In a bit less than 21.5 hrs from now (as I type this), Happy Days Will Be Here Again! I was going to post something to that effect after midnight tonight, but I've got a half hour to kill before kickoff of the Rams/Eagles game, so I decided to do this now.
But yeah, better days will be ours as this historic situation begins...historic by virtue of the second man to be re-elected after having been denied a second consecutive term, historic by virtue of being the first man to be re-elected after having been denied by a determined effort of corrupt opponents violating established election norms and procedures and laws. And of course, historic by virtue of bringing to a close what was possibly...actually... the most disastrous, destructive and corrupt presidencies the United States ever was forced to suffer and endure.
When noon arrives on Monday, January 20, 2025, we will again be blessed with a president who actually cares about all Americans, despite his ungodly hateful detractors falsely claiming he cares only for himself. We will again be blessed with someone who understands the basics well enough to implement policies which will most likely result in a more prosperous nation. It will be safer...stronger. His enemies will again engage in false attacks as we saw the last time around and ever since. Morons will continue to pretend he's a "convicted felon" as if he was actually convicted of crimes he actually committed after a trial which was legitimate, ethical and committed to sound legal principles and a true desire to seek truth and justice (*snicker*).
The left, who has failed this nation as if commanded to do so by God...though they don't believe in Him...will obstruct just to be obstructive without every having a legitimate argument against what it is they seek to block. The truly conned will back them without question because that's what the conned do. The leftist sheep have no honor, no honesty, no working brain cells and they will hate because it's all they have.
Yes, as badly as Trump was obstructed throughout his first term, I don't see that he will have it any easier now, even with better people positioned throughout his administration. So that means that the party, including we the people, need to step up our efforts to see his agenda through, to push our reps to get with the program, particularly if our reps are known RINOs or Dems, because it's our duty to be engaged. And we need to be engaged now more than ever, to reverse the destructive effects of the Biden administration, to rid ourselves of the Swamp Creatures to the greatest extent possible, to support all efforts to move toward goodness and righteousness, to ensure that when benefits are experienced the left knows why and to most assuredly point out how their policies are the reason they're suffering...since they are.
The most important goal of Trump's presidency must be insuring that it is followed by another similar to him, be it JD Vance, Ron DeSantis or some other who rises up and proves him/herself to be the true lover of the United States we need. I see no such person among the Democrat Party, so for the sake of us all, including the leftist sheep who moronically rejected this proven leader now about to lead us again and did so without pushing anyone the least bit competent as an alternative, we need for this next four years to be the first of many.
139 comments:
So,
A. IF Trump actually tries to deport "all" the undocumented immigrants as he's promised (he won't.. not even nearly all.... almost all the data says it's almost impossible and would come at a huge cost to taxpayers... not people like Trump, but actual taxpayers)...
And
B. IF Trump actually implements his promised tariffs (again, he won't because it would cost too much for average US citizens)
And...
C. IF he actually spends billions of dollars to take over Greenland (either by purchase or military invasion... which he won't, because, duh!)...
Etc
And...
D. IF those costly expenditures generate the huge debts and higher inflation that most economists will tell you is likely...
Will you still support him?
If he doesn't lower inflation (regardless of those policies) will you still support him?
If he doesn't implement those policies he promised ("on day one!"), will you still support him?
If 10,000 immigrants end up dying as a result of his promised actions, are you cool with that?
If he doesn't bring peace to Israel/Palestine or Ukraine right away, as promised, will you still support him?
Dan
Dan again indulges in his dishonest, hateful hypothetical, which implies that I would support Trump even if he was as incompetent and destructive as Dan's favorites, Obama, Biden and Carter.
But I'd prefer to reverse the question and ask how much more good than bad does Trump have to do before you admit how abjectly wrong you were to reject him as president? It seems clear to me that if Trump cured all diseases, ended all hostilities between the nations of the world, relieved the world of all hunger and poverty and endowed you with intelligence, honesty and a true devotion to Christ, you'd still hate him and obsess over tales of Trump's adultery and fictitious abuses of women.
But let's get to it:
A. You pretend the cost of deporting all illegals would dwarf the costs imposed upon us by flinging wide the border gates? What a moron! But how could I not support doing what Biden failed to do despite his obligation to do it? Mass deportation is absolutely the right move, along with closing the border as tightly as possible to prevent more incursions by those who don't care about our laws and the self-determination of our own fellow Americans.
Whatever it might cost to do that is on you and yours, not on Trump and those who do not wish to deal with illegal invaders. So as is typical and routine, you assholes ignore the costs of doing the wrong thing, and then pretend the cost of correcting it is wasted money.
B. As with his first term, Trump's tariffs will yield positive benefits. It's not much different than above, in that they're intended to correct what was left unattended by Dems and less than perfect Republicans. Dumbasses like you would prefer to let bad situations continue, rather than do what should have been done long ago.
C. Given that our enemies have designs on places like Greenland, to spend in order to develop influence and or control on a place with such strategic significance, as well as natural resources is again, money well spent. It's an actual investment in our nation in ways that Dem spending never is despite being dishonestly promoted as such.
D. What your preferred leftist economic "experts" insist is likely rarely is, as leftist economic "experts" rarely are as "expert" was you need to believe they are. Morons like Robert Reich, Paul Krugman aren't worth the time of day. And again, the costs of correcting bad policy of the past, most of which are Dem policies, is a cost which must be paid in order to alleviate the harm those policies caused.
If Trump fails to course correct, it would be disappointing, but withdrawing my support would required identifying the reasons for his failures. I have no doubt your kind will step up efforts to interfere and obstruct, rather than be the Americans they claim to be and support better policies than they've ever promoted themselves. How can I blame Trump for failures which are the result of the typical Democrat/RINO shenanigans?
As to illegals dying as a result of Trump's deportation efforts, it's more likely there would be fewer, since his efforts would reduce the number of attempts. Numbers we have are incomplete, but annual deaths of immigrants are in the range of about 500-800. That only accounts for those found dead on our soil, and Border Patrol doesn't collect and record complete data on migrant deaths. It also doesn't count how many died before they got to our border. It doesn't count how many died after being released into our cities and then murdered by other illegals and criminals who crossed. All of this would be reduced by returning to sensible border policy and as far as the cost of deportations, the more of them there are, the more we'd see others self-deporting.
So all in all, my support for Trump will continue so long as he continues to prove his commitment to Making American Great Again. YOU, in the meantime, will continue to hate regardless of the extent to which he succeeds in accomplishing anything, and instead continue giving your support to those committed to making American suffer again.
Here and at his own blog, 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!
That doesn't seem consistent with a concern for the best interests of this country. See also Cloward-Piven.
Bubba,
Exactly my point. One caveat is that Dan doesn't understand how his support of open borders...what he calls the "self-determination" of foreigners...makes that argument at the same time, or more likely, he refuses to tie the two together so that he can go on posturing as a compassionate "Christian" while ignoring all the harm done, be that harm to our economy or the lives and well being of our own fellow Americans.
Moreover, that same argument of having made problems so great it's to costly to fix them extends to other issues as well.
Bubba 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 lawmaking. There is NOTHING inherently criminal, wrong or harmful from moving from point A to point B. You all 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. For those of us who believe in human rights, humans have a right of self-determination, including where they live.
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), 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 were 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 some place... 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. You all would likely want to move some place safer if your family was at risk of imprisonment, starvation, death or oppression. Of course, this is a human rights and rational position to take.
4a. Thus, even moreso than simple immigration, refugees escaping threats at home SHOULD be accommodated. There is 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.
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 criminal 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?
Oh, and Marshal, 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 you're 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.
If Trump moves immediately to deport illegal aliens who have committed additional crimes while in the US illegally, I am fine with that as a first step and will continue to support his immigration/border policies, as long as he works towards his goal.
Tariffs are no different in cost to the American citizen than the increased corporate taxes the DFL loves. They are both passed directly to the consumer. However, it's possible to evade corporate taxes, that y'all love, by moving overseas to countries with lower taxes, which is a net negative to the US. Further, tariffs are selective in that they only target foreign products. Thereby making American products more attractive and benefiting American consumers. Having said that, without any specific tariff proposals and analysis, I'm ambivalent about this in a general sense.
It would appear that Greenland has multiple natural resources that would be valuable to the US over the long term. If this is the case, then the value proposition might actually be of significant benefit to the US. Again, I don't have enough information to really judge the merits.
Given that you still supported Biden after he continued to adopt policies that DID increase inflation, I fail to see why this is somehow bad. Given that this is a hypothetical, based on hypothetical future actions, and not any "hard data", there is really no way to answer the question. For example, let's say that inflation goes up 10% in Q3 and Q4 of 2025, but drops 30% in Q1 and Q2 of 2026. I guess I'd argue that that result would be worthy of support, even though your hypothetical would seem to suggest that it is not.
Like you, I understand that there is some hyperbole in all political speech. Therefore if Trump promised to do something on "day one" which required congress, I'd take that with a grain of salt. However, given the fact that Trump did a shitload of things on "day one", I'd say that his "day one" production was pretty laudable. (Not that I agreed with everything)
If 300,000 immigrant children disappeared from the Biden administration immigration/detention system, would you continue to support him? Why yes, yes you would. What a stupid, vague, hypothetical pile of bullshit. If 10,000 innocent American citizens are killed, harmed, or introduced to drugs due to Biden's policies would you continue to support him? Obviously, yes.
If he brings peace to either or both of those conflicts within his first year in office, he'll have accomplished more than Biden did in his entire term. Yet you continued to support Biden despite his failure to do so for years, and would gladly have voted for Biden or Harris despite this failure.
Double standard much?
Excellent point. The situation with illegal aliens in the US is 100% caused by the government, and the notion that it's unfixable and must therefore be tolerated is bizarre at best. I'd argue that gutting illegal immigration, and the harm caused by illegal aliens, by 50% would be the most significant improvement on this issue in decades.
Re: Your claims about the "costs" of immigrants... From the wild leftists at the George W Bush Center:
https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/north-american-century/benefits-of-immigration-outweigh-costs
And Congress:
https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116727/documents/HHRG-118-JU01-20240111-SD013.pdf
Experts:
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/mpi-immigrants-us-economy-explainer-2024_final.pdf
Educators:
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2024/do-immigrants-and-immigration-help-the-economy/
NYC:
https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/facts-not-fear-how-welcoming-immigrants-benefits-new-york-city/
Forbes:
The Congressional Budget Office concluded that the increased labor supply fueled by immigration produces enormous fiscal benefits for U.S. taxpayers.
“In our projections, the deficit is also smaller than it was last year because economic output is greater, partly as a result of more people working,” according to CBO Director Phillip L. Swagel. “The labor force in 2033 is larger by 5.2 million people, mostly because of higher net immigration. As a result of those changes in the labor force, we estimate that, from 2023 to 2034, GDP will be greater by about $7 trillion and revenues will be greater by about $1 trillion than they would have been otherwise.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2024/03/24/research-shows-immigrants-benefit-us-taxpayers/
Center on Budget Policy:
https://www.cbpp.org/research/immigrants-contribute-greatly-to-us-economy-despite-administrations-public-charge-rule
Nebraska:
Why don't we invite any immigrants? Legal, illegal … I don't care. Invite them to Nebraska because
we have lots of openings out on our farm and we need help..."
At the end of the day, she says, Nebraskans have no other choice but to consider how immigrants are treated. "Yes, yes, we know people hate immigrants who are not here legally, deport them all, etc., etc. Well, what are you going to do when you don't have workers?"
https://www.npr.org/2025/01/17/g-s1-42134/immigration-trump-mass-deportation-nebraska-economy-workers
On and on the data goes. Left wing, right wing, just rational common sense types of people. We are a nation of immigrants and we NEED more workers and we NEED more grace and decency and, I beg your pardon, basic Judeo-Christian values as taught by the various authors throughout the Bible.
Bubba, now you've done it. You've roused Dan to write an egregiously long and rambling post which accomplishes very little except to make himself look foolish. Of course he can't make his argument here, he can't delete comments here.
Craig:
Of course he can't make his argument here, he can't delete comments here.
My comments on my blog were from comments I posted here. I just also posted them on my blog because they are reasonable, salient points to the times we're living in. I'm sure Marshal will eventually post them here, too.
In other words, you're mistaken. You made a claim in ignorance and, as is so often the case, you're just factually mistaken.
Humility, dear men.
Craig couldn't know that you had the same bad arguments in the queue here. Your history of dishonesty and avoidance makes his premature statement a most rational one.
But he's spot on regarding your inability to delete the better arguments which will be made here against your weak arguments. You'll either have to defend against them or flee to your Blog of Lies.
"Humility"?? Do you even know what that word means?
LOL! The democrats are suing to stop the Trump immigration policies.
1. Regardless of what you think you've argued, government policy controls immigration.
2. Because moving from one country to another is an entirely different matter than moving from state to state.
3. What a stupid comment. Under your "managed" immigration, what happens when people choose to live (hypothetically) in Phoenix despite your decree? Who would make and enforce these decrees? Ultimately, this is basically what we are arguing for. Managing who crosses the international borders of a country, based on what's best for the country who's borders are being crossed.
4. While this might be True to some degree, why is the expectation that all of these people (who we apparently cannot manage) will end up in the US? Why is the US unable to manage the numbers of these folks? Personally, I'd do everything possible to make my home country safer as opposed to just giving up and leaving so the bad guys win.
4a Well, let's look at Europe and please explain how unchecked immigration to "safer" countries has resulted in countries that are no less "safe"? You've laid no groundwork for your claim of SHOULD", and certainly no groundwork that obligates the US to be the only country to accept people. What, specifically is this "international law"? Of course, pretending that all immigrants are refugees is a great way to subvert the "management" you championed earlier. You claim to want "management", then invent a category that bypasses this "management" while arbitrarily moving all immigrants into the special, magic, category.
