Hey, there! Log in / Register
Ministers from JP, Andover try to remind Jeff Sessions what the Bible says, are removed by police
By adamg on Mon, 10/29/2018 - 9:30pm
Jefferson Beauregard Sessions was in town today for a little chat with a local chapter of the Federalist Society, which has been busy preparing lists of judges for Trump to appoint. Religion New Service reports on an attempt by two local ministers, one from the First Baptist Church in Jamaica Plain, to try to remind him what the Bible says about religious liberty.
Neighborhoods:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Getting in their face is religious liberty now?
And it's to be commended as brave, and speaking truth to power, I take it?
But then when I say things that aren't popular around here, knuckleheads like erik g and lbb are out in force saying I should be banned and they wouldn't lose sleep if someone beats the shit out of me.
Classy place.
Less classy by the minute
If you're going to be wiping your rhetorical ass on every thread that comes up in my city.
You want to class the joint up, plaster your comments on a site in whatever shitty burg you live in.
You sound like a smart and
You sound like a smart and happy person.
Aw, thanks, sweetie
Opinions of internet Republicans are what really matter to me.
I don't think anyone should be banned.
But as for classy, I'm not sure you have a leg to stand on here.
I give as good as I get, but I've never called for violence or
censorship on anyone here. Or anywhere for that matter.
I've also never accused anyone of literally being a murderer for the crime of having and expressing opinions I disagree with.
And before anyone calls me a liar or a hypocrite: yes I've repeatedly affirmed my belief that there are times in life when the use of deadly force is justified in self-defense, law enforcement, or military action. Those are nowhere near the same thing as calling for beatings of people with whom I disagree.
You just called for
You just called for censorship by saying people shouldn't be allowed to boycott companies. You said boycotting should be a crime. You are such a ridiculous hypocrite.
If I said "shouldn't be allowed" then I erred
I mean to say "shouldn't"
Quite Literally Speaking Truth to Power
He's the Attorney General of the United States. Power
And he's supporting the policy of separating children from their parents and jailing them in walmarts and office buildings (among other heinous, unchristian policies.) This practice is quite clearly counter to the bible passage the minister calmly and peacefully quoted. Truth.
You whine and troll by spouting racist, transphobic, victim-blaming propaganda on the internet. Not the same thing.
Does that help you out?
So in summary
They are trying to force a cabinet official to enforce their interpretation of a particular religion as government policy.
And the interesting thing is that it was a lecture on the importance of religious liberty. I suppose people look at that in different ways in the end.
Uh, no
Uh, no. As religious leaders from his own denomination, they're pointing out his own bible-thumping hypocrisy to him. I'm surprised that you don't understand that; it's not particularly hard to get.
Oh you bet your ass they do. Jeff Sessions in particular views "religious liberty" as the "liberty" to ignore any laws as long as your religion tells you you can do something. Since the Christian bible justifies many things that are illegal in this country, that's a bit of a conflict of interest for him as attorney general, and he should be called out on it at every possible opportunity.
Sessions wasn't at church last night
And neither of those guys were his pastor.
But hey, let's do a theoretical. Let's say that Clinton struck the Electoral College gold everyone was expecting 2 years ago. Let's also say that she appointed an AG who was a member of the Roman Catholic Church. Finally, let's say that the AG gave a speech that was interrupted by Catholic priests saying that the AG was immoral to be carrying out the administration's policies on abortion. Would you be okay with that? This pro-life commenter would be a bit uneasy with clergy directly ordering a government official to toe the line on church policy, but I guess I just have that whole "separation of church and state" thing stuck in the back of my head.
I have no problem with the clergy speaking out publically on the immorality of any government policy. I've seen it before. Heck, the homily at mass this past week-end was something that these clergymen would have clapped for. This does seem to be crossing the line.
(note, the second paragraph was edited. The third word originally was "to." That don't make no sense grammatically.)
