Saturday, April 13, 2019

I Guess I'm Banned Now---Another Coward Runs Away

"NOW, the NEXT COMMENT YOU MAKE MUST defend WITH DATA the notion that "the media" is an enemy of the people."

This is the ultimatum from Dan in response to my "support" for Trump's description of some of the media.  Note the word "some" is italicized.  There's a reason for that.  The reason is that Trump did NOT refer to ALL of the media.  When questioned, he immediately clarified about whom he was speaking.  Every honest person who pays attention knows EXACTLY to whom he is referring.  Thus, as neither Trump nor I have referred to "the media" in, the media in an enemy of anyone, to demand I defend that proposition is unjustified.

As regards what Trump actually meant by that expression, as well as to whom the expression referred, I've provided data enough in a previous post to support the contention that a certain segment of the media is indeed worthy of the title "enemy of the people".  He goes on:

"Provide the data that "most" (or 25% or whatever the hell number you think) of the media is deliberately telling lies, deliberately seeking to undermine a president for no reason at all."

The problem with this type of demand is that it is based on regarding the opinion of Trump as if it is concrete fact...something he would be hard pressed to prove is Trump's intention.  No, Trump is reacting to media coverage that, as my links in my previous blog demonstrates, is less than objective, less than honest and very much partisan.  How much?  How many?  Dan knows, or is too stupid to know when making demands such as his, what would be involved to provide the "hard data" that would be compelling enough for him to stop pretending Trump's position is total crap.  It would involve cataloging absolutely every news report (all newsprint, TV, radio, internet, etc.), categorizing each according to which is straight out lie, which is mistake made from laziness, etc. and then calculating percentages in order to prove or disprove Trump's "most" or "80%" opinion.   And after all of that, it would still be subject to Dan's very subjective, hateful and biased opinion of whether or not it satisfies his demands.  Why the hell would I put myself through that kind of work to satisfy his petulance, only to have it all deleted because it most certainly wouldn't regardless of how well it should have? 

What's more, if it fell short and simply proved, say, 51% of the media were guilty, would that be "most enough" for Danny-boy?  Not likely.  While he would say it proves Trump was "lying"...because he so badly needs to believe that anything that Trump says that is not rock solid true proves he can't be trusted to tell the would still in reality prove that Trump was right in saying "most" of the media is fake news. 

But what's the most ironic aspect of Dan's idiotic demands is that he, and his troll, feo, engage in the very sloppy and dishonest behavior that typifies the left-wing media.  To wit, here are some examples:

In Dan's response (the post itself) he says:

1.  "Moving on, then, an immediate question arises... "The press" has not been seriously accused of any "crimes against the state." None."

Well, yes they have, by many for many years now.  Perhaps not in exactly those terms, but the meaning is the same.  When the press is reporting that which is not true...worse, when it reports things that a little more investigation would prevent the report in the first place because the facts don't support the message of the report, it is misinforming the public.  Misinforming the public, intentionally or due to laziness and/or bias, is distorts the consumer's understanding in a way that leads the consumer to believe that which isn't true.  Given the assumption that the press is telling us what we need to know, to do the opposite is indeed a crime against us.  This has been the complaint, and thus the accusation of millions for years.

2.  "So, you are defining down YOUR definition of Enemy of the State/People to be "a group accused in a casual manner of some vague metaphorical "crime...", NOT an actual crime... "

Clearly this wasn't the case.  I wasn't "defining down" anything, but providing examples of how the crime is perpetrated.   Dan needs the crime to be something that the law has codified in order to use the word "crime".  But to mislead is the crime to which I refer and it is a crime even if there is no statute on the books.  There's nothing "casual" about it either, given the obligation of the press to provide facts.

3.  "Here you appear to be defining "enemy of the state" as a media that is biased against Trump..."

The problem with the above is that it follows my exact words.  Mere bias is not the issue.  Allowing that bias to result in stories that fail to accurately inform, or worse, to purposely influence the consumer in a partisan manner, is manipulation, not reporting and thus makes those members of the press who engage in such behavior enemies of the people.  Again, it's a simple thing:  inform with facts and let the public decide how it feels about the facts.  
As an example, if the press reports a killing without details surrounding how a person was killed, it can leave the consumer believing the killing was intentional when it was accidental, or accidental when it was intentional.  I'm speaking, of course, of a situation where those pertinent details are left out.  A more real world example is purposely leaving out details about a perpetrator, such as a muslim who kills a Jew, or the race of a group of kids randomly mugging people on the streets.    This is all too common and distorts the consumers understanding of the event reported.

4.  "Your entire case appears to be based NOT on the meaning of the term Enemy of the State or People, but on you thinking it's okay to just make a claim that has no meaning and is not factual."

