A conservative who has read my writings (Bubba) recently mistakenly opined...
Dan has essentially argued that the government establishment has made illegal immigration such an enormous problem that it is economically unfeasible to fix it -- and he supports those who created the problem and opposes those who would try to fix it!
1. This is not what I've argued. Period.
2. Because I do not think that criminalizing moving from one place to another place is just or rational or moral lawmaking. There is nothing inherently criminal, wrong or harmful from a person or family moving from point A to point B. Reasonable people certainly would agree (I'm guessing) when it comes to moving from Ohio to Georgia... WHY would that be criminal? No one is being harmed.
In short: Making laws criminalizing immigration are inherently irrational and unjust. It's a made-up crime, not one based upon preventing harm. For those of us who believe in human rights, humans have a right of self-determination, including where we live.
2a. Of course, it goes without saying that criminal types who happen to be immigrants cause harm, just as criminal types who happen to be citizens cause harm. A rapist or a murderer is the exception to the citizenry, just as they are (even moreso) to immigrants. Rational adults don't penalize all citizens because some tiny portion are criminals. The same is true for immigrants. Rationally, morally speaking.
3. Having said that, I am not at all opposed to managing moving from one place to another. For instance, if Phoenix, AZ because of its lack of water, can only accommodate 100,000 people (for instance, and just making up the numbers), then it makes some rational sense to manage the population. But making it criminal? No, of course, not.
4. We further have the problem that some places are unsafe places to be... sometimes for individuals or sometimes for the whole population. If Haiti was destroyed by a hurricane and was temporarily unfit for a large human population...
...if being a woman or LGBTQ person were criminalized or had human rights deprived and were at risk for prison or worse in Uganda, for instance...
...if the gangs in a certain nation or city were so dangerous that you had a greater chance of dying young... or your children had a greater chance of rape...
IF it is inherently unsafe or unhealthy in some locations, then rational, moral people will seek to move some place safer. Any of us would likely want to move some place safer if our family was at risk of imprisonment, starvation, death or oppression. Of course, this is a human rights and rational position to take. My Trabue family is alive and well today in the US because the lives of Trabues were threatened in France by Catholics and we're only alive because another nation let us in.
4a. Thus, even moreso than simple immigration, refugees escaping threats at home should be accommodated. There is righteous international law that the US is signed on to that obliges us to that much. Again, there is nothing inherently harmful or immoral in a refugee escaping a threat to find a safer place to live.
https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/4ec262df9.pdf
And WHO should get to make that decision of when and where to move? Some gov't flunkee or the person who is at risk? The person at risk, of course, from a human rights, self-determination point of view.
Where am I mistaken so far?
Dan has essentially argued that the government establishment has made illegal immigration such an enormous problem that it is economically unfeasible to fix it -- and he supports those who created the problem and opposes those who would try to fix it!
1. This is not what I've argued. Period.
2. Because I do not think that criminalizing moving from one place to another place is just or rational or moral lawmaking. There is nothing inherently criminal, wrong or harmful from a person or family moving from point A to point B. Reasonable people certainly would agree (I'm guessing) when it comes to moving from Ohio to Georgia... WHY would that be criminal? No one is being harmed.
In short: Making laws criminalizing immigration are inherently irrational and unjust. It's a made-up crime, not one based upon preventing harm. For those of us who believe in human rights, humans have a right of self-determination, including where we live.
2a. Of course, it goes without saying that criminal types who happen to be immigrants cause harm, just as criminal types who happen to be citizens cause harm. A rapist or a murderer is the exception to the citizenry, just as they are (even moreso) to immigrants. Rational adults don't penalize all citizens because some tiny portion are criminals. The same is true for immigrants. Rationally, morally speaking.
3. Having said that, I am not at all opposed to managing moving from one place to another. For instance, if Phoenix, AZ because of its lack of water, can only accommodate 100,000 people (for instance, and just making up the numbers), then it makes some rational sense to manage the population. But making it criminal? No, of course, not.
4. We further have the problem that some places are unsafe places to be... sometimes for individuals or sometimes for the whole population. If Haiti was destroyed by a hurricane and was temporarily unfit for a large human population...
...if being a woman or LGBTQ person were criminalized or had human rights deprived and were at risk for prison or worse in Uganda, for instance...
