Monday, January 21, 2019

If immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate

Shouldn't we be making legal immigration less prohibitive, so that fewer people want to cross illegally. Trump wants to make it more prohibitive if you come from "shithole" countries like Mexico, Honduras, or El Salvador, and then of course needs bigger walls and more border security to keep people from coming in. My main disagreements with people like Trump over immigration center much more on legal immigration than on illegal immigration. If you let more people in legally, you take business away from the cartels and the smugglers. They are no longer needed.

233 comments:

1 – 200 of 233   Newer›   Newest»
bmiller said...

Terrific. What should the rules be for "legal" immigration?

bmiller said...

And what should be done to prevent illegal immigration?
You know that legal ports of entry have walls and gates right?

Victor Reppert said...

What I am thinking does not eliminate the need for border security. We would still need it. But we waste a lot of our border security on keeping people out we should be letting in, if we had a fair immigration system. If we stopped doing that, we could focus on keeping bad stuff and bad people out of the country, as opposed to just people looking for a better life.

bmiller said...

OK, even if we had a "fair" immigration system we still don't have security now, so how do we keep bad people out (and drugs, and human trafficking, and infectious diseases, and harmful species of plants and animals, etc)


Some related questions:

Who are the people we should be letting in? Anyone who wants in without a criminal record? What if there are a 300 million of them? Should there be a numerical limit even though that would leave others, just as deserving, out?

Regarding fairness in immigration, fair to who? Fair to American citizens? Fair to low wage earning citizens? Fair to high wage earning citizens? Is it fair to let anyone in that wants in even if they won't be able to make a living? Maybe there would be a flood of young philosophy teachers making old philosophy teachers too expensive :-)


Jim S. said...

I agree that we should make it easier to legally come to America and to become American citizens. I have no confidence that this would make illegal immigration less popular.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

boarder security and the wall are two different things. I don't believe the wall would do that. I don't think walls have ever worked. Look around the world the great Wall of China the Berlin wall they did not keep people out or in.

Drug dealers are not immigrating. Illegal immigrants are not a great a great drain on sobriety they add to it.

----------------

New topic.


On Metcrock's blog I take Vioctor;s old college buddy (Dr.Parsons) to task on science and the Soul



Philosopher Keith Parsons (U, of Houston) argues that Science disproves the soul. He only argues about a particular view of the soul but is it the Bible's view?

bmiller said...

Walls seem to work in prisons to keep people in and at banks, schools, even homeowners put up fences to keep people out.

Everyone on both sides of the aisle used to know this until now. I suspect because there are people on both sides of the aisle that don't want illegal immigration to stop(or perhaps the drugs and human trafficking).

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Walls seem to work in prisons to keep people in and at banks, schools, even homeowners put up fences to keep people out.

Everyone on both sides of the aisle used to know this until now. I suspect because there are people on both sides of the aisle that don't want illegal immigration to stop(or perhaps the drugs and human trafficking).



that's hilariously comical. you can't see a difference in putting a wall in a four block area,and making it go around a building, vs streaking it from the gulf of Mexico to California. But my real questions, which population is in the prison? The Mexicans or us?

bmiller said...

I don't think walls have ever worked.

that's hilariously comical. you can't see a difference in putting a wall in a four block area,and making it go around a building, vs streaking it from the gulf of Mexico to California.

I just provided examples where people agree that walls seem to work. I don't know of anyone who insists that a border wall would have to be built to cover every square inch of the border. That's just fake news.

If you think walls are unnecessary for border security and you want border security then tell me how that will be done without any physical barriers whether you want to call it a wall or not? We should be able to see examples of that in practice at sporting events, or concerts etc. Why don't even the richest people employ that technology and instead living in gated communities?

But my real questions, which population is in the prison? The Mexicans or us?

Since you asked, I think you are in a mental prison if you think security can be accomplished without physical barriers. Or do you want to allow school shooters to roam free?

bmiller said...

I heard that THIS is Nancy Pelosi's futuristic idea of border security without a wall?

Rover!

Is that true?

Starhopper said...

bmiller,

Bonus points for linking to The Prisoner, one of my all-time favorite TV shows.

bmiller said...

Thought that would get some love :-)

bmiller said...

From the old guys :-)

bmiller said...

Early prediction.

Leftists will suddenly forget that we shouldn't condemn women when Amy Coney Barrett is nominated to SCOTUS.

Starhopper said...

Never heard of her.

Legion of Logic said...

Being a woman doesn't get you many points if you aren't a PROGRESSIVE woman, much like race. Plus she loses points for being white, a practicing Christian, and pro-life. Especially the latter two. Don't even waste their time if the sacrament of killing the unborn on a whim might be threatened.

bmiller said...

Legion,

Don't even waste their time if the sacrament of killing the unborn on a whim might be threatened.

Well, New York is now celebrating Moloch's latest victory, so they are sure to take notice..

Starhopper,

Never heard of her.

I doubt you ever heard of Kavanaugh until your favorite outrage sources told you he was evil either. This warning will give you a little extra time to get your outrage on.

bmiller said...

Fixed Moloch link

Legion of Logic said...

It's a revolting moral and intellectual rot. And they are CELEBRATING it.

But no, a kid wearing the campaign slogan of a presidential candidate (who won) is the evil we must condemn.

bmiller said...

It's very PROGRESSIVE. Progressing toward where though is the question.

bmiller said...

Approved headwear for walking around in DC.

All others deserve to get chucked in the wood chipper.

Starhopper said...

Good Lord, you people (bmiller and Legion) need to get out of your bubbles. At this point, wearing a MAGA hat is no different than donning a Klan hood. It sends the same message.

Anyone wearing such a hat might as well be flying the Confederate flag - there's no discernible difference.

bmiller said...

I'll send you one if you promise to throw away that Moloch hat of yours.

Legion of Logic said...

Because leftists decide that Trump is a racist Nazi who wants to kill non-whites (such a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence), then obviously anyone daring to say "Make America great again" is being offensive. Never mind that the vast, vast majority of Trump supporters aren't thinking about race, let alone the majority of conservatives. Seems to me only one side treats people differently based on their race or sex as a matter of normal policy and thinking, and it isn't the right. Hmm.

One thing I learned early on was to not let others control the debate. The left does not get to decide what phrases are offensive and not. They can decide to be offended, but that does not actually make something offensive. "MAGA" is not a symbol of hate.

Legion of Logic said...

You posted right before me, Starhopper, so I will expound on my last paragraph.

My "bubble" consists almost entirely of conservatives and several actual Trump supporters. None of them talk about racial matters, ever, unless it is pointing out leftist hypocrisy. "MAGA" making leftists cry does not make it a symbol of hate. You do not get to decide that for everyone and then judge them by it.

bmiller said...

Must be tough to be a Marxist.

What was good yesterday is bad today. Hard to keep track.

Starhopper said...

I have no idea how tough it must be to be a Marxist, since I am not one.

Though it must be easy to be someone who tars anyone they disagree with with the same brush, whether or not it fits.

If either of you took the time to scan my many previous comments on this blog, you'd see that I am the furthest thing from being a friend of atheistic bolshevism.

As far as I am concerned, there hasn't been a political philosophy worthy of supporting since 1648 (the so-called Peace of Westphalia).

Legion of Logic said...

Haha good find bmiller! What a racist he was!

Legion of Logic said...

Starhopper,

Regarding the Peace of Westphalia, did it not lead to colonialism? Led to a lot of non-Europeans dying or being enslaved.

Starhopper said...

Legion,

Precisely what I was saying. Prior to the Peace of Westphalia, there was still hope for this world. After 1648, we were essentially doomed.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...


I just provided examples where people agree that walls seem to work. I don't know of anyone who insists that a border wall would have to be built to cover every square inch of the border. That's just fake news.

no real historians think that, you can quote people who think alice was a good TV show or that Reagan was smart that is not proof

If you think walls are unnecessary for border security and you want border security then tell me how that will be done without any physical barriers whether you want to call it a wall or not? We should be able to see examples of that in practice at sporting events, or concerts etc. Why don't even the richest people employ that technology and instead living in gated communities?

The idea that were in some kind of crisis at the boarder is utter bullshit. illegals are a blessing to the country they Massasoit never commit real crimes. Drug smuggling is not something the wall would stop because there are so many other ways they can get in,

JoeBut my real questions, which population is in the prison? The Mexicans or us?

Since you asked, I think you are in a mental prison if you think security can be accomplished without physical barriers. Or do you want to allow school shooters to roam free?

we can;t be invaded we are prepared for war. We don't have a problem with illegal immigrants and drugs are not solved by a wall.