This is clearly not even a sad attempt at understanding, but a willful disregard for what I clearly stated numerous times.  My case is based on the many, many examples of where the media has either purposely lied and distorted, allowed a mistake to linger leading to confusion and misunderstanding regarding reality before finally making corrections no one sees because of those corrections being buried and the clear laziness with regards to checking facts thoroughly before going to press.  To that end, I've offered several links in support of my argument.  In those few instances where Dan tries to respond to some of the info provided in those links, he STILL acts like a leftist media animal with more nonsense:

5. "The stories you mentioned about Trump calling immigrants "animals" DID happen. Trump used the term in talking about immigrants. Later he tried to clarify that he only meant a subset of immigrants, but that doesn't change that he used the term in a message that was directed towards immigrants as a group. The point is, THAT IS NOT A STORY about "the media" lying"

This is in response to something for which I had intended to provide more detail, and was therefore a "teaser" for things to come.  Then he denied me further comments until I provide what this post should provide for him, but will only be rejected as insufficient...because nothing ever can be if it contradicts what he needs to be true regardless of whether or not it is. 

The reality is that the lie of the media was easily found to be the lie it is by virtue of the fact that the comments by Trump can be researched and considered in its entire context, which was specifically about MS-13, regardless of whether or not the comments were in a larger discussion on immigration.  It is absurd to suggest that any "professional journalist" could run the line that he was speaking of all immigrants when so clearly he was NOT, and their capabilities in learning the truth of what he said far exceeds that of the general public.  That makes them culpable in a purposeful distortion of the facts. 

Dan proves he's just as deceitful and lazy with regard to the truth by virtue of the fact that he made his comment above without any effort to research the Trump comments and thus find for himself that what I said about the three "journalists" was absolutely true.  And maybe that's the problem.  Because Dan is just as deceitful with regard to Trump, he regards others doing the same thing as normal.

Then there is Dan's pet monkey, feo, who also engages in the same behavior that has led to widespread criticism of the media.  In this blog post at Dan's, the discussion (which also includes more of Dan's distortions, turns to a "discussion" on abortion.  feo chooses to misrepresent my position, not once, but constantly despite repeated attempts by me to correct him.  The point of contention regards the DNA of the fetus, including from the moment of conception.  feo desperately tries to insist that I pretend DNA proves personhood, and thus a human hair is a person because of the human DNA within it.  But this wasn't my point or argument.  I brought up DNA as what distinguishes the child from the mother, thereby rebutting the "it's my body" argument of the pro-abort woman.  If it was her body, what grows in her womb would have the exact same DNA.  It doesn't, so it isn't.  feo couldn't handle this truth without pretending I was making a different argument than what I was.  This form of deceit is all too common in today's press, particularly when the subject is the opposing opinions between conservatives and leftists.

He does it again here in an earlier post at Dan's where the discussion turned to immigration.  Here, feo takes great pains to distort my position on the emergency at our southern border and what constitutes an emergency.  The emergency is the fact that our borders are wide open allowing for entry by anyone for any purpose without knowledge of governing authorities.  The crisis is at the southern border where people are flooding in.  It doesn't matter than our northern border is longer, for while that constitutes a problem as well, clearly it is the southern border where invaders are taking advantage. 

The bottom line here is that in addition to the links I presented in the previous post, I've collected several more.  But what's the point?  As I said, it will never be enough for Dan, because he doesn't want to acknowledge the truth of it.  The media is actively trying to push a leftist agenda on pretty much every issue of importance.  Objectivity is rare from any of the usual suspects, and far, far less from Dan and his rectal itch, feo. 

So it seems unlikely that Dan will allow me to post at his blog anymore.  Boo-freakin-hoo.  I guess we'll just have to debate each other from our respective blogs.  At least at this one, he'll be able to post comments without fear of deletion (unless he continues dropping f-bombs---but I'll likely just reprint them with the offending words obscured), while at his blog, he'll be talking with no one but the troll.  If he's so frozen by his cowardice and dishonesty, that's how it will be.  As for feo, who cares?  He's worse than Dan, and that's saying quite a lot.

Friday, March 29, 2019

A Worthy Cause Doesn't Obligate Donation

Recently, a hub-bub arose from a report that Betsy DeVos supported Trump budget cuts that included ending $18 million for the Special Olympics, whose mission is: provide year-round sports training and athletic competition in a variety of Olympic-type sports for children and adults with intellectual disabilities, giving them continuing opportunities to develop physical fitness, demonstrate courage, experience joy and participate in a sharing of gifts, skills and friendship with their families, other Special Olympics athletes and the community.
A worthy cause indeed.  However, does its worthiness obligate us to contribute tax dollars to its mission?  The question is worth consideration given the amount of money it attracts in donations from individuals, corporations and a variety fund-raising events.  In DeVos' defense of the cuts, she said they take in over $100 million annually.  I've found other sources that say the same.  With that in mind, as well as the need to cut federal spending, is such a group beyond consideration for cuts of any kind?

Well, so many respond in the negative.  Certainly those who run Special Olympics are unhappy.  Celebs and politicians have raised a stink as well.  Some present the notion as "going after people with disabilities".  That might hold some water if there was no money flowing in at the rate it does without tax dollars, but as things stand, it's rather nonsensical.  Cuts do not mean that donations are affected, that people must stop or reduce their participation as regards supporting the organization. 

In any case, in today's paper, I read that Trump has backed off on these cuts.  I don't think he should based on the money they take in each year.  I also don't think that simply because a cause is worthy it means the federal government needs to involve itself at all.  Charity is something for which each of us as individuals is responsible, not the government.  Look again at the mission statement.  Are we to expect that the federal government has some sort of obligation to make certain that all who wish to compete gets to do so?  How so?  On what basis is this true?  On what basis is this logically possible?  There is no right to such things, except the right to strive to avail one's self.  Should others wish to help with their personal contributions, that's beautiful and I encourage the encouragement of others to help out. 