About that separation of church and state
Waquoit, are you aware of what US law is regarding asylum seekers? Because Jeff Sessions doesn't seem to be.
You don't want him to be held accountable on moral grounds by leaders of his own faith tradition, and it seems you don't want him to be held accountable to uphold the law either. Doesn't that make him nothing but a malicious waste of skin?
And the law has to do with moral ground how?
The law or any interpretation of the law has nothing to do with religious beliefs, except that in the end lawmakers are informed by their moral upbringing which is usually based on religion.
And I have no issue with citizens calling out politicians when they think a law is wrong, or that a law is not being followed. These guys made it a religious issue, which might make you uncomfortable, but it's what they did.
Again, if you are comfortable with this, don't get uncomfortable when some bishop somewhere calls out a particular Catholic politician who is okay with abortion being a personal decision. Both things are essentially the same. Heck, Catholic bishops talk about things like abortion and immigration policy all the time. It's just the First Amendment lover inside of me that gets a little squeamish when religious leaders demand that politicians follow the tenants of the church in carrying out their duties as an elected official.
Tell that to Sessions
You need to tell that to Jefferson Beauregard "Religious Liberty" Davis Sessions. You really do need to do that, if it's an honest concern of yours.
Methinks we have a difference of opinion
On what religious liberty is.
Me, I think that forcing an order of nuns called the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their religious beliefs when providing health insurance coverage would be a violation of religious liberty. Still, I’m dying to read your example from the current administration. (This should be good.)
Bullshit
They aren't being forced to do anything but pay premiums.
I would love to stop paying into insurance funds that pay out on climate change disasters again and again and again in states that REFUSE to deal with climate change ... but I know how insurance works. I suggest that you look up how insurance works dear.
Ah, selective religious liberty
I’m sure our current AG will have a speech someday about this....
Still waiting, btw.
Still waiting for WHAT?
Not everybody spends 18 hours a day on uhub.
Fair enough
I got tripped up by someone else's response. Now, I'm on to yours.
You really need to get out more
Have you been living under a rock, or do you simply not give a damn? I'm thinking the latter, but could be both. It pretty much has to be at least one so you tell me.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/7/31/17631110/jeff-sessions-religious-liberty-task-force-memo-christian-nationalism
http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/10/10/exclusive-attorney-general-sessions-tells-rsquo-s-faith-nation-christian-cake-bakers-have-a-ldquo-fundamental-right-and-ought-to-be-respected-rdquo
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2017/10/06/sessions-issues-broad-religious-freedom-guidance/
To your question, my definition of "religious liberty" is the "liberty" to practice one's religion insofar as this does not infringe on the CIVIL rights of others. Such infringements include everything from blaring your funnymentalist music outside someone's house to introducing religious instruction or practices in public schools to refusing someone's rights to housing, education, employment, healthcare or public accommodations because they are doing or being something that your religion does not permit. You may practice your religion in private or in a religious institution of your choice, but when you or your religious institution enter into the public sphere, you must play by the rules of the public sphere.
Now let's hear it, Waquoit. What is YOUR definition of "religious liberty"?
You're making my point
You have now given examples of how the Trump administration has acted to protect people's religious liberty. Three of them. You might not like them. You might think that it's okay to make a person participate in a gay marriage when their religious beliefs say that marriage is between a man and a woman (assuming the person is not acting as an agent of the government), but in some corners that is an assault on the person's religious beliefs. You might want to constrain people's expression of their religious beliefs, but that is kind of the opposite of what religious liberty would be.
But I'll give you another chance, and I'll even give parameters. Can you give me an example of the administration acting in a what that one's religious expression is limited or where one is limited somehow because of their religious beliefs? Honestly, I am waiting for a certain answer that has holes big enough to drive a supertanker through, but I can wait. I promise. I'll be patient this time.
Christian conservatives are
Christian conservatives are not interested in what the Bible says. They do the exact opposite of what jesus would do. They only care about power, money, and forcing their putrid beliefs on others.