...if the gangs in a certain nation or city were so dangerous that you had a greater chance of dying young... or your children had a greater chance of rape...
IF it is inherently unsafe or unhealthy in some locations, then rational, moral people will seek to move some place safer. Any of us would likely want to move some place safer if our family was at risk of imprisonment, starvation, death or oppression. Of course, this is a human rights and rational position to take. My Trabue family is alive and well today in the US because the lives of Trabues were threatened in France by Catholics and we're only alive because another nation let us in.
4a. Thus, even moreso than simple immigration, refugees escaping threats at home should be accommodated. There is righteous international law that the US is signed on to that obliges us to that much. Again, there is nothing inherently harmful or immoral in a refugee escaping a threat to find a safer place to live.
https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/4ec262df9.pdf
And WHO should get to make that decision of when and where to move? Some gov't flunkee or the person who is at risk? The person at risk, of course, from a human rights, self-determination point of view.
Where am I mistaken so far?
So, back to Bubba's false claim:
Dan has essentially argued that the government establishment has made illegal immigration such an enormous problem that it is economically unfeasible to fix it -- and he supports those who created the problem and opposes those who would try to fix it!
5. Thus, those who have welcomed and accepted refugees and immigrants are not to blame in any of this. They are just doing what is rational, moral, just and in support of human rights (and in support of abundantly consistent teachings from both Jewish and Christian traditions as found in the Bible, for what that's worth.)
6. The "problems" of immigration are more rightly laid at the feet of...
6a. Unjust or failed gov'ts elsewhere that fail to promote and protect human rights (resulting in people at risk seeking to escape danger, and doing so rationally)
6b. Bad actors/abusive people in failed gov'ts that are abusing/causing harm to innocent civilians in their lands.
6c. Sometimes, weather and land conditions and land policies that cause drought, famine or environmental catastrophes. These are sometimes out of our control and sometimes a result of poor policies/land planning and sometimes both (as in climate change-related "disasters" that could be prevented or eased if we had more responsible climate-related policies).
6d. Nations that implement policies that result in harm - whether we're talking anthropogenic climate change or extractive/colonial type policies that have contributed to poorer nations being made even poorer/being taken advantage of.
6e. Other nations having improper procedures and policies for dealing with the predictable and reasonable move of innocent people from one place to another place which, again, is a basic human right. Because, why wouldn't it be?
That is the question for apparently a majority of the US to consider: On what rational, moral basis would we criminalize people exercising self-determination... especially when we're talking about saving or improving their own lives or the lives of their loved ones?
So, Bubba, where the "gov't establishment" has failed in the US (and this is both GOP and Democrat) is in having just, reasonable immigration policies and a reasonable way to accommodate immigrants and refugees.
It's NOT the fault of those who merely support others moving from point A to point B, NOR is it the fault of those who merely want to escape to someplace safe and with sufficient resources so that they can work and feed their families.
Finally, what's in the "best interests" of "our country" matter less to me than what is right, reasonable, supportive of human rights and what is in the best interest of the world. And that's because what is in the best interests of humanity writ large IS in the best interests of our country.
Seems to me.
Where am I mistaken?
While I'm at it, in the same conversation, another conservative (Marshal) attempted to mock me, saying...
what he calls the "self-determination" of foreigners
It's not like I made up the crazy notion of "self-determination." It's a basic building block of universally recognized human rights.
And as to the "harm done to our economy" theory (that both Marshal and Bubba were advocating), it just doesn't hold up. Are YOU personally harmed when a family from Georgia moves to Texas? Of course, not. And the data shows that, while there are SOME costs associated with our lack of rational immigration policies (from both GOP and DNC), there are also, of course, huge benefits associated with welcoming immigrants. Nebraska is BEGGING to have some workers - including immigrant workers... as are other places. The economic costs are overwhelmed by the economic benefits and WAY overwhelmed by the human rights benefits.
This is supported by many studies and experts. Here is the conclusion found by the crazy leftists at the George W Bush Center...
https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/north-american-century/benefits-of-immigration-outweigh-costs
Dan has essentially argued that the government establishment has made illegal immigration such an enormous problem that it is economically unfeasible to fix it -- and he supports those who created the problem and opposes those who would try to fix it!
