- It's about all the open borders types who live in gated communities or walled estates. It's about the folks who want to ban guns for everyone except their armed private security.ReplyDelete
-
I don't know what Craig is talking about. I'm the person who wrote it. I don't live in a gated community, I live in an urban community next door to folks with mental illness and surrounded by folks from all different cultures.. who is in church relationships with immigrant folks.Reply
So that first comment from Craig is clearly not directed towards me and seems a bit meaningless or out of context here.
And on the second comment, I do not own guns and I do not have an armed private security nor do I know anyone who does. So I have no idea what Craig is talking about, other than just trying to automatically going on the attack, Maybe.
What I'm talking about in my poem is those who would let fear dictate policy rather than reason, Justice or compassion. And when people let fear dictate policy, they often times will come up with irrational nonsensical Solutions like a border wall that all one has to do is go over or go around to beat. -
I assumed you wrote this bit of doggerel, and am responding in a more tongue in cheek way to the larger issue.ReplyDelete
Clearly anyone who would build a wall to stop a bird is insane, but that's not really the point.
What does seem to be the point is that Dan thinks that a wall won't be 100% effective, and he thinks that people seriously might believe that it will be 100% effective. I'll say that teeing off on an argument that isn't being made isn't necessarily effective.
Although, I think that your last actually made my jesting comments on topic. Clearly many people (including those who advocate for open borders) believe that ereact8ng walls will increase their security. Once can only assume that you would criticize the folx that live in gated communities, operate things like stadia, arenas, courthouses, government facilities, are all acting from unwarranted fear and that they should tear down the walls (or similar barriers) immediately.
If you can point out what you believe are peoples motivations for implementing policy, it only seems fair to point out those that hypocritically don't live by the same rules they'd impose on others.
FYI, you're right, the wall Israel build has proven very effective of stopping suicide bombers who espouse the "religion of peace", unfortunately it hasn't worked particularly well at stopping the regular barrages of mortars, artillery, and missiles, lobbed indiscriminately at unsuspecting and innocent civilians. -
Again, my point is, it's rather obvious that a 15 foot wall can be beat by 20 ft ladder. A wall that goes 100 miles can be beat by walking 102 miles. The point is that experts say this is a waste of money and it's a huge waste of money.Reply
Add to that how Trump has made this a racist issue trying to block the brown Invaders, as the new conservatives call them, just makes it evil instead of the welcoming of strangers that more moral and rational people would speak of. That's my point. -
My point is rather obvious. The larger question then is why conservatives would defend the racist reasoning xenophobia in fear behind the current new conservative push for walls to keep out Invaders.Reply
-
Yes Dan, we understand that you believe that there should be no impediment to crossing the borders. Please, provide the actual quotes where the “race” of those who cross our border in violation of our current law is explicitly stated.ReplyDelete
Your point is obvious, it’s just not compelling and not consistent. -
That you don't understand my position or understand how it's consistent doesn't mean that it's not compelling or consistent. It just means you don't understand.Reply
Trump and his racist KKK type supporters have made it clear that this is about race from day one were accused Mexicans of sending rapists and killers. Again that you don't understand the racism involved doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Ask your friends of color to explain it to you. -
Dan, you are right about something. You are correct that no matter what people do to enforce the law or protect themselves, there are other people who will go out of their way to surmount those protective measures.ReplyDelete
You’re definitely right about that. -
If your latest claim is factually accurate, you should have no trouble providing proof of your claim.ReplyDelete
Or are you taking the She Guevara route and trying to say that facts don’t matter as long as you’re “morally right”?
I guess you’d have to admit that it’s possible to be objectively “morally right” first. Or just jump on the “by any means necessary” bandwagon.
But your still right that some folx (see my earlier “religion of peace” comment as an example. -
Craig, what are you talkin about? None of your comments appear to have any relation to the topic of the post. None of your claims appear to be connected to reality.Reply
So I'm not sure what it is you're even trying to say, just sounds like gobbledygook from someone who's not understanding a conversation. It's as if I'm talking about the best recipes for spaghetti and you're offering something like, "...On the other hand, the moonwalk was mostly filmed in Arizona in the 1930s and dainty rabbits are notorious for having bad dandruff issues."
You're not making sense.
What I'm saying is simple.
1. The experts tell us that a wall will be terribly expensive and ineffective.
2. Despite Trump's irrational and fear-mongering claims, we have no emergency On the Border to the South beyond the emergency of people seeking refuge and being blocked from receiving it.
3. There is no huge influx of terrorist or drugs coming across the border that a wall would stop. Trump's claims to the contrary are just false claims.
If you're not commenting on these points, you're off topic. Stop going off-topic or go away. -
In spite of your hateful spin on it, you are right in your understanding standing of my point if you're saying that, if people are escaping danger and they come across a wall they WILL go over it. Because, of course they would. They would be stupid and immoral not to do so.Reply
To hell with f****** walls that stop people seeking Refuge. That is just a basic reasonable moral position to take. Before you comment here any further can you clarify that you agree with that reality? That it is immoral to build a wall to stop people seeking Refuge from harm? -
To reiterate, the wall does not stop terrorists, does not stop drug dealers... neither of which tend to use these open spaces for Crossing.Reply
And they don't stop people seeking Refuge, either, although they probably do make it more difficult for the poor folks trying to do that. Certainly the xenophobic and fear-mongering demonization of refugees and immigrants does make it more difficult. That is what is stupid and evil because it is evil to stop people from seeking safety. Do you agree with that notion? I would say it's also evil to make it difficult for people seeking safety. Do you agree with that reality? -
The question put to you, Craig, was do you agree that is evil to stop people or make it difficult for people to seek safety? It's a pretty simple question that any right-thinking moral person should be able to answer because the answer is clear and obvious. The balls in your Park.Reply
Tuesday, January 8, 2019
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)