Trump has no accomplishment he has accomplished nothing at all; he needs the wall so he can say he did something. He's holding the whole country hostage because he can;t accept a democratic legislative process.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

My "bubble" consists almost entirely of conservatives and several actual Trump supporters. None of them talk about racial matters, ever, unless it is pointing out leftist hypocrisy. "MAGA" making leftists cry does not make it a symbol of hate. You do not get to decide that for everyone and then judge them by it.

Trump is the greatest danger to western civilization let alone Ameliorate since World war II. He's a fascist he's a racist he has destroyed the evangelical church by turning it into a political club which no longer seeks Jesus' but seeks political power willing to allow one of the most evil paces of shit in history masquerade as an man of Gd

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...


stats on illegals and serious crime


*The decline in crime rates was not just national, but also occurred in border cities and other cities with large immigrant populations such as San Diego, El Paso, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Miami.


*According to a 2008 report from the conservative Americas Majority Foundation, crime rates are lowest in states with the highest immigration growth rates.
From 1999 to 2006, the total crime rate declined 13.6 percent in the 19 highest-immigration states, compared to a 7.1 percent decline in the other 32 states.
In 2006, the 10 “high influx” states—those with the most dramatic, recent increases in immigration—had the lowest rates of violent crime and total crime.


*Nationwide, Immigrants are Five Times Less Likely to be in Prison Than the Native-Born
A 2007 study by University of California, Irvine, sociologist Rubén G. Rumbaut, found that for every ethnic group, without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are the least educated. This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population.


The 3.5 percent incarceration rate for native-born men age 18-39 was five times higher than the 0.7 percent rate for immigrant men in 2000{Figure 5}. Among male high-school dropouts, 9.8 percent of the native-born were behind bars in 2000, compared to only 1.3 percent of immigrants.


In 2000, 0.7 percent of foreign-born Mexican men and 0.5 percent of foreign-born Salvadoran and Guatemalan men were in prison. Among male high-school dropouts, 0.7 percent of foreign-born Mexicans and 0.6 percent of foreign-born Salvadorans and Guatemalans were behind bars in 2000.[4]


There are around 11 million undocumented workers, figures from Pew research center 177,960 undocumented aliens convicted and deported according to Immigration and Customs;. It doesn't say what they are convicted of and immigrants who have the slightest brush with the law can be put in this category.[5]

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Great wa;;s dptwor

https://www.history.com/news/7-famous-border-walls
Amporite wall

"It was likely the first extensive rampart not built around a city, but it only succeeded in fending off the Sumerians’ enemies for a few years. Hostile invaders either penetrated the wall or simply walked around it, and by the reign of Shu-Sin’s successor, Ibbi-Sin, Sumer found itself under attack from both the Amorites and the neighboring Elamites. After the destruction of the city of Ur around 2000 B.C., Sumerian culture began to vanish from history"

Hadrians

"The wall was roughly 10 feet wide and 15 feet tall and was dotted with forts manned by frontier troops. Gates spaced one mile apart allowed the garrison to control movement in the region—the wall may have even been used to levy taxes—and defensive towers and ditches protected against raids from the north."


apparently the only tine walls work is when they are well manned, but why not just use electornic surveillance and the modern army?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

bmiller said...
I heard that THIS is Nancy Pelosi's futuristic idea of border security without a wall?

Rover!

your views are so hysterical when did you start thinking this ludicrous idea that only walls make a country secure? that's so idiotic, most counterfeits don;t have walls, stupid,.

why isnt Mexico paying for the wall? can;t you see how yua are being used? it;s jsut like animal farm they keep changing the message,

bmiller said...

Joe,

can;t accept a democratic legislative process.

Thanks for the laugh Mr Resist.

your views are so hysterical when did you start thinking this ludicrous idea that only walls make a country secure?

Were Dems hysterical when they funded a wall in the past? Oh, but that was yesterday. I hope you don't get whiplash as they change their positions by the minute.

I notice that you can't tell us how we can have a secure border without any barriers. Is that because the Dems haven't told you what to think yet?

most counterfeits don;t have walls, stupid,.

Maybe they have counterfeit walls :-)

bmiller said...

apparently the only tine walls work is when they are well manned, but why not just use electornic surveillance and the modern army?

Oh, so you do think there is such a thing as Rover. Tell me how that would work.
Experts agree that there would have to be a mixture of walls and monitoring and both sides of the aisle used to agree.

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

Though it must be easy to be someone who tars anyone they disagree with with the same brush, whether or not it fits.

You mean calling anyone wearing a certain hat a racist? Wasn't that what you were doing?

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
Because leftists decide that Trump is a racist Nazi who wants to kill non-whites (such a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence), then obviously anyone daring to say "Make America great again" is being offensive.

I don't think he wants to kill non-whites, but he is anti-democracy and pro-corporatism enough to be a fascist.

Never mind that the vast, vast majority of Trump supporters aren't thinking about race, let alone the majority of conservatives.

When the differential treatment based on race always favors the race you belong to, you don't need to think about it at all.

Seems to me only one side treats people differently based on their race or sex as a matter of normal policy and thinking, and it isn't the right. Hmm.

I fully believe that it seems that way to you. Reality indicates otherwise.

"MAGA" is not a symbol of hate.

Trump is hateful.

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
Must be tough to be a Marxist.

Groucho seemed to enjoy it.

What was good yesterday is bad today. Hard to keep track.

Some of us try to learn and improve all of our lives, some complain how it is hard to keep track.

Starhopper said...

"You mean calling anyone wearing a certain hat a racist? Wasn't that what you were doing?"

Nope, not at all. I'm not tarring everyone who disagrees with me as a racist - just those who wear a certain hat. 'Cause in that case, the label does indeed fit.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Thanks for the laugh Mr Resist.

we in the resistance want to save the legislative process. It;s your fascist brian washing that tells you ordinary people must not speak up in the legislative process. you dont; what Democracy is you are brain washed by the German church,

your views are so hysterical when did you start thinking this ludicrous idea that only walls make a country secure?

Were Dems hysterical when they funded a wall in the past? Oh, but that was yesterday. I hope you don't get whiplash as they change their positions by the minute.

they didn't fund a wall. try researching

I notice that you can't tell us how we can have a secure border without any barriers. Is that because the Dems haven't told you what to think yet?

the boarder has been secure since 1836. It's ridiculously stupid to think that a few fruit pickier make us unsafe! what are you trying to get safe from?

most counterfeits don;t have walls, stupid,.

Maybe they have counterfeit walls :-)

they are inadvisable walls like the invisible dangers Trump tells you are all around us,

January 25, 2019 5:48 AM

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

bmiller said...
apparently the only tine walls work is when they are well manned, but why not just use electornic surveillance and the modern army?

Oh, so you do think there is such a thing as Rover. Tell me how that would work.
Experts agree that there would have to be a mixture of walls and monitoring and both sides of the aisle used to agree.

so Bone Spurs really wants a bunch of others stuff,the Wall is just something to claim an achievement by. What are we really guiding against? that the issue.

Most illegal aliens area postoperative addition to the country,

drug deals have lots of ports of entry

land sats really would spot a massive troupe movement instantly

what are we supposed to be afraid of now? the real crisis is that the fearless leader is an ass,

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

why is Mexico not paying for the wall? Fearless leader told us over and over again they would, he had whole chorus of the whole camp meeting saying together "Mexico will pay for the wall>" why is Mexico not paying for the wall?

bmiller said...

Nope, not at all. I'm not tarring everyone who disagrees with me as a racist - just those who wear a certain hat. 'Cause in that case, the label does indeed fit.

And this proves you are also a cultural Marxist. Don't even have to see your Che Guevara T-shirt.

bmiller said...

Joe,

It's good to see you getting some exercise. Exercise is good for you.

Stretching (the truth), Twisting (the facts), Dodging (direct questions) not sure equivocating counts as exercise though.

If you're interested in a reasonable discussion I will engage, but if you just want to vent, I can help you get your daily exercise.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

And this proves you are also a cultural Marxist. Don't even have to see your Che Guevara T-shirt.

well you are a bimetallist. you are just into labeling what ever you an;t answer logically.

I bet you are so far behind you don't even know red baiting is considered a troglodyte tactic. I guess in the new church of fascism red baiting is just how one makes a point

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

seriously bm isometrically a communist whenever you can;t answer their arguments is just the lowest form of stupidity,tells me you know you lost the debate.

bmiller said...