Well, based on your earlier claim about "managing", I guess it'd be the person (presumably government) in charge of "managing" immigration would make the decision. Unless certain groups are exempt from management.
You literally made a case where the person "at risk" would be denied entrance to your hypothetical Phoenix, and are now suggesting that someone "at risk" could ignore the restrictions you proposed.
Where you are mistaken is thinking that your subjective opinions on "risk", "safe", "health", "rational;" and "moral" are somehow, magically, the default positions that should be accepted.
I especially love the use of "safety" and "risk" as metrics. First, please show me one place in the universe where everyone is 100% "safe" and faces zero "risk". Second, explain how it is a positive for Europeans when they become less "safe" and face more "risk" because they didn't "manage" immigration?
5. Those who've welcomed in the flood of rapists to various European countries are (by Dan's magic 8 ball logic) not responsible for the results of their actions. I guess, this means that no government is responsible for the results of any actions it takes.
6a. If this is the case, why not get rid of the government that is causing the problem? Why allow the "unjust" of "failed" governments to get what they want?
6b. This is just restating 6a.
6c. Silly.
6d. Again restating 6c, and pretending that colonialism was a 100% negative.
6e. Repeating multiple earlier bullet points to make it look like a longer list.
The Us does not criminalize people seeking anything. The US has a system set up to manage the influx of those who desire entry, this system is codified in US law as is appropriate. That millions of people choose not to follow the rules established to allow the "management" (you endorse) is the problem.
Finally something so inoffensive and banal that I agree. The US government has failed to set up an appropriate, effective, and consistent system to manage the inflow of immigrants in such a way as to benefit the US. This failure crosses party lines and starts with control of the border. Of course, when an administration encourages and rewards those who enter outside of the current, legal process for immigration that becomes a problem.
What an incredibly self serving pile of bullshit, masquerading as compassion.
Your (seemingly intentional) apples/oranges comparison (internal v. external movement), just makes you look kind of stupid.
What you're missing when you assume that someone is suggesting zero immigrants is that virtually no one is actually doing so. By all means, let's manage the immigration system so the government can force some immigrants to NE where there are hypothetical jobs. Or throw open the flood gates.
I made a comment before your idiocy had cleared moderation. So, yes, I was ignorant of you posting them here because they hadn't actually posted here when I commented. But, if that's what you need in order to feel like you won something, go for it. I'll gladly admit that I was ignorant of that which I could not see or know. Hey, gloat away little man.
Art,
Exactly. I seriously doubt that Dan knows or practices humility in any facet of his life. Although, I'm ignorant (thankfully) of his life outside of the internet and it's theoretically possible that he acts completely differently IRL.
Dan's concept of unlimited "self determination" is literally something he picked up from some obscure Marxist,adopted, and redefined. The concept that people should be allowed to cross national borders at random, and them magically gain all of the benefits of citizenship is absurd on it's face. As we look at the most recent attempt to follow this utopian worldview, we see Europe in chaos. We see rape at ungodly levels, and parts of cities where the police are scared to enter and enforce laws. Nothing about the situation in Europe demonstrates the benevolent management Dan advocates, but rather borders on anarchy.
I'll be shocked if Dan acknowledges the situation in Europe (he's stayed silent on multiple posts about the English rape rings), let alone deviates from the "it's racist to look at the data" narrative that has so much of Europe in fear of speaking up. What Dan is advocating, is simply conquest by another name. People X don't feel "safe" where they are, so they go somewhere else and congregate. Instead of assimilating, they choose to cling to their culture to the point that the areas they live in are governed by their old customs or religious mores, not by the laws of the places they live. At some point, they get enough critical mass that they might actually take over and turn (Sweden for example) into a completely different country, displacing or eliminating the native Swedes. Of course, the Dan's of the world (who bitch about the US and Canada being stolen) won't say a world when the first European country ceases to exist. Because, self determination.
What's to stop some immigrants from "self determining" that human sacrifice, FGM, or honor killings are proper, regardless of the laws of the land? What's to stop some immigrants from "self determining" that Dan's house is pretty nice, as is his car and bike, so they'll just settle there? Hell, we're already seeing this across the country with squatters, so if Dan tries to use the "private property" argument, he's already lost as left wing city and state governments, are already in the process of rendering private property obsolete.
Dan's is a simplistic, short sighted, utopian, nonsensical worldview which ignores how people actually behave in the real world and ignores that the things we work for are valued more than that which we are given.
Of course they are. More lawfare. Keep the borders open baby the DFL needs a permanent, underclass to stay in power.
The Bush Center link was freaking amazing. It totally made your point and was full of useful information. Not really, it couldn't be found. Ditto the congress link.
As for the third and fourth links, they don't differentiate between legal and illegal immigration. As no one here is against immigration as a general rule, the link doesn't really help you.
5th link is based on data from before NYC started handing out unlimited free hotel rooms and prepaid debit cards. Adams is singing a different tune now.
CBO doesn't seem to break out legal/illegal, nor does CBPP.
Impressive, encouraging NE employers to break federal law by hiring illegal aliens. Gotta harness those illegals baby.
Of course, I suspect someone will provide links to data that disagrees with you, and you'll ignore it.
It's almost like you're advocating a government policy that would force immigrants to move to NE and fill these jobs. Maybe the problem is that NE is freaking cold in the winter, freaking hot in the summer, and doesn't have much to do unless you like floating in a river in a cattle water tank or getting up in the middle of the might to watch birds. Just maybe NE isn't a place that's attractive to live, and $18/hr isn't enough to convince people.
Dan,
I saw that you reposted your reply on your own blog. As is usually the case, I would prefer to comment here, where I can trust my responses won't be deleted for arbitrary reasons.
You write, "I do NOT think that criminalizing moving from one place to another place is just lawmaking." And again, "In short: Making laws criminalizing immigration are inherently irrational and unjust."
OKAY: you're an open-borders fanatic who cannot discern the difference between intranational movement and international movement, who asserts the right to go anywhere and not just LEAVE anywhere, and who denies that a nation's right to self-determination includes the sovereign right to establish and enforce its own border.
Presumably, then, you have no problems with Israeli settlements in what are claimed to be Palestinian territories, right? And you have no problem with Jamestown and the Pilgrims and other instances of colonialism, right?
But I digress: nothing you wrote in reply actually contradicts the conclusion I drew, that you think the current state of mass immigration is so big that it cannot be feasibly undone.
...Marshal, you REALLY should post about Biden's lawless attempt to ratify the ERA by presidential fiat. I'd LOVE to discuss it, but it definitely deserves it's own thread: see the new link in my profile name for a NY Post article summarizing the story.
TL;DR summary of Dan's position:
A man who thinks the border shouldn't exist insists that it's too expensive to secure it. Not exactly late-breaking news, is it?
"I do NOT think that criminalizing moving from one place to another place is just lawmaking."
Again, Dan offers his opinion, grounded in nothing but his subjective beliefs, and acts as if he is offering objective Truth. In short, who cares. Why is what Dan "thinks" of any actual value?
"In short: Making laws criminalizing immigration are inherently irrational and unjust."
Excellent point, noting that Dan objects to "self determination" when he doesn't like those who are doing the determining.
In short, this is simply Dan's subjective opinion based wholly in his imagination.
Your conclusion may be correct, I lean the same way. Yet that doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt to deal with the worst of the problem and work our way through as far as possible.
What happens in Dan's little fantasy world, when the migrants who migrate to reduce risk, and find safety, actually increase the risk and lower the safety of those where they migrate to? What if these migrants are actually the cause of the conditions in the places they've left?
As Dan likes to use our individual states in his bad arguments, we see your concern in cases where Dems flee their blue state to red states and vote for the same kind of people who ruined the blue states from which they fled.
No one is criminalizing the movement of one place to another. What's criminalized is entering a country in ways contrary to our laws regulating entry.
All those illegals have a clear path to citizenship, if citizenship is what they want. They just don't want to abide the rules set in place for the benefit of OUR nation, which results in welcoming them if they meet the criteria the rules set down.
All those illegals who claim refugee status have a clear path for claiming that status and by ignoring the rules set in place to render aid to true refugees make it harder for true refugees to get the aid they need.
All those illegals who claim they seek asylum have a clear path for finding asylum here and by ignoring proper protocols make it more difficult for true asylum seekers to find it here.
All those illegals who wish to obtain a visa to work or study here can do so through the proper channels and have violated the terms of those visas should they acquire them and then ignore their expiration.
Dan's whine about criminalizing movement from one country to another is false on its face, and intentionally so.
Sounds like a good "guest blogger" post. If you'd like to compose a piece, email it to me as you have in the past and I will post it here for you.
I can't seem to get your name to link me to the NY Post article, but I did find one from the Federalist, which I saved. Let me know here or via email if you'd like to do the post. I'll hold off a post of my own in hopes of hearing from you.
Craig,
You've affirmed my own concerns about the links Dan posted and likely never actually read himself (much less studied). Alex Nowasteh is often cited by open borders fools and he likes to pretend crime rates and costs are not what better sources say they are, and he also conflates legal with illegal immigrants to make his case.
But the problems with illegal immigration are many and what follows is summary of them:
https://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration/whats-wrong-illegal-immigration
Each of the points listed in the link above can easily provide fodder for a much larger article, as the details are many and supportive evidence is more so. But in addition to that is the fact that illegals are schooled in how to game the system to make their attempts to enter and stay easier.
And it can't be said enough that Dan demands we must subordinate our national self-determination to that of any and everybody who insists they can do as they like without regard to our laws and regulations. I don't freakin' care how determined they are. I care that their determination manifests in ways which are respectful of our laws and culture, not superior to them.
It also can't be said enough that Dan would not be so keen on defending a person's "right of self-determination" if that person determined he had a right to Dan's property. Dan would not give up his claim to his own stuff simply because someone wanted it all. Dan simply corrupts concepts as he corrupts Scripture to push his goofy agenda.
?
What are you all talking about?
I'm talking about human rights as fairly universally understood, including self determination. Self determination does NOT include taking other people's stuff.
So, based upon human rights, including self determination, on what rational basis would you say to a fellow human, No, you can't move from there to here?
Or, as you all are wont to do, on what rational biblical basis would you tell people they can't move from A to B?
You've got nothing that I can see You've ever offered... except that a nation's alleged right to deny self determination of individuals. But you are probably not consistent on that. You hopefully would agree that a nation that denies someone's human right to liberty and freedom of religion and imprisoned, for instance, Christians for the crime of exercising their religious liberty is a nation acting contrary to human rights... right?
Dan
Craig...
"What happens in Dan's little fantasy world, when the migrants who migrate to reduce risk, and find safety, actually increase the risk and lower the safety of those where they migrate to?"
? What happens if conservative evangelicals actually rape half the girls in their care? What if purple unicorns on the moon are planning to invade the earth?
It would be not good IF those fantasy theories came true.
But, what if positing slanderous false claims and gossip caused harm and oppression to happen? That would be bad, too, and is way more representative of real world concerns.
Do you actually theorize that immigrants will always or generally bring harm?
If so, do you recognize that racists and xenophobes have always played that fear card throughout history? Is that where you want to side with?
Dan
Marshal, here's the NY Post article:
https://nypost.com/2025/01/17/us-news/bidens-official-x-account-draws-mockery-with-reference-to-constitutional-amendment-that-doesnt-exist/
As a guest post I would only say the following:
The Left's silence over their elected official's effort to amend the Constitution by presidential decree is deafening, and it speaks volumes.
Bubba...
"you're an open-borders fanatic who cannot discern the difference between intranational movement and international movement..."
1. I'm not an open borders fanatic.
2. There is a difference between saying moving from A to B should not be criminalized and having a entirely open border. What I'm clearly objecting to is criminalizing a human right NOT because of any inherent wrong or harm done, but because the whimsy of some humans who randomly thinking going from here to there should be criminalized.
Let's take baby steps:
A. Do you recognize self determination as a basic human right? (Noting the obvious caveat that your self determination doesn't allow you to harm others, who also have human rights)
B. Do you agree that moving from A to B is not inherently harmful or innately wrong?
C. Do you affirm the reality that God has never told anyone it's wrong to go from A to B? That, indeed, God and the prophets as found in the Bible consistently side with welcoming the foreigner?
D. Can you agree that, of course, if your life or your family's life is harmed, threatened or denied human rights, that of course it is reasonable and moral to move away from the harm to a place you believe would be less likely to be harmful?
Dan
Art,
Really good points. Every single illegal alien currently in the US has a path to legal status and possibly citizenship open to them, and they've chosen not to take that path. I suspect that folx like Dan are pushing the narrative that they'll eventually wear the US down and they'll get citizenship if they wait long enough.
So much of what Dan says is false, that we aren't surprised.
Actually, I wasn't thinking of the red/blue state thing as much as I was Europe. When places like Sweden are more dangerous for indigenous Swedes solely because of unchecked immigration, it's clear that the policies Dan advocates lead to failure.
IMO, assimilation is the much bigger issue. Dan's construct doesn't prioritize assimilation, as much as devastation. Move to a new country, suck that country dry, then move on.
In the past, Dan has asserted that he has a right to his property and that the right of self determination ends at his property line. Now he's given no (that I recall) objective justification for this convenient philosophy, nor has he explained how the property of a nation is not owned by it's citizens. The collective property of a nation is private in the sense that non citizens have no claim to that land. Clearly Dan's respect for borders is selective at best.
Strangely enough, the APL is in the process of undermining the right of a property owner to control the property that they own. The laws that "protect" squatters are literally depriving the legal owner of a property of control of that property. That it takes an extended (months long) legal process to "evict" squatters from one's won property, complete with expensive legal bills for the owner, suggests that private property is likely the next target of the left.
Haven't read any other comments but just came to say: So much winning! Trump & Co. won't be perfect, but wow, we are so much better off than if Harris had won. If they had stolen another election the Republic would have been finished. Now we have some hope. The Overton Window had already shifted a lot, such as with the 2-sex fact. And it will shift even more when people realize how much better life is when not under the constraints of God-mocking Leftist ideologies.