5. Thus, those who have welcomed and accepted refugees and immigrants are not to blame in any of this. They are just doing what is rational, moral, just and in support of human rights (and in support of abundantly consistent teachings from both Jewish and Christian traditions as found in the Bible, for what that's worth.)
6. The "problems" of immigration are more rightly laid at the feet of...
6a. Unjust or failed gov'ts elsewhere that fail to promote and protect human rights (resulting in people at risk seeking to escape danger, and doing so rationally)
6b. Bad actors/abusive people in failed gov'ts that are abusing/causing harm to innocent civilians in their lands.
6c. Sometimes, weather and land conditions and land policies that cause drought, famine or environmental catastrophes. These are sometimes out of our control and sometimes a result of poor policies/land planning and sometimes both (as in climate change-related "disasters" that could be prevented or eased if we had more responsible climate-related policies).
6d. Nations that implement policies that result in harm - whether we're talking anthropogenic climate change or extractive/colonial type policies that have contributed to poorer nations being made even poorer/being taken advantage of.
6e. Other nations having improper procedures and policies for dealing with the predictable and reasonable move of innocent people from one place to another place which, again, is a basic human right. Because, why wouldn't it be?
That is the question for apparently a majority of the US to consider: On what rational, moral basis would we criminalize people exercising self-determination... especially when we're talking about saving or improving their own lives or the lives of their loved ones?
So, Bubba, where the "gov't establishment" has failed in the US (and this is both GOP and Democrat) is in having just, reasonable immigration policies and a reasonable way to accommodate immigrants and refugees.
It's NOT the fault of those who merely support others moving from point A to point B, NOR is it the fault of those who merely want to escape to someplace safe and with sufficient resources so that they can work and feed their families.
Finally, what's in the "best interests" of "our country" matter less to me than what is right, reasonable, supportive of human rights and what is in the best interest of the world. And that's because what is in the best interests of humanity writ large IS in the best interests of our country.
Seems to me.
Where am I mistaken?
While I'm at it, in the same conversation, another conservative (Marshal) attempted to mock me, saying...
what he calls the "self-determination" of foreigners
It's not like I made up the crazy notion of "self-determination." It's a basic building block of universally recognized human rights.
And as to the "harm done to our economy" theory (that both Marshal and Bubba were advocating), it just doesn't hold up. Are YOU personally harmed when a family from Georgia moves to Texas? Of course, not. And the data shows that, while there are SOME costs associated with our lack of rational immigration policies (from both GOP and DNC), there are also, of course, huge benefits associated with welcoming immigrants. Nebraska is BEGGING to have some workers - including immigrant workers... as are other places. The economic costs are overwhelmed by the economic benefits and WAY overwhelmed by the human rights benefits.
This is supported by many studies and experts. Here is the conclusion found by the crazy leftists at the George W Bush Center...
https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/north-american-century/benefits-of-immigration-outweigh-costs
21 comments:
And here are a couple of earlier posts (citing Libertarians and Human Rights types), noting that this is a liberty issue, certainly not merely a conservative or liberal issue. There's no reason that I can think of to defend very closed borders, and certainly not borders closed to refugees... and refugees, broadly defined, not so narrow as they often are. That is, IF you feel your life and liberties are lesser or threatened at place A, and you think you will be safer at place B, WHY would any moral person oppose that?
https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-libertarian-and-liberty-loving.html
A. Anyone who voted to put a felon in the Oval Office and/or supports pardons for 1600 insurrectionists, some of whom set off bombs, beat cops, killed a cop… such a one is decidedly mot a conservative. Marshal is a reactionary fascist. And perhaps Bubba, too.
B. MAGA: taking the Pentateuch and Christ out of Christianity.
Trump is basically a domestic terrorist.
Pardons for over a thousand convicted criminals involved in a violent insurrection where cops were beaten and a few lost their lives as a result.
Expulsion for innocent Spanish speakers. As if 20% of Americans don’t speak Spanish.
It's amazingly irrational, isn't it, Feodor? All of it. How to explain??
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1KSAU2hwRf/?mibextid=wwXIfr
This is a long post, and I haven't the time at this moment to study it in depth...that is, in a manner consistently uncommon of you. But as I've gotten through about half, it is clear that you once again fail to address the issue honestly, accurately and as the border crisis has played out. And while you've insisted you do not regard all "undocumented immigrants" as oppressed angelic innocents fleeing imminent death, this post again belies that objection.