Joe,

Seriously. If you can't see that I'm mocking someone that claims only a racist would wear a certain hat then you aren't following along.

I'm glad you see that tactic as stupid and illustrative of losing the debate. Now if only you became self-aware.

bmiller said...

And I'm not bimetallist.

I only like some heavy metal.

bmiller said...

I hope that was what you meant and not something else! 😮

Starhopper said...

"Don't even have to see your Che Guevara T-shirt."

Well, I don't have one of those, but I do have a bust of Lenin on my dresser and a Soviet era banner folded up inside my nightstand, both war trophies from the Cold War.

(I also have a copy of Mein Kampf on my bookshelf, but that doesn't make me a "cultural nazi". (It's right between the collected poems of T.S. Eliot and The Brothers Karamazov.)

Legion of Logic said...

I also have a copy of Mein Kampf on my bookshelf, but that doesn't make me a "cultural nazi".

Only a Nazi would own that book. I never knew you were a Nazi.

Now obviously I don't actually think that, since there are reasons other than being or admiring Nazis for owning that book. Saying someone is being racist for the phrase "Make America Great Again" is not any more legitimate than my calling you a Nazi for owning a book.

The only way to know the reason for your owning it would be for me to ask you. Similarly, the only way for you to know if someone uttering a phrase that has nothing to do with race in of itself is racist, is by asking them. To issue a blanket statement and discount the person's actual motivations and beliefs is to stop using your brain.



Starhopper said...

Allow me to have 5 minutes of nakedly partisan gloating. Trump has been schooled by a strong woman who is 10 times the "deal maker" that Trump ever thought he was in his most fevered imagination. Damn, but I wish I could see his private reaction to this very public humiliation.

Mark my words, from this moment on, the "Lame Duck" portion of this presidency has begun. From now until the moment he has been primaried (successfully, I predict), Trump is a placeholder, serving out his term to no purpose. (That is, unless the Mueller Probe blows him out of the water altogether, and we are rid of him ahead of time.)

I fully intend to pop open a bottle of celebratory champagne this evening.

Starhopper said...

Legion,

There's a gigantic difference between having a nazi book on one's shelf, and wearing a hat with a swastika on it. You can have a copy of the (ghostwritten) Art of the Deal in your library without promoting racism. The same cannot be said for wearing a MAGA hat. I read Hitler for the same reason I watch FOX news - to see what the crazies are thinking.

Legion of Logic said...

There's a gigantic difference between having a nazi book on one's shelf, and wearing a hat with a swastika on it.

And there's a gigantic difference between Nazis and people who feel their country is headed down the wrong path and want Washington cleaned up.

The left doesn't dictate what phrases imply. MAGA is not a racist symbol except for those looking for them.

Legion of Logic said...

Trump doesn't budge: childish and stubborn.

Trump makes a concession: schooled and unskilled.

It's almost like no matter what he does, it's bad.

And this is the mindset the right is supposed to attempt to placate and give the reins to cultural meaning? Like giving a kid chocolate for throwing a fit.

Starhopper said...

"It's almost like no matter what he does, it's bad."

Actually, that's exactly what it's like. I'm glad to see you're finally seeing the light. Took a while, but you're getting there.

bmiller said...

Legion,

And this is the mindset the right is supposed to attempt to placate and give the reins to cultural meaning?

I think it's finally dawning on the "conservatives" that the only thing they were "conserving" was just the last thing "progressives" forced on them and now they want to go even further. Why in the world would you want to placate that Moloch-icy thing.

It's not just Trump that they see as evil, but any counter-revolutionary whether a Bush, Mccain, Romney etc. They were/are all evil if they oppose the revolution. So you are evil too whether you have a hat or not.

It's God's will that Trump is president. It seems he has a way of exposing the left for what it is.

I don't expect reasonable arguments from them but I do enjoy watching them sputter insults about my religion, intelligence, when I point out how foolish they look.

Legion of Logic said...

Actually, that's exactly what it's like. I'm glad to see you're finally seeing the light. Took a while, but you're getting there.

Oh, I've known this for quite some time!

Starhopper said...

"It's God's will that Trump is president."

If it's God's will that Trump is president, then it was equally His will that Hitler was the German chancellor, that Stalin was the Soviet party chairman, that Mussolini was Il Duce, and that Putin is now the Russian president and Kim Jong Il the Great Leader.

Seen in that light, the statement is meaningless.

bmiller said...

Seen in that light, the statement is meaningless.

God gives people the leader they deserve.
Seems God thinks you and I deserve Trump. I accept God's will.

Starhopper said...

"God gives people the leader they deserve."

Hmm.. If that were truly the case, then we'd be in the 3rd year of Hillary Clinton's 1st term, since she got MILLIONS more votes than her opponent.

bmiller said...

But still Trump is our leader.

It's a miracle!!!

QED

Starhopper said...

"It's a miracle!!!"

More likely a fluke.

Legion of Logic said...

No I'd agree this country deserves Hillary, so I have to question the premise myself.

bmiller said...

2 hours of raw video from the Black Israelites:

HERE If you can stand it.

Before they "interacted" with the Covington kids, they "interacted" with the Native Americans who were there for their particular demonstration (at least look at this). Got to admit, they don't discriminate, they attack everyone else equally even kids.

But Starhopper says they are the model of politeness.

"Here comes Dad".

Sorry, but who knows what this guy with the drum was thinking. I feel really sorry for him. I don't think he should be vilified (because I don't think he was a responsible adult) but I also don't think those he interacted with should have been able to understand his intentions.

Even the Black Israelites didn't know what he was doing.

bmiller said...

Ha! Finally some agreement among Christians. If nothing else, I have achieved that, even if they agree I'm wrong. I'll take it.

More likely a fluke.

No I'd agree this country deserves Hillary, so I have to question the premise myself.

But of course this was before the video.

Starhopper said...

"I'd agree this country deserves Hillary"

I'd say that the USA did not deserve the horrible choice we were faced with in 2016, when we were presented through a fundamentally flawed system with a choice between Scylla and Charybdis.

I hadn't felt so depressed on going in to vote since 1980, when we had to choose between Reagan and Carter - both totally unacceptable in my eyes. But at least then I was given the option of voting for John Anderson, a Republican running as an Independent (for whom I cast my ballot).

I can only hope that we're given a choice between 2 sane alternatives in 2020. I'd like to see Larry Hogan (governor of Maryland) primary Trump and win the Republican nomination, whilst the Democrats put forward a sensible, centrist candidate.

Now wouldn't that be nice!

bmiller said...

Ahh. Now it's clear why New York Moloch-icy Democrats are celebrating.

More and better parts!

Why doesn't the NAF want us to see this?

bmiller said...

The art of the Crush:

Dr. Deborah Nucatola of Planned Parenthood commented on baby-crushing: “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

SteveK said...

Seen in that light, the statement is meaningless.

God being in sovereign control of everything is meaningless to a Catholic? Who woulda thought...

Starhopper said...

Catholics are not Calvinists. We do not believe we are robots bereft of free will, and that God is the author of all our evil choices.

Starhopper said...

Shoulda read, "or that" - not "and that".

Legion of Logic said...

Now wouldn't that be nice!

I don't know much about the governor, but I was dismayed enough by my 2016 options that I skipped the election. I would have been quite content with Jim Webb vs anyone but Trump. Actually, had it been Webb vs Trump, I'd have voted Webb.

Legion of Logic said...

Ed Feser put up a pretty good post. I don't know the accuracy of the JFK part, but the rest pretty much echoes my own thoughts.

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-bizarro-world-of-left-wing-politics.html?m=1

Legion of Logic said...

Ed Feser

bmiller said...

Good article Legion. Thanks.

I've looked at the 2 hour video and (if you can ignore the language Starhopper approves of) it looks to me that the group of kids were interested in the show the BI's were putting on. Then they sort of treated it like a sporting event where 2 teams chant at each other. The chant they were doing is familiar to anyone going to sports events (Seven Nation Army by White Stripes).

When Phillips entered the scene the 2 groups were far apart from each other, so no way does his story hold water. His part in the interaction was brief and out of left field. Sort of bizare actually. Did he think the chant was mocking Native Americans?

Around the 1:20 mark you can see both groups were close and talking to each other. A chaperone offered to shake hands and someone offered a bottle of water. Of course the BI's called the water "incest water" and insulted the chaperone, but no one lost their cool.

So the group of kids handled it very well. They playfully chanted at their rivals and tried to shake hands when it was over.
Didn't matter what the kids were wearing, the BI's would have done the same thing.

