of maybe some of these refugees might do bad stuff, maybe."
The fact that you deny the reality that "refugees" are already doing what you say "maybe" is "possible", one wonders if you can be taken seriously.
(ww) How is screening these immigrants and engaging in some sort of process to minimize the risks to innocent US citizens a bad idea?
(xx) You do realize that the most common position on the political right is that there should be a screening process to weed out those who would do us harm, don;t you?
"The thing is, any humans we admit to our nation may possibly do bad stuff. So, short of not letting ANY people in, that's not really something we can worry too much about. Of course, people already here may possibly do bad stuff, so if the fear of "letting in people who might do bad stuff" is our criteria for refusing admission, we would not let anyone enter our neighborhoods or houses or communities. We opt not to live in fear of what might happen, not when real threats are happening to actual innocent people."
(yy) So, your specific plan is just let them all in and deal with the bad ones later?
(zz) How many more San Bernardino jihadist attacks would you be comfortable with in order to let all of these folks in?
"What else can we do? Give up? Live in fear?"
Since no one has suggested any of those three options, why should I bother to answer other than to point out one more straw man.
"I have not said we can't. I am open to reasonable proposals. Just as long as they have some chance of being workable. In the meantime, we have actual lives being threatened and I am not willing to stand by and refuse to help with what we know we can do. That is, in my mind, cowardly and immoral."
(aaa) So, your "specific" plan is to let unlimited "refugees" into the US with little or no screening and not to expect the Muslims nations in the region to do anything?
(bbb) Why are the countries in close proximity to the caliphate who share and ethnicity and religion with the majority of the immigrants failing to offer refuge and help?
(ccc) Wouldn't it be more cost effective (therefore possible to save more people) to find refuges closer to the caliphate, rather than to transport them all over the world?
(ddd) Doesn't your "get them all out of there" condemn a certain number of these immigrants to death anyway simply because it is impossible to get them all out?
(eee) Aren't we simply doing what those in charge of the caliphate want by taking those who out who want to leave?
"And, as a point of fact, we do know we can admit refugees and that will lead to safety and an immediate end to the primary, initial threat. Then, with that immediate threat alleviated, we can proceed to find better, long term answers to the problems of terrorism and deadly violence (on all sides)."
If the above is "a point of fact" as you claim, then you should be able to provide actual evidence to support your "point of fact".
(fff) If the primary threat is "those who'd engage in violence" as you suggested earlier, how ("as a point of fact") does relocating immigrants deal with the primary problem of those who wish to establish a caliphate and are willing to use violence to do so?
(ggg) Can you provide any (even one) specific realistic NVDA strategy that will put and end the the evil that is being perpetrated by ISIS?
(hhh) Can you point to any (even one) instance in which any of the NVDA principles or actions have resulted in any sort of reversal for ISIS?
I know that you now have a lot on your plate as far as responding the the problems I've pointed out with your positions, the fact that you don't seem to be a much of a spokesperson for the "progressive community" as you think you are, as well as the 60 + questions outstanding so please take your time. I'll be patient and allow you as much time as you need to get caught up. Fortunately I've had the time to address virtually every single question you've asked me directly and I want to give you the opportunity to do the same, as I know you will happily do. Again, feel free to use the handy letter references to help.
This...
aaa. your "specific" plan is to let unlimited "refugees" into the US with little or no screening and not to expect the Muslims nations in the region to do anything?
and this...
I know that you now have a lot on your plate as far as responding the problems I've pointed out with your positions, the fact that you don't seem to be a much of a spokesperson for the "progressive community" as you think you are, as well as the 60 + questions outstanding so please take your time
aaa. This is not my plan. I have never advocated "little or no screening..." I have, in fact, said here and elsewhere, by all means, vet them, screen them. Weed about bad actors, to the degree we can. Here, I'll quote myself from a few comments above...
"By all means, screen, take precautions, follow up."
Do you understand now that this is not my plan?
Seeing as how much of your questioning is based on this key flawed understanding, I'll let you respond to make sure you now understand the error/my answer to your question.
I will note that if you are saying you support allowing immigrants in, with screening, and that is what I support, then it would appear that we do not disagree on that main point. We, you and I and some on the right (maybe most) and many on the Left (almost certainly most) support this. We, then, are in agreement against the Trumps, the Carsons and other prominent Right Wingers who want to institute bans and badges. There is no one on the Left, that I know of, who is advocated this, it is only on the Right that you see it, and it is with your party's main front runner. So, you and I are in agreement that the GOP presidential frontrunner is nuts, at least on this point. Is that fair?
And to clarify about my being a spokesperson for the left, I'm not. I'm ONE of those on the Left, amongst a group of many others in my community. We all tend to think as I do. You asked the question of the left, I'm responding for my little part of the left. I can't speak for everyone and do not pretend to. Having said that, I don't see any one on the left, in the mainstream, disagreeing with what I've said.
Sorry for the confusion. I was using "you" in the same sense you have been using "we". I'll try to be more clear in the future instead of following your lead.
Again pardon the confusion but I would have assumed that Obama, Clinton, and Sandrrs would be considered on the left.
No one is advocated unlimited, no background checking acceptance of refugees. Do you understand THAT mistake. Not Obama, not Clinton. No one.
Do you understand that?
Or, failing that and you think you are actually correct, cite the place where Obama is advocating having no background checks on refugees. Here's a starting point...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/19/politifact-sheet-5-questions-about-syrian-refugees/
I'll wait for you to admit the mistake so we can move on.
Once again, I apologize, I have no idea what level of checking anyone is proposing. I do know that the current level is not adequate and the head of the FBI says it is virtually impossible to properly screen these immigrants. So, it gets back to the point of the post which is what specific things does the left propose to solve this problem.
The Obama, Clinton. Sanders commnt was a reference to them being on the left, yet disagreeing about how best to solve the problem of ISIS. Earlier you were pretty clear that you were speaking for the "progressive community " when you used the term "we". I mistakenly took your words at face value and responded in kind. Thank you for clarifying that you are only speaking for a tiny sliver of the "progressive community " not the whole thing. Sorry for the miscommunication it's tougher to do this on a phone.
Once again, I apologize, I have no idea what level of checking anyone is proposing.
I'm sorry, so, you DO understand that Obama is not proposing little or no background checks, nor am I, nor is Clinton or any other Democrat? So, when you said that they disagreed with me (because I am not proposing little or no background checks), you were mistaken as far as you, because as far as you know, they are not proposing little or no background checks?
That "apology" does not seem to match the error in your thinking, as evidenced by your continued suggest that them being on the left and apparently still thinking they are proposing little or no background checks.
As a point of fact, they are all supporting the same level of background checks as we have had for years, and indeed, tougher background checks than during the Reagan/Bush years.
I'll wait to see if you understand that no one on the left is proposing "little or no screening" (your claim, that you appear to recognize is not a fact-based claim either for me or for anyone on the Left and is, in fact, false).
Whilst waiting, what levels of background checks are you proposing to be sufficient to allay your fears?
Do you know what the percentage of Syrian refugees/immigrants who engage in terrorist behavior in the US is? .001%? .00001%? Do you know what percentage of immigrants from Texas or Oklahoma who engage in terrorist behavior is? Greater than that or less? If it is indeed that tiny percent, why would you isolate the Syrian or Middle Eastern refugees over against Texans or Oklahomans who'd move to another state?
I'm not sure that your fears are data-based or informed.
I apologized and explained, yet you are unsatisfied for some reason. I was quite clear that I have not seen any specific plans from the administration about how they plan to screen these immigrants. I have seen administration officials state that it is virtually impossible to adequately screen them, so there seem to be at least 2 points of view within the administration.
I'm impressed that you are able to predict so accurately the % of these immigrants who will cause problems since no one knows exactly who they are yet.
This is not a fear issue at all, it is about being responsible and prudent.
Now would it be possible to get back on topic? Or would you prefer to continue to beat this dead horse.
I've apologized for my hyperbole and explained the miscommunication, what else must I do to move things along?
That's just it, Craig. You apologized for hyperbole. It wasn't hyperbole, it was a false claim. Do you understand that?
You said...
your "specific" plan is to let unlimited "refugees" into the US with little or no screening and not to expect the Muslims nations in the region to do anything?
and then...
The fact that the elected leadership of the "progressive community" as well as the two major presidential candidates supported by the "progressive community", disagree with you calls into question your ability to speak for the "progressive community".
That isn't hyperbole. It's a claim. You said they disagree with me. There is no data to support that? In fact, we ALL support screening, contrary to your claim.
I'm just trying to make sure you are able to understand the words that are written here and that we all do, in fact, support screening, not "little or no screening." Do you understand that, now?
If you can't understand the actual words and where your mistake was, then what point would there be in me adding more words that you may not understand?
Please clarify, something along the lines of "Yes, NOW I understand that you and all the major progressive types do support screening and it was a mistake on my part to say 'the left' support little or no screening..." Thanks.
I'll try this one more time in hopes that it will appease you.
I am sorry that I worded my comment poorly and that it was worded as a different claim that the one I intended to make.
