Stan, at his blog, laments about that which he says he simply can't understand. He says, and I quote...
To me, the mind of the liberal Christian is inscrutable. I will never understand.
He then proceeds to offer several examples of disagreements with liberals that he finds "inscrutable." The problem, it seems to me, is that he hasn't asked/won't listen to liberals when they explain their positions.
He says, by way of example...
"I'm told that God's Word requires open borders... I don't see anything in my Bible that says or suggests, "You shall not do anything that blocks the free flow of refugees from other countries to your own." But the liberal Christian would like to make it a law that we open our borders and embrace all who come at whatever cost because it's there in the Bible."
First of all, of course, there are all manner of liberals and there may indeed be some who say this. But I know of none. This is not our reasoning or what we say. So, Stan does not understand our position because he doesn't even understand what we are and aren't saying.
I, and folks like me, have made it clear that we do not agree with treating the Bible as a holy rule book. That saying, "God wants us to behave certain ways and all we have to do is find what ways God wants us to act by citing a passage in the Bible that addresses it, then we're okay..." is not faithful to what the Bible teaches or what reason would tell us.
We make it clear that the Bible is written to a specific audience, the ancient peoples found in its pages... and equally make it clear that we should be wary about lifting pre-historic rules found in biblical stories and saying, "This teaches us what God's rules are about slavery, or how to treat women, or gay folk or wars or enemies or polygamy..."
No, I/we do NOT say "Let's have open borders because the Bible says so." Clearly, the Bible NEVER addresses modern foreign policies in a world such as we have today.
So, Stan misunderstands. To crack the code of the "inscrutable mind" of liberals, then, Stan should begin by asking "Am I understanding you aright?" and proceed from there.
(For the record, I support MORE open borders, but not wholly open borders. I support reasonable border policies that do not promote harm and that allows for refugees seeking safety to find that safety and I do so as a matter of support for human liberties, which includes the right to self determination... NOT because the Bible says to have open borders.)
Stan continues in his confusion, citing another example...
Almost everyone is clear that the Bible is not ambiguous about the sin of homosexual behavior... [there is NOTHING like unity that this is "the Bible's" and certainly not God's opinion about homosexual behavior - DT]
The liberal Christian is concerned that some might try to pass laws that would try to forbid sexual sin. "Oh, no," they argue, "you can't make your laws based on your religious views." Now, hang on a minute! Didn't you just say that we should make immigration laws based on your religious views? But not this? I don't get it.
What people like me argue is that we ought not cause harm to others. We note the very real reality that LGBTQ folk HAVE experienced harm throughout the millennia. Oppression, mockery, beatings, imprisonments and death all have been a common reality for gay and queer folk. We argue that human rights argues in FAVOR of self determination and AGAINST causing harm.
We DO argue that trying to force your solely religious opinions on others by force of law is a wrong, as it is counter to human rights and the right to freedom of and from religion. It is a right that conservatives almost always would support... when it comes, for instance, to fundamentalists from other religions forcing their views on others by force of law. By and large today, even many fundamentalist Christians would oppose forcing sexual morals by law in our nation... they would typically oppose, for instance, fundamentalist Muslims from outlawing gay behavior and imprisoning gay folk. But we hold this position because of support for/belief in human rights.
So, Stan fails to understand because he doesn't ask.
One more. Stan says...
One of the serious problems brought to light by liberal Christians is the problem of poverty and the opposing problem of excessive wealth. The solution to this problem, they say, is to pass laws that will tax the rich and give to the poor. Heavy taxes. It's a good thing, so it ought to be a law. Generosity is biblical, so we ought to make it the law.
Again, we support a progressive tax scheme (as opposed to a flat tax or regressive tax scheme) NOT because "the Bible says generosity is good, therefore, let's tax the wealthy..." but because it is a rational way of dealing with taxation in a nation where some people have more than others. A flat tax across the board, for instance, would be deadly to the poorest, as if you are scraping by on $10,000 a year, barely feeding your family, then scraping by on 10% less (or 20% or whatever) becomes draconian. Therefore, reason and justice would say that such a tax scheme is not rational or moral. It would lead to unwanted results. On the other hand, if those making over, say, $1,000,000 a year were taxed at 50% or even 70% (as has happened in the past in the US), they STILL have hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to "scrape by" on and it's not like it's any great hardship.
A progressive tax scheme, then (we reason) maintains incentive to get wealthy and yet does not oppress or harm the poorest. Reasonable and reasonable. Many of us DO note that the Bible (and other faith traditions and human rights traditions) would argue against treating the poorest in a shabby manner, but we do not argue that, "The Bible says 'Do unto others..." therefore, BECAUSE the Bible says that, let's enact it as law..." Rather, we hold a rational argument that may be informed by our various faith traditions, but is still based upon reason, not religion.
So, Stan concludes, erroneously...
Contrasting "conservative" and "liberal" in Christian terms means generally, first and foremost, a worldview based on Scripture versus a worldview based on the world. Still, it seems completely irrational that liberal Christians would conclude that it is ungodly to have a biblical worldview and argue that Scripture should be interpreted through a cultural, current-world filter. Really?
No, not really.
No, liberals do not have a worldview based on "the world..." what does that even mean? AND conservatives do not hold a worldview based upon "Scripture." Rather, we all hold worldview based upon our reasoning. Conservatives reason that the Bible says X, Y and Z and they REASON OUT that, "therefore, we should support these positions..." but they reach that position USING THEIR REASON.
Likewise, liberals believe that the Bible teaches X, Y and Z, that reason teaches 1, 2 and 3, that other philosophies teach Alpha Beta and Gamma and WE REASON out that, "Therefore, I hold these positions..."
And it's all based on conclusions we reasoned ourselves into. Human reasoning. We all may be seeking more perfect, divine answers, but we all rely upon our reasoning because that's how the human mind works for all of us.
Thus, I'm NOT arguing that "scripture should be interpreted through a cultural, current world filter..." Not really. No. Stan misunderstands because he doesn't ask.
Should he ask, however, there are the answers to some of his questions and misunderstandings.
What would be nifty is if Stan (and really, this is not an attack on Stan, but on this line of reasoning which is common to the fundamentalists' brain) and others would read, learn and change what they've stated that is simply false to reflect the reality of the Other's position.
82 comments:
I should add that I'm not really looking to debate anything. Stan is making some false assumptions about what, at the least, many progressive types of Christians are saying... I'd suggest the majority, although I have no way of proving that. He is certainly not stating what I believe when he references what "liberal Christians" think. So, if anyone wants to find liberals who actually believe and are arguing any of that, then I can join with you in, for instance, saying, "No, we should NOT create open border laws simply because YOU believe 'that's what the Bible says...'" But then, there's nothing to really debate there.
Likewise, if you want to say, "BUT Dan, you actually DO believe that!" Then I would just point you to my clarification and encourage you to understand that when I say, "I do not believe this..." that what I mean by that is "I do not believe this..." So, too, in that case, there is nothing to debate.
You do not get to tell me what I believe, just as I don't get to tell others what they believe. I can say, "It sounds like you're saying..." and ask for clarification, but I don't get to say that they are mistaken about their own positions. That would just be silly. I could say that they may not be understanding the implications and consequences of their positions, but that's a different thing.
You clearly either don’t understand or knowingly misrepresent every flat tax plan I’ve ever seen. Virtually all flat tax plans have a generous exemption that would stop someone earning 10,000 per year from paying 10% of their income in federal income tax.
As to the rest, it’s hard to know exactly what you’re for since you so rarely offer specific details.
It’s interesting that you always seem to assume these kinds of posts are about you.
One chance, Craig. Just the one. I literally never said that this post was about me. In fact, I literally said Dover all sorts of liberals oh, just that I did not know any who thought this way. So clearly, it should be quite obvious that I was not thinking that this post my Stan was about me. There is nothing in what I said that suggests that and my literal words clarify that this is NOT what I think.