If you can point me to the passage that says
"No borders! No nations! Fuck your deportations!" I might try to rebut your copy-paste screed.
Otherwise and until then, I direct your attention to some guy somewhere driving a car. Go get 'im, tiger.
Borders should be tightened
Because porous enough to let your fascist ass sneak into our country is too porous.
If you're even here, that is, and not IP spoofing from Moscow.
Must be nice to live in a world
where the only people who disagree with you are foreigners whose opinions aren't even theirs and who can be insulted and dehumanized without it reflecting poorly on your character.
Man I want to live in that world. Then I wouldn't have to worry about the social fabric slowly tearing itself to shreds at the hands of belligerent solpsists without even a shred of introspection. Which is a special kind of solipsist, I can tell you.
Must be nice to live in a country
where you get to slam the door shut behind you once you get in.
I can see where you would. You are a barbarian who doesn't want to be called a barbarian.
If I'm a barbarian that just came through the door
why do you want to keep the door open?
If I just came through the door and am telling you to lock it, because there are barbarians right behind me, why would you dismiss that?
The conditions that make this place liveable don't rain down from the sky. They are hard-earned and the commitments that keep those conditions in place need to be made continually. Keeping large numbers of incompatible foreigners from dysfunctional places out is one such commitment. Period.
Unless and until I see you acknowledge that as a fundamental fact, no amount of insults from you will lead anywhere.
the song remains the same
Which wave of immigrants throughout the history of this country that have been villified and dehumanized by the "natives" are we talking about again? Are we still fighting this fight about the Irish?
No, it doesn't. You just keep hearing it that way.
We're talking specifically about the 22 million and growing illegal immigrants here who by their presence assert that the same laws that apply to 302 million people don't apply to them. We're talking about the people who isolate themselves in ethnic and linguistic ghettos, refuse to learn English, refuse to assimilate, and wave Mexican and Central American flags at their political rallies here.
Not having met any of them face to face, I can't say that I have anything specific against any of them individually, but I do say that it is bad policy to encourage the conditions that draw large numbers of them here and allow them to have their own country-within-a-country.
The American Experiment is about the collective continued willful suppression of base human instincts that are detrimental to peace and prosperity. Ethnic tribalism is one such instinct. People who give into it too much and people whose presence feeds that beast ought not to be allowed in.
"Not having met any of them face to face..."
Yet, you feel fully capable to extoll on policy on how they are harming /your/ country.
Go fuck yourself.
I've never met 2 billion citizens of China or India either
but I'm on pretty firm ground in stating that it would be bad policy to buy them all a plane ticket to Omaha, Nebraska.
***phwwwweeeeetttt***
Hochuli's forearms
That's gold.
Detached from reality
Roman, the objective truth is that if those 22 million alleged undocumented immigrants were deported tomorrow, you would starve to death.
As opposed to your kind of tribalism which leads to a great and just society. Obviously.
Round and round we go
Watching the rise of the tea party and then Trump always reminds me of the Know-Nothing Party of the 19th century. Everything old is new again. I tried to point out to a couple that I know that her Italian Catholic ancestors and his Irish Catholic ancestors were the "dirty foreigners" who were not going to assimilate, were going to overrun and be the absolute ruin of this country a few generations back. Nope, they think they're as American as apple pie now and nothing in their family history could relate to today's situation. (It's usually the "but they came here legally" argument which so completely ignores the history of immigration law in this country as to be a non-starter)
That's just dishonest
Concerns about assimilation were as valid then as they are now. It wasn't an out of bounds discussion to have back then of how many foreigners a (back then much smaller) country could absorb without sacrificing away the cultural critical mass that allows success to happen here but not there. Let me say this again: asking how many immigrants a country should take in is not out-of-bounds.
