Saturday, February 11, 2017

Why Trump is not a credible defender of the unborn, or of traditional marriage

Trump isn't a credible defender of the unborn, or of traditional marriage. To oppose abortion and gay marriage you have to push back against the sexual revolution. To do that, he has to repudiate the Playboy mentality that runs through all of his comments about women up to now, and he hasn't even tried to do that. After all, the kind of sexual conduct he described in the Access Hollywood tape is exactly the kind of behavior that causes women to have unwanted pregnancies. The idea that I can have sex with anything that moves so long is it is of the opposite sex, but I can't marry someone of the same sex is hypocritical and leaves you wide open to the charge of being a bigot. A traditional Christian who opposes gay marriage can say, "No, I'm not prejudiced against gay people, it is just that same-sex sexual conduct is proscribed, but lots of heterosexual sexual conduct is also proscribed, and you may or may not get the chance to enter a marriage." Trump can't say that, without fully repenting of the attitudes he has expressed over and over again. No wonder he refuses to reverse Obama's pro-LGBT executive orders. 

65 comments:

Mr. Green said...

I didn't know anyone was promoting Trump as a defender of marriage. Although given how bad things are, it wouldn't take much for him to be less of an attacker-of-marriage, which at least would be something. And of course, he could have an effect of defending it indirectly (e.g., by appointing sensible Justices, say). As for the unborn, sexual debauchery, however appalling, doesn't force anyone to kill babies. If you are Trump's spiritual advisor, I hope you push him hard on these issues, because the man needs an awful lot of spiritual advice. If you aren't… then I'm not sure what the point is.

Ilíon said...

The point is that Mr Reppert is embracing his leftism (*) ... and leaving Christianity. For years now, he's been trying to straddle the fence (**); since the recent campaign and election, he has been climbing down on the one side.



(*) And, since all good leftists in Present Year have contracted Trump Derangement Symdrome, Mr Reppert must perforce exhibit a few symptoms himself.

(**) In years past, some of the 'atheists' who commented here tried to appeal to his "liberal" politics to peal him away from Christianity. Apparently, he has decided on his own that it really is impossible to serve two masters.

Ilíon said...

Milton Friedman (YouTube): -- "... It's nice to elect 'the right' people, but that isn't the way you solve things. The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for 'the wrong' people to do the right thing."

B. Prokop said...

Trump is not a credible defender of anything, since you cannot believe a word he says. He is a living example of the old joke

Q: "How can you tell when [insert name here] is lying?"
A: His lips are moving.

My favorite example. Just 10 days ago, Trump claimed that he would have won New Hampshire, had not "thousands" of people been bused in from neighboring Massachusetts to illegally vote in NH.

Let's think about this for a minute.

Since Clinton beat Trump in NH by about 3000 votes, Trump is accusing at least that many people of illegally entering the state with the express purpose of voting against him. OK, for the sake of argument, let's take him at his word.

Now the average bus holds about 50 passengers, so it would take 20 buses to transport 1000 persons, assuming they're all packed to capacity. That's a minimum of 60 buses for 3000 illegal voters. 60 buses is a large number. It's extremely doubtful a single rental agency could handle a request that large, which means multiple agencies had to be involved, along with all their employees. In other words, 100s of people, before we even get to the fraudulent voters. Now besides the vehicles themselves, there's a tremendous amount of logistics necessary to carry off such an operation. You need a staging area for such a huge fleet. That requires municipalities to be notified ahead of time. You need to get 3000 plus passengers to the buses, which means a fairly sophisticated messaging and secondary transportation system - more people involved. But you can't just dump 60 buses into downtown Manchester and expect to go unnoticed. So now we need a Operations Plan on the scale of a fair-sized military maneuver, shunting various buses off to various destinations. All timed with the precision of the raid on Bin Laden's compound and undertaken under similar secrecy. But wait - we still haven't actually recruited the 3000 accessories to a felonious conspiracy. That means an extended canvassing drive, perhaps with flyers, e-mails, letters - all traceable, some of which simply has to have survived. Then there's the money. 60 buses ain't cheap! And are all of these illegal voters going to risk being charged with a felony without some compensation? There have to be cheques, bank transfers, fundraising activities.