What I intended to suggest was that despite the warnings of the director of the FBI (who's agency does background checks routinely), there is no proposal to do any additional background checks beyond the current system. It is possible that there is a plan that I am unaware of, but to the best of my knowledge there is no one who is suggesting that we make any changes to the current system of checking. This is the system that allowed in the peace loving Muslim woman who shot 14 innocent people in California recently.
Again, I apologize for not expressing myself as clearly as I should have.
I will admit that your casual almost dismissive attitude toward screening these immigrants certainly affected the way I responded, but I erroneously stated something in an incredibly poor and misleading way and I apologize again for my mistake as well as for the confusion my mistake has caused.
I have to say that I find your tenacious focus on this one misstatement on my part somewhat confusing in light of the numerous times (60+) where I have tried to gain a clearer understanding of your exact positions which you have so far not elected to clarify. I am also forced to wonder why you couldn't have just asked some questions that would have allowed this to have been clarified without engaging in this more confrontational and unnecessary tone. As I have willingly answered virtually every single question you have asked it seems reasonable that additional clarifying questions would have solved this confusion just as well as accusations.
Maybe you missed my earlier explanation about your disagreement with P-BO, Clinton, and Sanders. My comment about your disagreement was in the context of the larger picture of the best strategy to pursue against ISIS. If you missed it or didn't understand it I will be happy to explain again. The fact that you keep acting as if I hadn't clarified makes me think that you just missed it.
Again, I apologize for my poorly expressed and misleading claim. It was not my intention to do anything other than hyperbolically make the point that no one has proposed screening beyond our current system which, according to at least one expert, in incapable of properly screening these immigrants. I hope that my apology and explanation is sufficient so that we can move on and deal with the many other areas where I am in need of clarification regarding your positions.
Dan,
There are so many more things in this thread that you have not addressed, so I would hope that my multiple apologies, admission of my mistake, and explanation of my intent will be sufficient to satisfy you and for you to graciously allow the conversation to move back to the numerous other areas so far unaddressed.
Thank you so much for your understanding.
Sorry last one.
Dan, would it be possible for you to stop suggesting that my response to this is driven by fear. Nothing I've said indicates that, and the fact that I've spent a significant portion of the last 9 years working with and serving Muslim immigrants should be enough evidence to demonstrate a lack of fear. So, I am asking you politely if you would refrain from making any claims about fear being my motivation. I feel confident that you will understand and be more conscious of this error.
Thank you.
I can't seem to find anything that suggests there is any plans afoot to improve the ability to weed out those with a desire to see Americans killed for allah.
What proposals do you favor to improve the screening? Will it also allow for protecting innocent lives or does it involve placing people at increased risk of murder and oppression? If you have a method of improving the screening that also allows for saving innocent lives, please contact the people in charge. We'll all be appreciative of it.
IF you have some proposals. To be honest, I rather doubt you do, but I'm certainly open to them.
I wonder what Dan and his pals would do if there was a suspension of welcome for the Syrian refugees into this country?
What would I do if I could save a life of someone but it involved breaking a law in my country? I would first strive to make rapid change. Failing that, I would hope I would break the law and get involved in some sort of peaceable sanctuary movement.
What would you do to save someone's life, Marshall, if a policy was threatening those lives?
Dan,
I would have preferred not to go down this road here, and will be deleting any comments regarding the sufficiency of your previous apology.
I have apologized at least multiple times and admitted where I have made mistakes while trying to correct the mistakes that I have made.
At this point, it seems as though you are using this as one of two things.
1. A crude and heavy handed way to attempt to make a point about your earlier apology.
2. A tactic to distract from the very many unaddressed comments and unanswered questions in this thread.
I sincerely hope that I am mistaken about both of those.
Again, there are multiple apologies and admissions of mistakes, would it be OK with you if we moved on, or would you prefer to continue to beat the dead horse>
THIS IS MARSHALL"S EDITED COMMENT. I CHOSE TO REMOVE THE OFF TOPIC SECTION WHILE LEAVING IN THE LINKS THAT SEEM TO CALL INTO QUESTION THE CERTITUDE OF DAN'S CLAIMS. I AM CONFIDENT THAT DAN WILL QUICKLY DEAL WITH THE INFORMATION IN THE LINKS AND TO ALIGN HIS COMMENTS WITH THE ACTUALITY OF THE SITUATION.
Anyway, as I'm just checking in while still having too little time to get deep in the weeds, I came across this piece that I found whilst looking for something that explains Obama's plan to improve vetting of refugees. According to this article, he seems pretty pleased with what they have. In that same article, we see a quote from Comey pointing out that that pleasing scheme leaves much to be desired. So...if he finds the current process vigorous, despite the concerns of someone like Comey, can we expect or believe that there is any plan to improve the vetting process? I think not. What's more, despite the rather thorough overview of the process itself, there is no telling if it's worth a damn, just because Barry O says it's cool. I also wonder, is 8 weeks sufficient to achieve proficiency in detecting bullshit from an alleged refugee? Are those so trained idiots or incredibly discerning? How can we tell without mass murder as an indicator?
This article highlights how 80 Democratic lawmakers want to speed up the screening process. So we have a process that has serious problems according to a member of the intelligence community (and I don't believe Comey is the only one), and 80 lefties want to speed up the process. Yeah. That's a good idea.
Still, I can't seem to find anything that suggests there is any plans afoot to improve the ability to weed out those with a desire to see Americans killed for allah. THAT is the issue and the desire of those who call for a moratorium on bringing in Syrian refugees.
I wonder what Dan and his pals would do if there was a suspension of welcome for the Syrian refugees into this country?
There now that we've gotten rid of the off topic comments perhaps we could get back on topic.
Dan,
Given my apologies and corrections it seems slightly misleading to use the quotes which I have apologized for and corrected as a straw man. It ignores what you may not have read, but what anyone else would have.
I appreciate your effort to strive for as much accuracy and context as possible.
OK, I just realized this. Here is the "quote" that Dan says is a "false claim"
"aaa. your "specific" plan is to let unlimited "refugees" into the US with little or no screening and not to expect the Muslims nations in the region to do anything?"
Here is the actual quote of the actual question I actually asked.
(aaa) So, your "specific" plan is to let unlimited "refugees" into the US with little or no screening and not to expect the Muslim nations in the region to do anything."
What we see here is a deliberate editing of my question, in order to make it appear as if I was making a claim, when I clearly was not.
It seems to me that what we have is a clear and unambiguous instance of Dan falsifying "evidence" in order to accuse me of making a false claim so that he could take umbrage and demand an apology for my "false" claim.
So, I doubt you will apologize for your undeniable false accusation, nor do I suspect you will stop asking me to apologize for the question I asked you. Your call, you can move along and let the clear and unambiguous evidence speak for itself or you can continue your tactic of falsely accusing me.
I honestly just noticed this as I was trying to corral all of the claims you've made in this thread so that you could provide the support you had neglected earlier.
I guess I made a huge mistake here by not checking to see if your original "quote" was accurate. I just assumed that it was and apologized multiple times based on a bad assumption. I apologize for making a bad assumption and not investigating earlier.
Dan,
No matter how you choose to respond to the above revelation, just know that I offer you my forgiveness unconditionally regarding this matter.
The missing question mark was entirely accidental. If you look, somewhere up in my comments you will note that I note it is your suggestion/question. My fault for a human error, I apologize. Nothing sinister was intended.
Now, having said that, I will try this another way: At this point, I still do not know if you recognize that neither I, nor Obama, nor Clinton nor anyone on the left is advocating, as you claimed, that we have "little or no screening..." Help me in my understanding of your position. Is it the case, now, that you recognize that no one is advocating that?
You can clarify or not, I'm just telling you that I don't know that you get that at this point, so why wouldn't you clarify?
Now, I would guess, given your apology and the words that went along with it, that you DO recognize this, but your words seem vague and measured, so I'm just not sure.
Assuming that you do recognize the error, then here is what we have:
1. We all appear to agree that welcoming refugees is a good thing;
2. We all appear to agree that screening refugees is a good thing;
3. No one major on the left is advocating little or no screening and we all appear to agree on that point;
4. No one - not you or me - have offered specifics on what specifically we should do additionally to improve screening;
5. Neither of us and no major political voices are opposed in principle to improving screening;
6. We all agree on stopping terrorists;
7. No one major on the Left is advocating refusing to help refugees or refusing Muslim refugees specifically;
8. Some pretty big names (including the way-front-runner for the GOP presidential bid) on the Right are suggesting that as an option; This is a problem for more reasonable, helpful conservative types and many are, in fact, denouncing Trump and others who'd advocate that sort of refusal to help;
In other words, you and I appear to agree on some major points as it relates to this topic, the best I can understand your words and given your refusal to clarify some basic questions.
From there, we can move to the question of, once we have helped the refugees, what then to stop terrorist types. But am I understanding you thus far? Are we agreed on all that?
Just trying to understand.
Let me refer you back to your own words, so you can see, perhaps, why I'm not sure what your position is...
I was quite clear that I have not seen any specific plans from the administration about how they plan to screen these immigrants. I have seen administration officials state that it is virtually impossible to adequately screen them, so there seem to be at least 2 points of view within the administration.