So for what I've read already, I will address a point or two:
The issue is illegal border crossings. Your constant reference to "self-determination" continues to ignore the self-determination of your own countrymen and in fact demands we subordinate our own to accommodate that of foreigners who choose to ignore our laws regarding entering our nation. The consequence of that most ignorant and empty-headed position means there are no such things as borders, that there are no such things as nations, that the sovereignty of nations is meaningless. This is absurd and no nation abides it, though enough have too many like you who ignore it.
Your position in fact forces others to do your bidding as regards accommodating these who refuse our laws, sovereignty and right of self-determination.
You pretend that illegal crossing our sovereign border apart from our own laws and policies is akin to a person moving from one of our fifty states into another. But while the analogy is...like all your analogies...woefully inept and apples/oranges, one can't simply move from one state to another in this country without some abiding of state laws regarding such a thing. I can't just leave Illinois and set up a lean-to in South Carolina and pretend I'm a citizen of South Carolina. I must abide the laws of SC in order to avail myself of what SC has to offer its citizens. Likewise, our nation has laws regarding those who hope to enter and they righteous, just and established for the good of the nation...that is, the actual citizens of the nation...not the demands of any who choose to make this their home, either temporarily or permanently.
With all that said, there are legally recognized avenues for migrating here which you evidently don't care about, and more than that, don't even think about what it would mean to the nation were they not in place. With those, we welcome millions, and accommodate many more who are legitimately fleeing direct threats on their lives or seeking temporary accommodations due to natural catastrophes (hurricanes or volcanic eruptions, for example) or war, until such time as those situations are resolved.
Thus, for you to dare suggest that those like myself, who expect our sovereign borders to be respected are somehow immoral or unChristian is a lie of the worst sort.
I save your link to the UN refugee article for later perusal. To post that clearly suggests you regard all who seek to enter as some kind of refugee, and you've clearly demonstrated the willingness to pervert the definition of refugee to expand it to include most everyone who seeks to enter. As I stated, because it's a fact, true refugees are not the problem. That you lie about who or what a refugee is is the problem.
As to your George Bush center link, you posted it at my blog and as has been confirmed, it does not differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants and thus does not serve your position.
As I type this, I see just enough of your boy feo's comment to see that you both think all those who are crossing illegally are Spanish speaking people. This provides evidence of how little informed you are about the situation.
I guess since Marshal thinks 8% of Americans who are LGBTQ+ constitute an existential threat to America, he’ll obsess about the huge murderous horde of Laotians pouring across our open borders.
Numbers of border of Mexico crossings by size for each year and each country, consecutively for the period, 2020-2021.
Wow. So few Spanish speakers. Marshal has a solid hold on all significant detail. Flat Earth because it looks like it. Non Spanish speaking Russians because it’s right there on paper. Right there! Way, way, way the fuck down. The gnat in the tea. Marshall is angry and dedicated to find the gnat in 300,000 gallons of tea.
Mexico 60,772
Mexico 63,431
Mexico 65,788
Venezuela 25,361
Venezuela 33,804
Cuba 28,848
Cuba 19,060
Cuba 26,178
Venezuela 22,044
Honduras 16,219
Nicaragua 18,199
Nicaragua 20,917
Guatemala 15,681
Guatemala 15,331
Colombia 17,195
Colombia 13,497
Honduras 14,417
Guatemala 14,806
Nicaragua 11,749
Colombia 13,807
Honduras 14,003
Peru 7,782
El Salvador 6,675
Peru 8,231
Peru 9,081
Haiti 6,559
El Salvador 6,247
Ecuador 7,011
Ecuador 5,379
Haiti 6,717
Brazil 5,747
Haiti 5,163
El Salvador 6,042
Ecuador 3,681
Russia 2,617
Russia 3,879
Russia 1,645
India 2,021
India 2,044
India 1,597
Brazil 1,732
Turkey 1,405
Turkey 1,172
Turkey 1,632
Brazil 762
China 375
China 399
China 431
Romania 215
Romania 278
Romania 151
I am convinced that one psycho-emotional deficit within psyches of conservatives is that they are nuance-deficient, they have a nuanced deficiency.