But the federal government is tapped out.  This particular cut is part of a cut in funding of the Department of Education.  I believe Trump is looking for cuts in any and every department, and in this case, DeVos is tasked with cuts related to her department.  Is there any recipient of tax dollars that sees itself as unworthy of continued funding?  I doubt it.  So the decision has to be made on the giving side of the equation, and this particular cut makes sense given the sizable amount of money Special Olympics receives from charitable giving. 

Some wish to insist on simply raising spending rather than redirecting money from one area to another of greater need.  At some point, cuts and redirecting must be done.  We can't just keep increasing the spending.  And worthiness can't be dictated solely, or even primarily, by the recipient.  Once all arguments for attracting money are made, the source of the money gets to decide where best to spread it around.  Special Olympics is a most worthy cause, but they're doing great without federal funds.  Everyone can always use more money.  That doesn't mean everyone is entitled to more.  This is especially true when the source of some of that "more" instead really needs to cut back its spending.

But here's a thought:  Let's cut off Planned Parenthood.  Those who compete in Special Olympics events are people with the types of disabilities supporters of Planned Parenthood use to justify abortion.  Instead of giving them the estimated $500 million per year, divert $18 mil to Special Olympics...hell, make it an even $20 mil...and use the rest to help pay down the national debt.  Planned Parenthood is definitely NOT a worthy cause. 

Wednesday, March 06, 2019

Responses To A Fake Christian

What follows are comments I sought to post in the comments section of one of Dan's latest blog posts (where the post itself can be shown as well).  As Craig has done at his own blog, I post these here because Dan, being a coward and a liar, deleted them due to his inability to respond honestly and maturely to that which he demanded and received.  As I include his comments when I respond to them, you can match up with the thread to see where these would have fallen within it.  While he arrogantly won't condescend to visit here, especially when his cowardice and dishonesty has been so blatantly exposed, he is nonetheless more than welcome to do so in order to defend himself, though he won't because he can't.  To wit:

"Marshall, I'll play your game, but then, you MUST admit it is a false claim, that you were stupid for not recognizing it, apologize and promise to work against Trump the remaining time in the office."

I'm not playing any game, and I don't know what you think you mean by saying this.  I will work against Trump when he gives me a valid reason for doing so.  You've not provided one.  You've only provided reason to work against your derangement.

"Trump claimed REPEATEDLY that "the press is the enemy of the people...""

Honest people understand what he means by this.  Find an honest person and ask him.  While some who don't hate Trump (as disordered people like you do) find this expression to be over the top, they, too, understand what he means by it.  It's a sentiment shared by millions and was that which led to the popularity of conservative talk radio like Rush Limbaugh and others, and to the creation of FoxNews.  It is apparent in the many stories out there that demonstrate "fake news" is a reality:

What the above links also show is how easily, like hundreds of Dan Trubues, reporters run with false tales without doing their own research...also known as "investigative journalism"...which results in false stories gaining validity by their constant repetition.  The following letter to an editor highlights another example of all to common fake news, the misleading headline:

Considering the well known bias of the general journalist population, how stories are covered, as well as which stories, validates Trump's opinion that the press is the enemy of the people.  The more accurate way of saying it, and the way that honest people understand it is that when the press dispenses with objectivity, looking for the negative to report rather than simply reporting the newsworthy, the people are poorly informed, and THAT is an assault on the nation.  It's good to make the press accountable.  They need to be held accountable.

So clearly, the "only ONE factual, real world answer to this question", Dan, is that there is plenty of evidence to support the opinion Trump has of the press.  And that's what it is, Danny, his opinion.  Or were you trying to put this out as one of his "lies"?  Either way, it's not without solid factual basis, even if it's a bit "over the top" to state it in the manner he does.  But only a bit.

"your favorite nonsense fear mongering magazine, American Thinker"

Here's one of YOUR lies.  AT is not a "fear mongering" magazine.  You don't even read it. don't even read the articles from it that I link for your edification.  You just blow it off like you just blew off the links above.  Your panty-wetting over Trump's use of the expression "enemy of the people" demonstrates your derangement, as you again try so desperately to plead with others to turn on him to soothe your disordered response to his unique and peculiar style.

"You know why Obama didn't do that?"

Yeah.  Because he was too busy attacking the press in far more serious ways than Trump ever has:

(There.  There's some more links you'll ignore.)

And this Obama stuff provokes another truth that validates Trump's, and the general public's, opinion about the press:  there's a night and day difference between the coverage of Trump versus Obama, who was worshiped by the press despite his adversarial attitude toward them.   The press fawned over Obama.   They were every bit biased toward Obama as they've been with Trump, but 180 degrees in the opposite direction.  It would be a stupid ass who claims otherwise.  Don't be a stupid ass.

"Don't bother commenting here further, Marshall. Ever. Short of an apology and recognition of your error for supporting stupidly false charges and dangerous attacks on the free press."