Do you understand that reality?
You’re right, that’s what you said. You literally said “But I know of none. That’s not our reasoning.”. You literally cast your response as “I and folks like me...” and “I/we don’t think..,”. “We make it clear...” . You further respond with “I support...” and “I support...”.
By casting your entire response in terms of “I” (you), “we”, and “our” (you plus unnamed others), you are responding based on you and your limited knowledge. I could add multiple other instances where you respond with a pronoun that is “you” focused, but I think I’ve provided enough examples. The fact that you never actually cite anyone but you, or unnamed people you speak for lends credence to my opinion. I think the actual words you chose express your thoughts quite well.
Great job correcting your flat tax misinformation, really excellent.
Got it. You're NOT able to understand words and their meaning in context of this conversation online. Or at least, this conversation. Just like you fail to understand my flat tax comments.
I'm sorry you can't understand. Good luck. That was your one chance and you blew it. And I understand, it's probably just something in your head that you're not able to understand words so it's not really your fault perhaps. Regardless, you blew it. You're done.
Does Craig really think that having a blog means never presenting one's own opinions? He doesn't practice that. From his last five posts prior to the most current one:
1. "I probably shouldn't..." (And it's the title of his post.)
2. "I’m guessing that very few will be able to put aside their hatred of the man to honesty evaluate the actions."
3. "I regularly hear people question our ability to "know' something, and see demands for "proof" of whatever is being discussed."
4. "I don't deny that it makes a nice story, but I'm not sure the story squares with what we know."
5. "I’m sure there will be some folx who want to fill some diversity slots, but I can’t imagine any rational person signing up for what our local police have dealt with."
And then, seven back, another title: "I can’t remember"
Craig is around the bend. He's faux raging at you, Dan, because your points in recent posts have gotten under his skin and he can't reason himself out of it.
To perhaps (probably not) help you understand, Craig... who specifically is Stan talking about? No one specifically, just liberal Christians, generally. What am I and my church, in y'alls minds? Liberal Christians. Stan is speaking in general terms about people like me and my ilk. As one of the people Stan is speaking about generally, I have pointed out Stan's misunderstanding/false claims.
Did Stan reference a single specific person and some position they've taken? No. So, lacking ANY specifics, I responded to the general claim, which is stupidly false in my experience. And I'm not unfamiliar with liberal Christians, so that's something. Stan's claims are the ones that lack a single bit of substance or support. Not mine.
Perhaps you should take it up with Stan and yourself, since you two are the ones making empty claims.
Good luck.
I'm getting that Craig is not understanding that he doesn't understand what I'm saying. And he probably won't. But for anyone else:
I never said that Stan was writing specifically about me. He wasn't and I did not say that he was. I did not hint that he is. I do not think that he is.
Thus, when Craig says it "seems" to him that I "assume these kinds of posts are about" me, I literally don't. You can tell by the way that I never have said that it is about me and the way that I specifically literally clarify that there are other liberals out there who could possibly have such an opinion, just that I don't know them (and I know many progressive Christian folk).
Thus, Craig is literally directly specifically wrong/mistaken.
Stan IS writing about "liberal Christians" and he makes no distinction, as to say, "there are SOME liberal Christians who think...," but just states it as if we were a monolithic group that think that way. I destroy that argument by pointing out that I'm a liberal Christian and he literally is not understanding my position correctly, as is true for all other liberal Christians I'm aware of, whose articles and opinions I've read or listened to. IF Stan wants to clarify that he is only speaking about SOME liberal Christians AND THEN cite the Christians he's speaking about, so as to support his claims, then he can. He has not opted to do this. And he has not opted to ask me or other liberal Christians (so far as we can tell) for clarification. At least, he has not stated that he has.
Thus, it appears that Stan is merely building a straw man "liberal" that he can knock down. This is, of course, a logical fallacy
and simply a wrong thing to do.
I will say that, in any group - liberal Christians, conservative evangelicals, traditional Catholics, etc - there is always a range of opinions. It is rare to find a monolithic group with one mind. Further muddying the waters are the casual comments of people who might come from liberal Christians or from conservative evangelicals, for instance. Things like "the gays SHOULD be locked up again!" or "conservatives hate the poor..." those sorts of comments can be found in all groups and they would represent casual rants, not serious thought.
I do not judge all of conservative fundamentalist Christianity by the rants of a guy on the internet saying he's a conservative Christian who thinks that "the gays" should be all locked up... or executed! "Like the Bible says!" Such a person is not a serious representative (I hope) of most of conservative Christianity.
Likewise, IF there are liberal Christians out there that can be found to be saying "We should have open borders because that's what the Bible says..." they are likely in this category of not being a serious representative of Liberal Christian thought.
I am aware of no progressive Christian teachings/writings that say what Stan is saying about liberal Christians. Stan has cited none and I don't believe they exist. IF they do, then he should be specific, cite the quote (which, IF he found, he would almost certainly be taking out of context) and then he and I could agree that this is not as it should be.
Just for clarification.
Not sure what part of one chance you're feeling to understand, Craig. You don't understand my words. I have no confidence that you understand what other people are saying. But good luck.
Craig, I GET that you think you answered the question asked of you. You didn't. Not in the real world. It's just another example of your inability to read my words and reach the conclusion/point I was making. For your sake, then, I'm just deleting your comments because, really, it's embarrassing for you.
I get that you don't understand it, but it's reality, nonetheless. You'll just have to trust me on this.
You have not answered the question and you are not understanding my words (i.e., when you say, "you're saying THIS," I'm literally not saying that, instead, you're misunderstanding.
Good luck.
Look, Craig, I'll give you one more chance. Here's a story. See if you can answer the question correctly.
Fido the dog live next door to Farmer Bob. One day farmer Bob was talking to the neighbors and everybody from the front porch. Farmer Bob said, "dogs are evil. They just want to kill everything. Don't trust dogs."
Fido responded (because Fido was a talking dog), "well I'm not 'all dogs' but I am a dog and I don't want to kill. I'm not evil. None of the dogs that I know are evil or want to kill. None of the books that I've ever read for data that I've ever researched (because Fido was also literate and well-informed) suggest that dogs want to kill. Sure, there might be an outlier that only wants to kill and wants to be evil, but there's nothing like any data or suggestion that this is a common trait of dogs."
Someone later asked Fido, "so did you think farmer Bob was talking about you?" Fido responded, "no. Clearly he was not speaking about me specifically. He was literally speaking about dogs, of which I am a part."
Now the question Craig. And look, I'll even give you the right answer to make it easier for you.
Did Fido the dog think that farmer Bob was talking about him specifically?
The only right answer from a factual real world point of view is...
No.
No Fido did NOT think that farmer Bob was talking about him specifically. Indeed, Fido recognized the reality (it was not an opinion just the reality of it) that farmer Bob was speaking specifically of the group, Dogs, because that's what Bob literally said. That isn't what Fido THOUGHT, it was reality. And reality is that Fido was part of that group, dogs and he was familiar with that group, Dogs. And he spoke from that place of knowing about the group farmer Bob was literally speaking about. But the only correct answer to the question is no, Fido did not think farmer Bob was speaking specifically of him. Can you answer that question correctly? It's a simple... a question one word answer will suffice.
Craig, the literal ONE and ONLY right answer to my Dog story question is NO. I gave you the answer and you still missed it.
The literal ONE and ONLY right answer, given reality and facts and shit, to the question: DO you understand that I did not think that post from Stan (and ones like it) are about me, specifically is NO.
You still appear not to understand, given your many, many words responses to a simple, straightforward ONE WORD right answer question.