I agree with you that things will improve. Assuming that happens, my greatest concern will be complacency and taking for granted the improvements. It's then that those who lean left will again vote left. Thus, along with improving things is constantly reminding who was the catalyst for the improvements. Just as we know who and when to blame, we need to be sure we acknowledge who's responsible for the good things. No doubt, as has happened before, lefties will lay claim to it if allowed to without harsh push back.
Could be the left was still stunned their most hated adversary was elected president. The Inauguration compounded their meltdown and thus, they didn't notice the guy they insisted was more decent, more fit and and all around better choice for president has been abusing his power more than ever before.
In the meantime, thanks for the link. I'm leaning toward a post on the issue after all, but if you come up with something first, I'll defer.
Dan,
"There is a difference between saying moving from A to B should not be criminalized and having a entirely open border."
What exactly is that difference? In closing the border even a tiny bit, the government logically must limit and even criminalize some instances of moving from A to B. I can only conclude that you balk at the label of open-borders fanaticism only because you want to be seen as moderate despite taking what is literally the most extreme position possible.
January 22, 2025 at 1:53 PM
"What are you all talking about?
I'm talking about human rights as fairly universally understood, including self determination. Self determination does NOT include taking other people's stuff."
What you're talking about is "self-determination" without any consideration for those who might be put out by deferring to the "self-determination" of those who crap on our laws regarding our sovereign border. You're talking about an obligation to superordinate the "self-determination" of random foreigners over the self-determination of the people of the United States.
"So, based upon human rights, including self determination, on what rational basis would you say to a fellow human, No, you can't move from there to here?"
This is ignoring the issue and doing so intentionally so as to disparage the righteous demand that foreigners must respect our laws and sovereignty. As I've laid out, there's already a path for citizenship, seeking refuge/asylum, finding temporary work or an education in this country. So it's a straw man you've erected to suggest we're simply denying anyone entry at all (though I do believe because of those like you, we need a moratorium on immigration altogether until we've cleaned your mess).
"Or, as you all are wont to do, on what rational biblical basis would you tell people they can't move from A to B?"
Again, straw man. But moving here contrary to our laws and regulations is clearly and unquestionably contrary to Biblical teaching. Find someone who's actually seriously and prayerfully studied Scripture and that someone will tell you this fact.
"You've got nothing that I can see You've ever offered... except that a nation's alleged right to deny self determination of individuals."
But that's not nothing, even if it was all we offered (which clearly never has been all we've offered to counter you're inanity). And each nation absolutely has a right, obligation and duty to deny entry to anyone based on criteria they've determined for themselves. Again, you demand nations subordinate their self-determination to the demands of foreigners as if the desires of the foreigners are somehow more important than that of the nations. On what freaking basis can you dare suggest something so stupid?
"But you are probably not consistent on that. You hopefully would agree that a nation that denies someone's human right to liberty and freedom of religion and imprisoned, for instance, Christians for the crime of exercising their religious liberty is a nation acting contrary to human rights... right?"
Try a better parallel. This attempt is moronic, especially since it involves the rights of citizens, not the right of everyone in the world. We can only safeguard the unalienable rights of our citizens, for that's what our Constitution references. You clearly have never seriously or prayerfully studied anything.
January 22, 2025 at 2:17 PM
Craig had said:
"What happens in Dan's little fantasy world, when the migrants who migrate to reduce risk, and find safety, actually increase the risk and lower the safety of those where they migrate to?"
To which Dan stupidly and insultingly replied"
"? What happens if conservative evangelicals actually rape half the girls in their care? What if purple unicorns on the moon are planning to invade the earth?"
The fact is that we have hundreds, if not thousands of documented examples of that which affirms the validity of Craig's question.
"It would be not good IF those fantasy theories came true."
But it would be far better if you cease offering stupidity as if you're making a point.
"But, what if positing slanderous false claims and gossip caused harm and oppression to happen? That would be bad, too, and is way more representative of real world concerns."
You mean like the false claim that all who seek entry are poor little oppressed people with no options available to them but to cross our border illegally and hope they can stay without having a legit reason to allow them?
"Do you actually theorize that immigrants will always or generally bring harm?"
We don't need to. We have enough to worry about with the many cases of those who have brought harm. You don't know one from the other, but demand we assume all are innocent little angels and how dare we contest their presence regardless of the fact they crossed illegally.
"If so, do you recognize that racists and xenophobes have always played that fear card throughout history?"
Ah...the typical race card play in lieu of a legitimate intelligent argument for allowing illegal crossings! I recognize you're a moron, and asshole, a liar and that you're no Christian. We aren't racists or zenophobes and you're an abject asshole for daring to suggest such a thing because we care about the rule of law and the safety of our own people.
January 22, 2025 at 4:04 PM
"1. I'm not an open borders fanatic."
You most certainly are because the issue is not about denying legal immigrants, verified refugees and asylum seekers or legitimate visas for work or schooling. It's about the hordes of invaders you're defending. They're not all lined up at official ports of entry, you lying asshole. They're crossing illegally where they think they can enter without detection, knowing that if they are detected they will be released into the interior without any harsh penalties for failure to show up for their hearings.
"2. There is a difference between saying moving from A to B should not be criminalized and having a entirely open border. What I'm clearly objecting to is criminalizing a human right NOT because of any inherent wrong or harm done, but because the whimsy of some humans who randomly thinking going from here to there should be criminalized."
Straw man of the most intentionally dishonest kind. No one is thinking any such thing, randomly or otherwise. Either stick to the truth or stick it up your ass where you keep your head and run this bullshit at your Blog of Lies.
"Let's take baby steps:"
Are you wearing your Pull*Ups? You condescending prick.
"A. Do you recognize self determination as a basic human right?"
That's not at all at issue, aside from your corrupted notion of it.
"B. Do you agree that moving from A to B is not inherently harmful or innately wrong?"
Also not at issue, despite the harm that's been done by illegals moving from there to here.
"C. Do you affirm the reality that God has never told anyone it's wrong to go from A to B?"
I affirm the reality that you ask irrelevant questions like this as if you actually have the moral high ground.
"That, indeed, God and the prophets as found in the Bible consistently side with welcoming the foreigner?"
Provide chapter and verse where God and the prophets demanded care for the foreigner who ignores the laws of Israel and God.
"D. Can you agree that, of course, if your life or your family's life is harmed, threatened or denied human rights, that of course it is reasonable and moral to move away from the harm to a place you believe would be less likely to be harmful?"
And here you go back to the false premise that the majority of the hordes are people fleeing legitimate, direct danger. We have protocols for such people which don't require sneaking in illegally.
"Self determination does NOT include taking other people's stuff."
If one considers the land and resources of a sovereign country as that country's "stuff", then it might. You're assuming a distinction that may or may not exist.
I would say to "a fellow human" that there is not an unrestricted, unregulated right to "move from here to there". That doing so requires following the laws of the countries you pass through as well as the laws of the country you wish to live in. I
The Bible seems pretty clear about respecting the rulers and laws of countries. It goes so far as to say that those rulers are placed there by YHWH. The early Christians endeavored to live according to the laws of Rome, but were prepared to be punished if those laws contradicted their faith. Which is pretty much what we've been saying. Move from "A to B" within the laws of the various countries and it's all good. Failure to follow those laws might result in negative consequences.
"contrary to human rights... right?"
1. This is an apples/oranges comparison. The civil and criminal laws of nations are codified. The are a no codified laws defining and protecting "human rights", that I am aware of . I may not agree with the civil/criminal laws of country X, or believe that those laws violate my hunches about "human rights", yet those countries have self determination at a national level also.
Since our argument boils down to "Go where you want to, but do so according to the legal means available", this straw man is pretty desperate.
I have to note that Dan throughout and completely fails to actually answer the question asked. As such i feel no compulsion to waste time enabling his diversions.
"Do you actually theorize that immigrants will always or generally bring harm?"
No, and you could have figured this out on your own with a tiny bit of effort.
Now try actually answering the question asked. Maybe take a look at the "hard data" from Europe before you do so. I'd focus on Sweden, Germany, and England specifically and on things like sexual assaults.
I completely agree that things will be better than under Harris. I sincerely hope that Trump and his administration meet or exceed their goals.
Strangely enough, if Dan was consistent and aware of things beyond his own little bubble, he'd be bashing nations like Poland, Mexico, Iran, etc whose borders are much more closed than anything anyone here supports.
You rightly point out Dan's lie that all who cross the border illegally are "refugees'. As for my actual point, how can it be a lie when one simply follows the "hard data".
Strangely enough, I think I referenced the story of a woman in Germany who got more prison time for referring to her rapist as a rapist, than her rapist did for raping her. There is plenty of evidence that various countries are not enforcing various laws when immigrants are the perpetrators of crimes because they fear riots.
While Biden's dictatorial attempt to circumvent US law is an interesting footnote to a dismal record of public (really?) service, it's such an egregious attempt at a last gasp of significance that it should probably be ignored. It was something so lacking in substance and integrity that I don't see anything to say about it beyond...
"Biden demonstrates his mental incompetence by trying to magically add a useless amendment to the constitution."
Craig...
You rightly point out Dan's lie that all who cross the border illegally are "refugees'.
[Rolls eyes!] You ARE right... except that I've never made that claim and I've been quite clear about it. There are a range of refugees seeking refuge for a range of reasons and beyond that, there are a range of immigrants coming here for a range of reasons.
But don't let what I'm actually saying interfere with your ridiculous false claims.
Marshal:
The fact is that we have hundreds, if not thousands of documented examples of that which affirms the validity of Craig's question. (that those dirty brown immigrants are making us noble white US "real" citizens less safe).
Of the 10 million+ people that Trump says he'd like to deport, it IS possible that there are indeed, hundreds who are bad actors and criminals causing harm. You don't know that to be the case, but it's possible.
Just like there are certainly tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands? Millions??) of white conservative racists and conspiracy theorists and militants who cause a range of harm and oppression here amongst the US citizenry.
But we don't punish all 300 million US citizens for the misdeeds of those tens of thousands of bad citizens and we rightly ought not punish the 99.999% of decent immigrants for the misdeeds of that .0001% (or whatever the number is.)
Because, of course, we don't. That would be xenophobic and a human rights atrocity, not to mention, contrary to the clear teachings of Jesus and other good, wise people.
Given Dan's propensity to ignore the real issue, which is illegal immigration, he will continue to pretend that documented cases of bad actors causing all manner of negative outcomes are somehow outliers, when the reality is that few of the illegals do enough positive things to outweigh all the negatives our nation has suffered.
I've no doubt his response would be something along the lines of "I'm focused on our nation, and not any other". Which is fine, but as regards evidence in support of our positions, citing cases from outside our borders is legitimate and should be considered.
Ironically, he has no problem with people from other nations, but evidence from other nations somehow has no relevance to the issue.
As do we all, Craig. Fortunately, he has a good track record which suggests he will. He also seems to have surrounded himself with better people to help make that happen to the extent it can be, particularly in the face of promised obstruction by his inferiors of the Democrat party.
I had said:
"There is a difference between saying moving from A to B should not be criminalized and having a entirely open border."
And Bubba asked the fair question (even if there is an obvious answer):
What exactly is that difference?
Harm and human rights, that is the difference.
That is, it is almost always (if not always) harmful for a husband to cheat on his wife and family.
It is almost always harmful (well, always) for people to promote racist, sexist and/or homophobic words.
Nonetheless, we don't criminalize those behaviors, in SPITE of the harm done.
On the other hand, it is NEVER* harmful for a person or family to move from A to B.
[* With the caveat of instances where B cannot support additional people - as in desert locations that can only accommodate so many water-consumers... but that is a harm from exceeding limits, not in the move itself.)
We ought not criminalize that which is not harmful. Period.
But we CAN regulate that which is harmful.
In spite of the known, quantifiable (in part) mass harm caused by the individual ownership of the personal auto as a near-universal mode of transportation, we have not criminalized it. For good reason, I'd say.
BUT, we have regulated it, and again, for good reason.
There are speed limits, there are regulations on what is and isn't acceptable for a personal auto (you can't just drive literal tanks down the street), there are licenses and insurance requirements.
It's regulated, not criminalized.
That's what we should do for moving from point A to point B (which I must insist again, is not inherently harmful and is a basic human right).
Phoenix could place a cap on homes and water-consumers in their city, for instance. That's not criminalizing moving there, but there'd just be a limit on homes. Why would we limit it? To prevent harm. Why would we NOT criminalize it? Because moving from A to B is a human right and not inherently harmful.
Where am I mistaken?
I will end by noting that there is a difference between limiting how many people can move to Phoenix (a right we have not limited or criminalized yet) and limiting how many can move to the US, writ large. Phoenix has real, measurable sustainable life concerns. You can't have 10 million water consumers in a city capable of providing sufficient water for 1 million.
The US is not Phoenix. We have resources sufficient for many, many more people AND we have a need for more employees. Just imagine what would happen if we used the resources of a larger population to solve our housing crisis by building more houses? That solved our farming crises by providing more workers? By solving our medical staff shortage by providing more workers?
There is a difference between managing an influx of people (saying, HERE are places you could go to who'd appreciate your skills) and criminalizing large swaths of immigrants (the people that many conservatives LITERALLY call by the vulgar epithet of "illegals"). Indeed, criminalizing crossing the border DOES result in people "sneaking in" however they can. That's the precise OPPOSITE way of dealing with the "sneaking in" problem.
Creating common sense policies that manage people simply exercising human rights allows us to manage that immigration more responsibly.
January 23, 2025 at 12:55 PM
"[Rolls eyes!] You ARE right... except that I've never made that claim and I've been quite clear about it. There are a range of refugees seeking refuge for a range of reasons and beyond that, there are a range of immigrants coming here for a range of reasons."