This is not to mention the required planning behind such a complex scheme. Having personally organized conferences involving a mere 400 attendees, let me tell you there are numerous meetings involved, literally hundreds of e-mails, and a mountain of paperwork. So where is the paper trail? Where are the leaks, the people boasting of having pulled off such a feat? Where are the bank statements, the rental records, the drivers' logs? And we're talking about 3000 voters here. Not a single one has let slip a careless word to friends or family about what he was doing last November 7th? Really? And I'm just getting started here - Believe me, this thing is Yuge!

And he says this sort of thing every day!

So how can we trust anything Trump has to say about abortion or traditional marriage?

Legion of Logic said...

Know who definitely would not protect the unborn to any extent at all?

Hillary Clinton.

At least with Trump, they had a chance at getting some pro-life gains. Trump may be like looking for food in a garbage bin, but Clinton would be like looking for food in a septic tank.

B. Prokop said...

"Know who definitely would not protect the unborn to any extent at all? Hillary Clinton."

And this is relevant why? Are you under the impression the election is still ongoing? You need to stop looking in the rear view mirror. The views of Hillary Clinton are of historical interest only, and have no bearing on anything happening today.

Joe Hinman said...

Know who definitely would not protect the unborn to any extent at all?

Hillary Clinton.

At least with Trump, they had a chance at getting some pro-life gains. Trump may be like looking for food in a garbage bin, but Clinton would be like looking for food in a septic tank.

>>>know who is not avselifsh megalomaniac brain dead lackie of the Russian dictator? almost anyone other than Drumph.

Joe Hinman said...

O sorry Mrs. Drumph = Mrs utin

Victor Reppert said...

There have been no gains for the unborn under Reagan and the two Bushes. Why would Trump do what they could not?

Legion of Logic said...

"And this is relevant why? Are you under the impression the election is still ongoing? You need to stop looking in the rear view mirror. The views of Hillary Clinton are of historical interest only, and have no bearing on anything happening today."

No one is looking in the rearview mirror. If we are not speaking of Trump's credibility for pro-life issues as it relates to the pro-life movement, then what's the point? Was there a link in the OP that I missed?

All the OP discussed (correctly) was how no one could trust Trump and he is not a credible authority on certain issues. That's fine. If that's the only point of the post, and not a jab at those putting their hopes on Trump over the alternative, or not in relation to some other story that I'm unaware of and that was not linked in the OP, then the post seems to have no point except just another gratuitous Trump attack.

Legion of Logic said...

"There have been no gains for the unborn under Reagan and the two Bushes. Why would Trump do what they could not?"

The pro-life movement stands to gain nothing if they don't at least try to keep Democrats out of office.

B. Prokop said...

"The pro-life movement stands to gain nothing if they don't at least try to keep Democrats out of office."

Wow. I had no idea that life was a partisan political issue. Way to make sure you fail.

The only way any progress will ever be made on the abortion front is if the issue is perceived to be totally non-partisan and above the political fray (which is where it should be). Otherwise, be prepared to accept the status quo for the foreseeable future.

T said...

Regular reader, occasional commenter here.

There are some people on this forum who verge on being seriously unhinged. This becomes apparent whenever politics is discussed.

One example from this current comment thread:

"The point is that Mr Reppert is embracing his leftism (*) ... and leaving Christianity. For years now, he's been trying to straddle the fence (**); since the recent campaign and election, he has been climbing down on the one side".

I'm just going to leave that one there.

SteveK said...

Is he credible if he puts people in power than can do something?

Ilíon said...

some leftist fool: "I'm just going to leave that one there."

A wise move on your part.

B. Prokop said...

"The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for 'the wrong' people to do the right thing."

So are you admitting that Trump is the wrong person?

T said...

Ilion, your contributions here often fall to the level of parody. If I was reading them in isolation I honestly wouldn't be sure if you're actually being serious sometimes. This is one of the best sites I know of where robust discussions take place about substantive issues, but comments like your one above are unhelpful.

The implication that accepting some "left wing" viewpoint is incompatible with being a Christian is obviously untrue and frankly, ridiculous.

T said...

Secondly Dr Reppert is criticising Trump's credibility when making certain statements- something that has nothing to do with "left" or "right" in any case.

B. Prokop said...

Ilion makes many insightful and very useful comments, and is worthy of careful reading - except when he veers off into either politics or the Catholic Church (two very blind spots he unfortunately has).

T said...

Yes, thanks Bob- I'll be sure not to completely ignore his comments then. Typically I read Dr Reppert's blog posts but I only hastily skim the comments- if I read them at all- so I'm reacting here to some galling recent examples of llion saying some of the darnedest things that have been noticeable and jumped right off the screen.