You're a liar. A far worse liar than Trump, engaging in far more egregious lies. Here, you claim I'm supporting "stupidly false charges and dangerous attacks on the free press". This is a blatant lie for which the comments you deleted provided no evidence whatsoever. Thus, I'm not about to apologize for something I didn't do, just because you falsely accuse me of having done so.

The bigger and more egregious lie, among the many about Trump you continue to tell, is that he attacks the free press. My comments proved the falsehood of this charge, and you, because you're a liar, deleted it so you could continue with the lie. Worse, you did this while I, in my comments, conceded his expression "enemy of the people" was a poor choice of words even though his meaning is not hard to fathom, especially by true Christians...a claim you make that is clearly a lie.

With regards the crimes of the "free press", I present the following Snopes article, in which an actual objective summary of the falsehoods directed at Trump from the media in general is presented. Together with the links of my now deleted comments, it illustrates why anyone would be justified in questioning the motives and intentions of the media in general. A media that itself plays fast and loose with the truth, that makes little effort to be objective in their reporting and that unabashedly picks sides in politics furthering the agenda of one side (the left) over the other does all these things at the expense and to the detriment of the general public, purposely misinforming them and as such stands as their enemy. A real Christian wouldn't stand for it. Find a real Christian and ask him.

"Marshall, I'll give you ONE more chance to respond with something short of an admission of your mistaken false claims."

Pound sand.  I can't apologize for having done nothing at all wrong, and I've made no false claims whatsoever.  If I had, it would be demonstrating what "embracing grace" looks like to point out alleged mistakes while explaining what makes them so.  You didn't do either.

1.  "DEFINE "Enemy of the State/People.""

I did that in the comments you deleted.  More importantly, I explained how the expression was being used by Trump.

2.  "If your definition is not the standard one, admit that it is not standard/what is typically meant by enemy of the state."

There is no "standard definition" of the expression, and what you supplied weren't definitions but how the term was applied in the examples presented.  And no, it does NOT require "physical harm"...not directly or initially or at order for an entity to be labeled as such.  You just want it to be in order to help you demonize a flawed man that has been far better in his current job than is comfortable for you personally.

3. "If you don't know what is typically meant by Enemy of the State, admit it."

Bite me.  I not only know, but I acknowledge that even as hyperbole, it is appropriate in the manner used by Trump.  You reject this purely out of your unchristian hatred.

4. "If you do all of that, then point to THE RESEARCH/DATA to support the claim that "80%" of the media is an "enemy of the state" (according to your own definition)."

I did that in the comments you deleted as well.  I included a piece from, a left leaning source that also demonstrated the many falsehoods of the media directed at Trump.

5.  "If you can't do that (and you can't), then admit that you can't do it, that it is an unsupported opinion, not anything at all like a fact."

I DID do that with numerous links you clearly never bothered to read, thus showing it is more fact than you have the honesty and true Christian grace to admit.

I'll continue to post comments at Dan's blog as I feel compelled to do so.  He'll delete a significant portion of them because he's immature, totally lacking of Christian character and dishonest in a way and to an extent that makes Trump look like he accessorizes with Wonder Woman's Lasso of Hestia wrapped around him.  It really doesn't matter.  Between him and his pet troll, they provide much grist for this mill. 

Sunday, February 17, 2019

A Bad Anti-Wall Argument

Over at Dan's blog, he posted a response to Stan which, as is common on the blogs, was followed by comments which, as is common on the blogs, went off in tangents here and there.  One of those tangents contained claims by the troll known as "feodor" and is the topic of this post.  It is one of several points he claims as facts and I may or may not go on to address them all, but we'll just have to see how time allows for doing so, and whether or not my interest in doing so remains or wanes. 

feo's comment is below, and it ends with the link from which it comes.  He believes the studies to which the article refers ends all debate on the issue of illegal immigrant crime...because he just needs to have us fall into line with other Trump-hating, America-hating leftist fakes like himself.   My response follows:

“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."

There are a number of problems with this article and the info it contains:

1.  Only abstracts are available for a couple of the studies so far, with a cost attached to viewing the study itself.  I'm not up for shelling out a red cent for any studies put up for review by feo, who likely didn't pay to read them either.  Rather, he could have and should have paid for it, and then found a way to copy/paste, provide a link or in some way provided the info for the perusal of those he hopes to "show up" with their allegedly unassailable conclusions.   I did find another way to get at one of them.  

2.  For those studies I was able to actually read, I would say that I am not prepared as yet to pretend I am confident that I could expound on every aspect of them, as some of them are rather detailed and require more study than I've been able to give them at any single sitting in the time I had available to me to try.  It's an important caveat I feel necessary to concede so as to avoid any attempt to presume by trolls who wish only to demonize rather than engage in civil discourse.  'Cuz that's how feo rolls.

3.  What I've read thus far seems heavily dependent upon computer models, which as we all know from the climate debate, are suspect if not used properly.  The results spit out by these models are the result of the info inputted into the program and just as important as what is fed into them is that which is not. 