But now you've got the cherry on top of "we're going to ignore your immigration laws because we don't think they should apply to us" that just makes my blood boil. If following the rules wasn't too much to ask of us, it's not too much to ask of them.
Are you literally not aware
that there are "rules" now that didn't exist then? My Italian foreparents had to 1) show up, and 2) declare that they didn't have TB or anarchist leanings.
Also I've driven across Nebraska. There's plenty of room in this country.
We can change rules. There's plenty of room until there isn't.
I've driven across the mountain west, across California, even westa woosta.
There's plenty of physical space. In fact, there's so much space that we could carve off a Texas-sized chunk of it several times over, grant it independence, and it will have enough arable land and mineral wealth to sustain a self-sufficient, prosperous, and politically stable country.
Those are necessary conditions but they aren't sufficient conditions. The culture in people's heads has to be right or else they're going to recreate Venezuela or Honduras or Guatemala or Ciudad Juarez right here. And guess what: linguistic and cultural borders are just as strong as imaginary lines on a map. Stronger in fact. That's why we can't be bringing in people in such numbers that they can coast and not assimilate. Because people will do that if they can get away with it and there's nothing that poisons social cohesion like the inability (I say again: inability, not unwillingness but inability) to communicate.
Coming in a close second is the unwillingness to accept the rule of law and equality before the law. It's part and parcel of the same ball of devil's work as linguistic barriers. If there's tens of millions of people here who don't accept the premise of equality before the law (because they broke the law and it's understandable that they wouldn't be chomping at the bit to self-deport), then the ability of the majority to collectively pretend that we are a society of laws and not of men and connections and winks and nods becomes that much more precarious. Because that's also human instinct: loyalty to kin over clan, to clan over state. That too must be actively suppressed with a concious and continuing effort on everyone's part. And that's hard if there's a critical mass of people who don't think they should play by those rules.
Incidentally, the US government did not take our word for it that we didn't have TB. We had to provide medical documentation. Maybe a few too many people declared they didn't have TB who did? We also had to declare we were not and never had been communists. That's taken on faith alone I suppose but we've all been voting mostly Republican since we could vote.
More loyal to the pope than the president
Do a little research on anti-Catholic history in the US and you will repeatedly run across fear mongering that these immigrants were loyal to the pope, and will not recognize the US government and therefore didn't belong or couldn't be trusted to be citizens. Do you honestly not see a parallel between that and the fear-mongering by the right wing today about immigrants who are going to implement and follow sharia law in the US?
If you honestly cannot see that then you are too far gone, your perspective has narrowed to the point of blindness.
The difference is that back then
information flowed more slowly and all of that fear was based on rumor and old-world animosity. Jews got a hell of a lot of it too.
Today, we like to think of ourselves as a little more fact-based. And we can see the facts all around.
Questions for you tachometer:
1. Is Syria a mess or not and why?
2. Is Saudi Arabia a mess or not and why?
3. Is Venezuela a mess or not and why?
4. Is Central America a mess or not and why?
If the answer to any of those is yes (hold off on the why for now), then what effect should that assessment have on how many people from those places we allow in? Nothing about religion, or perceived loyalty, or any immutable characteristic of birth so far. Let's have that conversation first.
We can get to the "why's" later.
Nah, we'll do the whys now
1. Yes, statism
2. Yes, statism
3. Yes, statism
4. Yes, statism
Very good.
And now for the million-dollar question: does statism exist in isolation, in an abstract and formless aether...or does it burrow its way into people's heads and affects they way they think and perceive and reason about their environment?
So if where you're from is a mess should b the USIS litmus test?
Do some research on what the vetting process is to arrive in the US via asylum before you start making any calls for blanket bans. I'll even post a challenge to you. Let's see if you can back your position based on the details of the actual process rather than the "smart sounding" right wing talking points that are your bread and butter. The base rule is that your factual statements must be linked to proof backing what you say like this one and not some opinion article. Those backed facts, and only those backed facts, are what can be used to create your conclusions.