I wonder what research has been done on the topic?
That's all.
Dan
"I guess since Marshal thinks 8% of Americans who are LGBTQ+ constitute an existential threat to America..."
How many muslims whacked over 3000 Americans on 9/11/01, feo?
Dan dares suggest conservatives have a problem with nuance. Dan forgets it's not just the 8% of Americans who identify themselves as "LGBTQ", but all the morally bankrupt people who enable them increases that percentage of people who are a threat our culture. But you guys demand a culture of moral depravity, so...
As if that isn't bad enough, Dan's troll wants to pretend there's a problem with those who cross contrary to established law based on their skin color or place of origin. Like you Dan...and perhaps more psychotically, feo needs to believe opposition to illegal border crossings is some kind of racist, xenophobic thing. His list is unnecessary and just evidence of his hatred and falsehood (and stupidity). Conservatives don't care where legal immigrants are from. Legal immigrants are welcomed. Conservatives don't care where illegals come from, nor what language they speak. They came in contrary to our laws. Is that too "nuanced" for you pseudo-intellectuals?
Muslim terrorists attacked NYC and Washington DC because they hate - violently - a modern democracy where freedom guarantees rights, is concerned for all people equally, working to institute identity-blind justice because human persons should be treated equally, respect peace loving religious diversity as a matter of choice, and sponsor enriched education in the knowledge that human suffering at all levels can be reduced and human creativity enhanced.
You’re just like them. Your gods look exactly the same. The difference is that you know you can be found. And you’re personally comfortable.
And don’t act like you care for all of those 3,000, Marshal. You’re a liar.
It is estimated that of the 2,977 people killed on 9/11:
568 were foreign born immigrants
372 people from 102 countries
258 were Latinos
215 were Black people
67 were undocumented immigrants – the majority having been workers at the Windows on the World restaurant atop the North Tower
59% of New Yorkers are foreign born. Muslim terrorists, just as much as US Christian Nationalists, hate us for our diverse modern democracy. And so do you and all you Thugs.
Is this supposed to be an intelligent counter argument? It doesn't even relate to my criticism of your comment, "I guess since Marshal thinks 8% of Americans who are LGBTQ+ constitute an existential threat to America". The idea that any percentage of illegals being criminal matters as much as the fact that criminals, terrorists and other problematic threats being among them is dismissed by those like you and Dan who prefer, without evidence, that most of those crossing illegally absolutely, positively must be allowed to do so because of some threat to them, and we must simply take their word for that.
And then, because you were schooled yet again, you pivot from the failed argument to unjustly accuse me of having no regard for the victims of that small amount of murderers on that day.
What kind of "Christian" is it who is so obsessed with intending without just cause to indict another of racism? You and Dan do this constantly, because you're so afraid of being regarded as such yourself? Why is that, exactly? I don't care about the race or ethnicity of the victims, you sad and pathetic fraud. I do care that someone decided to murder them.
"67 were undocumented immigrants"
Just think...that's 67 dead who wouldn't be dead if they were not employed there because they were deported or prevented from entering illegally.
The real liar is you, because you exploit these victims for your marxist agenda. The more victims the better, right feo?
Like a child, you tried to say Dan and I didn’t know about non-Spanish speaking immigrants. I pointed out that you were making a shallow pointless argument that 8% of those crossing the border are not Spanish speaking. If border crossers were reduced to 8% of actual… you couldn’t celebrate because you don’t care about actual issues. You don’t know what the actual issues are.
You thrill to one thing only: whatever sounds like revenge for White men.
Since undocumented people commit crime are a lower rate than US citizens, replacing us with them would lower crime.
If you want to be an utterly unhelpful idiot focused on one single solitary point of data, then you have the solution.
An absurdity that points out how you never look at the problem. You love to defame and to dehumanize others for the sole purpose of operationalizing White anger. You used the 9/11 deceased in an effort to make a patriotic point. But the patriotism weeps over the 9/11 dead as representative of who we are: a diverse community living in a democracy. A thing that turns your stomach because you’re drunk in love with Moloch.
Being drunk with hate you can’t piece anything of reason together in your sick head.