You suggested that I was not speaking for all liberals, due to the claim that Clinton, Obama, etc are fine with little or no screening. That is what it sounds like you're saying/were saying. So, I'm asking a very reasonable question: Do you understand that they are not advocating little or no screening? That they may have no plans for additional intense scrutiny, on top of the existing intense scrutiny is not support for the claim that they want "little or no screening..." In fact, if they wanted little or no screening, they would undo all the screening that exists. They are not advocating for that, no one is. So, clearly, they are not advocating for little or no screening.
Now, maybe with your words you are trying to state that you recognize that reality, but I have not understood you to say that. That is why I'm asking for clarification.
A few more quotes from the Obama administration.
"Several high-level administration officials have warned in recent months just how challenging this can be. While they say U.S. security measures are much better than in the past, vetting Syrian refugees poses a quandary: How do you screen people from a war-torn country that has few criminal and terrorist databases to check?"
“I don’t, obviously, put it past the likes of ISIL to infiltrate operatives among these refugees, so that’s a huge concern of ours,” Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said at a security industry conference in September, using another name for the Islamic State. He added that the government has “a pretty aggressive program” for screening refugees but that he is less confident about European nations.
FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that “a number of people who were of serious concern” slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. “There’s no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting,” he said.
"Although Comey said the process has since “improved dramatically,” Syrian refugees will be even harder to check because, unlike in Iraq, U.S. soldiers have not been on the ground collecting information on the local population. “If we don’t know much about somebody, there won’t be anything in our data,” he said. “I can’t sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that there’s no risk associated with this.”"
Washington Post
"President Obama threatened late Wednesday to veto legislation aimed at improving screening for Syrian refugees, potentially putting the White House and Congress on a collision course in a matter of days."
Fox News
"The Syrian review process also involves cooperation with U.S. intelligence, to ensure no refugee is on a terror watch list or involved in any ongoing investigation.
There are clear limitations to what the investigators can find out, however, about applicants from Syria, since the U.S. does not have diplomatic relations with Syria and the country is in chaos. Investigators can ask if an applicant has a criminal history, but they have no access to Syrian records to confirm applicants’ answers.
”If someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home but … there will be nothing … because we have no record on that person,” said FBI Director James Comey at a congressional hearing last month."
"At the same time, a team of highly-trained USCIS refugee officers is responsible for personally conducting the refugee status interviews. These officers undergo FIVE WEEKS of specialized and extensive training that includes comprehensive instruction on all aspects of the job, including refugee law, grounds of inadmissibility, fraud detection and prevention, security protocols, interviewing techniques, credibility analysis, and country conditions research."
John Kerry
(kkk) Do you really think that FIVE WEEKS of training is enough for someone to thoroughly and accurately screen these immigrants?
"Scrambling to address a growing Syrian refugee crisis, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry announced Sunday that the United States would significantly increase the number of worldwide migrants it takes in over the next two years, though not by nearly the amount many activists and former officials have urged.
The U.S. will accept 85,000 refugees from around the world next year, up from 70,000, and that total would rise to 100,000 in 2017, Kerry said at news conference with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier after they discussed the mass migration of Syrians fleeing their civil war."
(lll) It would appear that your claim of 10,000 Syrian immigrants was a bit low, any comments?
"The missing question mark was entirely accidental. If you look, somewhere up in my comments you will note that I note it is your suggestion/question."
It wasn't just the missing question mark, it was your editing of the beginning of the question as well. Not only that you quite pointedly and intentionally referred to what was clearly a question as "a claim". So even if one accepts your claim about the edits you made, the fact remains that you falsely represented the nature of the edited quote.
"Help me in my understanding of your position. Is it the case, now, that you recognize that no one is advocating that?"
I have repeatedly and clearly addressed this, refer to the comments where I have done so and if you have specific questions ask them. As I have been doing I will answer them. But I'm not going to repeat myself because you won't read.
"You can clarify or not, I'm just telling you that I don't know that you get that at this point, so why wouldn't you clarify?"
(mmm) Since I have already clarified multiple times I must wonder, why won't you read my clarifications instead of simply repeating yourself.
"From there, we can move to the question of, once we have helped the refugees, what then to stop terrorist types. But am I understanding you thus far?"
(nnn)How about instead of "moving on", we go back and you clarify the multitude of problems I have with your comments by answering the questions asked?
(ooo) Or are you of the opinion that only I should clarify my positions?
"Are we agreed on all that?"
Since you appear unwilling to clarify your positions, and unwilling to acknowledge that you intentionally misrepresented one of my questions as a claim and edited my question to help you establish your straw man, I think it's safe to say that we are not agreed.
"Just trying to understand."
I've been trying to understand you for several days, but you don't seem particularly interested in helping me do that.
"You suggested that I was not speaking for all liberals, due to the claim that Clinton, Obama, etc are fine with little or no screening."
False, I have repeatedly and specifically corrected your misunderstanding on this point. You suggested several times that "we" (the "progressive community" believe X,Y, or Z. You specifically stated that "we" (the "progressive community) " What we believe is that our ideals are our best weapon against cowardly criminals.". It is obvious that if one includes P-BO, Hilary, and Bernie in "the progressive community" that they disagree with your characterization of what "we" "believe". My point (had you actually read this explanation in an earlier comment you could have stopped repeating your mistake on this) is that "the progressive community" clearly does not agree with you on various points on this debate.
Now that we've cleared that up so you can stop harping on it.
"You suggested that I was not speaking for all liberals,..."
Only as a counterpoint to your suggesting that you were.
"So, I'm asking a very reasonable question: Do you understand that they are not advocating little or no screening?"
A question that I have answered repeatedly. Yes, I understand that they are advocating our current screening process which has been described as not being effective. I understand that they are satisfied with the current inadequate process despite concerns from within the Obama administration. Yes, I understand that they support inadequate screening.
"That they may have no plans for additional intense scrutiny, on top of the existing intense scrutiny is not support for the claim that they want "little or no screening..." In fact, if they wanted little or no screening, they would undo all the screening that exists. They are not advocating for that, no one is. So, clearly, they are not advocating for little or no screening."
Once again, I've addressed this multiple times, (ppp) did you not read those comments?
"Now, maybe with your words you are trying to state that you recognize that reality, but I have not understood you to say that."
Once again, I've addressed this multiple times, (qqq) did you not read those comments?
"That is why I'm asking for clarification."
Which I've already provided and you seem to have ignored.
(rrr) Do you believe that this "asking for clarification" thing is a one way process (you ask and I answer)?
(sss) Do you believe that it is reasonable for you to ask for clarification but not to provide clarification?
One last point on your accusation.
Here are the undisputed facts of the matter.
1. I asked you a question.
2. You edited my question and presented it as if I had made a claim instead of asking a question.
3. You demanded that I support my "claim", even though there was no claim made.
4. I offered multiple apologies and explanations over multiple comments.
5. You dismissed my apologies and ignored my explanations
6. You have continued to misrepresent something I said after I clarified what I meant.
7. Instead of an apology you offer, " My fault for a human error, I apologize. Nothing sinister was intended."
8. You dismiss my multiple apologies while expecting me to accept yours.
9. You offer this "you will note that I note it is your suggestion/question." in extenuation.
10. In fact you did not refer to my question as a "suggestion/question", you referred to it as "false claim.", "a claim.". So, if one looks at your actual words it is clear that your "suggestion/question" terminology is factually undisputedly not factually accurate.
So, given those facts, it would seem that the problem doesn't exclusively lie with me. I've apologized for not being as clear as I could have. I've explained why. You've actually included factually inaccurate information in your apology.
"If you can't understand the actual words and where your mistake was,..."
I now understand that (at least part of) my mistake was trusting that you accurately reported the comment of mine accurately. The problem with your entire digression is that it not based on my "actual words", but on your mis-characterizing and editing of my question. Once again, your entire rant was not based on my "actual" words, but on your false and misleading edited version of my words.
"Now, maybe with your words you are trying to state that you recognize that reality"
So if you'd like to use "your words" to "state that you recognize that reality" of the fact that you edited my words and falsely characterized a question as a "false claim' and a "claim" that would be a great place to start.
It would also be good if you "recognize" the "reality" that I have asking (in vain) "for clarification." since December 14, 2015 at 8:48 AM.
So by all means lets recognize some reality here.
"Let me refer you back to your own words, so you can see, perhaps, why I'm not sure what your position is..."
Perhaps you are unaware that since I wrote what you quoted, I have written extensively on this issue. I've also pointed out that this thread is about the things that I am seeing in the media from the American left. It is NOT about what my position is. That may be part of your confusion, MY POSITION is off topic for this thread.
Now, If you would take the time to ask and not assume I would quite probably treat that question as I have treated virtually all of the rest of the questions you have asked.
I've also pointed out that this thread is about the things that I am seeing in the media from the American left.
The American Left has not advocated little or no screening. Do you understand this?
I think you just don't get where you're tripping up. Look at this...