This is why I stated right at the beginning of this post that i'm not looking for debate. We could spend hours and hours trying to help you understand the very simplest and most basic of reality-based questions and get no where but chasing rabbits. I'm not doing that. I gave you one chance. You missed it. I gave you a second chance. You missed it. You're done.
The point of the post stands: Stan's post (and other, similar comments) are operating from a place of ignorance about what "liberals" or "the Other" thinks and he is literally creating straw man arguments, which are a rational fallacy. If you want to know the answer, go to the source and get the answers, don't flounder in confusion and embarrassing ignorance or, worse, maliciously spread slander and false claims.
No debated needed, just a rational place for adults to begin conversations that everyone should be able to agree with.
Craig, you’ve gone two months without admitting facts when presented with them. Your credibility is without foundation until you do.
"No debated needed, just a rational place for adults to begin conversations that everyone should be able to agree with."
This isn't what this blog is at all. It's a place where everyone must agree with you or they are deleted, called delusional or irrational, with no true argument or evidence to back it up.
"Craig, you’ve gone two months..."
Says the guy who's gone since last March without presenting his plan. Still waiting anxiously.
The plan is near front and center of your moribund blog. Though you did get a rise when you wrote about me. You're welcome.
Marshall, you need not agree with me. Almost everyone who commented here has disagreed with me at some point and those comments can stay. If, however, you're disagreeing with reality then I can't help you and I'm not inclined to leave comments especially from certain people that are just delusional or not reality-based. Hope you can understand. Good luck.
Disagreeing with you is not the same as disagreeing with reality. That's just an excuse you use to avoid having to confront objections, criticisms and corrections to your positions. So again, I fully understand you at all times (unless I ask for clarifications...which of course means I don't understand you). And here, as I've stated elsewhere many times, you're now actually saying that you aren't willing to have rational conversations at all, which was my point. In essence, you've totally validated my initial comment. Thanks. You're a pip!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty suggestions...or one hundred...is not a plan without any explanation for why those suggestions could ever work, especially when I've provided a clear explanation for why they won't. Twenty suggestions posted at one blog, with some related info allegedly posted at another (which no one can find), is not a plan. Twenty suggestions is not a plan, especially when the fool who posted them at one point said those suggestions was not a plan.
Your self-concerned hypocrisy reveals how shallow you really are.
“Disagreeing with you is not the same as disagreeing with reality. That's just an excuse you use to avoid having to confront objections, criticisms and corrections to your positions. So again, I fully understand you at all times...”
You don’t even understand yourself.
When you cannot acknowledge, Craig, the realities that:
- illegal immigrants commit crimes at a far lower rate than native born Americans
- illegal immigrants put in more to the national economy than take
- drugs don't come under or over walls, but through airports and water ports.
- no politician, Democrat or Republican, who represents the southern border thinks the wall will do anything, except
- the wall will kill thousands of American small business owners who make their living on the thousands of Mexicans who come over every day to work and to spend.
- 20th century American foreign policy groomed governments of graft and corruption; supported dictators; devastated natural resources of southern countries, thereby forestalling and truncating their development; and disrupted natural development (killing the native Creole pig in Haiti brought starvation and decline)
- European illegal immigrants from Eastern Europe and Russia are unmarked and unthreatening, even though crime accompanies them (Melania stayed illegally)
then you cannot be acknowledged as someone who gets reality.
Walls don't work except in places where shots are fired and bombs go off weekly. What does work, in almost every developed nation, is universal healthcare.
"For the wall's $5.7 billion, every child in America could have access to Universal Pre-K. Think what that would do to our crime rate, much less our poverty rate.
Yet when we propose the same dollars, we're told universal education is a fantasy and we're asked how are you going to pay for it.
Education is an investment in society that yields returns.
Walls just erode."
Brought to you by Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez
"- illegal immigrants commit crimes at a far lower rate than native born Americans"
Not true.
"- illegal immigrants put in more to the national economy than take"
Not true.
"- drugs don't come under or over walls, but through airports and water ports."
Not in every case.
"- no politician, Democrat or Republican, who represents the southern border thinks the wall will do anything, except"
Nonsense. At least two Freedom Caucus members are from border states and support a wall, and no one with a brain (maybe you actually know someone like that) and/or is honest believes that...because it's absurd.
"- the wall will kill thousands of American small business owners who make their living on the thousands of Mexicans who come over every day to work and to spend."
Mere speculation, and it assumes that there would be no points of access for those who are legally permitted to work in this country.
"- 20th century American foreign policy groomed governments of graft and corruption; supported dictators; devastated natural resources of southern countries, thereby forestalling and truncating their development; and disrupted natural development (killing the native Creole pig in Haiti brought starvation and decline)"
uh...sure...that means we ignore our borders and laws. Right. Pathetic and desperate argument.
"- European illegal immigrants from Eastern Europe and Russia are unmarked and unthreatening, even though crime accompanies them"
Irrelevant to the border wall issue, and another example of your hateful racism to bring it up.
"Walls don't work except in places where shots are fired and bombs go off weekly."
What a peculiarly stupid thing to say. Walls work everywhere, to varying degrees, depending upon their construction and their purpose. A wall will work on the border because it will do what it is designed to do: inhibit the illegal flow of people across our border.
"What does work, in almost every developed nation, is universal healthcare."
Far less perfectly than a wall on our southern border would. A far less perfectly than our own health care system, even after being worsened by Obamacare.
"For the wall's $5.7 billion, every child in America could have access to Universal Pre-K."
There are any number of far less necessary expenditures that could be diverted to "universal pre-k" if that's what you feel is necessary that are also not the obligation of the federal government. Securing our border is an obligation of the federal government. Indeed, there's a host of unnecessary expenditures that lefties support that could be forever cut in favor of this more worthy end.
You can tell someone's lost touch with reality when he cites AOC.
We know you’re scared of her. She even has you using her acronym. Just like Pelosi owns Trump.
Marshall spits at facts. Trump has unmoored him from all decency. But Craig still trails right behind.
I'm scared of the other buffoons who voted for her.
It's precious that you think using her initials means "she even has me" doing anything. Good gosh, you're so pathetically desperate to "win"! If anyone is "owned", it's you by me intellectually and you by Satan eternally.
The most corrupt Presidency in American history. And you just follow right along. You’re the denying thief on the other cross. Going to hell.
So sez the morally corrupt feo.
Marshall, on topic or don't comment. Besides, Feodor's roasting you with facts and reality and you're just being beaten shamefully and I GET that you don't even recognize it, but for your sake, just stop.
Seriously.
The fact is rather indisputable... by ALL reasonable traditional moral standards - even within the nutty world of fundamentalist Christianity - Trump is an EXTREMELY corrupt, immoral, irrational, untrustworthy, idiotic, racist and just plain awful president. If he were a Democrat, you all would hypocritically be calling to lock him up (hypocrite, because you'd do it for a Dem for much less, but you immorally give a pass to the worst president in history). The more you defend him, the more you pound the nails on your own coffins of credibility.
Just to redeem some basic sense of your being treated like a rational and moral human being, you should just begin by being quiet. If you can't say anything smart and on topic, don't say anything at all.
For your own sake.
Seriously.
As Craig infers: facts and truths aren’t categories of interest in his concept of answers. How could they be? Craig and Marshall delete and block, divert and dodge, and lie by commission (Marshall) and omission (Craig), trying to erase the presence of facts just to feel good about their brutalizing white male ideas. It’s a 400 year old tradition passed down from father to son, father to son.
There've been no "facts" brought forth by either you, Dan, nor your gaseous emission feo that I've ignored or dismissed. For example, neither you nor he (it?) could possibly hope to bring forth credible evidence for any of his points he listed above.