B. Prokop said...

For the Christian, whether or not Trump can be trusted on any issue (be it Life, or whatever) is ultimately not a political question at all, but one of "What is our relationship with the Truth?" We do, after all, worship the One who proclaimed Himself to be The Truth. "I am the way, and the truth, and the life." (John 14:6)

Uttering falsehoods (a.k.a., "alternative facts", a.k.a. lies) lands one in league with the devil himself. "[The devil] has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44)

A follower of Christ can have no compromise with lies and no tolerance for a liar, for by doing so he betrays the One he claims to worship. Atheists who accuse some believers of "lying for Jesus" are on to something there, because there can be no greater betrayal than to, in effect, deny the very nature of God - who is Truth. "You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trodden under foot by men." (Matthew 5:13)

In the Old Testament, the prophets saved their most withering condemnations for the "false prophets" who did not speak the Word of the Lord, but rather the "easy" words that the the rulers or the people preferred to hear. I happen to be going through the Book of Hosea right now in my daily reading, and I was taken by how Hosea throws all the guilt of Israel upon its priests, for not speaking the Truth.

We need leaders, both spiritual and political, who speak nothing but the Truth, and who demand the same of their subordinates. Anything else is pure poison.

Martin said...

Illion suffers from what I've been calling Trump Stockholm Syndrome: no matter what Trump says or does, he must be blindly supported and not questioned. I'm quite certain that if a clear video came out of Trump having sex with a child, his Christian supporters would not only not disown him, but would support him even MORE! And of course accuse anyone who says "uuhhh, maybe we shouldn't support a child rapist" of being a "libruhl."

And that's another thing. Apparently these words don't mean anything anymore. If you think that Trump is:

1. A pathological liar
2. Won't do any of the things he says he will
3. Is deeply immoral
4. Is a horrible person in general

...then apparently that makes one a "libruhl." Even if one rejects social welfare and supports free market solutions. It's so stupid. Never has the silly "team sports" nature of American politics been so blatantly seen. It's just Us vs Them and damn the actual policies.

Ilíon said...

some damned fool who doesn't know -- or care -- what he's talking about, and consequently may be entirely ignored: "Illion suffers from what I've been calling Trump Stockholm Syndrome: no matter what Trump says or does, he must be blindly supported and not questioned."

*eyeroll*

SteveK said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SteveK said...

I was misreading...badly misreading so I deleted.

Dave Duffy said...

"To oppose abortion and gay marriage you have to push back against the sexual revolution."

No you don't. The sexual revolution in American society was not settled by "push back" or democracy. It was settled by SCOUS. I think a majority of Americans in swing states figured out it's not about push back, but about who the latest scoundrel of a candidate will appoint as judges, since we are less and less trusted to be a self-governing people.

Trump published his list of SCOUS candidates, Clinton did not.

The State will offer some help to those broken by the sexual revolution and the church will continue to pick of the pieces.

Dave Duffy said...

Trump is:

1. A pathological liar
2. Won't do any of the things he says he will
3. Is deeply immoral
4. Is a horrible person in general

Perhaps. He is kind of the Republican Bill Clinton. Although, I think #2 is wrong. He seems to be going full force on exactly what he said, which his supports love and drives his detractors insane (which is also something his supporters love).

B. Prokop said...

It's been 44 years since Roe v Wade, and as far as the pro-Life movement can be considered, they have been 44 wasted years, firing at the wrong target. We should never have placed judicial remedy as top priority, turning millions into single-issue voters and not doing due diligence to the many other issues facing us over the years, while turning millions of others away from pro-Life views by the fanaticism and unholy alliances made by supporters.

I honestly believe that abortion could have been virtually wiped out in this country by now, had only a tithe of the effort and resources dumped down the drain of political action been directed toward envangelization. The only way to "win" is to raise a generation of people who do not want an abortion. One person at a time.

Who cares whether it's legal to paint your house with pink polka dots if no one wants to do so?

This is why I so steadfastly refuse to regard Life as a political issue. I know full well that many people regard it as such. But as long as it is connected to the sewer of politics, nothing good will ever result.

Dave Duffy said...

Bob,

I don't believe that all the efforts for life have been wasted. I do know that many mothers in bad situations have not turned to abortion because they were convinced by those who argue conscience. I do know that the (my) church has at the same time criticized the sexual revolution and also received and aided single mothers. My own wife has volunteered to work with teen mothers at our local High School while promoting pro-life candidates. It's b.s. to think all of this work wasted. Children have been saved.