I have repeatedly and specifically corrected your misunderstanding on this point. You suggested several times that "we" (the "progressive community" believe X,Y, or Z. You specifically stated that "we" (the "progressive community) " What we believe is that our ideals are our best weapon against cowardly criminals.". It is obvious that if one includes P-BO, Hilary, and Bernie in "the progressive community" that they disagree with your characterization of what "we" "believe".
You have hard data to support that the progressive community disagrees that our ideals are our best weapon? Please provide that data. You say that the progressive community disagrees with me, but you don't say where or provide support for the claim.
Or this, where I asked for clarification...
Do you understand that they are not advocating little or no screening?"
And you responded...
A question that I have answered repeatedly. Yes, I understand that they are advocating our current screening process which has been described as not being effective. I understand that they are satisfied with the current inadequate process despite concerns from within the Obama administration. Yes, I understand that they support inadequate screening.
No, you did not answer the question I asked. I asked just what I have in bold above. You answered questions like "Are they satisfied with our current level of screening?" and "Do I, Craig, think that the current levels are inadequate?" but you did not answer the question I asked.
So, failing an answer to that question, I have to assume that you are either unable to carry on a reasonable, back and forth conversation or that you are deliberately being divisive and obtuse.
Ball's in your court.
The answer to the question that you asked is.
They are not advocating little or no screening. They are continuing to advocate for our current inadequate screening process.
That answer ignores sever undeniable facts.
1. The quote where you claim I made this claim was edited by you.
2. The "claim" you falsely claim I made about this was not a claim but a question.
3. Your entire diversion about little or no screening is a based on a lie which you created.
"I have to assume that you are either unable to carry on a reasonable, back and forth conversation or that you are deliberately being divisive and obtuse."
"I have to assume that you are either unable to carry on a reasonable, back and forth conversation or that you are deliberately being divisive and obtuse."
(ttt) You certainly aren't going to let pesky things like fact get in the way, are you?
The fact is that I have made more than half of the comments on this post, virtually all of them responding to you. I have answered virtually EVERY SINGLE DIRECT QUESTION you have asked, while you have over 80 questions unanswered.
I have not edited one of your quotes, then claimed it was something it was not, nor have I demanded that you endlessly apologize for what your doctored "quote" says as opposed to you answering the question my "quote" asked.
I am beginning to think that you are either unwilling or unable to actually carry on a back and forth two way conversation unless you and you alone drive the direction and content.
So, in point of fact, the ball is in your court.
"Or this, where I asked for clarification...'
(uuu) Can you explain why your requests for clarification are of such monumental import that the entire conversation must grind to a halt while you demand endless repetition of the answer?
(vvv) Can you explain why others requests for clarification are not treated by you with the same level of urgency and candor?
Dan,
Would it be OK with you if we clarified a few things?
(www) Do you understand the difference between a "claim" and a question?
(xxx) Do you understand that editing a question, then calling the edited question a "false claim" is in point of fact a "false claim"?
(yyy) Do you understand that a two way conversation is one in which both sides answer questions and respond to the other?
(zzz) Do you understand that in the last two threads I have allowed you to comment on, you have made a demonstrably false claim about me or a comment I made, then used that false claim as an excuse to engage in obfuscation and name calling?*
*
1. In this thread you falsely claimed that a question I asked you was a "claim" and a "false claim" given the fact that a question cannot actually be a "claim", this claim of yours was demonstrably false.
2. IN an earlier post you claimed that I said you "advocated child abuse", you then proceeded to call me a "coward", a "moron" and accused me of spreading "fucking lies".
Here we have two examples of you making false claims, actual real examples of actual real false claims
Just to keep up my track record of answering virtually every single question you have asked me, here are some more answers for you.
'You have hard data to support that the progressive community disagrees that our ideals are our best weapon?"
1. I'll start with the obvious. P-BO, Hilary, Sanders, Kerry, are engaged in multiple instances of using violent actions rather than ideas in their handling of the situation on the middle east. In another post I have the a Sanders quote for you. But I think the official actions of the current administration should be enough evidence that not all of the "progressive community" agrees with you.
2. Conversely, you made a claim of fact. You claimed that "we" (which you later defined as the "progressive community") believe that "ideals are our best weapon".
(aaaa) Why do you demand that I support a claim that I made (even though the support was actually included in the claim), while you hold yourself exempt from supporting your own claims of fact?
(bbbb) Will you, at some point in the future, promise that you will provide support for all of the claims you have made in this thread?
OK, the question/answer ledger continues to tilt overwhelmingly in my favor in this thread.
(cccc) Do you ever plan to answer the over 80 unanswered questions in this thread?
(dddd) If not, why not?
"Ball's in your court."
Dan,
the problem with you using "we" when you make your broad, general, unsupported assertions is that you are engaging in practice that you have roundly condemned when others do it.
You are attempting to give your personal opinions more weight be appealing to numbers. You seem to feel that if you can make it sound like there is some amorphous un-numbered "we" as opposed to just you, that it somehow gives your claims more value.
In the past numerous times I and others have appealed to the fact that for the entire history of the Christian church the Orthodox position on something has been X. Now, no one has claimed that the historic Christianity argument is, on it's own, proof of anything. We've simply claimed that it is one factor in evaluating things. Your response has consistently been that this argument carries no weight and that it is a logical fallacy.
(eeee) Why is an appeal to numbers a logical fallacy when others do it, but a perfectly valid and not to be questioned bit of proof when you do it?
"No, you did not answer the question I asked. I asked just what I have in bold above. You answered questions like "Are they satisfied with our current level of screening?" and "Do I, Craig, think that the current levels are inadequate?" but you did not answer the question I asked."
"So, failing an answer to that question, I have to assume that you are either unable to carry on a reasonable, back and forth conversation or that you are deliberately being divisive and obtuse."
So, it seems safe to say that you would consider someone who is asked a question, but answers a different question to be "deliberately...divisive" and "obtuse". If that is your position, and the above quote makes it seem to be, given that I copy/pasted an actual quote with the actual words that you actually typed. I did not edit it in any way, so I can only believe that your quote represents your belief.
(ffff) Given your claim above about the nature of someone who does not answer the question asked, would you consider that you apply that characterization in a fair an evenhanded manner?
(gggg) Would you refer to anyone who answered a different question than the one asked as "deliberately being divisive" and "obtuse" under all circumstances?
The reason I ask is that earlier you were asked the following direct specific question.
"Where are the hospitals and feeding centers in the caliphate opened by the American christian left?"
It's simple, limited, direct, and specific. Yet here is your answer (again, copy pasted in it's entirety and not edited).
"There are progressive Christian organizations and Christian individuals all over the world doing work like this, including in Muslim nations. See PCUSA World Mission, for instance. We do tend to do a "work WITH" approach, rather than a "Work TO" or "Work FOR" approach. That is, we tend to want to work in cooperation with what people actually want and work hand in hand, so we don't tend to force ourselves in situations where we or our services are not wanted (by the people). Basic human respect."
"Nonetheless, we are present in nations across the world, including Muslim nations, doing this sort of work. I have friends in Morocco, for instance, doing all manner of good work along these lines. We have a Reclaiming Christmas Project where we encourage our families and friends to give to this project (one in Morocco, one in Nicaragua) to help people help themselves. If you'd like to donate to this effort, just let me know. Of course, I know you do your own work, so I'm not suggesting you have to, just letting you know that we are actively involved in work with Muslims and other at-risk peoples and, should you want to help in that way, I'd be glad to connect you."
Two entire paragraphs, and not one simple direct response to the actual question that was asked. Not one.
Obviously that simple direct answer to the actual question asked would have been that there are none. I'll admit that there was an excuse for the lack of involvement in the caliphate, but no simple direct answer to a direct question.
The inference I draw from this is that "we" are perfectly capable of helping others when there is little personal risk involved. It is obvious that the point of greatest need in this situation is within the caliphate, yet we don't see any action from the left on the ground to alleviate that need.
So Dan, it seems as if you were to apply the same standards to yourself you demand of others it is you who jumped into "deliberately being divisive" and "obtuse" back on December 14, 2015 at 7:02 AM.
Of course it would require a degree of intellectual honesty and consistency that you have not demonstrated up to this point.
(hhhh) Do you understand that what you excoriate people for engaging in behavior that you have previously engaged in it causes them to not trust you?
For anyone keeping score that makes about 85 clearly identified and pointed out questions, in addition to the ones prior to my attempt to help Dan identify the things about which I was asking clarifying questions.
To be fair Dan has answered the six specific questions about what his church is doing as well as a few others. But if one includes the questions before I started inserting reference points, I'd say that there are at least 75 questions unanswered.
So, I guess the quest for clarification is a one way street.
Craig, you posted some questions for "the christian left," of which I am a part. I provided some answers to your questions, respectfully, hoping to be of help. I assumed it was implied that when someone asks "the Christian left" (or "right") for answers and someone responds, they are speaking for themselves and, to some degree, the community of which they are a part. I did not think it necessary to point out the obvious that any group (Christian left, pagan right, militant right, etc) is not a bloc and no one person speaks for all of that group. When an individual responds, we can assume that they are speaking for themselves first and foremost. I am sorry if that was not clear to you.