Let's go Roman, let's see if you've got the chops to do it. I don't think you have the ability to fight in that real world of actual regulations, process, or data.
For many atheists their first step from religiosity was actually sitting down to read the bible in an effort to defend their religious stance. Are you afraid that if you actually learn what the truth is behind what you say that your statements will crumble to dust? If not then take up the challenge, I have already given you a key to start your journey.
Okay...
No. 2 was us back in the 90s. You'll notice that economic conditions are not on the list here. Neither is the threat of violence from people who look and pray and "vote" exactly like you.
So what's the claim to asylum that the caravaners have in your opinion?
Not a single link
I'm not answering your questions because you have not done your part. I want to see your argument based on things like links to regulations (as in something that you can cite in the USC), a government form or some other officially generated document.
Let's define the challenge a bit more specifically so that you don't just try changing the subject again.
Above you state that there should be no immigration from countries that are in some sort of strife or chaos. I want you to show me which part of the asylum process, as laid out by the United States government, is insufficient at vetting people from those nations.
I'll even give you some help in starting your research based on other common right wing arguments. Let's say that you believe that it is too easy for someone coming from one of those nations to lie about who they are so it is way too easy for a terrorist to slip into the country through the asylum process (you know, all of those ISIS members you've heard about that are in the caravan). To do that you must show me from the asylum process what documentation and/or supporting evidence of identity is required to gain asylum and then you can state what you think should additionally required before it is sufficient.
See, you ended your last retort by asking a question but I'm not even asking you a new question. I'm actually accepting your premise right now and only asking for you to demonstrate the reasons as to why there can be no immigration from these countries based on the related USCIS process.
Let's go Roman, I'm tired of your words, I want you to enlighten me to the actual faults of the process so that I can call my members of congress to fix this problem. I'm asking you to help me fight to save this country. What's the worst that can happen? That you come to find out that you've been a believer of lies? Are you afraid of that for some reason?
Um forgive me but where did I say zero is the right number?
And as an aside, how exactly do you expect me to back a judgment call like an actual number of people allowed from country X with citations of regulations and laws that (ideally at least) are meant to contain no arbitrary judgment calls?
The number makes no difference
If there is a hard limit of one for the quantity of asylum seekers from Syria allowed to enter makes no difference to the question I posed. You said there was a problem with allowing people from specific countries under strife. I'm asking you to show me the specific weakness(es) in the current system for vetting asylum seekers that the US government uses that backs this opinion. If the process is robust, then you must have another reason for believing that they should be kept out, if that's the case I'd like to hear it.
Those are your words. So you are saying that the conditions in a country must have an effect on how we assess people from these countries. All you need to do is show me what we require of these people and what the shortcomings of that system are
Stop squirming. Take up the challenge and prove a single point of yours based on fact, I think lots of people here would love to see that.
First of all
I never made any statements about the quality of vetting of people who present themselves for consideration. What my objection has always been to is the danger of having large numbers of unassimilated people entering at the same time. We have quotas on the number of green cards that may be issued to citizens of any one country, which is good but still beside the point.
The point us about people from countries in strife who do not show up to the US embassy and present their case for asylum but people who show up at the Mexican border and just step on over, creating chaos and flouting our laws. I'll give you all the links you want if you stop steering the conversation away from that and to your extreme vetting counter strawman.
People forget that all you
People forget that all you had to do was get on a boat....that was coming here "legally."
Illegal immigrants aren't taking our jobs. They are doing all the jobs that all of us Americans are too lazy or proud to do. They know they value of hard work; we don't. We have it easy. They put far more into the land than they ever get back.
It's not about D or R it's about decency. Basic human decency which this administration clearly lacks.
This is easy, since it is one of the chief concerns of the Bible
When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.
----
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
Good words to live by, but no dice
Mistreating the foreigners here and discouraging them from coming by the millions are very different things.