You can roll your eyes all you like, Dan, but the fact is that you lean hard into the "poor oppressed foreigner" angle constantly until you're called on the fact that the vast majority of those who are crossing illegally are not the poor oppressed foreigner you constantly imply. Later, we'll see other constant lies of yours appearing in these two latest submissions of yours.
"But don't let what I'm actually saying interfere with your ridiculous false claims."
We don't. But don't let your intentionally chosen words interfere with your ridiculous false claims about the reality of the immigration/border issue.
I had said:
"The fact is that we have hundreds, if not thousands of documented examples of that which affirms the validity of Craig's question."
Dan added to my comment this lie: " (that those dirty brown immigrants are making us noble white US "real" citizens less safe)."
Your grace embracing fake Christian hate compels you to project false claims of racism instead of addressing our actual positions. This is typical but tired and boring. Such lies belong at your Blog of Lies. Not here.
"Of the 10 million+ people that Trump says he'd like to deport, it IS possible that there are indeed, hundreds who are bad actors and criminals causing harm. You don't know that to be the case, but it's possible."
It's more than possible. It's a reality and the numbers are far higher than "hundreds". This again is you daring to insist that of the millions who have entered illegally throughout the Biden term in office, the vast majority are decent people...though not decent enough to respect our just and rational laws regulating entry. All who enter illegally are justly sought for deportation, with the worst of them being sought first. The first day of Trump's term resulted in three hundred criminals detained for deportation. Three hundred in the first day. That suggests far more than mere "hundreds". Your attempts to minimize the dangers and the concern for it are no more than intentional lies.
"Just like there are certainly tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands? Millions??) of white conservative racists and conspiracy theorists and militants who cause a range of harm and oppression here amongst the US citizenry."
No there aren't. You lie enough. You don't need to make shit up as well.
"But we don't punish all 300 million US citizens for the misdeeds of those tens of thousands of bad citizens and we rightly ought not punish the 99.999% of decent immigrants for the misdeeds of that .0001% (or whatever the number is.)"
First, there you go again pretending the vast majority are innocent angels, despite their intentional dismissal of our just immigration/border policies.
Secondly, they are "punished" (mostly be deportation, which isn't a punishment as much as a just response to those who cross illegally) for breaking our law by crossing illegally. NOT because they're foreigners. So that's just another intentional, purposeful lie.
"Because, of course, we don't. That would be xenophobic and a human rights atrocity, not to mention, contrary to the clear teachings of Jesus and other good, wise people."
We don't because we're not dumbass Jeff St fake Christian assholes who corrupt reality to defend indefensible positions. Good gosh, it's like I'm dealing with a severely mentally retarded person!
Marshal:
the fact is that you lean hard into the "poor oppressed foreigner" angle constantly until you're called on the fact that the vast majority of those who are crossing illegally are not the poor oppressed foreigner you constantly imply.
1. it is NOT a fact that "the vast majority" of those crossing are not "poor or oppressed..." That is YOUR UNPROVEN and frankly, dull-witted opinion, based on nothing but fear of the other, so far as we can see.
2. The FACT is (and it is an objective fact as YOU WILL DEMONSTRATE) that you have ZERO evidence to show that even 10% of those crossing the border are not in one way or the other, oppressed, in fear of their lives, in fear of their family's lives or in fear of deprivation in the real world.
3. YOU CAN'T ADMIT that you have no proof of that, can you? You have ZERO proof that the majority (or even 10%) are crossing the border with bad intentions or to do harm, can you? Coward. The thing is, your failure to admit you have NO proof to suspect ill-will on behalf of even 10% of immigrants is itself proof that you have nothing.
In reality, ALL you have is fear, cowardice and a willingness to believe dim-witted xenophobes and conmen and fear mongers who are telling you to be afraid of what immigrants whom you don't even know.
Your failure to admit that you don't know is all the evidence rational people need. You are demonstrating an emotional, fearful, cowardly response to people you do not even know because idiots and racists and dim-witted con men are telling you to be afraid of them.
Shame on you.
Or, better yet, prove me wrong. SHOW ME THE DATA that even 10% of undocumented immigrants are up to no good. SHOW me the data that shows that most are not legitimately seeking escape from either threats, oppression or severe poverty.
You won't precisely because you can't.
I, on the other hand, am familiar with many immigrants who lack the documentation you demand. I'm familiar with many extremely good, hardworking and actually brave people who work with these immigrants (here and in their home countries...) People who have been to the mass graves of Guatemalans, of Nicaraguans, of Mexicans... people who have dug up the dead bodies of the actually oppressed (or is being raped and killed not "oppressed" enough for you) and done so at some threat to their own lives. We know the reality because we have seen it and we have met the people migrating here and because there is simply no evidence that even one percent are "rapists, criminals and murderers." But believe the convicted felon and the man found guilty of sexual assault... the man who ripped off charities and is, even now, continuing to con gullible marks willing to be scared because of their own cowardice and fear of the others.
Lord, have mercy.
there you go again pretending the vast majority are innocent angels, despite their intentional dismissal of our just immigration/border policies.
I'm literally saying that, of the 10 million+ immigrants that Trump is threatening, there are NO DOUBT, some bad actors, some criminals, some bad people. YOU cited the "hundreds" number and I agree that, there may well be hundreds out of the 10 million.
What I'm doing is noting the reality that you have NO DATA to suggests that a majority of them are bad people, are murderers, are rapists, are criminals. That IS what racist and white nationalists groups are telling gullible people, but the data does not support that.
YOU can not support that claim, IF it's the claim you want to make.
Why not make it clear, Marshal:
A. DO YOU think in your little head that the majority (forget "vast," just a simple 51% majority) of undocumented immigrants are criminals intent on doing bad things...?
B. OR can you recognize the reality that the clear majority are almost certainly simply people seeking a better life, trying to escape poverty, threats, murder, rape and oppression?
C. AND can you admit how rational and common sense it is to leave a place that you feel threatened, oppressed or impoverished in to seek a better life in a place you think will be safer?
These are REALLLLLLLLLY easy questions that it doesn't take any particular intelligence to answer, marshal. Why are you so cowardly as to not even TRY to answer them directly? Because it hurts your partisan agenda and the agenda of your white supremacist allies?
Marshal:
The first day of Trump's term resulted in three hundred criminals detained for deportation. Three hundred in the first day. That suggests far more than mere "hundreds".
? Um, check your math, little buddy. 300 is LITERALLY hundreds. Barely. The questions are:
1. Were these actually serious criminals (murderers, rapists, etc)?
2. And can he find a SECOND set of 300 actual criminals? A third set?
So far, IF these are literally criminals and bad actors, it only literally proves (barely) "hundreds."
The thing is, you are indicating a willingness to believe in your head what the racists have said over the years: That the vast majority of "these immigrants" are criminals, rapists and killers... you know, what the con man told you on day one.
You have NO data to prove this ridiculous theory of yours as demonstrated by the way you (I'm sure) haven't even tried to support the stupid false and racist claim.
Marshal defended conservative racists and white nationalists, saying:
No there aren't. (ie, no there are not tens of thousands of white conservative racists and conspiracy theorists and militants in the US.
Of course, there are. The data is out there. (Look it up. Here are a few examples.)
KKK:
"estimates of membership ranges from 3,000 to 8,000"
Proud Boys:
"Several hundred to 6,000" (this, before Trump empowered them - again - by pardoning of their attacks on the police and the capitol).
US militias:
"between 20,000 and 60,000 in the mid-90s"
Oath Keepers:
"more than 38,000 names on the Oath Keeper's membership lists"
I could keep going. But in a very quick search, I turned up over 50,000 to 100,000 members of VERY PRIVATE/SECRETIVE groups, and of course, the number of actual members of such groups would be MUCH higher AND the number of people who agree but are not part of such groups would be MUCH higher and the number of general racists who are not group joiners, but just your every day racists, sexists and homophobes would be higher still.
Of course, there are clearly safely tens of thousands of US citizens who are racist, cruelly sexist and homophobic in one way or another, just based on known data.
Do you seriously know no racists in your life, Marshal? No sexists or other conservative bigots?
That would strain belief OR it would suggest that you've chosen to turn a blind eye to what's right in front of you. I suspect our partisanship blinds your vision, but you tell me.
January 23, 2025 at 1:12 PM
I had said:
"There is a difference between saying moving from A to B should not be criminalized and having a entirely open border."
And Bubba asked the fair question (even if there is an obvious answer):
What exactly is that difference?
Harm and human rights, that is the difference."
By all means, ignore the massive harm and human rights violations of Americans and even too many of the illegals by your open border position! Yet, to have established immigration/border policy which allows a nation to regulate migration for the benefit of their own citizens is not inflicting harm or denying human rights. That's a bullshit lie. By your "logic" (the word doesn't really apply to your notion of "reasoning") any consequence of breaking established laws and regulations is inflicting harm and denying human rights by the government tasked with upholding the law. Only a lying moron would dare try to make that case...and his name is Dan Trabue.
"That is, it is almost always (if not always) harmful for a husband to cheat on his wife and family."
Irrelevant and totally unrelated to the issue here, as well as bearing no parallel to it.
"It is almost always harmful (well, always) for people to promote racist, sexist and/or homophobic words."
You should stop doing it, you queer honky.
"Nonetheless, we don't criminalize those behaviors, in SPITE of the harm done."
Where these behaviors conflict with established laws pertaining to them, we do.
"On the other hand, it is NEVER* harmful for a person or family to move from A to B."
Not legally. But there's been clear harm to the many women and girls raped along the journey, by cartel members and other illegals. There's been trailers of dead illegals on more than one occasion. People have died crossing the deserts and rivers trying to enter illegally. Women and girls have been forced into sex slavery and men and boys forced to transport drugs to pay the cartels...or killed if they refuse. All those trying to enter have to pay the cartels to do so (which is theft, and thus harm). Americans have suffered at the hands of illegals driving when they had no license or insurance, by gangs of illegals stealing, taking over properties, raping and murdering and then flipping off the nation when caught. The rate at which this is happening cries out against moron assholes like you pretending we're doing something wrong by enforcing our just and rational immigration/border policies.
"[* With the caveat of instances where B cannot support additional people - as in desert locations that can only accommodate so many water-consumers... but that is a harm from exceeding limits, not in the move itself.)"
Never mind the laws requiring a specific protocol must be followed to enter. As my last paragraph alone explains factually, the harm of enabling illegal entry is great. You ignore it because you're stupid and a liar.
"We ought not criminalize that which is not harmful. Period."
And we don't. Breaking our immigration/border laws is indeed quite harmful. You ignore it because you're stupid and a liar.
"But we CAN regulate that which is harmful."
Like crossing our border illegally is. You ignore it because you're stupid and a liar.
"In spite of the known, quantifiable (in part) mass harm caused by the individual ownership of the personal auto as a near-universal mode of transportation, we have not criminalized it. For good reason, I'd say."
You would have to lie and expose more of your stupidity if you did. There is no harm from responsible auto ownership.
"BUT, we have regulated it, and again, for good reason."
It is not legal to ignore established, just and rational immigration/border policy. Legal entry is already regulated. Illegal entry is criminal. You ignore the distinction because you're stupid and a liar.
"There are speed limits, there are regulations on what is and isn't acceptable for a personal auto (you can't just drive literal tanks down the street), there are licenses and insurance requirements.
It's regulated, not criminalized."
And like ignoring the established, just and rational regulations for auto ownership, there are consequences and penalties, just like ignoring the established, just and rational regulations related to entering our nation. You ignore this because you're stupid and a liar.
"That's what we should do for moving from point A to point B (which I must insist again, is not inherently harmful and is a basic human right)."
We already do, you dumbass, but you ignore it because you're stupid and a liar.
"Phoenix could place a cap on homes and water-consumers in their city, for instance. That's not criminalizing moving there, but there'd just be a limit on homes. Why would we limit it? To prevent harm. Why would we NOT criminalize it? Because moving from A to B is a human right and not inherently harmful."
Another stupid analogy by the All-Time King of Stupid Analogies, Dan Trabue. Moving from point A to B is regulated because there are consequences related to moving wherever one pleases. No one is denied entry who satisfies established regulations. No one. Ever. You ignore it because you're stupid and a liar.
"Where am I mistaken?"
By lying, by opening your virtual mouth and expressing your lies and falsehoods, by daring to accuse us of racism, xenophobia and other stupid crap, by ignoring the realities illegal border crossings which includes so much suffering and death, both to our people and those you think you're serving...because you're stupid and a liar.
"I will end by noting that there is a difference between limiting how many people can move to Phoenix (a right we have not limited or criminalized yet) and limiting how many can move to the US, writ large. Phoenix has real, measurable sustainable life concerns. You can't have 10 million water consumers in a city capable of providing sufficient water for 1 million."
No. There's not. Each situation has its own consequences for which regulations mitigate. You ignore it because you're stupid and a liar.
"The US is not Phoenix. We have resources sufficient for many, many more people AND we have a need for more employees."
OH, well, if Dan says it, it must be true. But then he's stupid and a liar and wholly ignorant of the subject.
"Just imagine what would happen if we used the resources of a larger population to solve our housing crisis by building more houses?"
On who's dime? Near who's neighborhood? Are you really this stupid? (Rhetorical question. Of course you are.)
"That solved our farming crises by providing more workers? By solving our medical staff shortage by providing more workers?"
We already do this through the legal immigration and worker visa processes. Dumbass.
"There is a difference between managing an influx of people (saying, HERE are places you could go to who'd appreciate your skills) and criminalizing large swaths of immigrants (the people that many conservatives LITERALLY call by the vulgar epithet of "illegals")."
Yes...one group enters legally, and the other illegally. The latter group are legitimately and justly referred to as "illegal aliens" because they entered illegally. There's nothing vulgar about it because it's absolutely accurate. What's vulgar is for a lying, fake Christian like you daring to condescend to better people by attacking their character for defending the rule of law, which is a Christian attitude.
"Indeed, criminalizing crossing the border DOES result in people "sneaking in" however they can. That's the precise OPPOSITE way of dealing with the "sneaking in" problem."
