Monday, May 14, 2012

What Liberal Said This?

What flaming liberal said this?  

“I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here even though some time back they may have entered illegally.”

a. Barack Obama
b. Hillary Clinton
c. Dennis Kucinich
d. Michael Moore
e. none of the above 


William said...

Debate Between President Reagan and Former Vice President Walter F. Mondale in Kansas City, Missouri:
October 21, 1984

Ilíon said...

Wrong/misguided is wrong/misguided, no matter who takes the wrong/misguided position. And, in the end, pushing a wrong/misguided position will always bite us in the ass.

Do you have an actual argument, something that is not ad hominem (along with being of sundry other fallacies), to demonstrate why we should not be concerned with the mass flauting of our own sovereignty?

Ilíon said...

As you seems to like to personalize the issue, what about when illegal "immigrants" are being offered the opportunity of "doing the jobs Americans won't do" -- such as the job of teaching philosophy at colleges and universities for $8K per year -- will you still be so "liberal" and relaxed about the matter then?

Victor Reppert said...

Didn't say anything about the issue here. It could be, of course, that Reagan didn't see the difficulties with immigration amnesty. You could help yourself to 28 years of hindsight, perhaps.

It does, however give one pause to reflect on how we come up with defining "liberal" or "conservative" issues.

Cesar Chavez, who is generally thought to be on the "left" end of the political spectrum, didn't support illegal immigrants at all since their presence interfered with his efforts to secure worker's right for citizen migrant workers.

If an illegal immigrant with a Ph.D takes a job teaching at ASU for 8K a year I will be surprised.

B. Prokop said...


I believe we are biblically-mandated to care for the immigrant, regardless of legal status "for you yourselves were once strangers in Egypt". This is not a matter of "proof verses" (something I generally can't stand), but one of an all-pervasive theme throughout both testaments. You cannot ignore or contradict the unrelenting drumbeat of concern for the poor, the marginalized, the defenseless, the stranger in your midst, the widow and the orphan, the day laborer, those over their heads in debt, without gutting the spirit of whatever moral authority the Prophets have altogether.

This shouldn't be a matter of debate for a genuine Christian or Jew. The issue is settled.

(I might recommend here The Universe Bends Toward Justice by Obery M. Hendricks, Jr. for a very good treatment of this subject.)

Ilíon said...

Leave it to a leftist to turn "You shall not enslave nor despoil the foreigner" into "You shall despoil and enslave your fellow-citizens (who are 'evil' right-wing extremists, and deserve it anyway) for the benefit of the foreigner ... minus any necessary 'handling-fees', which you may keep for your bother" and then try to call that Christianity.

B. Prokop said...

From the book I recommended in my last posting:

"Any who proclaim Christian bona fides while simultaneously professing faith in the economic policies of political conservatism are doubly wrong... Their reasoning is ultimately anti-biblical and anti-Christian... Too many Christians in particular profess to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, yet they reject - and in the case of conervative[s] often loudly deride - the most crucial dimensions of salvation ... They do not seem to realize, or selfishly do not care, that the economic aspects of their political philosophy cannot be reconciled with the Gospel of Jesus. Thus while some might be fully sincere, ultimately they are sincerely mistaken... This is a hard truth, but it is biblically based truth. One can reject it, but no one can reject it and legitimately consider oneself a person of true biblical faith."

Ilíon said...

... for, after all, who can forget that stunning (leftist) denouement of the Parable of the Prodigal Son, wherein the Prodigal, after he had wasted his inheritance on riotous living, and, finally coming to his senses, said to himself: “Even the meanest servant in my father’s house lives better than this!” and to his companions in wasting his inheritance: “It’s so totally Socially Unjust that my father owns so much wealth, while we starve for lack of wine and die of (the dread Hawaiian disease) lackanookie; and worse, that all that he has will go to my stick-in-the-mud brother, who has probably has never gone sniffing after strange nookie even once in his life!

And so, having deputized themselves as “The People’s Social Justice League”, they marched on the father’s house, demanding “Social Justice!”. And when the father, overjoyed to see his wayward son return home, rushed out to embrace him, they surrounded him and beat the “greedy” old man to death, followed by the “greedy” older brother (who deserved it!), whom they had to hunt down, as he was out working in the fields creating more wealth, and took all that he had in the name of “Social Justice”.