The MSM got caught twice in the same day in blatant fake news stories and instead of correcting the record, they doubled down and said the kids deserved what they got because they wore a Republican hat. NPC's now are marching around repeating that nonsense.

Legion of Logic said...

Yep, throw them in the woodchipper and receive oral sex for beating them. They wore a hat with a patriotic slogan!

Starhopper said...

"They wore a hat with a patriotic slogan!"

Except whatever it may have been in the past (even Bill Clinton used it as a campaign slogan in 1992), it is no longer a patriotic slogan, but rather a racist one - akin to wearing clothing with the Confederate flag on it.

Even the swastika was once an honorable symbol, offensive to no one. Amelia Earhart wore one on her flight suit. But thanks to the nazis, it is now forever a symbol of hatred and violence.

In like manner, MAGA today is a shorthand for racism, xenophobia, ignorance, and bigotry.

Legion of Logic said...

it is no longer a patriotic slogan, but rather a racist one - akin to wearing clothing with the Confederate flag on it.

I do not believe in ceding power to those who see racism under every rock. When the left demonstrates discernment, I will take their feelings into consideration. As it is, the vast majority of conservatives aren't threatened by the idea of making America better, and their opinion is just as valid.

But thanks to the nazis, it is now forever a symbol of hatred and violence.

Yes because they killed tens of millions and actively purged non-whited as a necessary part of their philosophy. Comparing MAGA to that is asinine, since MAGA is not inherently racist.

In like manner, MAGA today is a shorthand for racism, xenophobia, ignorance, and bigotry

Being offended does not mean something was offensive. The left does not get to claim what is and isn't racist any more than I do.

MAGA is not inherently racist.

Legion of Logic said...

Let me illustrate it like this, and see what you think.

Whatever your thoughts of the man, conservatives did not like Obama for numerous policy and personal reasons. Many of us believe that he was racist against whites, as an example.

Now, while keeping in mind that YOUR opinion of Obama means nothing to conservatives and how they feel, any more than my opinion of MAGA holds more water than yours, does that mean that "Hope and Change" is a symbol of bitterness against white people just because many of us think he holds many unfair grudges against white people?

Point being, who decides what a phrase means or implies?

Starhopper said...

"Who decides what a phrase means or implies?"

Society does.

SteveK said...

No, what was intended does. It’s crazy to think anyone but the author determines what a phrase means or implies. Apply that logic to a book or the Bible. Society can think whatever it wants, and society can be wrong.

Starhopper said...

Steve,

Language is not set in stone. In Chaucer's time, the word "prevent" meant to go before. "He prevented me" meant "He walked in front of me." The contemporary meaning of hindering someone didn't emerge until generations later.

Or for an example closer to home, in Deck the Halls one could sing "Don we now our gay apparel" without involuntarily imagining feather boas and padded bras, but no longer. Society has altered the word's meaning, whether we individually like it or not. (I myself mourn the change, but there it is. I can't do anything about it.)

Legion of Logic said...

Society does.

And when it's a split?

bmiller said...

Society has altered the word's meaning, whether we individually like it or not.

No. The way the meaning of the word "gay" was changed was not organic but rather a successful Orwellian activist attempt to normalize homosexuality. Apparently a lot of people are NPCs.

"Hope and Change" means gulags for those that don't comply!

Has American society been dumbed down so far that people who have the capacity of critical thinking are in the minority?

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

It is of course simply lying to say that those who say "Make America Great Again" are in favor of racism.

Legion of Logic said...

If the cross offends atheists, should Christians cave?

Does "building a bridge" mean you support adultery, since Clinton used that slogan?

Reagan and Clinton both used the phrase "Make America Great Again". Suddenly people aren't allowed to say those words because some emotionally crippled people are offended?

No. The answer is no, and always will be.

Starhopper said...

What does NPC mean? You've used it twice now, without expanding it. I don't speak text.

bmiller said...

NPC is the label for people who mindlessly repeat gay arguments they are fed. :-)

Hal explained it before: NPC=Non Player Character.

Starhopper said...

Forgive me for being dense, but that does not help. What is a "Non Player Character"? Is that some sort of gaming term? (Other than on-line backgammon, I play no games.)

SteveK said...

Society has altered the word's meaning

No. Society has not altered the original author's words. That is an impossible task. Society has created a NEW meaning and as the NEW author it conveys a different message than what the original author intended.

Starhopper said...

I don't believe there's any call to alter the meaning of an author's intent. That's in the past, and is a matter of record. But in speech (and wearing a MAGA hat is a form of speech, just as is wearing a Confederate flag themed t-shirt), every time an expression or symbol is re-used, what went before is basically irrelevant. The intent is new with each new use.

By the way, my favorite anecdote about author's intent is one told by Isaac Asimov. He was unobtrusively in an audience, listening to a lecture about the meaning and significance of his short story, "Nightfall". He got increasingly impatient as the lecturer proceeded to get everything wrong about the story and finally stood up and challenged the speaker, telling him that had totally missed the point of the story. The lecturer answered back, "And who are you that we should listen to your opinion over mine?" Asimov then revealed that he was the story's author. The lecturer responded, "Well, just because you wrote the story doesn't mean you know what it's about!"

bmiller said...

Is that some sort of gaming term?

Yes. Some games are played by multiple players in the same virtual "world". Some characters you encounter really are the other players and some characters are just computer generated characters that only have a small script they repeat over and over again.

The anti Cultural-Marxist resistance invented the term to describe Cultural-Marxists that cannot engage in reasoned debate and only repeat the days talking points. Just like the computer generated characters.

BTW, do you understand what I meant by "gay" arguments. This usage of the term actually is an organic development as opposed to the intention of activists.

Starhopper said...

Is that similar to "gay agenda"?

bmiller said...

No.

From Wikipedia

Among younger speakers, the word has a meaning ranging from derision (e.g., equivalent to rubbish or stupid) to a light-hearted mockery or ridicule (e.g., equivalent to weak, unmanly, or lame).

No activists drove for this usage, it just arose naturally.

bmiller said...

What is remarkable about the Covington story is that it became a story at all.

BHI guys doing their usual nasty things to provoke dialog, get that dialog with a group of kids that chant sporting cheers at them to drown them out like a rival team, and then some crazy guys come out of nowhere and marches into the crowd pounding a drum. Kids don't quite know what's going on...is he part of the rival team? Is he giving a demonstration? But that doesn't last long, and then the kids and BHI start the "dialog" again. No one gets mad, no one gets hurt, the kid's bus comes and they leave.

A foreign twitter account (supposedly Brazilian, but Russian?) posts a shot of a kid smiling at Phillips with the comment that the kid is disrespecting him and the leftist twitterati and the "professional" MSM lose their minds. When they get egg on their face, they send out new programming instructions to their NPC's that "MAGA hat bad" "so kids deserve to be killed."

If there were any victims at all it was the kids who were verbally assaulted (by BHI) and physically assaulted (when Phillips waded into them without warning). And it's clear to anyone who wants to watch, they were assaulted because they were all WHITE, MALE, CATHOLIC and SPOKE OUT. 4 intolerable crimes for the SJWs.

Legion of Logic said...

And this is a prime example of why conservatives by and large are opposed to the very concept of regulating "hate speech". The gatekeepers are usually leftists, and as they have proven with the Covington incident (which as bmiller said, was not newsworthy in the first place), the left as a whole is incapable of determining what is and is not bigotry. There is not a shred of actual evidence that the kid was a bigot of any sort, but because of a symbol THEY don't like, the left deems a kid the worst sort of person who deserves violence or death for...wearing a hat and smiling.

We know the kid and others wearing the hat are racist because they are wearing the hat. And we know the hat is racist because the people wearing them are racists, because they wear the hat. Fine logic.

And these are the people who would determine what is and is not hate, and effectively control the flow of communication via control of social media. Gee, why wouldn't conservatives be comfortable with that?

Legion of Logic said...

I'll just leave this here as a handy guide.

bmiller said...

Haha!

Thanks for finding the left's playbook Legion!

SteveK said...

The intent is new with each new use.

It can be. Let context be your guide. Do you think people singing "Deck the Halls" intend to sing about feather boas and padded bras simply because society now uses the word 'gay' differently? I don't. I stay with the original meaning until I learn that it's not correct. It's called evidence-based reasoning.

Likewise, when I see red MAGA I don't see intended racism until someone confirms that that is what they intend. I'll stick with the original meaning until I learn otherwise.

Starhopper said...