The bottom line is babies are being aborted because of the law. What is wrong with changing a law that is evil?

Victor Reppert said...

But moral persuasion doesn't need law to back it up. Some things that are wrong can be challenged legally, and others cannot. Even Joe Biden believes that abortions are wrong, his pro-choice position is a matter of his view that his anti-abortion convictions shouldn't be imposed on those who don't agree with the Catholic view of personhood.

The legal efforts have not worked. Our society has a big problem when it presupposes that so long as something is legal, it has to be moral. People vote for candidates thinking it will advance the pro-life cause, and what we get are unjustified wars, tax structures that favor the wealthy, and the inaccessibility of health insurance for many Americans.

Victor Reppert said...

The following two positions are consistent with one another.

1) Abortion is murder.
2) The Constitution, properly interpreted, makes it unconstitutional to outlaw abortion.

The arguments for 1 are never identical to the arguments against 2. Arguments supporting 1 do not prove that 2 is false. So 1 and 2 are compatible.

Mr. Green said...

Dr. Reppert: But moral persuasion doesn't need law to back it up.

Since when? Why do we even have laws, are you advocating anarchy?

Even Joe Biden believes that abortions are wrong

No, he doesn't. I mean, he might say he does, but I say he doesn't, and whom are you gonna believe, me, or some politician? (As Mr. Prokop reminded us above, you can tell a politician is lying when his lips are moving.) (I suppose he might believe abortion is "wrong" in some trivial sense, but he obviously does not believe the Catholic position.)

The legal efforts have not worked.

When abortion was illegal = fewer abortions. When abortion became legal = more abortions. What possible definition of "not working" could you be using??

Our society has a big problem when it presupposes that so long as something is legal, it has to be moral.

Our society promotes killing babies for fun and profit, and that's our big problem? I don't think anyone really believes that the two things are necessarily synonymous, but it's not unreasonable to suppose there is some connection between them. I mean, laws are supposed to be moral, after all — that's their whole point. And while you might call it naive, it's not too surprising that some folks would assume that when it comes to murder, the law is going to be some kind of measure of the fact. Maybe not about matters of income-tax law or government handouts, but when it comes to murder, yes, people do believe that.

People vote for candidates thinking it will advance the pro-life cause, and what we get are unjustified wars, tax structures that favor the wealthy, and the inaccessibility of health insurance for many Americans.

Hm, so you're saying this is all the Democrats' fault? If only they would turn pro-life, then people wouldn't have to keep voting against them and we'd avoid all that other bad stuff. I think there is definitely something to that.

Mr. Green said...

B. Prokop: I honestly believe that abortion could have been virtually wiped out in this country by now, had only a tithe of the effort and resources dumped down the drain of political action been directed toward evangelization.

Legal efforts (a) don't make up more than 90% of pro-life efforts, and (b) are evangelisation. But if you've got some magic bullet up your sleeve that makes nobody want to commit an abortion, why don't you share it with us?

Who cares whether it's legal to paint your house with pink polka dots if no one wants to do so?

Who cares whether you want to, if the law is going to stop you? Like Prof. Reppert, you seem to believe that human behaviour floats around some parallel dimension, unrelated to the actual laws of the actual society in which actual people live. That's not just false, it's blatantly false.

This is why I so steadfastly refuse to regard Life as a political issue. I know full well that many people regard it as such. But as long as it is connected to the sewer of politics, nothing good will ever result.

As noted elsewhere, this is a rather parochial understanding of politics. "Politics" is whatever is related to the polis, so the sacredness of life is inextricably woven into it. And since even the narrow sense of politics still bears some relation to its proper meaning, however tenuous, it cannot be cleanly be uprooted from the sphere of government. Nevertheless, there is something to what you say, so feel free to inform the Democratic Party.

B. Prokop said...

"I don't believe that all the efforts for life have been wasted."

And I agree. I guess my wording was misleading. I should have made it clear that I was speaking of all political efforts having been wasted. Outlawing aborting is like setting a 55 mph speed limit on I-95 going into Baltimore. The signs are there, the law is clear, but everyone goes 75 nevertheless (and get super annoyed when you're obeying the law).