4.  One consistent caveat of the studies themselves, which is also present in those I favor, is how difficult it is to gather all that is needed to come up with accurate numbers when all is said and done.  This is due to a number of factors that loom large in such endeavors, such as

a)  the fact that there is no standard across all law enforcement agencies with regard to reporting.  Some local departments do not make the effort to determine the citizenship status of those arrested.  Some are prevented by their municipal overlords from even asking a suspect such a thing as whether or not the suspect is a citizen.

b)  many crimes by illegals are not reported in the first place, particularly those perpetrated against other illegals who fear their own deportation should they be found out upon reporting their victimization.

c)  some illegal alien criminals simply do not have any plan to remain in the country, but enter simply to perpetrate their crime (or to check up on those here but who are under their control) and then return over the border after.

These are just the few of the problems that make the calculations of the studies from the above link less than accurate.

5.  The manner in which "crime rate" is calculated seems flawed with regard to how it is viewed by the researchers, and thus by trolls like feo.  For example:

Imagine the nation of Bob populated by 100 people, ten of which engage in criminal activity.  We can say that the crime rate is 10%.  Add to that the immigration of 100 more people from the nation of Frank, ten of which engage in criminal activity.  Now there are 200 people in the nation of Bob, with twenty who engage in criminal activity.  The crime rate is still 10%.  The immigration of the Franks did not raise the crime rate when viewed as a percentage.

But what if there were only nine Franks who engaged in criminal activity?  Adding that 100 people  would have lowered the crime rate to 9.5%!  The problem with this is that there are nine more people engaged in criminal activity than there was before the immigration of the Franks!!  For the citizens of Bob who must deal with the effects of criminal activity, there is clearly more crime than there was before.  Why should Bob ignore that increase just to appease those who believe those who seek to enter must be allowed?

6.  I also have yet to figure out exactly how they deal with the numbers of crimes committed by each individual, legal or otherwise, as well as the severity of the crimes committed.  As to the former, if an illegal is convicted of a crime, he is either imprisoned or deported depending upon how the trial proceeded.  If an active criminal leaves the country as part of a deal or because he was forced, he no longer has his criminal activity counted from that point on.  Citizens of the U.S. who are criminals are not deported, and depending upon the crime, they are eventually released to the public where they will commit more crimes that are indeed added to the calculations. 

This article from what appears to be a blog gathers some relevant info, much of it referring to a federal government reimbursement program called the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.  It is referenced in the troll's linked piece, I believe.  But more important than that is how the numbers it references are calculated.  Using both SCAAP numbers as well as a US Sentencing Commission Report from 2015, the numbers are measured according to imprisoned illegals versus their total population in America.  The bottom line here is that the numbers indicate that illegal aliens, and just those imprisoned only for non-immigration related crimes, are greatly over represented in the prison system.  John Lott's research involving Arizona showed the same.  Pew Research puts the illegal population in this country as around 3% of the total population, yet these three studies show illegals make up much more than three percent of the prison population. 

7.  This final point is the crux of it all with regard to illegal alien crime rates.  If we assume that what feo's studies attempt to show are absolutely true, it does not stand as a legitimate argument against erecting a border wall/fence/barrier.  As has been said often by many, each crime committed in this country by an illegal alien, every death by a drunk illegal alien...each of these are crimes and incidents that would never have happened had these illegals been prevented from entering.  Thus, whether or not they actually do commit crimes at a lower rate than American citizens is not the issue at all.  They can't commit ANY crimes if they aren't able to enter.  THAT is the point.  And there is no legitimate reason why we should accept the lame argument that it should affect our decision one way or the other to erect a wall. 

Thursday, February 07, 2019

Evil Irony

feo threatens...or, promises...uh, claims...that he will be finally provide us with his grand plan for reducing "gun violence".  Naturally, I'm all a-twitter at the prospect that this almost year-long wait might finally come to an end.   It should be loads of laughs.   In the meantime, I just have to post the following pearl he dropped off the other day:

"Jesus god. The way conservatives think about human life.

“The Trump administration says it would require extraordinary effort to reunite what may be thousands of migrant children who have been separated from their parents and, even if it could, the children would likely be emotionally harmed.”"

I'm not sure what feo believes this actually says about the way conservatives think about human life.  This is no more than an acknowledgement of reality...that it will be no small task to reunite kids and their parents.  Yet, despite the suffering that has been the result of people ignoring our laws and dragging their own kids along for the ride, with the expectation that WE must ignore those laws as well for their sake, it is nothing compared to the disregard for human life demonstrated by the many policies fakes like feo support and demand:

1.  The separations are the result of leftist positions on immigration, sanctuary and amnesty, to say nothing of policies which provides services and funding for those who ignore our laws and the impact of such on our own citizens.   These policies attract those from other countries, encouraging them to risk so much for that which these policies promise them.

1b.  Those policies defended by the likes of feo, Dan and other "progressives" has led to all manner of physical suffering...including death...for not just our own citizens, but for also the very people these fools think they're "helping" by encouraging their attempts to enter without regard to our laws.

2.  The defense of laws permitting the murder of one's own up to the moment of birth, and the intention of allowing it afterwards as well.  The "progressives" celebrate joyously New York's recent evil, even lighting up buildings and bridges to go along with their cheering.

3.  They push gun-control laws that leave the law-abiding defenseless against the criminal and insane...none more so than low income people who cannot afford the costs these laws impose on those who seek to arm themselves.