I've been giving these conversations on this site some really serious thought, and (based on exchanges on other websites as well) have come to the following conclusion:

To be, in the contemporary world, a right-winger, or even a "conservative" (which for decades (until 1985) I considered myself to be), is necessarily to deny major portions of the Gospels, or at the least to come up with Rube Goldbergian explanations of what Jesus "really" meant. Progressives do not have this difficulty.

This is NOT to say that God sides with any particular political philosophy (He does not!), but rather that right wingers have a hard time convincing themselves that they are on His side, whilst there is little to no such confusion on the left.

bmiller said...

Progressives do not have this difficulty.

That's right because they have dispensed with God altogether.

Starhopper said...

bmiller,

"That's right because they have dispensed with God altogether."

You've read (I would hope) my many, many comments on this site. Can you truly say such a thing about me? Can you say it about SAINT Oscar Romero? Can you say it about Servant of God (and soon to be Saint) Dorothy Day?

Unless you truly value one's political affiliation over and above one's allegiance to God, you cannot say any such thing.

You sound all too much like someone who values his "ism" more than his faith.

Legion of Logic said...

What part of the Gospels requires me to get triggered by a hat?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2019/01/god-bestows-meaning.html

Jason Thibodeau [secular outpost] writes a long article, "Can Humans Create Meaning? Can God?" [1] I will concern myself with only a small part of the article, the argument that God cannot create meaning. Jason argues: "The conception of meaning is not altered by whether God, or any other supernatural entity, exists. Whether life is meaningful depends on whether there are, in our lives, things that matter."

Legion of Logic said...

I personally do not find progressivism compatible with Christianity. Concession has to be made from one or the other, and judging by the discussions that occur here when an atheist like ol' Stardusty shows up and smears Christianity, vs when a conservative asserts something against the day's political narrative, it is not the politics being abandoned. Things get much more heated against conservatives, and emotional reaction identifies where values lie.

...

Now, what I ACTUALLY believe is that large swaths of both conservatism and progressivism can be compatible or incompatible with Christianity, depending on WHY the person holds a political position and HOW they believe it should be implemented, along with the person's conduct and, yes, treatment of opponents. To say that progressive Christians have no problems in any of those areas is to have no idea what is going on.

To say that only conservatives have that problem shows a problem in your mind and heart. Not ours.

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

You've read (I would hope) my many, many comments on this site. Can you truly say such a thing about me?

Why are you complaining when you just got done saying this:

To be, in the contemporary world, a right-winger, or even a "conservative" (which for decades (until 1985) I considered myself to be), is necessarily to deny major portions of the Gospels,

You've just told us that conservatives are not Christians even though they say they are. I assume that means me too although I regularly quote Aquinas and official Catholic Church teachings. But to you, I'm not a Christian.

Your remark was really bizarre when the context of what was under discussion was an obvious example of fake news gone wild with the result of innocent kids getting doxxed and death threats. The proper response of a Christian would be the appropriate assignment of blame to those who tried to ruin these kid's lives (and very may well have). It seems to me that you cannot bring yourself to do that since it would make your "side" look bad. Not even the Black Hebrew Israelites!

You sound all too much like someone who values his "ism" more than his faith.

Try some self awareness.

Now of course I don't consider you an atheist, just a misguided Christian that revels more in politics than in his faith. Why else claim others are heretics for not agreeing with your political beliefs. But there is no denying, that in America, the more you take religion seriously the less likely you will be a progressive.

As for Dorothy Day, she wouldn't tolerate your love of government solutions and as for Oscar Romero, he wouldn't tolerate your tolerance for abortion.

Legion and I are willing to engage in reasonable arguments. Are you?

Legion of Logic said...

Thinking more on this while picking the kids up from school. It reminds me of a conversation I had earlier in the week with a coworker who is 100 percent "stereotypical" conservative. The point was brought up about the unemployed and how people who don't get jobs are somehow personally flawed.

This is relevant because it reveals an actual and common flaw, the inability to judge others beyond our own experiences and perspective. Where I live here in the Ozarks, our cost of living and our ability to get a job are in no way reflective of what it's like being poor and unemployed in the middle of New York City, where the cost of living is vastly higher and there is far more competition for jobs. Where I live, a married couple each making minimum wage can squeak out a living. Probably not so much in NYC. So to apply a cultural situation in the Ozarks to NYC is a failure to be able to view an issue outside of one's own perspective.

By the same token, all those leftists who talk about paranoid violent gun nuts in the South have never lived the Ozarks. Here, we have an almost 100 percent gun ownership rate, yet a murder is an extremely rare event. We don't look at guns as instruments of crime - they are tools for hunting and self-defense, reflective of our value of the Second Amendment, a rite of passage into adulthood (a father handing down a family rifle to his son is a big deal), etc. The realities of gun violence in NYC are non-existent here, so the left judging us from their outsider's perspective is a failure on their part.

I see no difference between those examples and the stupid MAGA hat. Yes, the left despises Trump and thinks MAGA is a symbol of hatred and racism. What they don't understand is the right does NOT see MAGA as those things. MAGA can certainly be used in that fashion, but it is also used as a symbol of the hope of cleaning up Washington. It's used as a symbol of love of the country and wanting it to go on a better path. For the left to just declare it a symbol of what THEY think, and then judge those with a different perspective by their own declarations, is a failure of the left. Not the right.

Which leads to Starhopper's comment about conservatives and Christianity. Conservatives do not have Starhopper's perspectives, so they are not having to sacrifice anything by necessity to have conservative views fully compatible with Christianity. If you think MAGA is a symbol of hate, then obviously you could not both wear the hat and say it's compatible with the gospel. But if you DON'T see it as symbolic of hatred, then obviously you can.

There are three ways MAGA isn't compatible with the gospel. One, if you believe it is a symbol of hate. Two, if you wear it as a symbol of white power or whatever. And three, for the express purpose of intentionally agitating leftists. Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with wearing a MAGA hat, unless the very concept of patriotism is incompatible with Christianity. In which case we all have a problem.

If I were to ever wear a MAGA hat (which I won't), it would be to hopefully foster a dialogue with someone like Starhopper. They could share their perspective on why they believe it to be a symbol of hate, and I could share mine as to why I don't. Hopefully we could both walk away with a better understanding of others' viewpoints, and do a little bit to build a bridge (oops I supported adultery there) across the widening gap between the sides.

More likely, though, I'd rouse up an angry mob and get punched, so I wouldn't ever actually do that.

Starhopper said...

"he wouldn't tolerate your tolerance for abortion"

I have zero tolerance for abortion. But what I also have no tolerance for, is for methods that have proven to have no impact on the issue (such as lobbying for futile laws, rather than for educating people to not want to have an abortion in the 1st place). If a tithe of the effort wasted on trying to change laws had been spent on evangelizing people to have the proper attitude toward the issue, we wouldn't even be discussing abortion today, except as a historical topic.

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

Of course you tolerate abortion. You've written that it's a reasonable position for people to hold.

And really there is no reason to repeat your position. I'm very familiar with it by now and you've heard me point out that I think you are inconsistent. You're basically saying that it will end when people stop sinning.

bmiller said...

Legion,

There are three ways MAGA isn't compatible with the gospel.

Leftists apparently have their own gospel. It now contains the commandment "THOU SHALT NOT MAGA". Stay tuned. There will be more changes soon.

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

Distributism

It views both capitalism and socialism as equally flawed and exploitative, and it favors economic mechanisms such as small-scale cooperatives and family businesses, and large-scale anti-trust regulations.a

It would be easier to believe you were a distributist rather than a socialist if you stopped walking and quacking like a socialist. You should support policies that grow small businesses, that keep government small and relatively weak, oppose policies that make people depend on the state, that support the nuclear family, home schooling, oppose inheritance taxes, etc.

You only rail against a "capitalism" that doesn't exist in America.

SteveK said...

I have zero tolerance for abortion.

Your tolerance has been well documented on this blog.

To be, in the contemporary world, a right-winger, or even a "conservative" (which for decades (until 1985) I considered myself to be), is necessarily to deny major portions of the Gospels

Don't be coy. What part of the Gospels am I denying?

bmiller said...

Legion,

The point was brought up about the unemployed and how people who don't get jobs are somehow personally flawed.

I've never met that kind of person, but I guess most people I talk to are somewhat aware of national news. They all know that it's actually been extraordinarily hard for people to get decent jobs for quite a while. From low wage earners to recent college graduates to older tech workers who got laid off.

Illegal immigration hurts the low wage earners, while the tech companies pushing H1B's kept citizen tech workers wages artificially low. College tuition/costs are through the roof and kids have been pressured to go into debt to get degrees that will never get them a job that allows them to pay off the debt.