But perhaps worst of all is how the issue has polluted our politics and taken over the discussion. It's like those damned riders and "poisoned pills" that congressmen so often slip into bills. How many times have we seen a much needed piece of legislation get vetoed because some irrelevant provision not even remotely connected to the subject at hand has been bundled into it? (Answer: Way too many.)

Ilíon said...

VR, doubling down now that he's off the fence: "The following two positions are consistent with one another."

No, they aren't.

The Constitution says: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Murder can never be "constitutional"

Ilíon said...

Isn't it odd? Leftists in this Present Year are freaking out over Trump's "violations" (*) of the "constitutional rights" of aliens -- who have no Constitutional rights -- but about actual Americans ... meh!


(*) i.e. doing the very same thing Obama did in restricting travel from certain countries "of concern"

B. Prokop said...

"so feel free to inform the Democratic Party"

Probably the stupidest thing the Democratic Party has ever done was to allow itself to be identified with the pro-abortion folks. Admittedly I've never done a scientific survey, but my gut tells me that a vast number of voters (primarily Catholics) who would otherwise be solid Democrats have pulled the lever for the other party (or sat out an election altogether), solely because of the Democratic Party's official position on abortion. My own father, plus all my aunts and uncles - blue collar workers all - would have sooner eaten ground glass rather than vote Republican. That party was once something not mentioned in polite society in Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, PA, where my family is from. What changed all that? Roe v Wade. (and who did Pennsylvania go for in this last election? Not Clinton!)

Think about it. On practically every issue (poverty, health care, immigration, death penalty, labor, taxation, the environment, etc.) the positions of the Democratic Party and the teachings of the Catholic Church are practically in lock step. Where they veer off in opposite directions is when we come to the so-called "pelvic issues" (abortion, marriage, and gender ideology). So, tragically, all the single issue voters out there sacrificed everything they held dear upon the altar of opposition to abortion. And they got nothing for doing so.

Ilíon said...

^ In other words, you *knew* it was false even as you asserted that "A good Christian can be a Democrat ..."

Ilíon said...

The truth is, a person can no more be "a good Christian" and vote for *any* Democrat than a person can be "a good Christian" and vote for a National Socialist or an International Socialist. *All* leftism is sinful; support of *any* leftism is sinful.

Ilíon said...

B.seein'only what he wants to see: "So are you admitting that Trump is the wrong person?"

You haven't been paying attention, have you? Of course he's the wrong person ... but he was the best of what was on offer (in both the general and the primary).

Ilíon said...

"Probably the stupidest thing the Democratic Party has ever done was to allow itself to be identified with ... the Democratic Party's official position on abortion."

Likewise, you *knew* it was false when you posted this in this thread -- "Wow. I had no idea that life was a partisan political issue.

B. Prokop said...

"In other words, you *knew* it was false even as you asserted that "A good Christian can be a Democrat ..."

Nope, not at all. He could be a Democrat who disagrees with the party on abortion. Just like a person can be a Republican who disagrees with the party on, say, tax policy.

"*All* leftism is sinful"

Refuted by evidence alone. Archbishop Oscar Romero was a "leftist". He is also a martyr, and a candidate for sainthood. Fr. Daniel Berrigan was a "leftist". He was also a good and holy man who put Christ first, last, and everywhere in between in his life. Dorothy Day was a "leftist", and was one of only 4 Americans praised by Pope Francis in his address to Congress as an example to all. The other 3 were Lincoln (Duh!), Martin Luther King (also a "leftist"), and Thomas Merton (once again, a "leftist"). Come to think of it, Pope Francis himself could be classified as a "leftist". I hope you're not accusing the Pope of not being a Christian!

(The scare quotes are purposeful, since the term "leftist" has no agreed-upon definition. Calling a person a leftist is about as useful calling him a quotdaddle.)

In fact, I would go so far as to assert that the equation of any political view with sin is itself a sin. What is (or at least can be) a sin is political allegiance. To equate leftism with sin is nothing less than saying you value politics over Christ. A pure case of what Lewis called "Christianity and...".

"So are you admitting that Trump is the wrong person?"

My bad. I had meant to put a "smiley face" after that posting, as it was made in jest. Mea culpa.

B. Prokop said...

"Likewise, you *knew* it was false..."

How so? My posting is just another way of saying Life has no business being a partisan political issue, and it was stupid to make it so.

Joe Hinman said...

Ilíon said...
The truth is, a person can no more be "a good Christian" and vote for *any* Democrat than a person can be "a good Christian" and vote for a National Socialist or an International Socialist. *All* leftism is sinful; support of *any* leftism is sinful.