What's more, your "fact" isn't at all "indisputable" that as president, Trump is "corrupt, immoral, irrational, untrustworthy, idiotic", certainly not "racist", and by virtue of his many beneficial accomplishments in his short time as president, not at all awful. I continue to await whatever either of you care to put forth as credible evidence in support of any of that. You haven't yet. You only assert in typical lefty fashion (or as in feo's case, simply throw out irrelevant crap which no more than non sequiturs and straw men). Trump's party affiliation is inconsequential to your charges against him with regard to how I'd respond were he a Dem. There's still no evidence to support the charges. Unlike you, feo and the left in general, I don’t make things up about politicians I oppose, because I don’t need to. You clearly do.
I understand why you insist I stay silent, and it ain't because what I say isn't smart or on topic. It's because what I say is. You're too cowardly and dishonest to vonfront what I say. I dare you to prove me wrong. You're incapable.
Making idiots think is a thankless, often fruitless task. Changing Marshall’s ignorance isn’t a real goal. But committed Christians need to keep telling the truth regardless.
I have time to document some sources for the first two truths that are beyond honest, rational questioning. The rest will follow later.
1. “Now, four academic studies show that illegal immigration does not increase the prevalence of violent crime or drug and alcohol problems. In the slew of research, motivated by Trump's rhetoric, social scientists set out to answer this question: Are undocumented immigrants more likely to break the law?
All of this comes as no surprise to Art Acevedo, the police chief in Houston, which has one of largest undocumented populations in the nation. The chief has been publicly critical of the immigration crackdown.
Cato found that in 2015, criminal conviction and arrest rates in Texas for undocumented immigrants were lower than those of native-born Americans for murder, sexual assault and larceny.
"There's no wave of crime being committed by the immigrant community," Acevedo said. "As a matter of fact, a lot of the violent crime that we're dealing with is being committed by people that are born and raised right here in the United States."
https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/607652253/studies-say-illegal-immigration-does-not-increase-violent-crime
2. “FACT: UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS ARE PAYING TAXES
Undocumented immigrants pay an average of $11.64 billion in state and local taxes a year. On average, an undocumented individual has about 8% of their income go to taxes. Moreover, all immigrants—regardless of status—will contribute approximately $80,000 more in taxes than government services used over their lifetime.
FACT: IMMIGRANTS ARE HELPING TO SUSTAIN THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND.
In 2010, undocumented individuals paid $13 billion into retirement accounts and only received $1 billion in return. Indeed, over the years, immigrants have contributed up to $300 billion to the Social Security Trust Fund. Without the contributions of immigrants going into the system, it is estimated that full benefits would not be able to be paid out beyond the year 2037.
https://www.unidosus.org/issues/immigration/resources/facts
3. "A 24-page report prepared by the DEA in May found that drugs coming from Mexico do often enter through the southwestern border, but they do so concealed in vehicles, like tractor-trailers. Moreover, drugs coming from Colombia are more often transported by plane and boat, the reports notes."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/29/trump-says-border-wall-will-stop-drugs-heres-what-a-dea-intel-report-says/
"We’ve been gradually beefing up physical barriers along the border for 20 years and have not seen any demonstrable difference in drug flows,” said David Shirk, a University of San Diego political science and international relations professor who specializes in U.S.-Mexico relations and border politics. “Drugs come through many ways that are not stopped by a wall, whether it’s by boat, submersible, tunnel, catapult, drone.”
...
"Testimony during Guzman’s trial made it clear that physical barriers did little to prevent the shipment of his Sinaloa Cartel’s drugs to the U.S. Jurors have heard how the cartel has hidden narcotics in shipments that included cans of jalapeno peppers. A former cartel member detailed an operation in which trains took cocaine stuffed inside compartments of tankers filled with cooking oil from Mexico to New Jersey. Testimony was presented of the cartel using airplanes to fly cocaine from Colombia to Mexico, which was then offloaded to trucks for transport via official border crossings to cities like Los Angeles and Chicago."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ap-explains-trump-says-wall-will-stop-drugs-facts-differ/2019/01/17/15b85dce-1aba-11e9-b8e6-567190c2fd08_story.html?utm_term=.95b353793d50
4. "Nine congressional representatives serve the districts that line the 2,000-mile southern border. They are men, women, freshman politicians and Washington veterans. The Democrats among them span liberal ideologies, while one of them is a Republican. But they all have one thing in common: each is against President Donald Trump's border wall. Last week, the House of Representatives passed a multi-bill package that provided funding for federal agencies and reinstated Department of Homeland Security appropriations without offering any new border wall funding. All nine of the politicians serving in districts along the border voted in favor of the bills, which were an effective rebuke of the Trump administration's request for $5.7 billion in border wall funding."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-border-wall-every-congressperson-along-southern-border-opposes-border-wall-funding-2019-1-8/
5. "U.S. farmers and businessmen along the Texas border in the Rio Grande valley opposed it, too, since it blocks their access to the river water and also augments the severity of floods. Now the wall is to be brought to flood plain areas in Texas where water issues precisely like these had prevented the construction of the fence before.
Meanwhile, manufacturing, agriculture, hydraulic fracking, energy production, and ecosystems on both sides of the border depend on equitable and effective water sharing from the Rio Grande and the Colorado River, with both sides vulnerable to water scarcities. Over the decades there have been many challenges to the joint agreements governing water usage, and both Mexico and the U.S. have at times considered themselves the aggrieved parties. But in general, U.S.–Mexico cooperation over both the Rio Grande and Colorado rivers has been exceptional by international standards and has been hugely beneficial to both partners to the various treaties. That kind of co–operation is now at risk."
If in retaliation for the Trump administration’s vitriolic, anti–Mexican language and policies, Mexico decided not live up to its side of the water bargain, U.S. farmers and others along the Rio Grande would be under severe threat of losing their livelihoods. One of them is Dale Murden in Monte Alto, who on his 20,000–acre farm cultivates sugarcane, grapefruit, cotton, citrus, and grain. Named in January 2017 the Citrus King of Texas, the former Texas Farm Bureau state director has dedicated his life to agriculture in southern Texas, relying on a Latino workforce.
https://www.brookings.edu/essay/the-wall-the-real-costs-of-a-barrier-between-the-united-states-and-mexico/
"But for the roughly 11.8 million people who live along the border, life on both sides is closely intertwined. In 2016, 42 million people crossed into the United States using 16 pedestrian bridges -- and, with estimates from the Migration Policy Institute indicating that the population of the border cities will double in the next 30 years, the number of legal crossings should rise.
Many of them are Mexican citizens crossing into the United States to attend school, shop, and visit family. Some are US citizens who live in Mexico and work stateside."
https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/31/us/us-mexico-pedestrian-bridges/index.html
"If the cities are sisters, with interwoven cultures and histories, Presidio is the neglected, under-loved sibling. The city, with a population a bit over 4,000, is all browns, burnt oranges and gray yellows — the more dull, drab one of the two, far smaller, more quiet, and empty. Ojinaga, about five times bigger, with a population of about 28,000, is vibrant and bustling — it boasts more grocery stores, dentists, doctors, restaurants and bars than Presidio could ever hope to have, and so on weekends, Presidio experiences a mass exodus. Houses empty and families pile into cars and shuttle toward the international bridge. The streets become even emptier than they are on weekdays. Ojinaga is cheaper and has more options: fruits and vegetables that aren’t wilted, eggs and milk with lower price tags. “And it takes us what, three minutes to cross? So why not?” says Norma Escontrias, an elementary school teacher in Presidio."
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/10/09/presidio-wall-texas-border-mexico/
6. Marshall had no coherent response. Can he recognize our responsibility to solve what we helped create? Fat chance. One souther border politician has suggested a Marshall Plan for Central and South America. Like what we did in Europe in the late 40s and 50s, we could foster major trading partners, much less establishing relative peace and prosperity for many millions.
7. Marshall thinks white crime is irrelevant but brown crime is a national emergency.
Stone cold racist.