There's also a prohibition against coveting thy neighbor's house in there somewhere, no? And if there is, ought there not also be a prohibition against enabling your neighbor to covet your house? Some people (I think) take that to mean simply refraining from conspicuous displays of wealth. Should that also not include refraining from encouraging people to come with false promises of paradise?
So...
So, taking away people's children is merely "discouraging" to you?
Congratulations, you and Jeff Sessions are now soulmates: brothers in the movement to make the Bible say what it ought to have said if only its authors were as smart as you.
Yep. Believe it or not you've just stated my thinking exactly
with the exception that I don't make any statements about the authors of the bible not being as smart as we are. It's a statement about some interpretations of those words being more defensible than others when taken in context and not in snippets.
"Thou shalt not kill" is a favorite example, and one over which the controversy is well-known enough. It's not a call to pacifism.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth" is one I learned something about recently. I'm not a Christian so I didn't really have cause to read up on it in depth, but I was watching a Jordan Peterson video the other day and he casually mentioned that "meek" doesn't mean "meek" in the same way that "kill" does not mean "kill." The closest colloquialism in the English language for "meek" is "the state of having achieved peace through strength." Maybe it's a Reaganite talking point. Maybe it's eternal wisdom. Maybe it's a little of both. It's definitely not all hippie smiles and sunshine, but it's also been there for nearly two thousand years in plain Aramaic.
So...
...you're citing a whackjob rightwing conspiracy nut as your authority on what two words in the Bible mean?
Ooooookay.
Yeah. Whackjob. Sure.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:5
Jordan Peterson, dipwad
You and him, whackjobs of a feather. Only he seems to have about 70 IQ points on you.
Oh, I get it
You've knee-jerked asserted that Jordan Peterson is a crackpot instead of even making an effort to rebut anything specific. Same as you do with me.
If I didn't know better, I'd swear you're trying to bait me into calling you an NPC so you can accuse me of parroting something I saw in my memo-o-matic!
That's a "good" Samaritan, if you can imagine such a thing
I've been forever ruined for that parable thanks to this comedy sketch.
And the Lord did say
Thou shalt not do publicity stunts in My name by interrupting public officials while they are speaking, for it is a jerky thing to do and only serves to annoy the Speaker and the audience.
He said that pretty early too.
It's definitely one of the first fifty commandments. Naw...something that important has to be within the first dozen.
Money changers and temples
Jesus wasn't very nice to officials who were taking money and pretending to be pious.
LOOK IT UP.
Matthew 21:11-13
Matthew 25
Is arguably the foundation of Christian faith and Christian conscience. The verses that the record says the good Reverend quoted, are not treatises on religious liberty, but rather lessons on the act of delivering of God's love and charity to our brothers and sisters in this world vs. simply offering up empty words of piety dressed up as faith. I think this was the lamp the was shown to Mr. Sessions.
Here is the speech.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-delivers-re...
On the Constitution and such
Note to those ministers -- its fine to protest in the public square and exhort your flock to follow you -- you can petition members of the government for redress of your grievances -- real or imagined.
But please first read the Constitution to see what we as a Civil Society have decided is important
-- then you have Five options:
However -- If you chose to do Civil Disobedience be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions
At what point...
...did either of them say that they WEREN'T prepared to accept the consequences of their actions?
Oh wait, that was you saying it for them.
In loco parentis, long before Trump. Ask Judge Maria Lopez
I was never a fan of the politics of the Boston Phoenix or its late founder, Stephen Mindich but his wife, Superior Court Judge (also liberal) Maria Lopez impressed me on a very cold winter night when two young parents had been rightfully arrested, leaving three children unattended. DSS (now DCF) was several hours away. Judge Lopez was the "on-call" judge that the state rotates 24/7, 365 days.
By phone and fax, Judge Lopez appointed me "guardian ad litem, in loco parentis." I was only vaguely familiar with the terms but the children were well cared for until they could be placed in better care. Happy Meals from McDonalds, toys, teddy bears etc.