No one even asks why colleges are not morally responsible for basically enslaving hapless students with lifelong debts.

But even when jobs are available there will be people who don't want to work for whatever reason. It could be the deadly sin of sloth, but I can't imagine anyone I've ever heard of just letting them die of starvation.

Starhopper said...

Steve,

For starters, most conservatives fail to comprehend the ubiquity of the first plural plural in the Gospels (e.g., "Our" Father, not "my" Father). To reference every citation would take a book, not a blog posting. We are all in this together.

Secondly, conservatives fail to recognize that they own nothing in this world, but are at most stewards entrusted with using things for the benefit of all.

Conservatives, as a rule (not true for every specific individual, but on a macro scale all too true), grasp onto their individual prerogatives above the good of all Mankind. They're far more concerned that "someone" is going to take away their privileges than they are about spreading these benefits to social, racial, ethnic groups other than their own.

Conservatives are by and large guilty of idolatry. They have made gods out of wealth, power, race, the flag, the constitution, the Pledge of Allegiance, the military, the "Exceptional Nation"... you name it. Anything, as long as it isn't the Lord Jesus Christ.

Conservatives fail to emulate Christ when He says He has come to "proclaim release to the captives and [...] to set at liberty those who are oppressed".

I could go on for so many more examples, but it is abundantly clear that conservatism is antithetical to everything taught by Christ, in His words, in His life, and in the Church He has left to us. To be perfectly honest, I can think of NOTHING in common between contemporary conservatism and the Word of God.

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

Why would you knowingly mischaracterize your fellow Christians in such a way just because you cannot defend the horrible actions of a leftist mob?

Legion of Logic said...

The tone here is starting to become...well, I can't think of a less extreme form of the word "unhinged" that still has the same general connotation. Unhinged-lite?

I said we need to consider others' perspectives before judging them, and the response is that I am not a Christian, or at the least am an idolator for not agreeing politically with the left (irony there, indeed). And as I am both conservative and Christian without conflict, and do not agree with the simplistic misrepresentation being made about me, I have to wonder what part of Christ's teachings include mischaracterization, judgmental hypocrisy, and an unwillingness to consider the perspective of others, which on topic has led to the condoning of slander, smears, and threats of violence against minors - Catholic minors, no less - guilty of nothing worse than wearing a presidential slogan.

My ability to reconcile progressivism and Christianity is largely damaged by the utterly uncharitable conduct of progressive Christians. One would think that charity would be in abundance on the left, given their claims of what they stand for. At least I know that in theory, one can indeed be Christ-like and progressive.

SteveK said...

List of things that Jesus hates according to the Gospels:

Smaller government, distinct nations, an ability to defend and protect, freedom to associate, the preservation of culture and tradition, personal property, personal responsibility, capitalism, liberty, freedom from tyranny, law and order, red hats

Starhopper said...

Mostly just the red hats.. at least, those with certain letters on them.

Starhopper said...

As you all know (or would know if you perused my comment history), I am generally more restrained in my political commentary. But to sit back and watch this person in our White House tear my beloved country to shreds (the country I spent 34 years of my life defending!) and trash absolutely everything it ever stood for, all the while claiming to somehow be making it "great" again".. and far, FAR worse, to see my fellow Christians (and they are still Christians - I never said otherwise) get down and roll around in the mud with him.. well, there are some things in this world one simply cannot be silent about.

One Brow said...

bmiller said...

Of course you tolerate abortion.

So do you. Every day that you do not blow up clinics, nor shoot doctors/mothers, etc., is a day you tolerate abortion.

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

You are defending those who have issued murderous threats and ruined young people's lives. You should be ashamed as a Christian.

Inevitably socialists end up defending the killing of people who won't comply....the deplorables.

Starhopper said...

"Inevitably socialists end up defending..."

You're firing your artillery in the wrong direction. I'm not a socialist, so whatever you say about them does not apply to me.

bmiller said...

OK, then you are a Christian that favors killing children.

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
OK, then you are a Christian that favors killing children.

I was unaware there was any other sort of Christian. God certainly commands plenty of child-killing in the Bible.

Legion of Logic said...

Starhopper would rather say we are garbage Christians just for not being progressive, than condemn leftists who say kids deserve expulsion, violence, or even death for wearing a hat and smiling.

What argument do you use to counter that mindset?

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
You are defending those who have issued murderous threats and ruined young people's lives. You should be ashamed as a Christian.

Plenty of Christians do the same thing.

Inevitably socialists end up defending the killing of people who won't comply....the deplorables.

Who are these people being killed in Sweden, Norway, Germany, etc.?

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

trash absolutely everything it ever stood for

False. America has always stood for the things in my previous list that you think Jesus hates. Trump isn't trashing these things, he's trying to uphold them and restore them.
----

Smaller government, distinct nations, an ability to defend and protect, freedom to associate, the preservation of culture and tradition, personal property, personal responsibility, capitalism, liberty, freedom from tyranny, law and order

Starhopper said...

"Starhopper would rather say we are garbage Christians"

I would most certainly not say such a thing. But I do say that any MAGA hat wearing Christian is visibly contradicting many of the most fundamental tenets of the faith.

It's (hopefully) possible that this is done entirely out of ignorance, but that in itself is quite sad. It does not remove the guilt, but merely moves it over to the false teachers and religious leaders (of whom we have been warned against over and over again by the prophets) who have failed in their duty to properly educate the faithful. (And though tragically misguided, they remain the faithful.)

At this point, there is no meaningful difference between wearing a MAGA hat and Andrew Cuomo's cheering his pro-abortion legislation. Both actions can only be done by either ignoring or denying the Gospel.

SteveK said...

But I do say that any MAGA hat wearing Christian is visibly contradicting many of the most fundamental tenets of the faith.

Translation: the Babylon Bee is correct.

https://babylonbee.com/news/guide-to-facial-expressions

You can't out-parody a leftist. They do it all by themselves.

Legion of Logic said...

Starhopper, you have still not condemned those who called for expulsion, violence, and death against the kids for wearing a hat. Why?

You have still not explained why your interpretation of a symbol (not shared by all) is the correct one by which all others are judged.

Starhopper said...

"Starhopper, you have still not condemned those who called for expulsion, violence, and death against the kids for wearing a hat. Why?"

I'm not aware of anyone having done such things. I guess that comes from not having a television.

Legion of Logic said...

I have no television either. It's all over the internet. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if it is primarily conservatives who are reporting it.

When I get more time later this evening I'll link examples, but off the top of my head one guy said the kid deserved to be tossed into a wood chipper, an SNL actress offered oral sex to anyone who would punch the kid, death threats closed down the school, etc. There are many more.

All it takes is one nut to buy into the rhetoric and we have dead children. The left needs to reign it in, big time.

I'm still curious how you would explain to someone wearing a MAGA hat for non-racial reasons why he is a racist. What would you say to get him to agree, "Gosh, my personal intent was all wrong and completely invalid! Truly the left is the gatekeeper of symbolic cultural meaning!"

Legion of Logic said...

Oh and a teacher got suspended for trying to dox one of the kids. A teacher, doxing a kid because she didn't like his hat. Just read that one today.

Your side has gone too far.

bmiller said...

I'm not aware of anyone having done such things. I guess that comes from not having a television.

No, that comes from your selected news sources censoring facts that detract from their narrative. Thanks for demonstrating how thoroughly they've isolated their serfs.

What in the world do you think we've been complaining about?

This from a UK writer and has links to other articles with more details. One of many that your handlers don't want you to see.

FYI: Doxxing someone means publishing the name, address and personal info of the boy. Then activists will harrass the boy, push for his expulsion, target employers etc. Same for the parents.

Starhopper said...

"Your side has gone too far."

My side? Unless you know of a party that advocates the resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire, I have no "side". I remain a Party of One.

bmiller said...

I heard Trump is negotiating a deal with the Pope to be crowned emperor! 😱.

Starhopper said...

Not likely. Check out this photo. Be sure and click on each of the photos, especially the one to the lower right.

bmiller said...

Looks like the deal is done and Francis got the short end since he's frowning and Trump's smiling. :-)

Legion of Logic said...

The Holy Roman Empire has allied itself with the side that thinks a hat is the crime of the ages.

Starhopper said...

The hat is not the crime. The racist, xenophobic, social Darwinist, neo-nazi sentiments that it symbolizes are the crimes. A MAGA hat is merely an emblem, like a Confederate flag, a KKK hood, or a swastika banner.

SteveK said...

Fixed it for you...