On the topic of accepting refugees, it appears we agree that
1. Accepting refugees is a good thing to do;
2. that no one (ie, zero major advocates) on the left is advocating doing little or no screening;
3. that terrorists are bad and we should try to stop them;
4. No one is advocating doing nothing to try to stop terrorism;
5. The only ones advocating for singling out Muslims or Syrians for blocked entry are some on the right;
On those general topics, we seem to agree.
You have proceeded to ask me literally dozens of questions about who knows what all. Some of the questions you asked (and yes, I duly noted that they were questions, albeit sometimes with implications) are based on false or mistaken understandings of what my position actually is. In at least one major case, I have tried to rectify that misunderstanding and I think you get that it was not my position to have "little or no screening," as you asked. I THINK that you understand that no one on the left now is advocating little or no screening. You just wish Obama would do more screening than we've done for years. Duly noted. Nonetheless, as a point of fact, your claim that he wants little or no screening has been pointed out to be false... I think you understand that now, although it is hard to tell, to be honest.
Beyond that, I simply do not have time to answer dozens of questions (many of which appear to be based on bad understandings of my actual positions) on a variety of topics. The shortest response would be this:
To most of your questions, just assume that you have misunderstood me. If you have one or two specific questions you'd like answers to, please ask them again.
As I have demonstrated over the years, I am not opposed to answering questions. I just don't have unlimited time to answer dozens of questions, at least not all at once. This is why I tend to try to get a clarifying response from you for one or two questions at a time, rather than dumping 75 questions all at once. No one I know has that kind of time, Craig. I have not even read closely most of your questions, much less have time to answer them.
But feel free to ask any one or two questions you'd like and we can proceed from there, if you wish.
Seems to me that if one has not read closely most of the questions posed, to answer directly any that might have been read closely would be a good start. The massive numbers of questions did not all come at once, with many follow ups to answers provided, such as they were.
I also, in my limited time, cannot for the life of me recall anyone speaking in terms of "NO screening". I don't see where Craig suggested lefties are advocating for "NO screening". Thus, why bother rehashing what never happened. If it did, I missed it entirely. But I feel confident that Craig didn't so much as hint of such a thing, but instead spoke of what leftists have been pushing.
Just sayin'.
Dan,
The simple fact is that I did not "dump 75 questions on you all at once", that is just one more of your false statements. The fact the you have an excuse for not answering the specific questions directed specially at you does not mean that the questions are invalid it means that they are inconvenient for you to answer.
I have pointed out the inconsistencies in the standard you hold others to as opposed to how you act.
I am perfectly willing to be as patient as need be and give you all the time you need to answer the questions asked. I doubt you will, but I'm willing to give you the time.
Whatever you decide, you nred to stop this pretense that you haven't done anything.
As much as you whine about clarification and asking questions you just won't give others what you demand.
If my questions are based on my misunderstanding of you then why not answer them and clear up the confusion. I'very said numerous times that I'm asking you so that you will clarify things I don't understand, yet now instead of clarifying, you come up with one more excuse to avoid clarifying your position.
So if you wish your position to be clarified then help me by answering the questions, if not then stop complaining.
Marshall, the whole no screening thing was simply an editing one of my questions to give himself something to complain about. now that the truth is available, and Dan's own words demonstrate his lack of intellectual honesty he stuck simply trying to dodge and extricate himself from the conversation by blaming me for asking too many questions. most reasonable people would have answered the questions as they came, as I did with all of his questions, rather than to try to put them off and dodge them until it became too much. Unfortunately, this is not an unusual tactic with Dan and really doesn't surprise me when he does it. I suspect that even if I asked than one question at a time is that at some point early in the process there would be an excuse for why he can't answer any more questions. having said that I may give it a try. but, if you read Anne Commons it's clear he thinks he's in charge if yo
Marshall, the whole no screening thing was simply an editing one of my questions to give himself something to complain about. now that the truth is available, and Dan's own words demonstrate his lack of intellectual honesty he stuck simply trying to dodge and extricate himself from the conversation by blaming me for asking too many questions. most reasonable people would have answered the questions as they came, as I did with all of his questions, rather than to try to put them off and dodge them until it became too much. Unfortunately, this is not an unusual tactic with Dan and really doesn't surprise me when he does it. I suspect that even if I asked than one question at a time is that at some point early in the process there would be an excuse for why he can't answer any more questions. having said that I may give it a try. but, if you read Anne Commons it's clear he thinks he's in charge if yo
Sorry last sentence should read
...Dan''s comments it's clear he thinks he's in charget here.
Tried to comment with my phone's voice feature and it didn't work as well as I would have liked.
"But feel free to ask any one or two questions you'd like and we can proceed from there, if you wish."
Alright, let's see how this works. I have copy pasted an earlier comment containing three questions (hopefully three isn't too much for you) which weren't answered earlier. I posted to whole comment so that the questions would remain in their proper context. I will await your answers and then "proceed from there".
(contd)
"No, you did not answer the question I asked. I asked just what I have in bold above. You answered questions like "Are they satisfied with our current level of screening?" and "Do I, Craig, think that the current levels are inadequate?" but you did not answer the question I asked." (Quote from Dan)
"So, failing an answer to that question, I have to assume that you are either unable to carry on a reasonable, back and forth conversation or that you are deliberately being divisive and obtuse." (Quote from Dan)
So, it seems safe to say that you would consider someone who is asked a question, but answers a different question to be "deliberately...divisive" and "obtuse". If that is your position, and the above quote makes it seem to be, given that I copy/pasted an actual quote with the actual words that you actually typed. I did not edit it in any way, so I can only believe that your quote represents your belief.
(ffff) Given your claim above about the nature of someone who does not answer the question asked, would you consider that you apply that characterization in a fair an evenhanded manner?
(gggg) Would you refer to anyone who answered a different question than the one asked as "deliberately being divisive" and "obtuse" under all circumstances?
(contd)
The reason I ask is that earlier you were asked the following direct specific question.
"Where are the hospitals and feeding centers in the caliphate opened by the American christian left?"
It's simple, limited, direct, and specific. Yet here is your answer (again, copy pasted in it's entirety and not edited).
"There are progressive Christian organizations and Christian individuals all over the world doing work like this, including in Muslim nations. See PCUSA World Mission, for instance. We do tend to do a "work WITH" approach, rather than a "Work TO" or "Work FOR" approach. That is, we tend to want to work in cooperation with what people actually want and work hand in hand, so we don't tend to force ourselves in situations where we or our services are not wanted (by the people). Basic human respect."
"Nonetheless, we are present in nations across the world, including Muslim nations, doing this sort of work. I have friends in Morocco, for instance, doing all manner of good work along these lines. We have a Reclaiming Christmas Project where we encourage our families and friends to give to this project (one in Morocco, one in Nicaragua) to help people help themselves. If you'd like to donate to this effort, just let me know. Of course, I know you do your own work, so I'm not suggesting you have to, just letting you know that we are actively involved in work with Muslims and other at-risk peoples and, should you want to help in that way, I'd be glad to connect you."
Two entire paragraphs, and not one simple direct response to the actual question that was asked. Not one.
Obviously that simple direct answer to the actual question asked would have been that there are none. I'll admit that there was an excuse for the lack of involvement in the caliphate, but no simple direct answer to a direct question.
The inference I draw from this is that "we" are perfectly capable of helping others when there is little personal risk involved. It is obvious that the point of greatest need in this situation is within the caliphate, yet we don't see any action from the left on the ground to alleviate that need.
So Dan, it seems as if you were to apply the same standards to yourself you demand of others it is you who jumped into "deliberately being divisive" and "obtuse" back on December 14, 2015 at 7:02 AM.
Of course it would require a degree of intellectual honesty and consistency that you have not demonstrated up to this point.
(hhhh) Do you understand that what you excoriate people for engaging in behavior that you have previously engaged in it causes them to not trust you?
Craig, I have about given up on communicating with you. For whatever reason, it does not seem to be working, though I certainly have given it years' worth of honest efforts and I'm sure you feel the same way. But, since you did come back with a few, manageable questions as I asked, I will at least answer them.
(ffff) Given your claim above about the nature of someone who does not answer the question asked, would you consider that you apply that characterization in a fair an evenhanded manner?
Yes.
(gggg) Would you refer to anyone who answered a different question than the one asked as "deliberately being divisive" and "obtuse" under all circumstances?
No. I would say that, if there was just a question asked one time and someone responded with an answer to a different question, I would assume it was just a simple misunderstanding. It's more of when it becomes a frequent habit, and when repeated requests to answer the question, given in different ways, where one feels that the other is being either intentionally divisive or just obtuse.
continued, in response to this question...
"Where are the hospitals and feeding centers in the caliphate opened by the American christian left?"
So, when you asked this question, I assumed you were asking what progressive types were doing in Muslim nations in general and I gave a direct answer to that question. I assumed that because there are no caliphates in existence today, so far as I understand the term. So, given that reality, when you asked about "the caliphate," I assumed - with no ill intent, just an assumption based on the words you used - that you were speaking of Muslim nations in general. I'm guessing, since you think I didn't answer the question directly, that you meant something else by "the caliphate." A simple misunderstanding, if so (and not an unreasonable one). Not intentionally divisive, not obtuse.