The fake news that our President Trump is creating a new extreme policy of separating children from criminal parents is absurd and a farce. Call your local police department and ask which female school crossing guard gets called in on overtime at midnight to babysit children "separated" from criminal parents. It has occurred on the local level since the Pilgrims, and those crossing guards and other care takers are saints, we just don't hear about it because children are involved. Very fake news.
Yawn
Hate is not a religion.
Good on you for protecting the children from immediate harm...
... but a Happy Meal from McDonalds will never meet the threshold of "well cared for."
Happy meals, toys, and teddy bears...
...Spending most of your day in a chain link cage, sleeping on a bench or the floor, being handed a tray of some industrial grade food.
Yeah, that's pretty clearly a "you say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to" situation.
You should look up "cognitive dissonance" and then look at your posting history some time.
We can't take everyone. Therefore some will get the shaft.
I am at peace with this. You should be too.
The logical conclusion of the "kids in cages omg" meme is that everyone should be let in no questions asked. That is not sustainable. It is not desirable. Please do not lose sight of why it is that America is a prosperous and peaceful place and please do not assume that it will continue to be that way without continued sacrifice and hard work. Just like some of that hard work will be really hard, some of those sacrifices will be really painful.
Slippery slope
"The logical conclusion of the "kids in cages omg" meme is that everyone should be let in no questions asked."
You fascists and your logic. It's funny. Except where it kills people.
That's not an argument. That's a baseless smear.
Every nation on earth picks and chooses whom it lets in and every nation that picks and chooses enforces that choice ultimately at the point of a gun.
Call it fascism if it makes you feel good. Actually don't. It shouldn't make you feel good. Because it's not fascism. Not literally, not figuratively, not in any way short of fake.
nationalism-stoking
is a central part of fascism.
someone recently just proudly called himself a "nationalist"
the jokes calling him Cheeto Mussolini really havent been far off. He's a fascist. Eventually you're going to have to accept it. Or will you wait until the boots are on your throat instead of just the brown peoples'?
Oh he'll get his
I was born here. Some of my forebears were first people's too. I have nothing to worry about.
Any and all naturalized citizens like Roman? Who came as refugees? He'll get his rude awakening long before us rock-ribbed, families here for centuries if not millenia types do.
Ja, Ja mein Herr
Ze logical conclusion of ze "Jews in concentration camps" meme is zat ve should just let ze Jews take over all of ze banking. Zat is not sustainable.
What. Ever.
I doubt you honestly believe that detaining people who cross the border illegally is morally indistinguishable from sending your own citizens to death camps.
But in case you do believe it: you're wrong.
Then again, I guarantee you that at some point between 1933 and 1945 a Nazi:
1. Wrote someone a parking ticket.
2. Filled a pothole.
3. Taught arithmetic in a public school.
4. Tried and convicted someone of murder who was actually factually a murderer.
5. Brewed beer.
6. Drank beer.
7. Composed and arranged a piece of beautiful music.
8. Operated a lightswitch.
Those are eight things we can no longer do as a society because Nazis literally did the same exact things.
Ja, ja mein Herr
Zat is perfectly good logic. Because next is
9. Separated children from their parents
10. Held children in cages
Zo, it is perfectly good logic that we cannot avoid to keep children in cages if we want to fill potholes. Unassailable logic! Vell done!
Say, are you going down to the Bierhalle later? I hear dere's going to be a nice putsch.
Still a nonsequitur.
I'm sure the guy who got the speeding ticket thought he was being treated unfairly. I mean he got a ticket from a literal Nazi in a country where the highways have no speed limits!
But back to my point: how would YOU enforce the border? I'm all for keeping families locked up together until the merits of their claim to asylum can be adjudicated but if the courts say we can't do that then I'm fine with separating them. Call me names all you want but I'm still fine with it because it serves a valid purpose rather than being done capriciously, for sport, or with the ultimate goal of death camps.