And lived happily ever after, with plenty of “Social Justice!” (plus wine and loose women). For about a month and a half, until the money ran out.

B. Prokop said...

Interesting how, in order to make his point, Ilion finds it necessary to distort and re-phrase the Word of the Lord. The Prophets felt no such need when they called for (yes) social justice.

You may judge for yourselves which worldview adheres to Holy Scripture, and which one to a funhouse mirror version of it.

B. Prokop said...

Also, Ilion, I'm rather disturbed by your mocking the words of Christ. Are you saying He was wrong to give us that parable? The impression you give in your last posting is that you rather disapprove of His story. Perhaps you think you can improve on His words?... Maybe you think He should have begun with "Howard Roark roared"????

Ilíon said...

Interesting how a leftist who claims to be a Christian will not admit see that he has systematically lied about what the Lord has said for the past 4000 years.

Syllabus said...

Pop quiz: which is the most mentioned and exhorted-against sin in Scripture?

Gregory said...

The Political "right" has more in common with Ayn Rand than with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Still, I'm dissatisfied with both political parties.

I recommend reading Belloc's "The Servile State" because of it's oddly prophetic vision of "capitalist" England.

Ilíon said...

"The Political "right" has more in common with Ayn Rand than with the gospel of Jesus Christ."

The Political "left" are the offspring of Stalin and Hitler (though, he's more the Crazy Uncle Hidden in the Attic), Lennin, Marx, and Robespierre. Ayn Rand was an orphan of the Left (which the Left is fond of generating) who stumbled into the circle of our campfire and decided to stay put, as it was safer and there was more food.

Ilíon said...

"Pop quiz: which is the most mentioned and exhorted-against sin in Scripture?"

Claiming the God is a Leftist, who endorses theft, extoetion and murder for a "good cause" -- i.e. idolatry, which is to say, lying about God.

Syllabus said...

Nope. It's actually greed. Though idolatry is up there.

And it seems to me that claiming God is a liberal or a conservative runs the risk of idolatry, since such a claim elevates a human construct to the level of Divine intention.

Victor Reppert said...

I think Lewis was right: a truly "Christian" society is bound to have some elements that we are inclined to think of as "left" and some that we are inclined to think of as "right." How amnesty for illegal immigrants went from being a position of the quintessential right-wing President (Rush Limbaugh called him Ronaldus Magnus), to a left-wing position, deserves some attention. That's why I am a skeptic about the political spectrum.

"Leftism," so-called, has the potential to devolve into a Dawkins-style anti-religious inquisition. And if it does, I will oppose it as vigorously as will Ilion.

Ilíon said...

"Nope. It's actually greed. Though idolatry is up there."

You are mistaken.

"Greed" is a "liberal" and RCC bug-a-boo -- and in both cases the word is mis-used to mean something like, "It is morally wicked of you to possess and control wealth that I think you ought to give to me to possess and control."

Idolatry -- worshipping what is not God as God; or, to put it another way, lying about God -- is the perennial sin of the human race, and is seed-bed of all other sin. It is idolarty, false worship -- human injustice toward God -- that is most frequently called-out in the Bible, followed by human injustice to other men.

Ilíon said...

VR: ""Leftism," so-called, has the potential to devolve into a Dawkins-style anti-religious inquisition. And if it does, I will oppose it as vigorously as will Ilion."

Leftism has shown its true colors for over two centuries: blood red and bloodier red. If you don't oppose leftism now, you likely never will.

Syllabus said...

I'd actually argue - as have most of the church fathers - that pride is the source of all other sins, and demonstrably so.

As to the usage that other people make of "greed", I don't give a flying rat's ass how other people use the word. I'm using it in its real and usual sense: desire for and pursuit of material or immaterial wealth or possessions as the chief object of life, and to the active detriment of others. Which, just like idolatry, can be distilled down to pride. However, these are different manifestations of the same underlying condition - namely, self-centredness, or what Christians call pride. Which was, almost certainly, Satan's sin.

And please. Conservatism isn't blameless. Beams and motes, and all that.

Not that I really care. Both parties are as corrupt, on the whole, as is their opponent.

Ilíon said...

There is 'pride' that is not sin, and there is 'pride' that is sin; and they are two very different things.

And, the 'pride' that is sin is just idolatry -- it is worshipping oneself as God.

Did you really think I wasn't ready for that?