4.  They seek to legalize or de-criminalize drugs, and then complain about the rate of death from overdosing and abuse. 

5.  They support and enable the mentally disordered in their sexual pursuits, despite evidence that such behaviors lead to so many different forms of suffering...including death by disease and suicide. 

These and other examples of the "progressive" disregard for human life are beyond debating.  They are proud of their work in these areas which have caused so much sorrow for so many.  They intend to do more.  And this reprobate dares to appeal to Jesus with regard to Trump's and conservatives'  thinking about human life?  Incredible.

Friday, January 11, 2019

What Would Have Happened If I Was A Part Of That Debate

In a recent exchange on Facebook, an "opponent" presented a link to an article by a woman who was dealing with her own Facebook debate.  She speaks of a conservative...a Trump supporter...who challenged libs to come up with a real argument against the border wall.  In her words, "Conservative buddies flooded his post with snide remarks about how this would be impossible for “deluded libs."

At the end of her list of reasons why a wall is a bad idea, she says this:

"So what happened after I posted this conservative-sourced, fact-based list of why the wall is a bad idea?

I can't see why that would be.  Her points aren't at all beyond dispute.  Unfortunately, I wasn't there, nor do I know the conservatives with whom she engaged.  Nonetheless, I now present my rebuttal comments to her points as follows:

"1. Walls don’t work. Illegal immigrants have tunneled underneath and/or erected ramps up and down walls and simply driven over them. People find a way."

Well, yes they do.  That is, though some people may or will find a way, walls do work nonetheless.  The problem with this response is the assumption that anyone who supports a wall truly believes that they are impregnable.  They also think supporters believe that erecting a wall is all that is needed and once done, nothing more is required.  This is foolish, as no supporter thinks this way. 

Of course walls work, as I explained two or three posts below.  Border patrol agents were polled by their union and they overwhelmingly WANT a wall, and they testify that where walls exist they have indeed experienced fewer border crossings.  Israel has had great results from their wall, and so many places within America have walls surrounding them. 

As a side note, one of Trump's sons tweeted something about walls at zoos, to which leftist idiots, such as the Cuomo fool on CNN, pretended that meant Trump was calling immigrants animals!  This guy is a complete and utter moron, or truly evil in trying to smear Trump in such a way.  Of course the point was that the walls and fencing in zoos prevent the free roaming of the animals, not to mention keeping visitors away from them, thereby protecting both.  Jeez!

"2. Most illegal immigrants are “overstayers.”"
While it is true that a percentage of illegals in this country are visa applicants who overstayed those visas, the wall isn't intended to address that problem.  Said another way, while those who overstay  won't be affected by the construction of a border wall, those who seek to cross the border apart from legitimate ports of entry will be.  Which is the point.  Thus, this comment has no bearing on whether or not a wall should be erected on the border.  In fact, it's an absurd attempt in that regard.
"3. Walls have little impact on drugs being brought in to the U.S."

The problem with this item is that it is impossible to know for sure how much drugs make their way into the country in total.  For one thing, to insist that most come through ports of entry, they can only speak in terms of drugs they've been able to detect as runners fail in their attempt to smuggle them in.  How can they know how much they missed? 

In the same way, and more so actually, how can they know how much is coming across other unregulated points along the rest of the border if people aren't being caught.  Again, you can only count what is found, not what is not. 

At the same time, in El Paso, agents insist that since the wall there went up, the amount of smugglers found with drugs has been cut in half.  So who do we believe about how the wall would impact drug smuggling?  What's more, tunnels are dug for the purpose of smuggling whatever the cartels want to smuggle.  If they haven't become aware of a tunnel, how can they know how much comes through it compared with drugs coming through other avenues?

"4. It’s environmentally impractical. Walls have a hard time making it through extreme weather. For example, in 2011, a flood in Arizona washed away 40 feet of steel fencing. Torrential rains and raging waters do serious damage."

The moment I read this one, a very particular wall came to mind.  It also comes into contact with water in a vast amount.  Let's see...what's that wall called again?  Oh, yeah...the Hoover Dam.  That's one badass wall!  Take a look at it.  Would you say that it was constructed in rather rugged terrain?  The point of bringing up the Hoover Dam is that it was well constructed for its purpose, which was to deal with both the terrain and the water it's meant to contain.  Thus, and the example the article presents suggests it strongly, the location and everything related to it must be taken into account when designing a proper barrier in order that it serves its primary purpose.

I've also read a few stories that speak of other environmental challenges to the building of the wall.  The first thing to remember is that when such stories are posted, they usually are posted by environmentalists and conservationists.   They will always present their position from a rather extremist position.  It's not unlike asking firemen about how many smoke alarms one should have.  They'd prefer one in every room of the house.  They go overboard.  The environmentalists are more extreme than that.  Some think the best thing for the planet and the animal world is that we all die. 

They also assume that those who want the wall have no regard for such things.  This is not the case.  I would submit that while the protection of American life is the priority, the flora and fauna is not ignored.  But for my part, inhibiting the movement of some Texas horned lizards or big horned sheep is not more important than inhibiting the movement of those who would ignore our laws.

"5. A wall would force the U.S. government to take land from private citizens in eminent domain battles."