Galations 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

LET HIM BE ANATHEMA!


what is this Gospel? Is it being a Republican>is it Tax revolt is it voting for the GOP will wsave us?>Is iot only Big Daddy Mrs Putin can save us?

this is it, this and this alone:

(Gal 1:3 "the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."

"11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

he does not say a word about being left or right wing or about voting republican not a word about politics,

you are are preaching a false Gospel

Joe Hinman said...

Not the style of music I like bit it has the lyrics and get;'s the point across.please listen

Here

Dave Duffy said...

"So, tragically, all the single issue voters out there sacrificed everything they held dear upon the altar of opposition to abortion"

I think for most people there are issues that disqualify political representatives. If a politician agreed with all of MY absolutely perfect-can't-fail-solutions on how to fix this fallen world through government and yet, say, hated black folks, I would never vote for him. Does that make me a single issue voter? Is all I care about African Americans? Racism and abortion disqualify candidates for many people.

I can understand how Trump said some things that makes him disqualified in some people's mind. But, I don't think they are single issue voters.

The things we "hold dear" and how the two parties think about those dear things is another matter.

Dave Duffy said...

Bob,

A few quick thoughts on what we hold dear. From your list:

"poverty, health care, immigration, death penalty, labor, taxation, the environment"

health care: This issue is about as close as I come to being a socialist. I already have to pay taxes for Medicare, Medicaid, Medi-Cal programs, and still pay for my own. I'm ready for some benefits and not all the liabilities.

immigration: It's become total mayhem and lawlessness and made worse by the poison of the identity politics of the Dems. I visited my son at a UC campus. We walked past the student union. There was a main student union, where everyone ought to go and interact, and a bunch of small enclaves of East Asian, Chicano/Latino, and whatever else student unions. Is this what immigration is about, growing ever larger enclaves and grievance groups?

labor: Capitalism can be a brutal system. I am sympathetic toward workers who organize against managers who are trying to take a profit out of their skin. But, the Dems have become the party of public sector unions. There's no profit motive involved in the private sector and the unions seem to be about extracting ever greater benefits from the taxpayer. I want my official to represent me, the taxpayer, in negotiations with the people I have to pay. The Dems will continue losing blue collar folks as long as they continue to brown-nose the public sector unions

environment: In California I can't be trusted to have my groceries placed in a friggin' plastic bag???!!!!

poverty, death penalty, taxation...another day.

Dave Duffy said...

Sorry, "no profit motive involved in the PUBLIC sector"

Joe Hinman said...

immigration: It's become total mayhem and lawlessness and made worse by the poison of the identity politics of the Dems. I visited my son at a UC campus. We walked past the student union. There was a main student union, where everyone ought to go and interact, and a bunch of small enclaves of East Asian, Chicano/Latino, and whatever else student unions. Is this what immigration is about, growing ever larger enclaves and grievance groups?

areyiu saying you are afarid of brown skinned people? do you notkonw the illegal imigratiomn ahs been in decline for years> almost no illegal alients have been charged with serious violent crijte, some have it's a smallpercentage,

Dave Duffy said...

I responded to Joe Hinman with sarcasm. Since I use my own name and there are crazy people who accuse others of "being afraid of brown people" to destroy them I deleted my post.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html

Joe, what makes you think I'm afraid of brown skinned people?

Ilíon said...

^ Hinman is a liar and a fool (which is worse than a liar) and a bloody-minded leftist (which is *why* he's a liar and a fool). The best "response" is to not even read his posts.

I thought the content of your now-deleted post was perfect, given that you didn't totally ignore the lying leftist fool.

Ilíon said...

I think it would be hilarious to drop Hinman off on foot without a phone in my neighborhood after dark ... or the one in which I grew up, in daylight.

Joe Hinman said...

Ilíon said...
I think it would be hilarious to drop Hinman off on foot without a phone in my neighborhood after dark ... or the one in which I grew up, in daylight.

that is such a stupid statement, shades of Thomas Hobbes.life is nasty brutish and short you have to fear everything, you would have us think you are justified in your hatred of the poor because you know them from living among the,, I lie among them too,I don't hate then because I Jesus so I can't have to ear e everything.

*I am poor

*I have lived in crmie ridden neighborhoods (a knife fight on my front door we found crack on the ground when wenoved in to our apartment in 2007.