You're an asshole of a dumbass. This is stupidity to the Nth degree! It's ass-backwards, which makes perfect sense for an asshole of a dumbass to do. They don't sneak in because crossing contrary to our border policy is illegal. They sneak in because they don't want to abide the policies. And were it not for assholes like you in the Democrat party who enable them and invite and encourage them by their enabling, they wouldn't try to come here in the first place EXCEPT by doing so legally. They sneak in because they know there's so many unAmerican assholes like you making their cities and states "sanctuaries", offering them our resources at our own cost, doing little to enforce our laws. What a dickhead! To blame our rule of law for the actions of any who break them!
"Creating common sense policies that manage people simply exercising human rights allows us to manage that immigration more responsibly."
We already have that, you dumbass. But you ignore it because you're stupid and a liar.
There is no harm from responsible auto ownership.
This is incredibly, stupidly, obviously, demonstrably false. Just admit you misspoke. Don't embarrass yourself, son.
The data:
A. 42,000 US citizens die each year from car wrecks. SOME of those might be the result of irresponsible car driving (drinking and driving, for instance), but not all of them. The reality is if you have millions of cars driving on the roads at the speed limits we currently have, where speed limits are routinely winked at, you WILL have wrecks resulting in people being maimed, killed and costing billions of dollars.
THAT is real, measurable and obvious harm.
B. 2.3 million people are maimed in the US each year.
Same as above.
C. Air pollution kills ~200,000 US citizens each year, the pollution being from multiple sources, including automobiles.
That's just the obvious stuff. Then there is the hard data about how it especially harms the elderly, the sick, the disabled, children and the poor... which harm, itself, is an additional harm... an additional layer of harm that happens specifically to the poor and marginalized communities who are often not even car owners, themselves.
Again, you REALLY messed up here. It was a stupid mistake, but a clear mistake. Admit it and move on.
They don't sneak in because crossing contrary to our border policy is illegal. They sneak in because they don't want to abide the policies.
You are just ill-informed and you, once again, have NO data to support your ignorance. This is an ignorant claim supported only by ignorance and cowardice and emotional fear-mongering by racists and xenophobes who play on the fears of the easily-cowed.
The fact is, IF immigrants try to navigate the system as it's currently set up, they simply WILL not get here. MAYBE, some lucky, fortunate lottery winners will get here in five or ten or thirty years, but most of them will not get here.
Now, I GET that you live some relatively plush, oppression-free life with your white privilege and the privilege of living as a white man in a wealthy nation, but not everyone has your level of privilege. They might be threatened today. Their family might be starving this spring. Telling a starving, oppressed or threatened family, "Follow the rules and MAYBE, IF you're lucky, you can come here ten years after you're already dead" is a hollow and nothing sort of assurance.
As long as people are living in fear of starvation, oppression and threats to their lives and liberty, they WILL cross borders even contrary to the rules in place to get to safety. IT IS WHAT YOU WOULD DO, TOO, if you weren't an idiot or coward. If you're saying you would not break bad rules to protect your children and family, you're either a coward or a liar or just incredibly and dangerously stupid.
Come on. You can't be this uninformed.
And how do I KNOW their lives are threatened today, now, immediately? Because I know the people. Because I know the people who work with them.
Are there SOME who are hoping to skip the line even though they are safe and relatively wealthy? I'm sure it happens. But the fact remains, we have NO DATA - YOU have NO DATA - to suggest it's common.
I noted:
"The US is not Phoenix. We have resources sufficient for many, many more people AND we have a need for more employees."
Marshal responded:
OH, well, if Dan says it, it must be true. But then he's stupid and a liar and wholly ignorant of the subject.
I can look at the data, as I have. Have you?
For one thing, the earth IS, as I've noted and which is obvious, finite and can NOT hold an unlimited number of people in a healthy and sustainable manner. There ARE limits, which I've been clear about in my Arizona/desert examples.
Do you believe that the earth can only sustainably support a certain population in a healthy manner (I've had conservatives push back at that when we talk about limiting population growth)?
Do you have data which estimates how many people the US can sustain in a healthy manner?
Please provide.
This is, of course, a difficult estimate to make, but I would love to hear your data-driven (ha!) theories on what that number is.
I'm all for reducing population globally and consumption, as well. But I'm guessing you might oppose that?
This is an unrelated tangent, which is your style when your arguments fail. But I'll entertain it this far:
"I'm all for reducing population globally..."
Feel free to kill yourself. Try starvation to reduce consumption.
Globally, we are nowhere near the limitations of what this planet can sustain. The problem isn't that we have too many people. The problem is we have too many assholes like you.
Where'd you get this crap from...the ACLU? You cite no sources and you're not a credible judge of what constitutes a good one. In the meantime, neither Proud Boys nor the Oath Keepers are "white nationalist" or "racist" groups in any way. And a "militia" also does not indicate racism or "white nationalism". So without any evidence of actual racist sensibilities of any of those militias, that's, by your count, 104K who aren't what you accuse them of being.
I've personally known only two people in my life who have admitted without shame to being racist. Both were white guys. I've worked with several black people who were racist, as confirmed by other black co-workers. I'm not blind. I see you quite clearly. You're an asshole and a fake Christian who doesn't give a flying rat's ass about your fellow Americans and you hate your own race. That's some sick shit.
As to "sexist" and "homophobe" they require defining, but don't do it here, because that's also off topic.
What's incredibly stupid is you providing data which confirms my statement. "Some" of the 42,000 traffic deaths are from irresponsible driving? Really? What of the rest? Did a hole open up in the road just as they were driving by? Were they victims of lightening strikes during an otherwise calm, sunny day? Do you know responsible driving even requires of you? You're a danger to others if you don't. Don't ever get behind the wheel.
How is pollution tied to any deaths? There would have to be absolutely no other contributing factors for a responsible person to put a definitive number of deaths to pollution as its cause.
This irrelevant, unrelated crap doesn't strengthen your weak argument for enabling illegal border crossings. The only mistake I can be said to have made is to post your stupidity here. But then, I love to laugh.
Don't condescend to me you vile c*nt. I'm not your "buddy". I'm not your "brother". I don't hang around with lying reprobate heretics who support the murder of infants and the sexually perverse. You have not proven yourself wise or especially intelligent. Condescension from a stupid person like you only indicts yourself.
As to the number, my wife heard the number is in the 400s. Again. That's one day. So to your dishonest questions:
1. Yes.
2. More than merely likely.
Several hundred in a single day suggests thousands will be rounded up before they get to the next level of serious law breakers.
The thing is, while reality continues to bitch slap your sorry ass, and you pretend it isn't, you are validating my earlier claim that you regard the vast majority of illegals as the poor oppressed innocent angels. I'm not believing anything more than what the facts are indicating regardless of how badly you wish to compare me with or accuse me of being just like "racists" (of which between the two of us, you are the only one here). No one is saying "the vast majority of "these immigrants" are criminals, rapists and killers", including the current president who is a far better person and American...and really, Christian...than you are.
Indeed, the only argument being made is that those who came here illegally must be sent back. This is essential in preventing this current mass of criminality from stopping. As I said, those among these hordes who are legitimately fleeing actual danger are most endangered by what your kind has exacerbated with your stupidity and hatred of better politicians.
I'm not obliged to provide for you any data, but you're obliged to provide ACTUAL, VERIFIABLE data for your claims regarding the numbers of illegals who are truly fleeing danger...not just living in bad neighborhoods, but actual danger.
I had noted:
"Just imagine what would happen if we used the resources of a larger population to solve our housing crisis by building more houses?"
Marshal irrationally replied:
On who's dime? Near who's neighborhood?
When a house is built, then it is sold. A consumer BUYS that house. THAT CONSUMER/homeowner is buying the house. It's on THEIR dime.
Now, who would pay the upfront cost to initially build the house? We could use some of the half trillion dollars that Trump is going to waste on trying to deport all the 11 million immigrants you and he don't want here.
But once that first house (first set of houses) are built, then it's the consumers paying for it to happen and it just goes in for the next house and on and on and on.
What's wrong with that?
Wouldn't you rather invest that wasted money that Trump wants to spend persecuting innocent immigrants in actually HELPING solve a real world problem here in the US than just throwing it out the window, only to have to pay it again for the next million immigrants who sneak in because their situation hasn't changed and our policies haven't changed?
We need to invest wisely, not stupidly... not thrown bad money after bad with no end.
Marshal:
"Some" of the 42,000 traffic deaths are from irresponsible driving? Really? What of the rest? Did a hole open up in the road just as they were driving by? Were they victims of lightening strikes during an otherwise calm, sunny day?
Most auto wrecks/deaths are just happenstance. A person sneezes and missed a red light and a wreck happens. A person is distracted by something and a wreck happens. Wrecks happen because we are finite, imperfect people. Did you not know this? Do you somehow think that humans can be "responsible" and that means they never make mistakes while driving?
When considering rational policy, you HAVE to take into account the fallible human factors. We WILL make mistakes. We WILL hit an icy spot on the road and over-compensate and swerve and wreck. We WILL be watching one car swerving and fail to notice the other car running the red light and on and on.
Unless by "irresponsible driving" you somehow mean you think people can be perfect drivers (and we can't - I bet you've had accidents, right?) there WILL be accidents and we KNOW that they happen because hundreds of thousands are maimed and killed every year.
Again, just admit you made a stupidly idiotic false claim and move on.
Marshal:
How is pollution tied to any deaths?
Are you daft?
Lord, have mercy.
Read a book, Marshal. This is a dangerous amount of ignorance for an adult to hold on to.
Help me out here, Bubba? Craig?
January 23, 2025 at 5:17 PM
I said:
"the fact is that you lean hard into the "poor oppressed foreigner" angle constantly until you're called on the fact that the vast majority of those who are crossing illegally are not the poor oppressed foreigner you constantly imply."
"1. it is NOT a fact that "the vast majority" of those crossing are not "poor or oppressed..." That is YOUR UNPROVEN and frankly, dull-witted opinion, based on nothing but fear of the other, so far as we can see."
Where's your data? You've done nothing to prove how many are poor and oppressed. You've done less to prove that my objection to your playing this card is without legitimate basis and just a matter of "fear of the other", which would surprise all the legal immigrant friends I've made during the course of my life.
"2. The FACT is (and it is an objective fact as YOU WILL DEMONSTRATE) that you have ZERO evidence to show that even 10% of those crossing the border are not in one way or the other, oppressed, in fear of their lives, in fear of their family's lives or in fear of deprivation in the real world."
I have no obligation to prove anything like this, given my position has nothing to do with the condition of those breaking our laws, but simply that they're breaking our laws thanks to assholes like you who encourage them to do so. YOU, however, need to bring some hard, verifiable data demonstrating how many of these illegals are the poor oppressed hapless foreigners you insist I believe they are. But more than that, you need to prove that whatever their condition might be, that condition obliges me to tolerate their breaking of our laws whether they're all poor and oppressed or if only one is. More specifically, that our government is so obliged to tolerate it in the manner it has been, with so little regard of the great harm and expense to we the people of this nation. I'll wait here while you don't.
"3. YOU CAN'T ADMIT that you have no proof of that, can you? You have ZERO proof that the majority (or even 10%) are crossing the border with bad intentions or to do harm, can you? Coward. The thing is, your failure to admit you have NO proof to suspect ill-will on behalf of even 10% of immigrants is itself proof that you have nothing."
If my argument was that some percentage are criminal and I refused to prove how many, you might be justified in condescending to me and calling me a coward. But you have no proof of anything. You simply assert that we need to allow these illegal crossings because some unknown number of the millions are fleeing danger. But again, we have protocols for such. Clogging our system with thousands who only claim to be fleeing danger doesn't help those who truly are.
How many interviews with illegal border crossers admitting their intentions do I need exactly?
"In reality, ALL you have is fear, cowardice and a willingness to believe dim-witted xenophobes and conmen and fear mongers who are telling you to be afraid of what immigrants whom you don't even know."
In reality, I have Kate Steinle (to show how long its been going on), Lakin Riley and a host of others. The fear we could have more of these is legitimate, justified and righteous, not some dumbass racist crap you need it to be to feel morally superior to better people. The policies you support and oppose increases the numbers of Americans (and illegals, too) who will be murdered or otherwise harmed. But you don't care. You only care about posturing as more compassionate than better and wiser people.
"Your failure to admit that you don't know is all the evidence rational people need."
You mean my failure to admit what I'm not debating? You insistence I appease your demands is evidence you're an asshole and I'm the gracious one for tolerating you.
Marshal:
Do you know responsible driving even requires of you? You're a danger to others if you don't. Don't ever get behind the wheel.
For what it's worth, I have an extraordinarily clean driving record. I rarely speed and even then, it's only 5-10 miles + on the highway. I haven't had a speeding ticket in, I don't know, 30... 35 years? Haven't had a wreck in something like 42 years (other than one instance where someone in the snow hit my car, but that wasn't my fault).
So, yes, I would say that I do know what responsible driving requires. Why do you ask? Do you need me to give you some lessons? Does your record match mine?
What is the point of that nonsense?
Again, you stupidly made a demonstrably false claim. Stop embarrassing yourself, admit it and move on. OF COURSE, there is harm EVEN FROM "responsible" car ownership. Unless by "responsible," you mean you own a car but never drive it.
Marshal, I hate to tell you, but I really don't think you're THIS irrational/ignorant. You must know this is a false claim.
January 23, 2025 at 5:28 PM
"I'm literally saying that, of the 10 million+ immigrants that Trump is threatening, there are NO DOUBT, some bad actors, some criminals, some bad people. YOU cited the "hundreds" number and I agree that, there may well be hundreds out of the 10 million."
Liar. YOU "conceded" "hundreds". I said there were very likely more than mere "hundreds". That's seems to be bearing out already with the number rounded up on the first day. The first "hundreds" of many.