(hhhh) Do you understand that what you excoriate people for engaging in behavior that you have previously engaged in it causes them to not trust you?
Indeed, if that is how it seems, I can understand that.
Now, two questions for you that should be simple and easy to respond to directly:
XXX. Do you understand that it is possible that you are misunderstanding my motives and intent?
ZZZ. Do you honestly think that it is reasonable to expect answers to ~70 questions in ~2-3 days time, especially given the context that often questions/answers in our discussions are often misunderstood and need to be redirected? I cite as my example, the ongoing kerfluffle about your question to me about supporting "little or no screening," and the follow up charge that Obama and others DO disagree with me, when as it turns out, they don't... Just trying to sort out that single question took a great deal of effort and back-and-forth in that same 2-3 day period. Given that reality, do you really think that 70+ questions are not excessive?
Dan,
Perhaps you are unaware that the folks in ISIS refer to the significant amount of territory they physically control as a caliphate, hence my use of the term. I was being direct and specific, and simply assumed that you had some general level of awareness of what was happening given your passionate response about the subject. I guess I was wrong in assuming a level of knowledge that wasn't there. Having said that if you were confused about what the question meant, why didn't you ask for clarification instead of assuming and coming up with some BS?
XXX, Certainly i do understand that it is possible to misunderstand your motives and intent. My not understanding is what leads me to ask questions so that you might be willing to clarify your positions, motives and intent. Given your reluctance to answer, it makes it extremely difficult to do so. Unfortunately that means, in the absence of clarification, that I sometimes have to go from your past actions in trying to best ascertain your position, motives and intent.
ZZZ, No I don't. The problem with your question is that I never expected responses in 2-3 days. I quite clearly at several points stated that I was perfectly willing to wait patiently so that you could take all of the time you needed.
" I cite as my example, the ongoing kerfluffle about your question to me about supporting "little or no screening,""
I'm sure you meant to describe this accurately as your edit of my question into what you falsely called both a "claim" and a "false claim". Had you actually not edited my question and made false claims about it being a "false claim" it would have been a simple matter for you to have answered and clarified.
" and the follow up charge that Obama and others DO disagree with me, when as it turns out, they don't... "
So are you now saying that you agree with P-BO and the rest about the best way to defeat ISIS?
"Just trying to sort out that single question took a great deal of effort and back-and-forth in that same 2-3 day period."
It did take a great deal of effort. It would appear that my effort was wasted as you still seem to not grasp what I have explained multiple times. You don't even seem willing to concede that your entire "kerfluffle" was based on the false claim that YOU made after editing one of my questions. Had you not chosen to do that, and just answered the question, it probably wouldn't have taken three days. As to the other, all you had to do was read the multiple explanations I gave you to correct your misunderstand, as well as my apology for not having been more clear, and again probably two days saved.
Contd.
"Given that reality, do you really think that 70+ questions are not excessive?"
No, especially not with your track record of asking dozens of questions, asking the same question over and over, and being impatient when immediate answers aren't forthcoming. I think that asking the necessary number of questions to clarify your position is not excessive.
Given the reality that the bulk of the "confusion" was related to the question you falsely claimed was a "false claim" and your unwillingness to read and accept me explanations and apologies for your misunderstanding partly due to my less than optimum comment, I fail to see why it's even an issue for you, unless it's simply to save face.
Given the reality that I asked you a number of questions in order to clarify your positions, I think that if one wants to understand and be understood accurately then one does what is necessary. Again, I told you multiple times to take whatever time you needed. You chose to ignore that. Given the reality that I answered virtually every single question you asked in this thread, don't you think that simple common courtesy would dictate at least a token effort to respond from you? I'm not the one who let the unanswered questions pile up, you are. I'm not the one making excuses for not engaging in a two way conversation, you are. I'm not the one who edited a question into something else, made false claims about it and spent days ignoring that particular reality, you are.
So you do what you think you have to do. But just remember, you had the opportunity here to live up to your claims. You had that opportunity to get virtually every single question you asked answered. You had the opportunity to admit that you used your edit of one of my question as a vehicle to derail the conversation and make false claims.
As I said earlier, this is two threads in a row where you have made claims about me that are unarguably, demonstrably, in point of fact, false. On top of that now in both cases you've used your false claims as an excuse to blame me for being unreasonable and scamper away. You are right, I don't know what you are thinking, but when a reasonable, rational person looks at how you act, it's not unreasonable to think that it's possible that you are in over your head. The fact that you've done the same thing twice in a row suggests that you are unwilling or afraid to answer the questions you've been asked, and that you believe it to be easier to throw up a diversion and a smoke screen and get out while blaming others for your actions.
I really don't care, I allowed you to comment here hoping you would have something of substance to add, instead you bring unsupported claims, false claims, and an unwillingness to clarify your positions.
Yes, it's hard trying to communicate with you I've put forth quite a bit of effort in this thread, but if clarifying your position is too much work for you I can't do anything about that.
You go ahead and do what you have to do.
"The inference I draw from this is that "we" are perfectly capable of helping others when there is little personal risk involved. It is obvious that the point of greatest need in this situation is within the caliphate, yet we don't see any action from the left on the ground to alleviate that need."
Quite frankly whatever inferences you choose to draw are much more an issue with you and your imagination than with me. I asked a simple direct question. You answered a different question, that's it. The fact that you chose to assume and draw inference is hardly my problem.
You have been pretty clear that you (the progressive community) see the refugee situation as the single greatest problem to be solved, so it is reasonable to ask what you (the progressive community) are doing to alleviate this greatest problem at the source of the greatest problem.
Now to be honest, I do find it a bit strange that the "solution" to this great problem doesn't involve actually going to the scene of the problem and actually doing something about it there. But, I could have been wrong and there could be stuff happening on the ground at the source of the crisis, so I asked.
This ties in with what I see as a tendency of those on the left to mistake re-tweeting something (#bringbackourgirls or whatever), or putting a filter on ones facebook cover photo or pressing the government to do X,Y, or Z for actually doing something. But that's something from an earlier post and off topic here.
This seems a great example of your communication problem. I ask a simple, direct question in an attempt to gain information I don't have or to gain clarity about what your position is, and you choose to draw inferences that you believe are negative. NO wonder it is so difficult for you when you automatically draw negative inferences and make assumptions about those you are conversing with. I'm sorry that you choose to conduct yourself that way.
Sorry about that all caps NO in the last comment, don't know what happened.
Having said that if you were confused about what the question meant, why didn't you ask for clarification instead of assuming and coming up with some BS?
I was not confused. I was aware that ISIS called it that. It doesn't make it a caliphate, any more than if a bunch of white supremacists started calling Montana "Whitelandia..." Since a caliphate does not exist in the real world today (not one recognized by other Muslim states/peoples), I assumed you were speaking of Muslim nations. Again, I get now what you meant, but I didn't at the time.
So, the answer to the question: Are there any liberal groups doing work in areas where ISIS likes to pretend is its own state? (which I think is what you were getting at), the answer is, I don't know. There could be, I just don't know. I rather doubt that there are many Western/Christian entities in most areas where ISIS is located, liberal or conservative. Is that a clear enough answer, directly given?
It would appear that my effort was wasted as you still seem to not grasp what I have explained multiple times. You don't even seem willing to concede that your entire "kerfluffle" was based on the false claim that YOU made after editing one of my questions.
It may appear that way to you. I'm sure it does. To me, it appears you are still not understanding my actual point and what I'm objecting to/what I think you're not getting. For instance, the repeated claim of my "editing" one of your questions. I made a good faith effort to repeat back your points/questions. If I made a mistake, it was an honest mistake, not a case of "editing" to slant the argument any. Why would I do that?
"Given that reality, do you really think that 70+ questions are not excessive?"
No, especially not with your track record of asking dozens of questions, asking the same question over and over, and being impatient when immediate answers aren't forthcoming. I think that asking the necessary number of questions to clarify your position is not excessive.
Well, then, we disagree. I don't mind back and forth, questions and answers. But to wade through 70 relatively rapid fire, while I'm still trying to straighten out one misunderstanding related to one question/point, that to me is excessive and I, being a busy person, don't have time for that. You may like that way of discourse and trying to explore/understand another's point of view. I don't.
After a short bit of research... To the question: Are there progressive Christians doing work for peace in the nations of Syria and Iraq, where ISIS is trying to establish itself? Yes, there are. Due to the sensitive nature and potential risk to peace workers' lives, I hesitate to say more (and frankly, I don't know all the details), but work is being done on the ground in those nations. As to where in those nations - whether or not it's in areas dominated by ISIS, I do not know.
See, that wasn't so hard. So, please feel free to take your time to work through questions one or two at a time, no rush at all. Or don't.
If you think that the questions in this thread are onerous, then perhaps you should take a look back through my blog archive. Specifically at Oct 19, 2014- Oct 12, 2014-October 9, 2014-September 21,2014- December 3, 2014. These are some of the posts where I went through an entire thread from Johns and answered every single question you directly asked me as well as some you didn't.