We’re here because our ancestors decided by themselves to cross borders. No one invited or allowed them to. And when they got here, in order to stay here, the stole land and murdered the people whose land it was until native citizens left out. And these ancestors of ours thought they had a right because they believed that their god called them to become thieves and murderers on his behalf.
You can’t bear to accept this do you believe in racial superiority.
But the White peoples our ancestors do led from were slaughtering each other, Protestant killing Catholic, Catholic killing Protestant, Protestant killing “wrong” Protestants. Each believing the Christian god called them to become murderers on his behalf. Which White peoples do you believe Marshal? Catholic Italians? Catholic Spaniards? Catholic French? Of course you can’t. But do you reject the condemnation that Protestants spoke against Catholics and slaughtered in self believing self-justification? Did God not favor one or the other? Was it all a brutalizing ethnic war of hate between White peoples?
And what about the Protestants? Who are God’s righteous murderers in the White lands of our original home? Protestant Lutherans of Germany’s north? Protestant Anglicans of Elizabeth’s England? Protestant Calvinists of Geneva and Zurich? Anabaptists arising from the prophets of Zwickau? The Presbyterians of Scotland?
Pick one, Marshal. Which White Protestant group killing the other White Protestant groups did God actually favor? If you claim that God favored Protestant Christians as murderers on this land that we stole, who did God favor at the same time back in our motherlands?
Pick one. Or, if it was just all ethnic, religious hatred between all the Western Whites who make up our heritage, the you have to admit that the same thing was going on here. A violent dispossession of other people’s lives and land. And willing to do this, our Christian undocumented immigrant ancestors found it easy to draft behind the technical know how of our motherlands to enslave millions for slavery and force breed them for millions more.
Where is your god, Marshal, in all of this? You don’t know. And as the myths fall apart, your identity in Protestant Whiteness is falling apart. And so has your decency, if you ever had it, and your morality, as meager as it surely in some distant youth. So. You rage and brutalize.
"Like a child, you tried to say Dan and I didn’t know about non-Spanish speaking immigrants."
Not so, but as would a fake Christian liar, or someone with poor comprehension skills, you say what is not at all in evidence. More correctly, the criticisms from the both of you of my position are based on the intentionally false claim that it's driven by racism/white supremacy.
"I pointed out that you were making a shallow pointless argument that 8% of those crossing the border are not Spanish speaking."
Also not true. My mentioning language at all is due to both of YOU constantly suggesting those like me have something specifically against "brown, Spanish speaking people" coming to our nation, such as this line:
"Expulsion for innocent Spanish speakers. As if 20% of Americans don’t speak Spanish."
This came after you repeating the lie that cops died as a result of confrontations with Jan 6 protestors. And of course this quotes presents another common lie, that said Spanish speakers are innocent. No. They're guilty of crossing our borders in breech of our laws and regulations regarding immigration into this country.
"You don’t know what the actual issues are."
The "actual issues" are illegal border crossings...NOT immigration. "Immigration" suggests the people who enter according to established laws regulating entry into our country. That's not at issue, despite how you, Dan and leftists like to conflate entry according to our laws with those who ignore our laws to enter.
"You thrill to one thing only: whatever sounds like revenge for White men."
Once again, because you're unable to rationalize your open border preference or because you just have to find some way to portray me negatively like a grace embracing "Christian", you intentionally choose to assert that for which you have no evidence. You can't overcome the truth I speak, so you project upon me your racist tendencies.
"If you want to be an utterly unhelpful idiot focused on one single solitary point of data, then you have the solution."
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean...likely because it means nothing. YOU certainly have no solutions, and this is likely something you hope will distract from that fact.
"An absurdity that points out how you never look at the problem."
Also not in evidence. You just say stuff.
"You love to defame and to dehumanize others for the sole purpose of operationalizing White anger."
Also not in evidence and nothing you could ever hope to prove. Go ahead and try.
"You used the 9/11 deceased in an effort to make a patriotic point."
I cited the 3000 dead because it only took 19 scumbags to murder them all. Thus, your attempt to use 8% of the population being LGBTQ was thus shown to be another epic failure. 8% of any group can be enough to cause harm, just as 8% of the American population (more specifically the activists among them) caused such great harm to our culture. A review of our engagement will bear out the manner in which you're arguments have failed.