The racist, xenophobic, social Darwinist, neo-nazi sentiments that THE LEFT says it symbolizes are the crimes

Project a crime onto someone and you can't be wrong.

SteveK said...

If a segment of the world thought the Christian cross was a symbol of bigotry and hatred would a church be morally obligated to remove it?

Would the Pope be morally obligated to stop wearing it?

SteveK said...

If a segment of the world thought the Christian bible was a symbol of bigotry and hatred would all Christians be morally obligated to remove it and to cease quoting from it and teaching from it?

Legion of Logic said...

The hat is not the crime. The racist, xenophobic, social Darwinist, neo-nazi sentiments that it symbolizes are the crimes.

Okay, so you in effect agree that so long as some people think something is bad, then all people are forced to abide by it.

As has been mentioned previously, what about those offended by the cross?

Starhopper said...

In all seriousness, it is perilously close to blasphemy to even think of comparing a MAGA hat to the Holy Cross.

Legion of Logic said...

Please read this and tell me if the university is right, or if the opposition is right.

If you don't believe the university has the right to say what the symbol intrinsically means for everyone, then kindly explain why everyone is beholden to one side's interpretation of MAGA. If you DO side with the university...well, totalitarianism is always a threat so long as we have those who can't be wrong.

Legion of Logic said...

It is not remotely close to blasphemous because it is an illustration. Not a likening.

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

I'm not aware of anyone having done such things. I guess that comes from not having a television.

Now you are aware so here is Legion's question again:

"Starhopper, you have still not condemned those who called for expulsion, violence, and death against the kids for wearing a hat. Why?"

What is your answer?

Starhopper said...

"What is your answer?"

I guess because it's not as big a deal with me as it seems to be with you. You can't always comment on everything in a short posting. I haven't seen you condemning (for example) the genocide against the Rohingya on this site. What's the matter with you?

But if it makes you happy, death threats and violence are NEVER appropriate in civil discourse.

I will take my bolded never as a "get out of jail free" card, so no one need ever ask me again why I haven't condemned some inappropriate behavior.

SteveK said...

But if it makes you happy, death threats and violence are NEVER appropriate in civil discourse.

What's the appropriate way to respond to symbols that (as you claim) express racist, xenophobic, social Darwinist, neo-nazi sentiments? If threats of force aren't appropriate then what is?

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

You were commenting on a story and giving the impression that you approved of chucking kids in the chipper (they deserved it).....time and time again. So yeah, seemed like an important thing to be clear on to me.

So that you can clearly understand my position:

It is NEVER OK to be racist.

Now I have a "get out of jail free" card for when I buy my MAGA hat. No questions.

Starhopper said...

"... for when I buy my MAGA hat. No questions."

Would you use the same reasoning (that it's never OK to be a racist) when buying a Confederate flag?

Legion of Logic said...

Would you use that logic to tell Hindus they can't use the swastika anymore?

bmiller said...

That was a question.

The only political party that ever used the Confederate flag as a symbol was the Democratic Party. I'm not a Democrat.

Make America Great Again sounds like a good idea but apparently it sounds horrible to Democrats. That makes me want to buy the hat. It exposes their hatred of America.

Starhopper said...

It's not just Hindus, but Buddhists as well. I've spent a lot of time in Korea, a largely Buddhist country, and on holy days the place looked like a Nuremberg Rally!

But the nazis and the Third Reich do not have the same significance in Asia as they do here in the West. I doubt if anyone was offended in Songtan, Korea, by the sea of swastika banners floating above thousands of homes. But the same display here in America (or Germany) would most definitely be in extremely poor taste, regardless of what the symbol meant to Buddhists, and ought to be avoided at all costs.

Legion of Logic said...

But the same display here in America (or Germany) would most definitely be in extremely poor taste, regardless of what the symbol meant to Buddhists, and ought to be avoided at all costs.

So you would say we should reward ignorant outrage by restricting the speech of people who have different viewpoints? They can't try to take their symbol back from the Nazis?

I take a very different approach. Obviously as an American the swastika immediately makes me think "Nazi". But if a neighbor moved in and had a swastika visible, and it got me riled up enough to say something (it wouldn't), and the man who opened the door was from India or Mongolia and was obviously not a Nazi, then the last thing I'd have the right to do is demand he take it down simply because I myself view it through a different lens. My perspective of a symbol does not invalidate his.

No different with MAGA. The vast majority of conservatives do not view it as a racist symbol, and that is equally as valid a perspective as yours. That is tens of millions of people who disagree with your interpretation that you dismiss because...why?

It's easier to look at the world in black and white, but relevant details are usually shades of gray. Intent and perspective aren't simply important, they are the entire crux of the matter.

bmiller said...

Let's take a step back.

We are not talking about a real, serious philosophical subject. We are talking about campaign slogans here. Both Hillary's and Trump's were crafted to be brief, compelling and call people to action.

"Stronger Together" vs "Make America Great Again"

"Stronger Together" is brief and sounds like a good thing but may sound like a thing that is already in place. What outcome should we expect from this? Guess I get stronger, but how? Opponents may sound like they prefer weakness so that is a good point.

"Make America Great Again" brief, sounds like a good goal and I know if we succeed I live in the great America I remember. Opponents sound like they don't like America which is good for a base that is patriotic.

The Trump campaign had a very successful campaign slogan. It's pretty obvious it worked. It still is popular. The more the Dems attack it, the more energy they add to Trump's base and the more they make it seem like Dems hate America. I hope they keep it because I dislike Dem policies.

Legion of Logic said...

"Stronger Together" carried the meaning typically meant by the left when they talk about diversity. The left loves all diversity, except that of viewpoint. In that, they demand conformity. Toe the line or face the mobs.

Part of Trump's appeal is conservatives being sick of the left's intolerance of anyone with a different opinion. Disagree with a Democrat and you are deemed racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, and a hater of the poor, and CNN is certainly happy to go along with that accusation. "Make America Great Again" could easily refer to the period of time before the left began rotting every institution in society with their Thought Police mentality. People don't like that.

bmiller said...

The left loves all diversity, except that of viewpoint. In that, they demand conformity. Toe the line or face the mobs.

Couldn't have said it better.

Starhopper said...

"The left loves all diversity, except that of viewpoint."

That complaint is rich, considering what the right does to any politician (e.g., McCain) who dares go against the Great Leader. And even Trump himself is not immune to the demand for ideological purity, lest he face the wrath of Hannity and Coulter. And for years we've been hearing about RINOs, those poor souls who fail the litmus test of lock step conformity.

Bottom line: both sides do it.

Legion of Logic said...

I never claimed the right loves diversity. The left sets diversity up as a goal, rather than incidental, yet it hates intellectual diversity. That is called hypocrisy, something in this instance does not apply to the right.

bmiller said...

The HRE is even worse wrt diversity!

SteveK said...

Progressive school refuses to play a basketball game at an all-black school because they feel unsafe. Wow!

Oh wait, it an all-Christian school. Never mind. Nothing to see here.

bmiller said...

☝️

Interesting. That's the school VP Pence's wife teaches at.

I have a feeling progressives would like a President Pence even less than a President Trump.

One Brow said...

SteveK said...
Progressive school refuses to play a basketball game at an all-black school because they feel unsafe. Wow!

Oh wait, it an all-Christian school. Never mind. Nothing to see here.


Attacks upon LGBT youth by right-wingers are much more likely than by black people.

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
Interesting. That's the school VP Pence's wife teaches at.

I have a feeling progressives would like a President Pence even less than a President Trump.


I didn't like GW Bush, and would aprove of much of what Pence would choose to do. But in a choice between Pence and Trump, there is no question Pence would be the preferable choice.

Starhopper said...

I agree with One Brow. Pence and I do not see eye to eye on many things, but at least he's not crazy! (like the current occupant)

Also, I suspect Pence would be a very weak chief executive, basically subservient to Congress. And I do believe that that is exactly what our country could use right now. Our government has been out of balance (tipped toward the Executive Branch) my entire lifetime. Time to recalibrate!

bmiller said...

Well since Pence is not in office he's probably preferable at the moment. If he ever took office he'd be the new Devil and Trump would be a saint.

I've seen that movie before.

SteveK said...

Attacks upon LGBT youth by right-wingers are much more likely than by black people

Meaningless statistics without context are meaningless. Try looking at attacks by Christians during a sporting event for reasons that are directly tied to a person being gay. Let me know what you find sparky.

Legion of Logic said...

Well when you consider that leftist college students consider it to be "violence" for Ben Shapiro to give a speech on campus, they probably consider the sporting event an attack, as well.

bmiller said...