I don't know why this would necessarily be so.  Most border properties are rather large, and if they do not actually flow into what is actually Mexico (or vice versa for Mexicans), then what they would lose would be quite minimal.  In very many cases, such property owners want a wall to inhibit border-crossers who traipse through their properties, leaving trash and often heisting items as they go. A quick search has failed to turn up the smallest privately owned parcel of land along the border.  One article mentioned a 20 acre property, though I wonder if there are any that are significantly smaller.  

Some speak of properties being in the family for generations and others speaking of the wall going right through the middle or leaving them unable to get to the other side without traveling to a gate.  For these and other reasons, they are willing to fight the government if it wishes to get the land for a wall.  I totally get it, especially if my family lived on the land for generations. 

But this is what the concept of eminent domain is for.  That is, if ever a reason existed that justified the government commandeering private property, illegal border crossing is it.  It's a "needs of the many outweighing the desires of the few" kinda thing that is more than merely rhetoric.  I think the key here is compensation.  While eminent domain only calls for (generally) market value compensation, I think it is reasonable for the government to offer better...perhaps three times market value.  It is, after all, a big ask.  But there is a point when an individual has to consider the greater good.  Imagine if you won a case against eminent domain, and then become aware that someone who crossed over your property murdered a Kate Steinle or Officer Singh or Jamiel Shaw, Jr. 

All in all, if the government was forced to take the land, the reason justifies the taking...despite how bad it might be to be on the losing side.

"6. Border patrol agents don’t like concrete or steel walls because they block surveillance capabilities."

Well, this isn't an argument against a wall so much as against a specific design.  Border patrol wants a wall.

  "7. Border patrol agents say walls are “meaningless” without agents and technology to support them."

Fortunately, no one is arguing for a wall only.  Certainly Trump isn't.  But agents see the wall as the first order of business.  Detection technology doesn't stop anyone, particularly if agents cannot get to where invaders are detected before the invaders can move out of range of the detection devices.

The most egregious aspect of this objection is the author's suggestion that the only workable solution is to model ourselves after communist East Berlin.  Typical crap from a lefty.  It's the type of willful lie Dan would say.  They need to make it as bad as they can to sell the lefty position, so this type of hyperbole and metaphor is just what the Trump-hating doctor ordered.

"8. Where barriers were built, there was little impact on the number of border crossers."

Good gosh, this is just so incredibly stupid, particularly since she provides why at the end of this objection:  "They simply came in elsewhere, primarily where natural barriers such as water or mountainous regions preclude a wall."

Clearly the barrier had a great impact if it forced them to come it "elsewhere".  The intention seeks to limit those "elsewhere" locations to the most difficult natural barriers which act as natural deterrents.  Simply put, not everyone is willing to complete an arduous journey by negotiating a far more arduous last few miles.  What's more, when limited to those "elsewhere" locations due to a wall everywhere else, it leaves fewer areas where patrolling is the only means of stopping invaders.  In any case, it is clear then that the wall did have an impact of significance, particular right in the exact spot where the wall existed.  And THAT demonstrates that a wall is effective.  The DIDN'T come in there!

"9. A wall has unintended consequences on other industries: For example, it blocks farmworkers from exiting when their invaluable seasonal work is done."
Without digging deeply into this one at all, it comes to mind that there are several problems with this objection:
---It assumes there is no means by which legal worker visa holders wouldn't be able to go to and from their jobs.
---It assumes that these seasonal workers even have worker visas that allow them to work in this country.
---It assumes that without these workers, legal or not, that wages wouldn't rise to attract Americans who need the seasonal work

Objections like this one compels me to believe that the objector doesn't expect the reader won't think about all the possible angles, or the objector isn't capable of doing so herself.

"10. Trump’s $5 billion is a laughable drop in the bucket for what would actually be needed."

This might be the only reasonable opinion, while not being necessarily a reasonable objection.  There are any number of far less justified projects on which the federal government spends our dough.  Few of them get accomplished for the projected cost, with most of them going way over budget.  But this one IS justified.  It also ignores how the existence of a wall would impact other costs associated with illegal immigration and other illegal border crossings, which are many.  Even should the wall cost as much as is imagined in the article...and that's debatable...there is over $100billion per year net cost of illegal immigration that would greatly reduced.  Some dispute this, but do so based on studies that combine ALL immigrants, legal or not.  Rational and honest people focus on ILLEGAL border crossings.  

"11. According to MIT engineers, the wall would cost $31.2 billion."

This was put here simply to pad the list.  It really falls under the previous objection and as such no more need be said about costs.  Aside from maintenance and salaries, this is a one-time cost and again, the savings from reducing illegal crossings more than makes up for it.

The writer closes with a number of typical leftist tropes and misstatements.  Such as:

"As the conservatives of the Cato Institute put it, “President Trump’s wall would be a mammoth expenditure that would have little impact on illegal immigration.” It would also create many “direct harms,” including “the spending, the taxes, the eminent domain abuse, and the decrease in immigrant’s freedoms of movement.”

First of all, Cato is libertarian.  While there are many positions that are held by both libertarians and conservatives, as a conservative, I object to conflating the two as if they are synonymous.  It's like "progressive Christians" objecting to being conflated with atheists, except that they are morally the same where libertarians and conservatives are morally distinct...conservatives being the moral of the two. 