Addendum:
Ms Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez points out that, for the wall's $5.7 billion, every child in America could have access to Universal Pre-K.
Marshall doesn't see it as the nation's obligation to educate its children.
And he calls himself pro-life.
He's the denying thief on the other cross.
Going to hell.
How stupid is Trump, and how destructive?
“Government shutdown cost U.S. economy at least $6 billion — more than Trump demanded for border wall.”
Not much time at present, but I will respond to some of feo's most obvious falsehoods and hateful conclusions:
-Four academic studies, none of which feo likely studied in depth as at least one is extremely detailed. I haven't personally done so yet either, and as such can't comment directly. What I haven't seen in my cursory skimming is anything that speaks to whether or not illegals are over represented in prisons. This is an important point before one can state categorically on their crime rate. Not saying it isn't there in any of these studies, but just that I haven't found it yet.
-Haven't had the time to look at the cost studies at all.
-Just based on what is presented in feo's comments, it contradicts the opinions of brown-skinned border agents who deal directly with areas of the border where barriers now stand, who insist that drugs, people and crime have been reduced since those barriers have been erected. More on this later.
-While it may be true that politicians along the border oppose a wall, that also requires a more detailed investigation than feo likely did before posting that which confirms his biases. For example...I don't "want" walls anywhere...that is, I prefer that walls would never be necessary. Where there's a need, I want a wall. Need and want are two different things, and thus opposition to a wall requires explaining what one means by their opposition.
-The same is true of farmers, ranchers and other citizens along the border. While one can find those who oppose a barrier, I've already found those who support it. It simply might not be needed for some areas, but may be later if barriers erected elsewhere cause the problems they addressed move to other areas.
There are a host of wants and desires individuals hold that have been made subordinate to greater concerns. It's part of living in any civilized society. When national security is at stake, such is indeed a great concern that may require some to sacrifice.
-When, how and if I offer a "coherent" response (as if feo is capable of knowing what one looks like), it is on MY schedule and never his.
-feo's racism again shines brightly by suggesting I care more about the color of a lawbreaker's skin than the breaking of a law. What a fake he is!
-It's a parent's duty to educate his/her children. Our society provides the means by which that education can be had. Money for the wall is not taken from education, though it can be taken from a wide array of useless and unnecessary expenditures for which the federal government should never be involved in the first place. It is typical of the left to lie in this way, to suggest that we're denying kids their education in order to keep them safe. Incredible!
-It is not Trump who is responsible for the cost of the shutdown...certainly not solely...but those on the left who deny him the ability to fulfill a promise that got him elected, and only for the purpose of denying him anything because of politics. feo lies again.
I may address all these points in detail at my blog where Dan has no power to delete what he can't contradict.
In the meantime, I'm still waiting for feo's plan to reduce gun violence. That is, the plan that never existed.
Marshall sees nothing wrong in his determination to be an idiot.
Marshall then: Not true.
Marshall now: I don't know; can't comment.
Marshall then: Not true.
Marshall now: I don't know; can't comment.
Marshall then: Not true.
Marshall now: I don't know; can't comment.
Marshall then: Not true.
Marshall now: True, but I don't care.
Marshall then: Not true.
Marshall now: True, but who cares?
Marshall's summary: I may be back or I may not. Depends if AT has some good lies about any of this.
My plan is still front and center on your blog. Since July? June? If you want the master key, ask Craig. Or google your own damn self.
And block Craig if he doesn't tell you.
feo purposely lies about my comments once again. Unlike him, who posts anything that appears to confirm his biases, I like to read and study that which others post before rendering my response to it. And unlike him, I don’t post lies, nor do I say someone is lying without taking the time to prove it...or at least provide evidence and reason why it might be so. You know...an actual argument.
As for feo lying once again, it is clear by reading my comment and then his false and desperate response.
Here's another lie: he has not posted hus plan at my blog. He posted talking points with no explanation...either there or at Craig's blog...as to how tgey might accomplish whatever goal he has in what for him passes as a mind. His cowardice is exposed by his suggestion I ask Craig for the "Master Key". It isn't Craig's plan. It's YOURS, feo. Find a spine and lay it out for us all, plainly and as if you're an actual Christian. Do it somewhere. Just do it. Coward.
Marshall, you two-faced lying hypocrite. The evidence:
The Two Faces: whining that Dan deletes you when you lie and prevaricate. While you block me demanding facts I’ve already told you. Like this:
The Lie: Just in the last month I’ve reminded you that each of the 20 policies have been made a law somewhere in the US and had statistically significant effect in depressing gun violence. And there they are front and center on your own blog. You put them there! But you keep calling them talking points because you’re committed to the lie to cover your idiocy.
The Hypocrisy: “I like to read and study that which others post before rendering my response.” Bullshit. You don’t read or study anything that disturbs your helicopter engineer bible study group.
Marshall then: NOT TRUE!
Marshall yesterday: well, I haven’t read it yet.
Two-faced lying hypocrisy: Craig blocks me, too, because he has no reasonable response to my plan other than to erase. He follows you. There is collusion. New for your vocabulary: collusion is an SAT word for two-faced lying hypocrite.
Read and study it.
I demonstrated with evidence how irrationally committed Marshall is to lying and hypocrisy but the only thing he knows to whine about is that he was deleted.
What shallow character.
For what it's worth, I've been deleting comments from BOTH Marshall and for Feodor, after repeated off topic comments, after asking that they stop. I've left a few of Feodor's off topic comments because he's addressing comments at Marshall's where Marshall has deleted his, so I've left them here by way of letting him have some place to address what Marshall has deleted/not allowed.
But even so, I've probably deleted more of F's than M's comments.
On topic, fellas.
He has his own blog.
It’s not a blog. It’s merely a truth telling virtual poster.
"whining that Dan deletes you when you lie and prevaricate."
I do neither.
"While you block me demanding facts I’ve already told you."
You don't provide facts.
"Just in the last month I’ve reminded you that each of the 20 policies have been made a law somewhere in the US and had statistically significant effect in depressing gun violence."
You've only asserted a positive effect in depressing gun violence. You've provided no proof in support of the assertion. None whatsoever. All you've done is list the policies as if doing so constitutes a plan. It does not.
"“I like to read and study that which others post before rendering my response.” Bullshit. You don’t read or study anything that disturbs your helicopter engineer bible study group."
Another baseless assertion. You have no way of knowing what I read and don't read, and you haven't the intelligence to presume you can tell by my comments.
"Marshall then: NOT TRUE!
Marshall yesterday: well, I haven’t read it yet."
The two are not related and pretending it does demonstrates your low intelligence. The first was in response to an assertion. The second was in response to what you posted later hoping to validate your assertion. So there's no contradiction evident in that which is unrelated to each other. Another sad attempt on your part to pretend you "got me".
In the meantime, I'm not at all confident that you read what you present in order to pretend you're supported by facts. I don't think you read more than the article headline that you think backs you up.
My response to most of your links will be following soon...because I actually read them, even knowing how much you lefties are likely to have wasted my limited time.
Feodor: - illegal immigrants commit crimes at a far lower rate than native born Americans
Marshall: Not true.
MARSHALL LIES BY CONTRADICTING HIMSELF: I LIKE TO READ AND STUDY THAT WHICH OTHERS POST BEFORE RENDERING MY RESPONSE TO IT.
Feodor: four academic studies show that illegal immigration does not increase the prevalence of violent crime or drug and alcohol problems
Marshall: I haven't personally done so [studied] yet either, and as such can't comment directly.
MARSHALL LIES BY CONTRADICTING HIMSELF: I LIKE TO READ AND STUDY THAT WHICH OTHERS POST BEFORE RENDERING MY RESPONSE TO IT.
Marshall: I don’t post lies
_________
Feodor: They are 20 actual laws shown to have statistically significant effect on gun violence reduction.