"What I'm doing is noting the reality that you have NO DATA to suggests that a majority of them are bad people, are murderers, are rapists, are criminals"
Now you're obligated to bring the date and time of the comment in which I claims the majority of them are "bad people, are murderers, are rapists, are criminals." I'm quite certain I never did. However, it's bad to break our laws, and I've no doubt the majority of them are NOT fleeing danger which would justify them doing so. That makes them bad.
"That IS what racist and white nationalists groups are telling gullible people, but the data does not support that."
Which groups would those be, because I'm unaware of any and I've seen no one representing any being interviewed for their opinions by anyone. What this is is just you again accusing me of racism. The data demonstrates there's all manner of murder and harm being suffered by both Americans and illegals because of your kind and their policies.
"YOU can not support that claim, IF it's the claim you want to make."
Ah! Now you suggest you have no idea what my claim is, which is because you don't fucking read or question for truthful and accurate understanding. Of course I knew that already.
"Why not make it clear, Marshal:"
More clear than I've absolutely been already? I'll try. I doubt it will matter to your lying ass.
"A. DO YOU think in your little head that the majority (forget "vast," just a simple 51% majority) of undocumented immigrants are criminals intent on doing bad things...?"
OH....I didn't know you were going to ask even more questions unrelated to the point. How many criminals are among them is not the issue, no matter how badly you need it to be to suppose you can win.
"B. OR can you recognize the reality that the clear majority are almost certainly simply people seeking a better life, trying to escape poverty, threats, murder, rape and oppression?"
The manner in which you ask this irrelevant questions more than suggest you have no idea of the percentages, either, so pound sand. "Almost certainly" does not suggest anything akin to "reality"...a word you throw around as if you understand it.
"C. AND can you admit how rational and common sense it is to leave a place that you feel threatened, oppressed or impoverished in to seek a better life in a place you think will be safer?"
Sure. Irrelevant to the issue, though.
"These are REALLLLLLLLLY easy questions that it doesn't take any particular intelligence to answer, marshal."
They're irrelevant questions. It doesn't take any particular intelligence to see that. But given you aren't intelligent, they're the type of questions you're likely to ask.
"Why are you so cowardly as to not even TRY to answer them directly?"
Why are you so cowardly as to refuse to stick to the issue at hand? It ain't about the condition of the illegals crossing illegally. It's about crossing illegally.
"Because it hurts your partisan agenda and the agenda of your white supremacist allies?"
First, my "partisan" agenda is an American agenda based on truth and the rule of law. It is Christian to abide the just and rational laws set forth for our benefit.
Second, I have no "white supremacist allies" nor have I voted for anyone like that. Instead, I've voted for people who are wiser and more intelligent than the assholes dumbasses like you support. People who have a far better understanding of how to work on behalf of and for the benefit of the nation. I vote for and support those who know who they work for.
January 23, 2025 at 6:13 PM
"They don't sneak in because crossing contrary to our border policy is illegal. They sneak in because they don't want to abide the policies."
"You are just ill-informed and you, once again, have NO data to support your ignorance. This is an ignorant claim supported only by ignorance and cowardice and emotional fear-mongering by racists and xenophobes who play on the fears of the easily-cowed."
Are you saying they want to abide our policies but are unable, denied or are too stupid to follow instructions?
"The fact is, IF immigrants try to navigate the system as it's currently set up, they simply WILL not get here. MAYBE, some lucky, fortunate lottery winners will get here in five or ten or thirty years, but most of them will not get here."
Soooo they don't want to abide our policies. Thanks for the confirmation.
"Now, I GET that you live some relatively plush, oppression-free life with your white privilege and the privilege of living as a white man in a wealthy nation, but not everyone has your level of privilege."
Ahhh...the "white privilege" angle. I call this, the White Flag of Surrender response. (Gosh, I wish I actually had privilege!)
"They might be threatened today. Their family might be starving this spring."
"Might be" doesn't equal "ARE". Letting them cross illegally because they "might be" is moronic. They "might" be the angels you imply they all are. They "might" be criminals like those who have murdered Kate Steinle and Lakin Riley. Who knows? How can we know if assholes like you and yours allow them to cross in any manner of their choosing?
"Telling a starving, oppressed or threatened family, "Follow the rules and MAYBE, IF you're lucky, you can come here ten years after you're already dead" is a hollow and nothing sort of assurance."
Are we the police of the world? You lefties say no, yet you want us to be the caretakers of the world. Go to their nations and feed and protect them there. We'll stay here and make intelligent determinations regarding exactly who is in need and who isn't. Just like it's stupid to "believe all women", so too is it stupid to believe all lefties. It ain't much smarter to believe the sad stories of every illegal and a large percentage of those seeking asylum haven't a legit claim.
"As long as people are living in fear of starvation, oppression and threats to their lives and liberty, they WILL cross borders even contrary to the rules in place to get to safety. IT IS WHAT YOU WOULD DO, TOO, if you weren't an idiot or coward. If you're saying you would not break bad rules to protect your children and family, you're either a coward or a liar or just incredibly and dangerously stupid."
Our rules are just and rational. You're a liar to say otherwise (and unable prove otherwise as well) and a coward to admit it to your lefty moron friends.
"Come on. You can't be this uninformed."
Clearly I'm not. You just have this need to keep saying stupid shit like this.
"And how do I KNOW their lives are threatened today, now, immediately? Because I know the people. Because I know the people who work with them."
Not at all compelling given how stupid you are. Just because you and your kind believe the sad stories of the illegals you aid and abet doesn't mean those stories are true. Given we're talking about you and those like you, I need far better than your word on it.
"Are there SOME who are hoping to skip the line even though they are safe and relatively wealthy? I'm sure it happens. But the fact remains, we have NO DATA - YOU have NO DATA - to suggest it's common."
Not sure bringing up fictitious wealthy people helps your weak case. If they're safe and wealthy where they are, why would they try to cross our border illegally to be here? They clearly aren't threatened by waiting their turn. You're really a very stupid person!
I suppose you can get away with your position by using the incredibly vague term "some" in speaking of how many of the 42K traffic deaths are from irresponsible driving. But the fact is that it's more likely most of them are, unless you're going to have an equally vague definition of "responsible". When one is behind the wheel, one is obliged to take ALL precautions. There's really no such thing as a "non-preventable" accident. "Imperfection" doesn't absolve one of responsibility. I made no "false, idiotic claim". But you made an incredibly idiotic response.
--------------------------------------------------
"Marshal:
How is pollution tied to any deaths?
Are you daft?
Lord, have mercy.
Read a book, Marshal. This is a dangerous amount of ignorance for an adult to hold on to.
Help me out here, Bubba? Craig?"
Sooo, you have no idea how to tie a death to pollution. That's a dangerous amount of ignorance given the certainty in stating how many die from pollution. I see the same number on a sign at the corner gas station over the cigarette rack related to smoking deaths. Apparently it's the "go to" number for warning people of dangers. Similar is "second hand smoke" related deaths. There's no way to tie deaths to these things due to so many other factors which might be contributing. No. All you're doing here is pretending you've "got" me on something since you're failing mightily in defending your open border policy.
-----------------------------------------
"What is the point of that nonsense?"
It's not nonsensical to state your claim that only "some" (whatever "some" is supposed to mean) traffic accidents are the result of irresponsibility. You must stupidly think (is there any other way you think?) by "irresponsible" some sort of intent is involved.
There is no harm from responsible auto ownership and you've not even provided an example which rises to the level of stupid.
Dan, I don't at all mind telling you, you've totally convinced me (long ago, in fact) that you're a fucking moron.
The money Trump will spend to deport illegals is the result of the money wasted by your open border policies, which is far greater. Had Biden the dumbshit not halted Trump's border policies when he was unjustly installed as president, the money Trump must now spend would be unnecessary.
Like all lefties, you're an economic dumbfuck. Biden through far more money away than Trump did, even including COVID related spending, and the results have been catastrophic, so now, as we've been saying about this issue, you want to pretend no spending which takes place is justified? You're a moron.
It looks like someone opened an HTML B tag without closing it: hopefully this helps.
(I do hate that we still can't preview our comments.)
Dan, it is striking to me that you think a community oversaturated with immigrants CAN regulate their water use but can't simply turn them away on the basis that they're overwhelming basic services, but that is almost exactly what is happening in small towns across the country -- not water usage, but basic government services such as schools and emergency rooms. Some towns are experiencing populations that are nearly doubling, and the cost in terms of assimilation and social cohesion are enormous: a town of 50,000 that could easily absorb a dozen immigrants is sometimes expected to absorb TENS OF THOUSANDS.
The situation is absurd. Nations have the right to determine who to accept within their borders and they can tighten their borders for whatever reason they want.
If the "regulations" you support do not amount to real numerical limits on immigration, you really are for open borders, and you should just say so.
---
On another topic, you mention the costs of the automobile but you don't mention the benefits. You're looking at gross numbers, not net numbers, and I distinctly remember bringing this up before: you didn't address it, and you haven't let have an impact on your tired, old arguments. As the saying goes, you have learned nothing and you have forgotten nothing, and that's a big reason why continuing to talk with you is so tiresome.
The car is responsible for X number of deaths, but how many lives were saved because they were driven to a hospital, either by an ambulance or a personal automobile? The car produces air pollution, but how much has life improved in our major cities because (San Fran excluded) they don't have to deal with the health crisis of piles of manure on the streets? The question doesn't seem ever to occur to you, you just rant about the GROSS costs without ever considering the NET benefits.
HOW does air pollution cause harm to humans (and other beings):
"Every time you go for a drive, pollution is emitted directly into the air which causes significant risks for your health, especially for people who live near busy roads, and for the environment. You see it every time that smoke billows from your car's exhaust pipe, and from all the different forms of transportation we rely on to get around and to move goods around the planet — vehicles are a major contributor to air pollution..."
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that vehicles cause nearly 75 percent of the carbon monoxide pollution in the United States. The Environmental Defense Fund estimates that transportation causes nearly 27 percent of greenhouse emissions. "
https://auto.howstuffworks.com/air-pollution-from-cars.htm
How air pollution impacts our health (answer: Badly)...
https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/air-pollution/eow-it-affects-our-health
Do you have any other grade school science questions you'd like me to help you with? I mean, I'm no more a scientist than you are, but I DID at least pay attention to my childhood basic science classes.
Did you not learn ANY of this like 50-60 years ago?
Which is usually his excuse for ignoring what's happening across the globe that undercuts his narratives.
You literally called for the definition of "refugee" to be vastly expanded, and regularly use stories of "refugees" to justify policies that apply to all immigrants.
"it IS possible that there are indeed, hundreds who are bad actors and criminals causing harm."
It's always amusing when Dan does this kind of thing. Pretends that there are only "hundreds" of immigrants who are or will cause harm to people.
Ahhhhhhhhhhh, the made up number of "white conservative racists and conspiracy theorists" canard.
1. You've offered zero proof of your numbers.
2. If they are US citizens that can't be deported.
3. If these people break US law, they can, should be, and are prosecuted and face the consequences of their actions.
4. Racism, conservatism, and conspiracy theories are not currently illegal in the US. Therefore this is another apples/eggplant comparison. The last data I saw and posted showed that there were less than 150 (approx) instances of actions by your bogyman group.
Again, when you make up bullshit numbers, you look like an idiot.
Strangely enough, you do advocate punishing/restricting the vast majority of one group for the actions of a well documented tiny minority.
Deportation isn't punishment. Violating the law has consequences, sorry to break that to you.
"it is NEVER* harmful"
Less than one line after making this absurd and ridiculous claim, Dan contradicts himself.
Dan advocates "regulating" and "managing" immigration, which is exactly what Trump and everyone in this discussion is advocating.
"Illegal alien" is the appropriate legal term for those who fail to enter the US according to the currently legal process for regulating immigration. As such is is an accurate term, and is not "vulgar" at all.
It's almost like suggesting that we tell people HERE are places you can go, and a process you can follow to enter the US legally and properly. Once you do that you are free to go wherever you want and do what you want (legally).
This notion that Dan is able to determine what the limits are for the US population, and where those people should be allowed to move sounds like a megalomaniac trying to impose his will on others. That he believes that merely allowing millions to enter the US completely unregulated will somehow magically solve the housing shortage (especially as they'd add massive demand to our current low housing stock) is fanciful and shows little understanding of how housing magically appears.
Dan just makes up shit and pretends like his it is "DATA" and just expects everyone to accept the made up bullshit. Because he knows a tiny fraction of the tens of millions of immigrants that have entered the US in the last 15 years and is therefore questioned to project his anecdotal experience on everyone.
"Is being raped and killed not "oppressed" enough for you?"
Good question, I'd love an answer. How many English teen aged girls being kidnapped and raped is enough for Dan? How many German women and Girls or explosions in Sweden? How much harm caused by immigrants is enough for Dan to take notice?
Dan demands "DATA" yet the very fact that 100% of illegal aliens committed at least one crime when they entered the country illegally, and the it's impossible to accurately track because we DON'T REGULATE or have information on those who come here illegally. But 10% of 10 million is a million, and given what we know about how criminals commit crimes, it's almost impossible that those "10%" have only committed one crime. So, if the hypothetical "10%" each commit 5 crimes, that seems like a lot of total crimes committed by a relatively small percentage.
This notion that the US has this vast amount of untapped resources that can support tens of millions of new immigrants, who can settle anywhere they want is absurd. I can only presume that Dan is unaware of the water shortages throughout the west, as well as the regular shortages of electricity in places like CA. He seems to think that it's possible to make up the more than 1,000,000 houses that were not built from 2008-2020ish, plus add millions more to house these tens of millions of immigrants. He seems to think that the materials to build these house will just magically appear out of this air, without affecting our forests or using fossil fuels. Absurd and irrational building codes, permitting bullshit, and available land to build these miracle houses will just magically appear because Dan says so. It must be nice to live in a fantasy world.
Dan, you don't need my help to look stupid, you've got that handled all by yourself.