This would seem to be one more instance where you have no problem expecting people to answer volumes of your questions, yet find it difficult or inconvenient to do the same.
I rather doubt that there were any three days where I asked you 75 different questions without giving you a chance to answer one or two between questions. My tendency is to ask 2-4 questions at a time and try to get answers to those questions before moving on.
If I did so in the past (asked 75 questions relatively in a row, within 2-3 days), then I do humbly apologize for overloading on the questions.
Peace.
"There could be, I just don't know. I rather doubt that there are many Western/Christian entities in most areas where ISIS is located, liberal or conservative. Is that a clear enough answer, directly given?"
Sure, I just wonder why you have to go through all the BS in order to give that clear answer that you could have given when the question was asked.
" If I made a mistake, it was an honest mistake, not a case of "editing" to slant the argument any. Why would I do that?'
Either way, if you made a "mistake", then you spent days demanding that I apologize for something that I DID NOT SAY. Your entire issue with me was based on YOUR MISTAKE. You claimed that YOUR MISTAKE was me making a "false claim".
So, if it was a "mistake", then you compounded your "mistake" by basing your entire rant on your mistake.
As to "why you would do that?", I suspect that you would do something like that in order to create a straw man, a distraction to divert attention from your non responsiveness, as a smoke screen to allow you to back out of the conversation while accusing me of making "false claims"
Ultimately, either way it doesn't really matter since you chose to double down and make false accusations about my question instead of apologizing and moving on.
"For instance, the repeated claim of my "editing" one of your questions."
Even now you try to make it sound as if you did not edit my question. The undeniable, demonstrable, demonstrated, beyond question, fact is that you DID edit my question. Why you edited it, no one will ever really know. But you did. Then you based the entirety of your whole entire "kerfluffle" on your edited version of my question.
"I don't mind back and forth, questions and answers."
Then why did you choose not to answer them as they were asked. That would have allowed for "back and forth". Instead you chose to allow the questions to accumulate to a point where you decided that you couldn't be bothered to answer them.
If you scroll up to the top of this thread, you might note that my first few extended comments were devoted to engaging with virtually all of your major points as well as answering virtually every single question you had asked up to that point. It seems that you had the opportunity for "back and forth" and you chose not to take it. One wonders why?
"relatively rapid fire,"
Yes, a series of questions over a 4 day period with absolutely zero pressure to immediately answer them doesn't seem rapid fire?
"You may like that way of discourse and trying to explore/understand another's point of view. I don't."
I can see why you don;t like helping people gain insight that would clarify your positions, personally it seems strange to complain repeatedly about my lack of clarity (Especially since the alleged lack of clarity was prompted by your "mistake" in editing one of my questions which you falsely claimed was a "false claim". I realize that unfortunate fact undermines your attempt to divert blame to me, but the facts are the facts.), while not being willing to provide the very clarity you demand of others.
So, please take your time, answer at your leisure, when it's convenient for you I'm patient enough to wait for you to bring clarification and understanding regarding your positions. I don't see how you can on the one hand complain about a lack of clarity and about things being "misunderstood", while on the other hand refusing to provide clarification and understanding about your own position.
you spent days demanding that I apologize for something that I DID NOT SAY. Your entire issue with me was based on YOUR MISTAKE.
You still misunderstand the complaint. It wasn't about the question you asked, it was about the false claim you made.
"I rather doubt that there were any three days where I asked you 75 different questions without giving you a chance to answer one or two between questions."
Of course you doubt it. The difference between us is that I took the time, over an extended period of time and actually had the respect and common courtesy to answer your questions. Something, you don't feel like returning.
Look, you do what you want. The bottom line is that in the last to threads you've commented on, you have made false claims about me and used those false claims as your excuse to leave the conversation, in both cases leaving questions unanswered and many different things unaddressed.
This trend is becoming tiresome. If you don't want to fully engage in the conversation your comments start, then don't comment. This pattern of you showing up,making unsupported claims, false accusations, dodging questions, blaming me and leaving is simply a waste of my time.
I just wonder why you have to go through all the BS in order to give that clear answer that you could have given when the question was asked.
As I already explained, I answered the question I thought you were asking. Do you understand that? If so, why are you asking a question I already answered with an implication that we now know to be false? (ie, there was no BS, I answered the question I thought you were asking).
Have yourself a merry little Christmas week.
Something, you don't feel like returning.
It's not "returning" if I never did it to you in the first place.
"It wasn't about the question you asked, it was about the false claim you made."
OK one more time, the quote below is what you referred to a both a "claim" and a "false claim. I copy pasted this from YOUR comment, not my original. Even after your "mistake/edit it is still a question (?) not a claim.
"aaa. your "specific" plan is to let unlimited "refugees" into the US with little or no screening and not to expect the Muslims nations in the region to do anything?"
Further with all of your whining about too many questions, in the very same comment you copy/pasted this.
"I know that you now have a lot on your plate as far as responding the problems I've pointed out with your positions, the fact that you don't seem to be a much of a spokesperson for the "progressive community" as you think you are, as well as the 60 + questions outstanding so please take your time."
I guess your claim of "pressure" is another false one.
Let's look at your words again.
"You said...
your "specific" plan is to let unlimited "refugees" into the US with little or no screening and not to expect the Muslims nations in the region to do anything?"
Again you refer to this (edited) question as "It's a claim.". Those are you exact unedited words.
"...the fact that you don't seem to be a much of a spokesperson for the "progressive community" as you think you are,..."
This is the other "claim" that seems to cause you so much of a problem. Yet no where ever do I claim that the P-BO administration disagrees with you on screening. It's just literally, factually not there. I did point out that the administration did not agree with your opinion n the most successful way to deal with ISIS, nor with your claim about "ideals", but no where, ever, did I make the claim that you falsely claim I made.
So, since you "mistook" my question for a claim, then made up another "claim" out of whole cloth, I'm not really sure how you can even continue to try to justify your "kerfluffle". I'm sure you will, but you have no factual basis to do so.
OK one more time, the quote below is what you referred to a both a "claim" and a "false claim. I copy pasted this from YOUR comment, not my original. Even after your "mistake/edit it is still a question (?) not a claim.
OK, one more time: Do you understand that is not the point I'm claiming is false? A simple yes or no.
"As I already explained, I answered the question I thought you were asking."
Because you chose to make assumptions and draw incorrect inferences, that's not my problem. Be that as it may, if you're going to use this to justify you not answering the question asked, how can you (with any shred on intellectual honesty) then criticize me for doing arguably the same thing.
"It's not "returning" if I never did it to you in the first place."
You are absolutely correct, you have not given me the respect and common courtesy of answering my questions. I had hoped that if I showed you that respect and courtesy, that you would reciprocate, I was wrong.
"OK, one more time: Do you understand that is not the point I'm claiming is false? A simple yes or no."
Apparently no. I guess that the actual use of your own actual words is not sufficient for you. I've quoted you exactly, if you have a problem it's with what you said earlier, not with me.
But, just for grins. Can you (in one sentence or so) explain what this alleged "false claim" was? Even better, can you provide actual in context quotes that demonstrate this "alleged" false claim?
I do find it strange that you are not nearly so scrupulous about your false claims as you are in alleging them of others, why do you think that is?
Speaking of claims that are arguably false.
"Obama has talked about receiving 10,000 refugees."
Except for the 100,000+ Syrians admitted since 2012.
"The United States plans to admit 70,000 refugees in total during fiscal year 2015, which for the federal government began in October and runs through September."
"US Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration Anne Richard says the United States will dramatically increase the number of Syrian refugees allowed to resettle permanently in the United States from about 350 this year to close to 10,000 annually as the crisis grinds on into its fifth year."
So, it appears we have a false claim, and the facts to disprove it.
My apologies if I was not clear enough. He has talked about 10,000 Syrian refugees, the place where many in the GOP leadership are talking about refusing/limiting refugees.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/15/obama-still-plans-to-accept-10000-syrian-refugees-/?page=all
Sorry if that was not clear.
It's clear that you made a false claim. It's clear that you aren't nearly as concerned about your false claims as you are about what you perceive as others false claims.
It's absolutely awesome when the link you provide to "support" your claim actually supports my contention that your claim is false.
"But Mr. Rhodes, speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” insisted Mr. Obama is sticking by his promise that the U.S. will take some 10,000 refugees in 2016, and even more in 2017."
Whoops.
on 12/14 at 12:25, you said/asked...
(aaa) So, your "specific" plan is to let unlimited "refugees" into the US with little or no screening and not to expect the Muslims nations in the region to do anything?
I responded at 1:32...
aaa. your "specific" plan is to let unlimited "refugees" into the US with little or no screening and not to expect the Muslims nations in the region to do anything?
and this...
I know that you now have a lot on your plate as far as responding the problems I've pointed out with your positions, the fact that you don't seem to be a much of a spokesperson for the "progressive community" as you think you are, as well as the 60 + questions outstanding so please take your time
aaa. This is not my plan. I have never advocated "little or no screening..." I have, in fact, said here and elsewhere, by all means, vet them, screen them. Weed about bad actors, to the degree we can.