MARSHALL LIES: YOU DON'T PROVIDE FACTS
Marshall: I don't post lies
________
Marshall: I haven't personally done so yet either, and as such can't comment directly. What I haven't seen in my cursory skimming...
Marshall: Haven't had the time to look at the cost studies at all.
MARSHALL LIES: YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT I READ AND DON'T READ
Marshall: I don't post lies
________
Feodor: They are 20 actual laws shown to have statistically significant effect on gun violence reduction. The are front and center on your blog.
MARSHALL LIES: IN THE MEANTIME, I'M STILL WAITING FOR FEO'S PLAN TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE
Marshall: I don't post lies
________
Marshall: A list of policies does not constitute a plan.
Laws that work do not constitute a plan for Marshall. Really determined to be stupid.
________
Marshall can't find his marbles.
Good gosh, feo! Now you're just embarrassing yourself! (Just kidding. You don't have the character to be embarrassed)
First bit:
"Feodor: - illegal immigrants commit crimes at a far lower rate than native born Americans
Marshall: Not true."
This was your original assertion followed by my response to it. The assertion stood alone (that is, with nothing to back it up), and I responded to it with the truth...which is that the assertion is not true.
"MARSHALL LIES BY CONTRADICTING HIMSELF: I LIKE TO READ AND STUDY THAT WHICH OTHERS POST BEFORE RENDERING MY RESPONSE TO IT."
No contradiction here. You provided nothing to study with the above assertion at the time you posted it. My statement merely explains how I deal with arguments. In this case, you offered only an assertion. I rejected it as the falsehood it is. That you later provided a link to that which you think is unassailable proof:
a) doesn't make it so, and
b) is that which I had not yet read. Still haven't.
Therefore:
"Feodor: four academic studies show that illegal immigration does not increase the prevalence of violent crime or drug and alcohol problems
Marshall: I haven't personally done so [studied] yet either, and as such can't comment directly."
I have not yet finished studying your link (I've no doubt you haven't even begun), and thus it is about that specific link that I cannot and will not comment. Thus, try as you might, you've not proven I've lied here at all. Try harder. You might want to wait until I've actually lied.
__________________________
Second bit:
"Feodor: They are 20 actual laws shown to have statistically significant effect on gun violence reduction.
MARSHALL LIES: YOU DON'T PROVIDE FACTS
Marshall: I don't post lies"
You have yet to provide ANYTHING that shows how any of those laws have had any positive effect on "gun violence". Thus, you've provided no facts. You simply list these "laws" ("suggestions" as regards your "plan" *snicker*) and have only asserted that they've accomplished something. So again, no lies on my part here, either. But then, you're big on assertions.
__________________________
Third bit:
"Marshall: I haven't personally done so yet either, and as such can't comment directly. What I haven't seen in my cursory skimming...
Marshall: Haven't had the time to look at the cost studies at all.
MARSHALL LIES: YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT I READ AND DON'T READ
Marshall: I don't post lies"
Here, the capitalized part has no relation to the comments above it. This makes YOU a liar (well...you've been a liar for years now). The capitalized statement was directly and specifically directed at the following stupidity:
"Bullshit. You don’t read or study anything that disturbs your helicopter engineer bible study group."
See? A general response to a general charge...a false charge at that, because you have no close relationship with truth and honesty.
_______________________
Fourth bit:
"Feodor: They are 20 actual laws shown to have statistically significant effect on gun violence reduction. The are front and center on your blog.
MARSHALL LIES: IN THE MEANTIME, I'M STILL WAITING FOR FEO'S PLAN TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE
Marshall: I don't post lies"
Once again, posting a list of suggestions (whether they are enacted laws or not) all by themselves with no explanation for how they might work (as well as no info as to the claim that they have worked), is not a plan, no matter how badly, desperately and petulantly you want it to be. As such, I've not lied as I am still waiting for this so-called "plan" of yours. Indeed, I'm anxious to laugh...I mean, read it. I'm sure it's a stitch...I mean, compelling.
In the meantime, over the course of two posts, I've explained, more often than not with actual links of various types of support, why each of those "laws" are worthless for the purpose you offer them. You have no plan. Stop lying and admit it.
____________________________
Fifth bit:
"Marshall: A list of policies does not constitute a plan.
Laws that work do not constitute a plan for Marshall. Really determined to be stupid."
No. A list of policies without any proof they've been successful or can be is what fails to constitute a plan. It's a given that you're stupid...and you make it look so easy!!
______________________
Sixth bit:
"Marshall can't find his marbles."
At least I had them at one time. You, sadly, have always been lacking that department as well. Thanks for playing.
Feodor: Illegal immigrants commit crimes at a far lower rate than native born Americans.
Marshall: Not true.
Marshall: I like to read and study what others post before rendering my response.
Marshall: You provided nothing to study with the above assertion at the time you posted it.
Feodor: Get your own goddamn computer and learn how to google you ignorant lazy troglodyte. You’re such a taker you expect everything spoonfed to you.
AND IT’S STILL TRUE! No matter how ignorant you’re committed to being in order to protect your white fragility.
I expect those who make claims to support their claims with evidence. If I said, "Dan Trabue rapes kittens", I would suspect you'd demand of me proof. But when you say whatever idiot leftist, God-hating thing comes to mind, you expect me to start doing research to disprove it. Then you dare suggest fragility on my part, in a racist manner.
Now you double down on your idiocy with this last comment. I'm confident in my position that I don't need to google your crap. You're a lazy false priest on top of an incredibly stupid and dishonest one.
There aren’t four studies readily available on the internet by professional researchers that investigate Dan on anything.
Suck on it Marshall: illegal immigrants commit crimes, especially violent crimes at a far lower rate than native born Americans.
"There aren’t four studies readily available on the internet by professional researchers that investigate Dan on anything."
If one is a leftist, one misses the point...even one so obvious as the one I made, and that feo now misses. That point, is that were I to make the claim as in my hypothetical example, it would expected by others, not to mention incumbent upon me, that I provide something substantial by way of support...you know...evidence that supports the contention that Dan rapes kittens. Indeed, I would not even post a comment with such a charge against Dan (there are so many far more easily supported charges) without being prepared to back it up. Without question I would have brought to bear the evidence with the charge itself. You just make assertions.
As to the links you've now provided, I'm still in the process. Change your Pampers and be patient. I move at my own pleasure.
You’re obfuscating bullshit doesn’t work, here, Marshall. Your first reaction to a statement of fact was to deny it: not because you knew whether it was a fact or not but because you didn’t like it. It disturbed your little world. So you denied it outright.
The you claim you like to study what people claim. Since you’re not a moron but just a massive, twisted bullshitter, you were openly lying. To study whether a statistical claim is true people strart googling the claim; they research it: that’s studying it you dodgy bullshitter.
And now you’re just a weak ass diversionary bullshitter who cannot give in to the obvious because you’re too deep in your own shit. You’re callous defense to your own shame is a disgrace. You’re as lost as your own marbles. White fragility.
Illegal immigrants are more law abiding than native born Americans. Eat it.
No obfuscation on my part, fool. Your statement isn't "fact" simply because it farted out of your mouth. And you have no true understanding of the data because you only post what appears to affirm your contrary position. You see, you won't acknowledge studies that contradict your leftist agenda. The studies that inform my position are quite clear cut and, as I said, speak in terms of representation, whereas yours seems to deal in raw numbers only, with as much equivocating as possible and omitting salient factors. Now, I'm still studying your links. They require it. You should do it yourself rather than simply posting something simply because it seems to confirm your biases.
So again, as much as it might make you shit yourself to know, you still haven't exposed any lying on my part. It's kinda fun to watch you so desperately try to make that claim. I'm especially entertained by your racism claims. Coming from a racist, that's hilarious!
Keep trying, loser!