*I grew up in Oak Cliff section of Dallas, look it up.We where the only white children in the neighborhood for about seven to 13 when we moved away, We played with the black kids and ran around the woods got shot at and saw drug deals.

*lived IN A NEIGHBORHOOD ASAN ADULT IN Albuquerque THAT WAS MOSTLY Hispanic HAD VIETNAMESE REFUSES DIGGING INSTITUTERS IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE ALL THE TIME,

whatever it is you think living among poor people is supposed to teach me to hate the poor it did't. I am not afraid of them either,

Joe Hinman said...

líon said...
^ Hinman is a liar and a fool (which is worse than a liar) and a bloody-minded leftist (which is *why* he's a liar and a fool). The best "response" is to not even read his posts.

I thought the content of your now-deleted post was perfect, given that you didn't totally ignore the lying leftist fool.

what did i lie about, come on make good on your childish retort and prove i lied,show me the facts?

You say I', a fool that's apparent, I;m wasting my time talking to you,

Yes Ok I'm a foot, but you are the liar,

Joe Hinman said...

Dave Duffy said...
I responded to Joe Hinman with sarcasm. Since I use my own name and there are crazy people who accuse others of "being afraid of brown people" to destroy them I deleted my post.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html

Joe, what makes you think I'm afraid of brown skinned people?

I don;'t, It had to do iwth they wording don't remember it well enough,I would have tovsee it again probably just the way I readit and I should not have sqid taht,

Joe Hinman said...

íon said...
Milton Friedman (YouTube): -- "... It's nice to elect 'the right' people, but that isn't the way you solve things. The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for 'the wrong' people to do the right thing."

February 12, 2017 7:57 AM

Trump is not going to do the right thing, he's ideologically opposed to it, he has embedded racism as a foundation part of his admin,

say Goebels, Idion, you have shown us more of your fruit, you preach polotocalideology as salvation not Jesus and then you also call your theoretical brother in Christ fool,what did Jesus say about that?

"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

you are anamthamnatized twice over,

Joe Hinman said...

Idion's logic is the same right wing hogwash that kept us in Vietnam and justified burning peasant villages, we have to destroy the village to save it, We have to be as evil as evil to beat evil. that is not Christian it's not an expression of faith, That right out of that cold war mentality that kept Latin American dictators in power.

Joe Hinman said...

Idion's logic is the same right wing hogwash that kept us in Vietnam and justified burning peasant villages, we have to destroy the village to save it, We have to be as evil as evil to beat evil. that is not Christian it's not an expression of faith, That right out of that cold war mentality that kept Latin American dictators in power.

B. Prokop said...

Joe,

Vietnam was not domestically a right-left conflict. Remember that presidents Kennedy and Johnson (both liberal Democrats) were very much in favor of our involvement there. Yes, Nixon (a Republican) did indeed continue that war (despite campaigning on a platform of ending it), but his heart was never in it. And an argument can be made that when he expanded the war into Laos and Cambodia, it was in an attempt to end it. The only people who can be legitimately accused of wanting the war to continue were the North Vietnamese leadership. In fact, even after we left, they "kept [it up]".

So you are very much in error when you write "the same right wing hogwash that kept us in Vietnam and justified burning peasant villages".

Ilíon said...

"So you are very much in error when you write ..."

He's not "in error"; he's lying, for only lies can defend leftism.

B. Prokop said...

"he's lying"

There exists the possibility that he is honestly mistaken, and genuinely believes in what he wrote. It ain't lying if you believe it - it's just being in error.

And by the way, Joe. Both sides did their fair share of destroying villages in Vietnam, but I think the North wins the prize for wreaking the most slaughter and mayhem. (My barber since 1988 was a "boat person" in 1975, and he can tell you stories to curl your hair.) And as to "keeping Latin American dictators in power, let's not forget LBJ's 1965 invasion of the Dominican Republic.

Dave Duffy said...

"I don;'t, It had to do iwth they wording don't remember it well enough,I would have tovsee it again probably just the way I readit and I should not have sqid taht,"

Fair enough Joe.

Dave Duffy said...

"I thought the content of your now-deleted post was perfect"

Well Ilion, I'm not so sure about my post, but I am glad to find a brother that shares my same sense of sarcasm.

Ilíon said...

After ice cream (when I was two weeks old), sarcasm was the second "solid food" I had.

B. Prokop said...

Hah! In my case, it was beatings. (no humor intended)