They're mocking your argument
You're too daft to even catch on when people are making fun of your slippery slope fallacy. You should change your handle here to Dunning-Kruger instead.
Mocking is all they can do
because they can't answer the question of what to do if not what we're doing now.
Fuck you. Don't tell me what
Fuck you. Don't tell me what i should be at peace with. Not everyone has the same fucked up world view as you much to your chagrin. Now go ahead and tell me how i'm not good to argue w, and I'll tell you to go fuck yourself again.
Logic?
I point out that having a police officer be given parental control of a couple of children whose parents have been arrested for a criminal offense is not in any way equivalent to warehousing many children of people who are being detained for a civil violation, and you say that it is the logical conclusion that "everyone should be let in no questions asked" (in a glaring attempt to put those words in my mouth)?
This is why people here jump on your shit. You think you're the sacred owner of the truth or something but your arguments come off like a middle of the pack kid in a high school debate class. You can't make a case so you resort to what many here see for the obvious word worming that they are. Even right here you fail for using the slippery slope fallacy in an attempt to set up a strawman.
Here, why don't you go brush up.
Why anyone here still responds to Roman is a mystery.
He's a case study in intellectual dishonesty and arguing in bad faith, a teenager who falsely imagines he has rhetorical depth, is in love with the sound of his own voice, yet can't make a single post without resorting to some cheap, false junior-high debating tactic, or playing the victim when he gets properly called out as a time-wasting, devious asshole.
He's one of those callow fake-conservative trolls who subsists on online attention, especially (apparently) negative attention. Starve him of it, and maybe he'll find another group of grownups to pester with his juvenile natterings.
The higher the climb, the bigger the fall
The more comments he piles up here the higher he'll come crashing down from if he ever tries to dig into actual facts to back his positions. Just like some addicts really needs to crash hard into rock bottom before they can begin their recovery Roman may need that sort of awakening. If he does he can come back here and read his previous stances for days and cringe in horror at his own ignorance.
You know why
Roman is blowing the same dog whistles that we are hearing everywhere in this country today. There are still those who haven't figured out what's wrong with what these knuckledraggers are saying. When someone calls bullshit on them, it helps these people understand the choice: barbarian or civilized human being.
Let's consider a simple analogy
Consider the following scenario
Well the above analogy is similar to the southern border of the US
I'd guess we are between phase 3a and 4d above
I don't think we want to wait for the last episode -- After all its our land and We did Build the Cabin
Bullshit
YOU STOLE THE LAND.
Know who you stole it from - NATIVE AMERICANS
Know who those people marching are? Who those people seeking asylum are? MESTIZOS
Know what another name for that is? NATIVE AMERICAN.
Colonial trash fuck off!
this right here
Is some utterly ridiculous freshman-poli-sci try-hard bullshit.
Holy crap dude. Seriously. What part of the daily caller deep web did you copypaste that from?
in this analogy
who are the American Indians and who are the Pilgrims
Analogy
Any analogy with this much detail is bound to break down pretty quickly, but really you should have been able to get farther than the first item. Who exactly willed you the land?
Irrelevant
The point is it's yours, whether you received it as a gift, paid for it, discovered and claimed it, or conquered it by force of arms and built a civilization on top of it. Every plot of land anywhere meets one of those four.
So...
...law is irrelevant? Possession is ten-tenths of the law? To the most successful thief goes the spoils?
You ARE a barbarian.
This is absolute complete and utter bullshit.
no this is perfect
Roman just out-smaht-guy'd himself.
So if the caravan forcibly overtakes the CBP and makes it's way across the border, and sets up a civilization where there is none (Arizona, arguably), it's all gravy.
Well...yeah
then it would be a conquest, and it's on us to defend our territory. If we don't and they do build a civilization on conquered land and defend it...then yeah it'd be theirs.