You know what? You are right; I’m wrong.
You do think “study” is reading a fact, hating it for being a fact, and hoping American Thinker has found some way to be stupid enough to try denying the fact.
You are a moron. What was I thinking?
That is the fact that I have been denying not so much with my mind but by my behavior. I argue with you over all these years in an attempt to persuade. I believe in every persin’s Ability to change. I know I have. Whiteness intended for me to a bigoted presumptuous white man who can make up truth for myself. Like you and Craig. But I resisted and refused.
Sadly, you are so corrupt you call working laws just listed suggestions. You are so morally lazy you say facts are not true and refuse to look up anything. You are so blind you think your irrational denials and diversions and lies are just alternative reasons.
Every year I remember the depth to which your vacuousness plumbs. And I despair. That’s why I keep arguing: you and Craig make me dispair for humanity. Probably why Dan keeps at it.
In Amos Oz, book, Judas (how appropriate for you), the character Shmuel says, 'All the power in the world cannot transform someone who hates you into someone who likes you.' I am certainly only a pedestrian power. You are such a moron who hates truth, what can I do? Only testify to the truth.
Re-realizing what moral morons you and Craig are determined to be and that you cannot research anything that fake news doesn’t feed you, later today I will give you the whole plan to address gun violence and the annual 40,000 American deaths that you and Craig are so in love with. But not here.
"You know what? You are right; I’m wrong."
You're wrong because you don't even know why you're wrong. Admitting being wrong is a lie when it isn't a sincere expression of what you actually believe.
"You do think “study” is reading a fact, hating it for being a fact, and hoping American Thinker has found some way to be stupid enough to try denying the fact."
You continue to project, which is what passes for an argument for you. This particular claim is idiotic because it is untrue. You need to believe that I "hate" your "facts" simply because I don't like the "fact" you put forth. Just another bit of nonsense to push your insistence that you're smarter than me or more knowledgeable on the issues we debate.
Further, you counter arguments put forth by any of the many contributors to American Thinker for the very same reason you project upon me: You hate what they say, conclude and present as true. Unlike you, those contributors provide links to sources that provide supporting evidence for their conclusions. You don't deal with those. You simply dismiss because it's American Thinker. You dismiss Olaf and Hodges because one of them is an engineer by trade. You dismiss John Lott because he runs an operation that is not huge...as if it must be to be credible.
Just because you say something is a fact or is true does not make it so. And again, I'm not obliged to spend my personal time trying to research your assertions, when I prefer to spend it providing evidence for my own. You have no rank, authority or superiority that provides you with the liberty of simply speaking and being believed, nor of speaking and by doing so compelling others to do what you should have done in the first place: provide your...as Dan constantly demands...hard data.
Finally...for this point...should one party presume to have a "fact", and the other party disputes it with its own "fact" with evidence in support, the latter has just presented a legitimate denial the the former is actually a fact. This is how debate goes. Now, the former must bring forth more to support his premise and/or show fault in the opponent's counter. This goes on until one side or the other can no longer legitimately defend his position and/or destroy with truth the other. You don't play the game this way at all. Like Dan, you bail out with personal attacks, assuming an attitude of arrogance and condescension rather than maintaining a true attitude of openness and truth seeking.
"You are a moron. What was I thinking?"
Case in point. Calling me a moron doesn't make me one. Providing proof might, but you routinely fail in that regard as well. What were you thinking? You weren't thinking. You never do, except as it brightens your own opinion of yourself.
"That is the fact that I have been denying not so much with my mind but by my behavior."
Your mind is incapable and your behavior does not support the premise. Your behavior has been absolutely reprehensible since you first soiled the blogosphere with your presence. Arrogant and condescending, rude and insulting, never a behavior one would ever confuse with "Christian"...since you aren't one of those.
"I argue with you over all these years in an attempt to persuade."
No you don't, or you would provide that supporting evidence with the posting of every assertion. You "argue" to advertise yourself as intellectually superior. Too bad you fail as if it is your purpose in life.
"I believe in every persin’s Ability to change. I know I have."
OH. MY. GOSH!!! What an unimaginable asshole you must have been before if you consider yourself changed for the better now!!
"Whiteness intended for me to a bigoted presumptuous white man who can make up truth for myself."
Nothing's change in this regard save the possibility of degree, but your skin color is no factor in your low character. You'd be a reprobate regardless of race.
"Sadly, you are so corrupt you call working laws just listed suggestions."
Because as listed that's all they are. If I say I want a border wall because Israel has one, it wouldn't matter how well it works for Israel or not. It's still a suggestion for a problem I hope to solve here. Now, I need to provide reasons why the suggestion might work as well for us as it does for Israel, but with reasons it is only a suggestion. A superior intellect would understand this simple point. The simple-minded like yourself evidently never will.
"You are so morally lazy you say facts are not true and refuse to look up anything."
This is a totally false representation of reality. I say your "facts" aren't true because I've already been studying the situation and found more convincing evidence and arguments. It is more arrogance from you to presume you're presenting something new and as yet never before considered, studied and found wanting.
"Every year I remember the depth to which your vacuousness plumbs. "
Every year you continue to wallow in your fantasy world where you're the smartest guy ever.
" 'All the power in the world cannot transform someone who hates you into someone who likes you.'"
What perfect proof of this you are!! Your behavior (allegedly better than it once was) is perfect evidence of this. But I'm OK with it. I don't need or require that you like me at all. I simply hope for some evidence for your assertions because more than your admiration, I crave truth. You have none because you aren't concerned with it. You pretend to testify to it, but you do nothing to prove you possess it. Your pedestrian intellectual power is too low to even recognize it.
"...you cannot research anything that fake news doesn’t feed you..."
You must prove it's "fake". You don't. You merely assert and castigate, dismiss and reject supporting evidence that contradicts your preferred position. As mentioned above, you do so by attacking the source and/or provider of the evidence rather than the evidence itself.
"...later today I will give you the whole plan to address gun violence and the annual 40,000 American deaths that you and Craig are so in love with."
Don't tease. Just do it. I wait with baited breath. I can't wait to see you double down on that which does nothing.
It takes a moron to think that boorishness and entertaining stuff are synonyms.
Well then, why to you regard them as such? Your boorishness, however, is entertaining stuff. It doesn't make them synonymous. In most cases, boorishness is annoying. It is so with you as well, but it also makes one chuckle as you deign yourself wise when so clearly you are not. THAT is the humorous, entertaining part.
Well, that you find boorishness entertaining just seems true to your corrupt, infantile character. In the adult world boorishness is offensive. And your portrait is affixed to it.
Once again, and pay attention here...read slowly and sound out the words if you must...it is not "boorishness" that I find entertaining. It is YOUR boorishness that I find entertaining; your particular brand of it, with it's self-satisfying yet unjustified aura of intellectual superiority. It's just freakin' hilarious given your ongoing failure to prove it could ever, in any way, possibly be true. Indeed, the very notion that you suggest you're a part of the adult world is especially pants-wetting funny. Adults don't post the same false comment hundreds of times, over and over again, prompting the enabling of comment moderation and then whine about being blocked. Adults do more than merely posture as intellectually superior...they prove it. Adults do more than merely posture as a Christian...they actually act like one. But you...you provide hours of entertainment.
Don’t get it twisted. I understand what it is for you. An infantile moron laughs at serious, intellectual adulthood. Because you don’t have the capacity to react in any different way. We hear your anxiously maniacal laughter, Marshall. Don’t think we don’t.
"Don’t get it twisted."
That's Dan's line. You're much less difficult to understand than him, and he's not difficult to understand at all.
"I understand what it is for you."
The last several comments of yours proves you understand very little.
"An infantile moron laughs at serious, intellectual adulthood."