"But the patriotism weeps over the 9/11 dead as representative of who we are: a diverse community living in a democracy. A thing that turns your stomach because you’re drunk in love with Moloch."
Huh??? Aside from the sad prose, this is a goofy thing for an abortion supporter to say.
Marshal: “you both think all those who are crossing illegally are Spanish speaking people.”
Me: “Like a child, you tried to say Dan and I didn’t know about non-Spanish speaking immigrants.”
Marshal: “ Not so.”
You love lying. Here it is plain as day. But you’ll deny it. Gutless, soulless, craven lover of lies.
"We’re here because our ancestors decided by themselves to cross borders. No one invited or allowed them to. And when they got here, in order to stay here, the stole land and murdered the people whose land it was until native citizens left out. And these ancestors of ours thought they had a right because they believed that their god called them to become thieves and murderers on his behalf."
What an inane and dishonest distortion of our history. Such revisionism would make Nikole Hannah-Jones proud! Truly a "New Origin Story".
"Which White Protestant group killing the other White Protestant groups did God actually favor?"
God favors those who obey His Commandments and those who accept His Only Begotten Son, Jesus the Christ, as Savior. He most certainly doesn't favor those like you who are race hustlers, defenders of infanticide, enablers of law breakers, promoters of sexual abomination.
Those who founded this country came to a place which was not a land claimed by anyone and throughout my life I've heard representatives of one American Indian tribe or another insist that land cannot be owned. Those who you say our ancestors delighted in murdering and oppressing had their own history of warfare, slavery and displacement of other tribes. It's human history and you want to pretend that somehow you have some special insight that elevates you above those who came before us. My God is waiting to have a talk with you. It won't go well. He's not keen on false priests like you. "Rage and brutalize" my eye.
Shameful.
If God favors those who follow him, which of various White groups of Christian’s were those? A few million people were killed; hundreds if thousands in all sides. 30% of the German population, both Catholic and Protestant, died fighting White Christian wars.
Who did God favor, Marshal? Whose slaughter was justified?
You can’t and won’t answer. You don’t know where your God is when it’s White vs White. I suspect you can’t side with the Catholics, neither the Catholics defending the Holy Roman Empire, nor the French Catholics who, for a fine, allied with Protestants to defeat the Holy Roman Empire.
You’re only certain of where God is when Whites are slaughtering non-Whites. Which makes you a brutalizing racist.
Native tribes and confederacies and nations recognized borders. That’s why wars would erupt between them: when borders were crossed. And when European colonizers got too big to countenance, a situation like you think fits today, the Wampanoag Nation fought back against the Pilgrims. Wars between colonizers spread along the East Coast, Englishmen against the nation’s big tribes from Massachusetts to Virginia. The Wampanoag Nation; the Pequots, the Leni Lenape, down to the Powhatan Confederacy into which Jamestown Settlers invaded.
Your Will to be stupid is the raging irrational last period of your life. Jesus condemns you for rejecting the image of God in which you were made.
Marshal, don't make further comments until you address my question in bold, below.
Feodor rightly noted the reality of our history, saying:
"We’re here because our ancestors decided by themselves to cross borders. No one invited or allowed them to. And when they got here, in order to stay here, the stole land and murdered the people whose land it was until native citizens left out.
Marshal responded:
What an inane and dishonest distortion of our history.
What is dishonest?
Did anyone in the Americas invite my ancestors (escaping religious extremists willing to torture and kill those who disagreed with their personal human religious opinions) to come here? Indeed, they had to BREAK LAWS in France to flee the religious oppression to get here.
This is, of course, just factual history.
Did we NOT take over land and kill the owners of that land?
This is, of course, just factual history.
And are you saying that these ancestors of ours thought they had a right because they believed that their god called them to become thieves and murderers on his behalf?
Support any claims with facts.
In my family, I'm fortunate that an ancestor wrote the story of the Trabues escaping to and living in what would become the United States. He describes how religious zealots in France were willing to kill those they deemed "heretics." He describes how he and his family owned human beings and treated them as slaves, against their will. He describes how he and his family literally killed native peoples so they could assume ownership of the land where the native peoples lived.
What is not factual in ANY of that?
Marshal, the Bible idolator, hates Leviticus.
“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.“
Post a Comment