Secondly, as I've demonstrated, a wall will indeed have a great impact on illegal border crossing...even if nothing else is done along side having one.  Just making crossing a bigger pain in the ass makes it true. 

Thirdly, the "direct harms" are overstated as I've also demonstrated.  Among them is one that isn't the least bit a concern, that being the "
immigrant’s freedoms of movement."  This is blatantly untrue.  For those of us who abide the law, the mere acquisition of a passport infringes on our freedom of movement.  So to insist that all who wish to enter also do so in accordance with the laws of a sovereign nation is an infringement indeed, but a most necessary, just and moral infringement for the sake of the citizens of that sovereign nation...the primary people one must consider.   As citizens, we all endure various such legal infringements on our liberty, but we still enjoy the liberty to do the things in which the law injects itself.  I have the liberty to drive, for example, but must obey the rules of the road.  "Freedom of movement" does not mean one has the liberty to go absolutely anywhere strictly on one's own terms.   It is a false dilemma.

"We must add, because conservative sources do not, that the environmental harms are likely to be severe."

Again, I'm sure they overstate the impact on the environment severely, but it remains to be seen.  It assumes such considerations are not a part of constructing the wall, as if this particular public project is necessarily different than any other in that regard.  This is no more than further demonizing of the conservative to assert that we are unconcerned about the world in which we live.  Idiotic, in fact.
"In other words, the facts show that walls don’t work."

They don't show that at all.  Not the facts she presented.  She merely inappropriately attaches a fact to an outcome, with no proof one thing leads to the other. 

"Instead, they create even bigger, more expensive problems."

Not generally, and not necessarily in any limited way.  Lots of assumptions are required to make this statement and she did little to demonstrate that they're at all likely. 

Look.  No one wants a wall.  Ever...anywhere.  We put up fences or walls around our homes, but for specific purposes that walls and fences satisfy...not because we like walls and fences (not most of us).  We want to keep our small children and pets in the yard, or we want to block the crappy looking property of our neighbors.  It's sometimes a way to create our own little world because we can't have anything like that without having a wall or fence...or an island.  But if the world around us was beautiful and safe, few of us would ever have a wall.  The same is true of our national borders on a grander scale.  Unlike this woman and others like her need to believe, it is not true that...

"The ugly genius of Trump is his ability to manipulate deep, primal emotions—namely fear and hate. Along with Fox News, he has convinced his base that immigrants put them in “extreme danger” and only a wall will make them “safe.”"

An honest woman she is not, the issue of increased border security and using such ideas such as a wall have been around far longer than Trump's first step into the political pool.  And it wasn't Trump that convinced intelligent Americans of the need for a wall (and no, not "only" a wall...idiot), it was the deaths of so many of our fellow citizens from a variety of reasons resulting from the incursion of illegal aliens, as well as the economic impact of it.  Trump merely promised to actually do something about it.  THAT'S what compels support from his base. 

And since when is it wrong to hate the criminal behavior of any individual?  When is it wrong to hate that suffering has occurred when it could have been prevented or minimized years ago?  The fears are rational and reasonable given what drives it.  But before we can "grapple with a complex, multifaceted problem—a problem that will require serious engagement with complex policies to get at the root of it>",  we need to prevent or reduce as much as possible the suffering that results from having such a wide open border exploited by so many without regard for the people of this country.

Yeah.  I wish I was part of that Facebook conversation.


Sunday, January 06, 2019

UPDATE ALERT!!!! A Loon(ie)'s Desperate Plea!

I just got an email alerting me to an attempt by the buffoonish feo that I just have to share:

"My plan for gun significantly reducing gun deaths in this country has been on the front of your own blog just a few inches down since July. You copied most of it. Craig got a the last missing bit. And the superiority of its practical and moral sense has pretty much shut down your blog ever since. Suck on it idiot coward."

He's clearly referring to the 20 lame suggestions that alone or altogether would have no impact whatsoever on reducing anything but a law-abiding citizen's ability to protect himself...not to mention the liberty of all Americans.  I really don't know what he means regarding what he gave to Craig, but one thing is certain:  "superiority", "practicality" and "moral" are words that have no relation to much of anything this false priest says, to say nothing of his gun grab nonsense. 

I'm quite certain my blog has been in operation without interruption the whole time, even if I don't post anything.  Whether or not I post anything has absolutely no connection to anything this sad and pathetic man-child has ever done or could ever do.  He's about as insignificant as one can be.

Nonetheless, I've been waiting patiently for him to provide his alleged plan, and if they include all or any of the twenty points about which I easily proved are worthless in achieving his stated goal...indeed they have no relation whatever to it...I'd still love to see it.  Because, what the hell, I'm always up for a good laugh and a chance to remind him how lacking he is as a thinker. 

But that's never going to happen, because as you can see from the quote above, he's not willing to play like a good boy.  His eagerness to prove he's no true Christian is an urge he hasn't the character to overcome, and as such, even if he sent me an actual plan, it would likely be so filled with his typical hateful condescension and arrogance that it would not be worthy of publishing.  He'd have to do it at his own blog and I don't give it the time of day anymore.  So, he'll continue to be looking in from the outside, sitting in his own waste, pretending he's showing me up.   *Yawn*