That you don't see the idiocy of arguing for restrictions on your pet evils, while all we are doing is arguing for restrictions on immigrants, just makes your off on a tangent bullshit look stupider.
Art: "They sneak in because they don't want to abide the policies."
Dan; "The fact is, IF immigrants try to navigate the system as it's currently set up, they simply WILL not get here. MAYBE, some lucky, fortunate lottery winners will get here in five or ten or thirty years, but most of them will not get here."
In other words, they sneak in because they don't like the policies.
Does Dan realize that when he "refutes" something by resorting to name calling, vitriol, and ad hom attacks, that he's really admitting that he has nothing to actually support his claims so he resorts to attacking.
"Because I know the people."
Translated, Dan knows a few immigrants (maybe as many as a couple of hundred casually), and a few people who share his worldview who help illegal aliens avoid US law, that tell him that he's right. It's all about sticking with one's tiny little echo chamber.
Once again, Dan makes a claim, claims he's "looked at the data", yet fails to provide even one shred of this alleged "data" he claims to have "looked at". Of course "looked at" implies a casual perusal, maybe reading an executive summary, but not actual study.
If there is a population problem it's driven by people like you who assert the unlimited self determination is the answer to everything.
It's the idiocy that says it's better to leave a place with ample resources to feed and house people, make a long and dangerous trek to places that don't have the resources to feed and house millions of new people.
I've addressed Dan's magical houses argument elsewhere. I'll simply add, he's now included magical free money for these illegal aliens to buy houses.
It sounds like Dan also wants to give free money from the federal government to private companies to build these magical houses.
Well, Craig...Dan clearly had no problem with all the money spent wastefully under the Biden administration, much of not driven by his Constitutional obligations as president. Trump's expenditures to deport illegals is driven by his mandate as the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the land. Deporting illegals is law enforcement. And though it may have a punishing affect on illegals, it's also more rightly referred to as "justice" for the crime of entering illegally.
Indeed, Craig. I've long believed that Dan looks no farther than the headline or title of a piece he believes affirms his stupidity...maybe reads a paragraph or summary...and then pretends he's found the proof he needs to validate his stupidity. While I'm still more likely than not to spend the time I'm not keen on spending, I'm convinced I'm likely to find that it's been totally wasted, as it doesn't do what Dan pretends it does to bolster his stupidity.
You echo my own response to Dan's "fact". I do so appreciate when he agrees with me, even if he pretends he's rebutted my position.
Dan's proven himself to be really stupid, dishonest and a sheep. His anecdotal stories of sad migrants might be true, but his history compels me to believe he's been duped. The people he knows who are migrants might just be the very types of people who have been trained to spot chumps like Dan who will help them get around the system which would not fall for their false claims of oppression. Those he knows whose intentions are to render aid to truly needy migrants can't be regarded as any less a bunch of chumps than Dan is, because Dan vouches for them as being like him, which I hope no one ever says of me. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the "good intentions" of those like Dan have made our nation quite a bit more hellish, because there's no intelligent thought behind any of it.
It looks like the total is 500 violent criminals off of the streets after being protected by DFL controlled sanctuary cities in 36 hours.
I seem to remember that the left is fond of saying something like, "If banning/restricting X only saves one life, it's worth it.", I guess that isn't a universal Truth.
Dan,
There's a vast difference between acknowledging pollution is harmful (which no one here has disputed) versus stating X amount of deaths are because of pollution, which more than merely implies it's the sole cause. Thus, to make such a claim requires evidence tying those deaths to pollution directly and specifically. Neither of your links does that, so your condescension is again wholly unjustified.
Abandon this dishonest tangent and stick to the post.
I agree that Dan strikes me as pretty gullible when something supports his preconceived notions or the narrative he's committed to. Yet, it is possible that the few immigrants Dan knows/harbors might be telling the Truth and Dan just decides to extrapolate his small sample of anecdotal evidence to cover the 10s of millions of other immigrants.
Dan's obsessive focus on one one aspect of things is definitely tiresome. It sure sounds like he's saying that we should let immigrants in willy-nilly, but then tell them that they can't go to certain places because of some shortage. That he ignores the massive drain on basic public services in many places just reinforces the point that he's fixated on one variable to the exclusion of all others.
How much of the literal human shit on the streets of places like San Francisco (which seems like a public health issue) is directly related to immigrants?
Good points, Bubba. Dan's focus on the "dangers" of automobiles is tied to his desire for a socialist utopia wherein everyone lives in small groups living close together, sharing everything and walking or riding bicycles to get to all the things needed but totally unlikely to exist in such a small setting.
Craig. It's indeed worth considering that some of the homeless in places like San Fran might be illegals. But hey, if we spend all our tax dollars on building them homes instead of shipping them back whence they came, somehow that's a better use of our tax dollars...somehow...poop be damned.
Wow. 36 hours. Seems like we'll be in the thousands in no time. And that's just the worst of the worst. The next level of bad will add so many more. Eventually we'll get down to the few of those millions who've done nothing worse than cross illegally, evade detection, build a business which employs thousands and cure cancer all because they fled the likelihood of death and abject poverty in the hellhole whence they came, though we can't call them hellholes or shit holes despite their eagerness to flee from them.
Marshal, re Dan's "desire for a socialist utopia wherein everyone lives in small groups living close together," there's a great episode of Star Trek Deep Space Nine, back from when Trek was superb, capable of nuance and not just propaganda.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Paradise_(episode)
"Sisko and O'Brien are trapped on a world with no advanced technology, and the Human colonists living there are determined to keep it that way."
Spoilers, we find out that they're forced to live that way, that the colonists' primitivist leader is using tech to suppress all electromagnetic devices. It seems to me that a so-called utopia can only be forced upon society.
Consider the Pilgrims, a community that was united and so fanatically devoted to their shared faith that they crossed an ocean and settled a wilderness to live out that faith: they tried sharing property and nearly starved to death before instituting private property rights and the proper incentive structure that comes with it. If utopia can't be had in the Plymouth colony, it can't be had anywhere.
Dan's routinely posted photos of himself in "nature" and speaks of living simply. The Amish do, but they don't seek much from anyone outside their communities and accept the consequences. With all which is available to provide aid and comfort for those in dire situations...thanks to technology..., "simple living" isn't so simple or anything more than a fantasy. It's certainly a fluid concept, rather ambiguous and rarely what the Amish is doing.
It's strange that Dan's love of the Amish probably doesn't extend to their strict rules and restrictions imposed on those in the community.
Apparently they've found 75-80,000 of the 300,000 children that the Biden administration lost track of.
What's amazing is that many of those picked up so far, are well known criminals to their local law enforcement.
I haven't hear that report about that many kids being found. If it's true, it further shows the incompetence of the Dem Party, especially since it happened within the first five days of the Trump presidency. It also means it's likely they knew were these kids were all along and simply didn't give a flying rat's ass to do something about it, even if all they did was to confirm their whereabouts. But we're talking the Dem party and the Biden administration, so they more than likely had no idea.
As to your second sentence, is this in reference to the found kids, or to those criminals found on the first day?
The second sentence is in regard to the criminals they've picked up already. It sounds like the majority of them were well known to their local jurisdictions, yet somehow roamed free.
Craig:
It's strange that Dan's love of the Amish probably doesn't extend to their strict rules and restrictions imposed on those in the community.
I'm a fan of the Anabaptists (who just celebrated their 500th anniversary this week). They were very early advocates of religious liberty and human rights, as well as pacifism.
Having said that, 500 years ago, they were still sexist and in some ways, quite rigid and graceless in their religion. This is still true for some in the Anabaptist tradition (many of the Amish, for instance).
But 500 years ago, most religious traditions were not as great as they could be. They were products of their times and the anabaptists were ahead of their times in many ways.
All of that to say, I appreciate the good stuff about the anabaptists. I appreciate their leading the way in human rights and religious liberty.
At the same time, where they were or are graceless, sexist, homophobic, etc, I do not appreciate that about them.
Seems reasonable to me. Not sure what's confusing about that to you.
Marshal:
"simple living" isn't so simple or anything more than a fantasy. It's certainly a fluid concept, rather ambiguous and rarely what the Amish is doing.
There are some aspects of simple living that can be complex and other aspects that are astoundingly, elegantly beautifully simple. It's certainly not a fantasy, as many people are living that life here and now and greatly enjoying it.
It IS a fluid concept because GRACE is fluid. It's not a set of laws and rules to abide or be executed and tormented for eternity. But that's part of the beauty of simple living.
Bubba:
On another topic, you mention the costs of the automobile but you don't mention the benefits.
Marshal made a stupidly inane claim:
There is no harm from responsible auto ownership.
I simply noted that this is a stupidly false claim. OF COURSE there are harms that come with personal autos and their ownership. EVEN when people are trying to be responsible.
That is a simple, clear reality, do you not agree?
Noting that simple reality is NOT saying that there are not also possible benefits that come from personal autos as the norm. Whether or not the costs outweigh the benefits is a good question to consider (as opposed to simply GUESSING that there is a net benefit, even if slightly) and to look at the data involved.
I'm just noting that it is a clear, objective fact that there ARE a great deal of harms that come from the personal auto.
Because of course there is.
January 27, 2025 at 10:20 PM
"I'm a fan of the Anabaptists . They were very early advocates of religious liberty and human rights, as well as pacifism."
The fact is, to a great and very real extent, all of Christendom was.
"Having said that, 500 years ago, they were still sexist and in some ways, quite rigid and graceless in their religion. This is still true for some in the Anabaptist tradition"
This is how progressives like Dan speak of all who adhere to the actual teachings of Scripture.
"...where they were or are graceless, sexist, homophobic, etc, I do not appreciate that about them."
This is how progressives like Dan speak of all who adhere to the actual teachings of Scripture.
January 27, 2025 at 10:22 PM
"There are some aspects of simple living that can be complex..."
That wouldn't be "simple living", would it? "Complex" is by definition, the opposite of "simple".
"It IS a fluid concept because GRACE is fluid."
Grace is not fluid. It has a specific and distinct definition, especially Biblically speaking. As is common with you, you pervert the word to whatever shape you need it to be for a given situation.
"It's not a set of laws and rules to abide or be executed and tormented for eternity."
I'm sure the Lawgiver will be especially interested in your perversion of His Will.
"But that's part of the beauty of simple living."
What you've described is total anarchy and selfishness.
January 27, 2025 at 10:30 PM
"Marshal made a stupidly inane claim"
No I didn't. You just get all bitchy when called out for idiotic statements put forth to defend idiotic positions, in this case, asserting "there's no harm in moving from A to B" as if anyone actually arguing for that dumbshit invention of yours.
"There is no harm from responsible auto ownership."
"I simply noted that this is a stupidly false claim."
It is not, and your "noting" it doesn't at all make it so.
"OF COURSE there are harms that come with personal autos and their ownership. EVEN when people are trying to be responsible."
Noxious fumes emanate from your orifices and pores. The harm from responsible auto ownership is like that. In any case, the argument was typical Trabue buffoonery and not representative of intelligent discourse.
"That is a simple, clear reality, do you not agree?"
That's "reality" to a simpleton lacking the wisdom to recognize reality.
"Noting that simple"(ton) "reality is NOT saying that there are not also possible benefits that come from personal autos as the norm."
"Possible" benefits??? What a moron! Bubba provided a short list of the many actual benefits from automobiles and other modes of internal combustion engine vehicles. Those benefits are why motor vehicles are so ubiquitous in our culture.
"Whether or not the costs outweigh the benefits is a good question to consider (as opposed to simply GUESSING that there is a net benefit, even if slightly) and to look at the data involved."
I certainly wouldn't depend upon YOU to gather all relevant data (or even a good quarter of it) in making such a determination and coming to an honest conclusion. That's not how your roll.
"I'm just noting that it is a clear, objective fact that there ARE a great deal of harms that come from the personal auto."
Not from responsible ownership, because of course there isn't. What's more, owning a motor vehicles is not a criminal act. Crossing our border illegally is.
Because of course it is.
As always, I appreciate your pointing it out when I am correct.
What's confusing is that this is the first time I've ever heard you speak of the Amish in any way that wasn't positive. You've extolled their virtues, while remaining silent on their faults. It would seem that you'd apply the same scrutiny to the Amish as you do to other Christian groups.
As with most things, you pick and choose what you like and act as if those things define groups.
What an amazing demonstration of proving one's claim. Whatever Dan says is True, whatever anyone else says that disagrees with Dan is False. Because of course it is.
Excellent point. Christians in the 1st century were in favor of two of those things. I'd argue that Dan's strict pacifism is not and was never as widely accepted as he pretends it is. That a more accurate stance would be that force is never the first option, but that it is sometimes necessary. I'd argue that the pacifism of the Amish is pretty much performative at this point. They live surrounded by counties, states, and a country that will absolutely use wherever force or violence necessary to protect the Amish way of life. They claim pacifism, yet simply outsource their safety and security to those they look down on as not following the correct religion. This is why pacifism has not and cannot succeed on it's own, outside of a protective society. A nation-state organized around strict pacifism cannot exist for long. Hell, even the Vatican outsources it's protection to mercenaries.
Dan is a fan of certain tenets of the Anabaptists, and less so of other tenets. He just clings to the ones he likes, ignores the ones he doesn't, and pretends that his cherry picked Anabaptism is representative of the majority.
Complex simple living, what an oxymoronic concept.
Regarding Amish pacifism, it would take a direct assault upon them to know just what their pacifism looks like.
I think Christianity teaches all three of those things (you didn't specify which of the three it doesn't, but I'm assuming "pacifism"), but it's clear Dan's understanding of any of them must be questioned because they're most likely flawed.
"This is essential in preventing this current mass of criminality from continuing." is what I meant to say. But y'all knew that.
Craig and Marshal:
Complex simple living, what an oxymoronic concept.
sigh.
It is SIMPLE to go to the store in your pick up truck, buy a bunch of processed food, stick it in the microwave and heat it up.