POINT 1. I quoted directly your question (which is stated as a claim but with a question mark, as if you thought that was my claim and were checking to see if it was, even though i had never said that about little or no screening or "unlimited," I'll note, now).
POINT 2. I clearly said "This is not my plan."
POINT 3. I went on to show where I had already said we should screen them, within this thread.
Clear so far?
I went on to say...
And to clarify about my being a spokesperson for the left, I'm not. I'm ONE of those on the Left, amongst a group of many others in my community. We all tend to think as I do. You asked the question of the left, I'm responding for my little part of the left. I can't speak for everyone and do not pretend to. Having said that, I DON'T SEE ANY ONE ON THE LEFT, IN THE MAINSTREAM, DISAGREEING WITH WHAT I'VE SAID
[emphasis mine, now, to point out what I said and in what context... that is, within the context of my position that I'm NOT advocating "little or no screening...," I see no one disagreeing with me. Do you understand that much, so far?]
You responded at 4:46 saying...
Again pardon the confusion but I would have assumed that Obama, Clinton, and Sandrrs would be considered on the left.
The implication seemed to me to be that these Democrats were disagreeing with me, that they wanted little or no screening.
cont'd...
I immediately (5:00) followed up with the clarifying comment and question...
No one is advocated unlimited, no background checking acceptance of refugees. Do you understand THAT mistake. Not Obama, not Clinton. No one.
Do you understand that?
Clearly, I was stating that these other democrats were not disagreeing with me, that none of us are advocating for little or no screening.
Do you understand that, so far? We are still talking about whether or not these Dems/liberals advocate for little or no screening.
In response, you wrote at 5:46...
The Obama, Clinton. Sanders commnt was a reference to them being on the left, yet disagreeing about how best to solve the problem of ISIS.
So, I guess at this point, you're suggesting you were moving the goal posts away from the "do you understand they do not advocate for little or no screening..." to some other vague "how best to deal with ISIS," and that they disagree with me somehow about something we don't appear to have been talking about... is that what you are saying now?
I was not sure, so I followed up with the repeated clarifying question, the question which you had not yet answered directly...
I'm sorry, so, you DO understand that Obama is not proposing little or no background checks, nor am I, nor is Clinton or any other Democrat?
Your immediate response was...
I apologized and explained, yet you are unsatisfied for some reason. I was quite clear that I have not seen any specific plans from the administration about how they plan to screen these immigrants.
Note: You still did not address the clear and specific question I've been asking. Instead, you said that you had not seen any specific plans, but that wasn't the question I was asking.
Do you understand that?
And really, I'm out of time. But I hope you can see where this seems unnecessarily complicated and how if you'd just answered the question clearly and directly the first time or the second time when I repeated it, seeking clarification, we wouldn't have had to go on for so long? Or how if you hadn't made that assumption (your question suggests it was an assumption that you were seeing if you were understanding correctly, but the assumption is implicit in it) in the first place (since I had never suggested "little or no") we could have avoided all this and all that still followed?
And I hope you can understand how, if it takes all this time and effort to get ONE question directly answered by you and to clarify ONE question for you, how it is reasonable to be leary of 75 more.
It's clear that you made a false claim. It's clear that you aren't nearly as concerned about your false claims as you are about what you perceive as others false claims.
It's not a false claim. It's a misunderstood claim. Perhaps a less-than-helpfully-written claim. My apologies for not being perfect in my writing. But It is NOT a false claim. The Obama administration is advocating 10,000 Syrian refugees, that was what I was speaking of because that was the context of this conversation (the immediate context, anyway). Again, I apologize for not being more precise, I knew what I was speaking about, but I can see how it could easily be misunderstood.
But to be accurate: it was a valid and factual claim, but one that was less than clearly stated. Do you understand that?
It's absolutely awesome when the link you provide to "support" your claim actually supports my contention that your claim is false.
"But Mr. Rhodes, speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” insisted Mr. Obama is sticking by his promise that the U.S. will take some 10,000 refugees in 2016, and even more in 2017."
Whoops.
Yes, that's what I meant. 10,000 and no more than that ever in the future of everything. Don't be an ass.
"Yes, that's what I meant."
OH, I'm sorry, that you apparently meant something other than what you said. I mistakenly went with your actual words.
"Obama has talked about receiving 10,000 refugees."
Had I only known that you meant something else.
Again, apologies for being less than clear. How long do you intend to drag on the berating of my lack of clarity? How many apologies do you need for a simple human slip?
"Can you (in one sentence or so) explain what this alleged "false claim" was?"
The answer to this question is no.
"which is stated as a claim but with a question mark,"
No, it was stated as a question. Your guess about my intent is immaterial.
"I quoted directly your question"
Yet you repeatedly called it a "claim" and a "false claim".
AND NOW, WE GET TO THE HEART OF WHERE YOU WENT WRONG
"The implication seemed to me..."
When you respond to your "implication" and what "seem"s to you to be the case instead of the reality you end up with problems. Had you asked for clarification instead of acting on your mistaken assumptions about how things seem, your mistake could have been avoided. You chose not to.
"Clearly, I was stating that these other democrats were not disagreeing with me, that none of us are advocating for little or no screening."
Great, now you are arguing with yourself. I did not say that they disagreed with you on screening. I factually did not. I even explained this numerous times, yet you chose to ignore my explanation/clarification and go with your assumptions, once again your mistake.
"We are still talking about whether or not these Dems/liberals advocate for little or no screening."
No, "we" are not, you are. I was talking about the larger picture regarding ISIS
"So, I guess at this point, you're suggesting you were moving the goal posts away from the "do you understand they do not advocate for little or no screening...""
Again, when you go with "I guess" instead of asking for clarification you have problems.
"is that what you are saying now?"
It's what I have actually said the entire time, not what you believe it seemed like I said. Again, had you asked for clarification at this point instead of operating on faulty assumptions you could have avoided this confusion.
"Do you understand that?"
I understand that you were asking a question based on your mistaken false assumptions about what you presumed was a secret hidden meaning behind a question I asked you. Since the premise behind your question was utterly wrong, I was attempting to help you understand your mistake. So far, based on what you are offering as "evidence" you still haven't demonstrated that I actually said what you claim I said.
I surrender peace to you.
"...if you'd just answered the question clearly and directly the first time or the second time when I repeated it, seeking clarification, we wouldn't have had to go on for so long?"
Seriously, how about if you had asked for clarification in the first place instead of basing your entire rant on, "implication" and how things "seemed", and "guess"es you could have avoided this whole thing. Even now you are desperately trying to twist what I actually said into what you think I said and basing your entire case on assumptions that YOU made.
Again, the blatant hypocrisy is staggering.
Do you not see anything strange at all about accusing me of making "false statements" with out any actual quotes of me saying what you claim, but instead based on assumptions, implications, 'seemed" and "guess"es, while trying to ignore the actual false statements you have made?
Again, YOU CHOSE not to ask for clarification.
"Again, apologies for being less than clear."
Yet, you expect others to be more clear than you bother to be. Why is that"
"How long do you intend to drag on the berating of my lack of clarity?"
You started bitching about the importance of "clarifying", I just assume that if you feel so strongly about others being clear, that you would feel that it is equally important that you be clear as well.
"How many apologies do you need for a simple human slip?"
How about some apologies for your false claims?
Or
How about cutting me the same slack you expect me to give you? You're the one harping on what could be seen as a "simple slip up", and how your assumptions, "guess"es, and "implications" are beyond questioning.
Look, this is just one more example of how you expect that others behave in ways that you choose not to. It's frustrating and hypocritical and until you finally figure out that this double standard you demand is ridiculous.
"I surrender..."
Surrender, run, whatever makes you feel better about yourself.
What would make me feel better, Craig, would be to sit down with you over a cup of hot chocolate and have a relaxed, peaceful, gracious conversation like two brothers. Even in disagreement, loving one another. Until that time comes... Peace to you.
Dan,
First of all I just want to thank you, I made a point at the beginning of this thread of being allowing you to comment, to answer all of your questions and to see how long it too for you to somehow derail the conversation. I can say that you certainly did not disappoint. Things went pretty much exactly as I suspected they would and eventually you found some minor thing to focus on which allowed you to get angry, defensive, and ultimately to avoid actually having a back and forth conversation. Then, true to form once you had the conversation derailed and extricated yourself from actually engaging in a back and forth conversation. Then you go back to the faux pious look how loving I am shtick we see so often.
I have no idea if we're really brothers or not, and at one point I thought (and probably still do somewhat) that a face to face conversation might be less frustrating. But after your behavior over the last three threads, I'm doubtful.
Sorry you feel that way. I'm confident we could do better face to face. If you're ever in Louisville...
I'm not, as demonstrated by your behavior in the last couple of comment threads. If you can't refrain from falsely accusing a "brother" in a blog comment thread, what would possibly make you think you would be different in person? I find it hard to believe that the only area of your life where you are so comfortable with living out a double standard is online. honestly, I've rarely interacted with someone who is so unaware of how their behavior affects others and so unwilling to acknowledge anything that might be construed as a mistake.
At this point, I just kind of feel sorry for you.
Post a Comment