You are so much farther from being the latter than I am from being the former...and I'm nowhere near being the former. But again, you show how psychotically important is for you to appear to be intellectually superior. It's just so sad. You must really, really want to be.
"Because you don’t have the capacity to react in any different way."
This much is true. At this point, there is no way I can react any differently to your boorish behavior and faux intellectualism. It's just too funny.
"We hear your anxiously maniacal laughter, Marshall. Don’t think we don’t."
First, the only thing of you about which I am in any way "anxious" is to see your "plan". What you've just sent me doesn't cut it. It is, however, about as pathetic as I expected it to be and nowhere near what I hoped it would be. My lack of surprise is just another reaction that is now beyond my capacity.
Secondly, who's "we"? You and your crabs?
“...there is no way I can react any differently to your boorish behavior and faux intellectualism. It's just too funny.
We hear your anxiously maniacal laughter, Marshall. Don’t think we don’t.”
[Marshall keeps rubbing the truth of history hoping it will magically change. Same thing keeps happening in his world: fake snow flies around under a plastic dome.]
"Marshall keeps rubbing the truth of history hoping it will magically change."
You continue to confuse "history" with your fantasy world. You need help. Until you get it, go ahead and continue to believe you're "winning". It's clear your fragile ego really, really needs it.
Rub, rub, Marshall. Till it’s raw.
History is telling us the good is winning. Belief isn’t necessary. What’s needed is for you to stop telling lies.
When you can find one in any of my comments, that'll be the day. Good luck with that, false priest.
Illegal immigrants commit crimes at a far lower rate than native born Americans.
Marshall: Not true.
Illegal egal immigrants put in more to the national economy than take.
Marshall: Not true.
Drugs don't come under or over walls, but through airports and water ports.
Marshall: Not in every case.
No politician, Democrat or Republican, who represents the southern border thinks the wall will do anything.
Marshall: Nonsense.
Marshall’s performance:
Lie
Lie
Diversionary lie
Lie
Strange. The false priest doesn’t understand what a "lie" is? Or maybe he's just being false once again because he just can't help himself. Could be either.
Illegal immigrants commit crimes at a far lower rate than native born Americans.
Marshall: Not true.
Marshall: I like to read and study what others post before rendering my response.
That’s three lies. One about the true fact. One about how you approach your responses. And one about this particularly lying response.
1. This is true.
2. You don’t study for shit.
3. You didn’t study this fact before responding like a shitty moron.
The only lie is the first line you typed. That is, aside from the lie that you think you're intelligent.
1. Illegal immigrants commit crimes at a far lower rate than native born Americans.
2. Not only that: American cities that have more immigrants have lower crime rates and higher economic wellbeing than American cities that have fewer immigrants.z
(1. "In the context of crime, victimization, and immigration in the United States, research shows that people are afraid of immigrants because they think immigrants are a threat to their safety and engage in many violent and property crimes. However, quantitative research has consistently shown that being foreign born is negatively associated with crime overall and is not significantly associated with committing either violent or property crime. If an undocumented immigrant is arrested for a criminal offense, it tends to be for a misdemeanor. Researchers suggest that undocumented immigrants may be less likely to engage in serious criminal offending behavior because they seek to earn money and not to draw attention to themselves. Additionally, immigrants who have access to social services are less likely to engage in crime than those who live in communities where such access is not available. In regard to victimization, immigrants are more likely to be victims of crime. Foreign-born victims of crime may not report their victimization because of fears that they will experience negative consequences if they contact the police. Recently, concern about immigration and victimization has turned to refugees who are at risk of harm from traffickers, who warehouse them, threaten them, and physically abuse them with impunity. More research is needed on the relationship among immigration, offending, and victimization. The United States and other nations that focus on border security may be misplacing their efforts during global crises that result in forced migrations. Poverty and war, among other social conditions that would “encourage” a person to leave their homeland in search of a better life, should be addressed by governments when enforcing immigration laws and policy.") http://oxfordre.com/criminology/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-93
(2. "Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States. These jurisdictions have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic.
The harm the order refers to is a decline in public safety. But that decline doesn’t appear to exist. To the contrary: Sanctuary cities show lower crime and higher economic well-being, a new analysis published by the Center for American Progress and the National Immigration Law Center shows.")
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/01/sanctuary-cities-are-safer-and-more-productive/514508/
Marshall is thus shown to be lying to us. Openly. He lies to Craig, as well. And Marshall lies to himself.
Repeatedly.
Marshall openly lies to you, Craig.
Feodor: "no politician, Democrat or Republican, who represents the southern border thinks the wall will do anything
Marshall: "Nonsense."
Feodor: "Nine congressional representatives serve the districts that line the 2,000-mile southern border. They are men, women, freshman politicians and Washington veterans. The Democrats among them span liberal ideologies, while one of them is a Republican. But they all have one thing in common: each is against President Donald Trump's border wall. Last week, the House of Representatives passed a multi-bill package that provided funding for federal agencies and reinstated Department of Homeland Security appropriations without offering any new border wall funding. All nine of the politicians serving in districts along the border voted in favor of the bills, which were an effective rebuke of the Trump administration's request for $5.7 billion in border wall funding."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-border-wall-every-congressperson-along-southern-border-opposes-border-wall-funding-2019-1-8/
Marshall: "While it may be true that politicians along the border oppose a wall, that also requires a more detailed investigation than feo likely did.."
[Marshall shows that he lied and still doesn't recognize it.]
later...
Marshall: "One pretend intellectual tried to insist that congressmen from every district along the border opposes a wall...all but one being Democrats. He provided no other info..."
now...
Marshall: "But it would be difficult for a politician, such as the one who is of the district in which, say, El Paso is, where Border Control insists the barrier erected there has led to a great decrease in illegals and drugs coming across..."
Dee Margo, Republican mayor of El Paso: "In fact, between 1996 and 2006, the number of reported violent crimes fell by more than 34 percent. Construction on the border fencing in El Paso did not start until 2008 and it was completed by mid-2009."
Republican El Paso Rep. Veronica Escobar sent a letter to President Donald Trump on Thursday asking him to correct the record on his misleading State of the Union remarks about El Paso and to apologize to El Pasoans for misrepresenting their hometown. “El Paso has never been one of the most ‘dangerous cities’ in the country, and our safety and security has long been a point of pride. These distortions about our vibrant community are harmful to our reputation and degrade our spirit."
Marshall openly lies to you, to the world, and to himself.
It's not a lie when my sources contradict yours. Given my sources are the people who are tasked with enforcing the law, I believe they would know far better than a politician who needs to market the community he was elected to lead in the best possible light. Border patrol wants a barrier in more places than that which now exists. They know it helps them in their job, as does more agents, better tech, etc. Politicians, who often operate from a different perspective than what most people consider honest or altruistic, commonly defend the reputation of their communities regardless of how good or bad those communities are.
Most important is that regardless of the truth or falsehood on the parts of politicians from either side of the issue, the fact remains that a barrier on our national border is sound policy and necessary in the fight against all manner and degrees of illicit behaviors. Few people actually "want" a wall on the border. Unfortunately, too many take evil advantage of the fact that there isn't one...including "progressives".
It’s a lie when you say “sources.” Sources aren’t fake. You rely on fake. That’s the lie.
The truth is not in you, Marshall. Simple as that.
And still you do nothing to prove your assertions...because you're a simpleton. I stand ready to defend against such false allegations from false priests like you, and any other "progressive" who dares makes the false claim. You lack the integrity.
You’ve had weeks. And you’ve failed to defend yourself against so many truths. These are just three:
1. Illegal immigrants commit crimes at a far lower rate than native born Americans.
2. American cities that have more immigrants have lower crime rates and higher economic wellbeing than American cities that have fewer immigrants.
3. Illegal immigrants are paying annually an estimated amount of $11.64 billion in state and local taxes, very little of which they receive back in services.
Post a Comment