It is more complex to plant a garden,
to do the timing for the garden,
knowing when's too early and when's too late,
to tend to that garden on a regular basis,
to harvest from the garden at the appropriate time,
to bring the food in and save it in a variety of appropriate, healthy ways,
to cook that food from scratch,
to know how to do this on a woodstove,
etc, etc, etc
for just one snippet of an example from one area of daily living.
Of course, simple things can be complex.
It's simple to get angry and punch someone or go to war with them because you're entitled and angry and don't want to think about underlying causes.
It's more complex to engage in conversations and the hard work of preemptive peacemaking and negotiations and compromises and mutually beneficial solutions.
You dear friends are making less and less sense... as if you're responding from a instinctive, emotional reaction entirely aside from rational thinking rather than thinking through life's complexities. Life IS complex, whether you are a hedonist and narcissist or if you're a simple living grace-advocate.
That life is complex is not in question. Of course, it is. The question is what are the best solutions to more wholesome, kindly, decent living in this big ol' crazy world.
Come on, my brothers. Be better than this.
Craig stated the obvious:
Dan is a fan of certain tenets of the Anabaptists, and less so of other tenets. He just clings to the ones he likes, ignores the ones he doesn't, and pretends that his cherry picked Anabaptism is representative of the majority.
I believe we can all agree that there is NO HUMAN religion/sect/tradition that is perfectly correct or that we agree with 100%. You do not think that the Baptists are 100% (nor do the Baptists) nor do you think that even the Southern Baptists are 100% correct (nor do the Southern Baptists...)
You don't think the Catholic traditions are 100% correct or that the Calvinists (this group OR that group or any of the many variations of Calvinists) are 100% correct, do you?
I'm just acknowledging the reality that I can appreciate SOME parts of SOME human traditions and disagree with other parts. Just as you do.
Why try to make conflict where none exists. We agree that there are no perfect human traditions, right? You "cherry pick" SOME parts of Baptists and Catholic and other human traditions that you agree with and you disagree with other parts.
So? Does that make us both/all wrong? Or is it OKAY and REASONABLE to use our God-given reason to try to make the most sense of this big ol' world and universe as best we can?
This is just a strange comment/observation you're making dear buddy.
January 28, 2025 at 6:28 PM
"It is SIMPLE to go to the store in your pick up truck, buy a bunch of processed food, stick it in the microwave and heat it up."
Thus, that's far more emblematic of simple living than all the complexities you described in living on one's own crops. It's clear your notion of "simple living", then, is just pretentious crap.
"It's simple to get angry and punch someone or go to war with them because you're entitled and angry and don't want to think about underlying causes."
You shouldn't do that, then.
"It's more complex to engage in conversations and the hard work of preemptive peacemaking and negotiations and compromises and mutually beneficial solutions."
You're clearly a dick if you find yourself needing to do all that. You could live more simply by not being a dick. Those of us who aren't dicks don't have to fight anyone.
"The question is what are the best solutions to more wholesome, kindly, decent living in this big ol' crazy world."
The answer's easy: Conservative Christianity, not marxist fake Christianity you practice. Far less death and suffering with the former. Eternal misery with the latter.
"You dear friends are making less and less sense... as if you're responding from a instinctive, emotional reaction entirely aside from rational thinking rather than thinking through life's complexities. Life IS complex, whether you are a hedonist and narcissist or if you're a simple living grace-advocate."
I'm not your friend, dickhead, no matter how badly you want to be one. In order to be a friend of mine, you need to be more honest, you need to stop defending infanticide and sexual perversions, you need to stop siding with those who are responsible for most all the suffering in this country. You need to stop being a dickhead and a fake who preaches heresies. You need to be an ACTUAL Christian, not your self-pleasing, corrupt notion of what being one is. There's no "grace embracing" in you.
And by the way, stop calling me "brother". That's a vile insult coming from such a vile person as yourself.
That's my point. The Amish in the US are insulated from the potential results of their pacifism (as is Dan) by the fact that they live in a country that allows them to outsource their "violence" to others. Be it the state, the country, or their armed neighbors, the Amish (and Dan) live in a cocoon that gives them the luxury of holding to a philosophy that would otherwise harm them greatly.
Christianity was foundational in our modern understanding of the rights and value of humans.
While Christianity does claim to be the only True path to YHWH, it does allow for tolerance of other religions. At least in the sense that it does not advocate conversion by force, rather persuasion and the work of the Holy Spirit.
I do not agree that Christianity teaches the sort of blind, strict, pacifism (especially beyond the individual) that Dan advocates.
So, given the fact that it's "more complex", by what definition is it "simple"?
Only the most shallow of thinkers would argue that reducing getting food to going to the store and buying it, is simple.
Likewise, to suggest that people go to war or punch someone in the face absent any previous build up is so simplistic as to be idiotic. To suggest that anyone is suggesting that war/violence is always (or ever) the first answer is simply, willfully, stupid.
There it is folx, the goalpost move. It's a tried and true hallmark of Dan's. To change the terminology from "simple" (because he's admitted that his "simple life" is actually incredibly complex) to "more wholesome, kindly, decent living", is a great example of the phenomenon. That he doesn't actually seek any of those things, just some small percentage "more", is also telling.
I'd argue that a lot, maybe most, RC's think they're 100% right.
Where I see the difference is that you put on the (metaphorical) cloak of an Anabaptist because you've cherry picked one or two tenets (and possibly redefined them) that fit your worldview. You aren't really an Anabaptist in the sense of wholly agreeing with even most of their tenets, but you play one on the internet. I get that your ancestors were persecuted Anabaptists, and that gives you some (imagined) cred, or whatever. But, personally, I wouldn't follow a faith tradition if I didn't agree with all of the essential tenets, and most of the non essential tenets. But that's me.
It's great for you to make up whatever floats your boat to make sense of things, you do you. It's when you start telling other people that your made up stuff is (more) correct and theirs is not correct or when you start extrapolating your subjective, personal made up crap out on others. If you simply had the courage to acknowledge that your hunches are yours alone, and not that they represent some magical majority of humanity, I'd have more respect for you. But since you won't, I have no respect for you.
What's interesting is that Dan's "complex/simple living" paradigm is essentially a return to subsistence farming and the economy of the 1800s. Where you grow/raise what you can and barter for the rest with your neighbors. Where you invest so much time and energy into providing the basic necessities for your self, that you have little or no time for anything beyond providing those necessities. Much like that fact that Dan can be a committed (if hypocritical) strict pacifist because others are willing to make sacrifices on his behalf, Dan's "simple life" is really a function of living in a first world country where he doesn't have to spend hours every day tending his "simple" subsistence farm, and where his wife isn't confined to canning and preserving. In essence, he can choose to live (a tiny fraction) more "simply" than others because he doesn't actually have to. It's a performative luxury as much as anything. Much like that "tradwife" influencers who project the image of "simple" farm wives, he's simply putting on a show. Even more so, because there's no actual evidence of how "simply" he actually lives.
Dan's kind of like a Mormon. He desperately wants to be accepted as a Christian, while diverging in so many areas from historic Christianity and he seems to think that calling us "brother/friend" elevates him, when it really demeans us.
Indeed. His idea of Christianity is really posturing and self-serving.
His idea of simple living seems only to avoid being regarded as the "evil rich". That is, more posturing with a strong touch of "look at how holy I am" on top of it.
As I'm scrolling down here, I can't help but notice the number of times there is a response to one of Dan's comments, and no corresponding response from Dan. Maybe we can learn something from that phenomenon.
Much of Dan's worldview appears to be posturing and self serving. Especially is consistent use of himself as the reference point for so many of his arguments.
Yes, his appearance (because none of us can see or experience the reality) seems geared towards a certain amount of "Look how, "good/holy/grace filled/simple/whatever I am.", along with a fair amount of "You should be just like me." thrown in. It's absolutely possible that he is 100% sincere in his intentions, and just sucks at expressing his convictions with even a tiny bit of humility. The fact that he's "rich" by any global definition, and that his wealth enables his performative lifestyle, is probably not something he's ever considered.
"As I'm scrolling down here, I can't help but notice the number of times there is a response to one of Dan's comments, and no corresponding response from Dan. Maybe we can learn something from that phenomenon."
To be fair, responding to a comment by hitting the "REPLY" button can result in another not realizing a new comment has been published if the reply is to a comment not submitted as a new comment. For example, my responses to Dan usually begin with the date and time of the Dan comment to which I'm responding, as is true of the one below which are our comments here. There could be multiple such entries and the earliest might be one already read, considered and then from which the reader moves on. Later, someone else might post a response by utilizing that comment's "REPLY" button rather than by just making a new comment at the bottom of the thread.
I say all this because I remember thinking not long ago I deleted one of your comments rather than posting it, not thinking to scroll up to see if existed below a much earlier comment. Thus I'm compelled to extend at least that much graciousness and allowing for that possibility, I'll wait to see what comes of addressing it.
BTW, I begin with the time and date so that anything I quote can be viewed in its original context, thereby preventing accusations that I don't consider the full context from which the quote was taken. It's proof of my good faith to other readers, while standing as an implied challenge to Dan I'm indeed arguing in good faith.
I would suspect Dan's indeed sincere in his intentions to help the world. My problem is with the how and that merely having the general intention requires a good plan. He, in his job for example, addresses the here and now (getting a gig for a disabled person), with nothing he's presented with regard to how to address causes of a disabled person's difficultly in getting one. That's OK, because it's a tough thing upon which to improve and the disabled can't wait for the world to change. But with regards the illegals, he's a contributing factor to the issues which plague us in that regard while posturing as a champion of the allegedly victimized. Indeed, his positions exacerbates the problem because of his criminality in aiding and abetting law-breaking instead of addressing that which compels them to break out laws in the first place. All the while, as criminality increases, he pretends he's doing good. He's not.
Now that it's a thing, it's easier to follow when the replies are under the comment being replied to. Since I tend to collapse comments and can't see date/time it's sometimes challenging to find it that way for me. But that's a personal preference, nothing else.
I agree that I think that Dan has good intentions. It's his lack of specifics and his regular reliance on some vague unquantified consensus or simply on what he says, feels, or believes to be true. Yes, as long as he continues to advocate for uncontrolled immigration I agree that he's part of the problem.
I'd argue that it's possible, maybe likely, that the uncontrolled flood of millions of illegal aliens actually hurts US attempts to help those who Truly have serious needs or are in desperate straits. When you have a limited resource, and divide it by more demand, everyone gets less. Which can be a problem.
I don't understand. Date and time doesn't appear beneath every comment for you? Or is it that scrolling up to find the comment indicated by date and time of the comment to which I'm responding is difficult? I know sometimes I have to scroll more than once to find the comment to which I'm responded and have posted that date and time. If an s-load of comments has been posted before I can read them and respond if necessary, it becomes more of a chore. This is most true when I'm out of town and can't keep up with the thread and then try to do so upon my return.
Here, it's easier since most comments are either visible at my email address and/or on my blog's dashboard (or whatever the hell they call it). I read them before posting anyway. But at your blog, for example, I might not realize you've responded to any but the most recent comment. Aside from that, even doing it your way, I regard copy/pasting/italicizing comments to which I mean to reply specifically, but at least the comment from which I'm drawing those quotes are just above the response.
Anyway....
By "good intentions", I'm going to assume that means something more like "he means well", which given he's a buffoon, I can concede that's likely true.
I think it's a guarantee that many who are truly needy are harmed, both in their ability to actually be granted asylum as well as by some of the raped and murdered or otherwise victimized by cartels and even other illegals. It's only a matter of how many.
Not when the comments are collapsed. Looking for a date/time stamp with collapsed comments involves opening random comments and trying to narrow it down from there. I prefer the collapsed as it minimizes scrolling in a long thread. I like the reply under the comment being replied to because I don't have to search back to find what is being replied to, it seems like a good way to organize things.
That is one reason why I usually copy/paste the comment or question that I am replying to directly above my reply. I believe that it's a courtesy to put the two together and to save people from hunting down a question or comment that I'm responding to. With the new reply format, I might do so less often because it's right above the response.
Yes, "good intentions/means well" whatever. Even if some of it is based in ignorance or partisanship, I do believe that he intends to do or promote doing good things.
I don't think there's a question that there are thousands/millions of people harmed by the cartels and coyotes that they use to cross the border illegally. What better victims to prey on than those who can't go to the authorities. The whole smuggling system preys on the weak and desperate. I'd argue that a revamped system in the US, especially one that conducted screenings elsewhere would actually cut down on that considerably.
I guess I'll have to remember to hit the notify button when I respond to comments to be safe.
"...I do believe that he intends to do or promote doing good things."
As he perceives it, anyway.
I've heard on more than one occasion that no illegal border crossing happens without payment to the cartels. I could be wrong, but I think the cartels don't seek to suck payments out of those who immigrate through proper, official channels. Why would they bother when so many are willing to cough up bucks to jump the line?
I don't know that we need to "revamp'' our system as much as simply enforce existing laws, seal gaps between legit ports of entry and deport illegals as we find them, without regard to behavior once inside (not to say we must cease the current policy of deporting the worst first, but as the rule later on). If illegal entry is met with such, attempts will slow to a trickle if it doesn't end completely.
There are plenty of people making good money on illegal border crossings, some of which is at the expense of taking the money and abandoning the crossers after stealing whatever they might have. Definitely a cramp in their business, as well as in smuggling drugs etc.
I'd absolutely start by enforcing existing laws, and making the border more secure/establishing legal crossing points. As I commented elsewhere, I think that we can do things that will make the system work better for everyone. I think that doing the initial processing outside of the US, and having sufficient staff to process people quickly would be an improvement. Once we get the basics handled reasonably well, we'll have a better idea of what, if any, further changes are needed. I suspect that enforcing current law, along with e-verify, might cut numbers considerably and encourage some to use their right to self determination to determine that they should move somewhere else.
Post a Comment