Someone once said:

To be, in the contemporary world, a right-winger, or even a "conservative" (which for decades (until 1985) I considered myself to be), is necessarily to deny major portions of the Gospels, or at the least to come up with Rube Goldbergian explanations of what Jesus "really" meant. Progressives do not have this difficulty.

Here's even more progressive Moloch-icky "progress".

"Thou shalt not kill" is so yesterday. But I guess it's OK because progressives are reasonable people.

Legion of Logic said...

In another example of rewarding ignorant outrage, there is apparently now a growing number of Muslims freaking out on Twitter that the Nike Airmax shoe logo, when flipped upside down, vaguely resembles how they write "Allah". They are demanding boycotts of Nike until the design is changed.

I wonder how long before Nike caves and rewards that behavior?

Legion of Logic said...

And here is someone who claims a photo of coal miners is racist because it resembles blackface.

If you reward ignorance and ignore context and intent, then you live in a totalitarian society in which the perpetually outraged hold the power.

Starhopper said...

bmiller,

Once again (since that link was apparently aimed at me), you fire your guns into the empty air. I fail to see why you persist in doing so. I am over here, amongst the pro-lifers. So are these progressives. Many, many "leftists" are pro-life. After all, unlike the right, the left values diversity. (Insert happy face emoticon here.)

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

You just provided a useful intro for the story. Progressives apparently have no difficulty reconciling this with the Gospels. Should I wait for the explanation? :-)

I can expect atheists to be unfazed by the killing of people, but it's shocking that people calling themselves Christian would be equally unfazed.

The governor (an actual pediatric Doctor) commented on the bill by saying the baby would be delivered and then the decision would be made to kill it or not*.

But honestly, if you want to claim to be a pro-lifer, you should follow the advice of your bishop. Your method of voting in legislators that favor abortion seems to be working, but for the wrong supernatural being.



*He later tried walking it back but then misrepresented what the bill said.

Legion of Logic said...

"Diversity" among the left on abortion is a stain on the left. Many of them are literally cheering being able to kill fully viable babies now in NY, and VA wants to follow suit.

A sickening blight on this country.

Starhopper said...

"A sickening blight on this country."

No, what is truly a "sickening blight" on our country is the existence of single issue voters who sacrifice everything achievable on the bloody altar of the politically impossible. You may call that "righteous" - I call it insanity. You tolerate the most egregious violations of human decency for the sake of an unachievable goal. You support a man who is in all likelihood the most evil person to ever ascend to high office in this country, who daily inflicts incalculable damage to our constitution, to our society, and to the rule of law, all because he mouths all the right buzzwords concerning your (frankly sick) obsession.

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

I am over here, amongst the pro-lifers.

I call it insanity.

Do you even listen to yourself? Because everyone else can read what you write.

concerning your (frankly sick) obsession.

“The Greatest Destroyer of Love and Peace is Abortion”

If Mother Theresa is sick, please God let me at least catch a cold.

bmiller said...

You tolerate the most egregious violations of human decency for the sake of an unachievable goal.

Many people are very, very concerned with the children of India, with the children of Africa where quite a few die of hunger, and so on. Many people are also concerned about all the violence in this great country of the United States. These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today — abortion which brings people to such blindness.

Starhopper said...

Mother Teresa was not obsessed about abortion. You appear to be. Evidence: you bring it up in discussions that have nothing to do with it. You believe it trumps all other issues. You allow it to blind yourself to all the other very real evils about you.

Here's a challenge for you: try going three months (Feb, Mar, Apr) without ever once bringing up the issue of abortion unless someone else brings it up first. I'll bet you Yankee dollars you can't do it.

Victor, help me out here. Call a 3 month moratorium on all abortion-related discussions on this site. Let's see whether bmiller explodes.

Legion of Logic said...

You support a man who is in all likelihood the most evil person to ever ascend to high office in this country, who daily inflicts incalculable damage to our constitution, to our society, and to the rule of law, all because he mouths all the right buzzwords concerning your (frankly sick) obsession.

Says the guy who thinks wearing a hat is worse than killing babies, from the amount of effort you have expended with condemnation. Stopping abortion may be impossible, but not allowing the murder of viable babies - which even the leftists on here should balk at - is very, very achievable. But oh God, the hats!

And I did not vote for Trump and will not vote for him in 2020. My "sick obsession" is nonexistent, much like the intrinsic racism of MAGA.

I'm done. It's indistinguishable from dealing with an Atheism Plus fanatic.

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

I am not obsessed with abortion, and the only reason I brought it up in this instance was:

1) You told us you were Catholic and pro-life
2) You told us we should follow progressive beliefs because progressives follow the Gospels
3) This is a breaking news story wrt conservative vs progressive
4) Progressives were responsible for legislation in NY and VA
5) You want to invoke the views of Catholic Saints (or those on the way to Sainthood) to defend your positions
6) Mother Theresa is a Catholic Saint.
7) Mother Theresa says “The Greatest Destroyer of Love and Peace is Abortion”

You believe it trumps all other issues. You allow it to blind yourself to all the other very real evils about you.

It seems Saint Mother Theresa thinks "trumps all" in America and she certainly was not blind to other afflictions. Sorry, but between a spoiled baby-boomer and someone who lived and helped the poorest of the poor, I'll side with MT.

I asked you to pray for an end to abortion and I would pray for any worthy cause you chose. You were indignant and I didn't press any further.

Now you want to silence my criticism of something you agree is immoral. Is this truly the *progressive* thing to do. If so, goodbye.

Starhopper said...

I agree. It is impossible to conduct a rational discussion with people who are so blinded by their ideological obsessions that they do not even recognize them as such.

In the future, I will confine my comments on this site to matters of the faith.

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

It is impossible to conduct a rational discussion with people who are so blinded by their ideological obsessions that they do not even recognize them as such.

You're absolutely right.

Instead of being outraged at the NY and VA legislators, it is me that you are outraged at. Your first and only instinct is to rush to the protection of "progressives" who still have the blood of innocent children dripping from their hands.

No way to have a rational discussion with someone like that, even if you lay out your case by the numbers.


In the future, I will confine my comments on this site to matters of the faith.

I believe this as much as I believe that you think abortion is evil.

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

It is impossible to conduct a rational discussion with people who are so blinded by their ideological obsessions that they do not even recognize them as such.

You're absolutely right.

Instead of being outraged at the NY and VA legislators, it is me that you are outraged at. Your first and only instinct is to rush to the protection of "progressives" who still have the blood of innocent children dripping from their hands.

No way to have a rational discussion with someone like that, even if you lay out your case by the numbers.


In the future, I will confine my comments on this site to matters of the faith.

I believe this as much as I believe that you think abortion is evil.

One Brow said...

SteveK said...
Meaningless statistics without context are meaningless. Try looking at attacks by Christians during a sporting event for reasons that are directly tied to a person being gay. Let me know what you find sparky.

You think they are hard to find?

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
I can expect atheists to be unfazed by the killing of people, but it's shocking that people calling themselves Christian would be equally unfazed.

I expect that Christians are all too happy to kill people, but that atheists recognize that this life is all we have, and it's horrible to waste it.

I'm pretty sure we both get disappointed in our expectations.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
In another example of rewarding ignorant outrage, there is apparently now a growing number of Muslims freaking out on Twitter that the Nike Airmax shoe logo, when flipped upside down, vaguely resembles how they write "Allah". They are demanding boycotts of Nike until the design is changed.

I wonder how long before Nike caves and rewards that behavior?


When they think it will be in their monetary interest to do so. Why do you care?

And here is someone who claims a photo of coal miners is racist because it resembles blackface.

But you know better than the writer what should or should make him feel welcome and accepted?

If you reward ignorance and ignore context and intent, then you live in a totalitarian society in which the perpetually outraged hold the power.

So, it's only important that we address the outrages you feel about topics that matter to you?

Legion of Logic said...

When they think it will be in their monetary interest to do so. Why do you care?

Why do you care that I care?


But you know better than the writer what should or should make him feel welcome and accepted?

In this case, absolutely. I'd love to hear you justify a disagreement.


So, it's only important that we address the outrages you feel about topics that matter to you?

That does not actually address anything I wrote.

Regardless, a historical picture of dirty coal miners is not offensive. In fact, the "offended" one is being racist by associating dirt with black people. Very racist.

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

I apologize for calling you a spoiled baby-boomer and saying that I don't believe that you consider abortion as an evil. I went to far with the rhetoric and that was wrong.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
Why do you care that I care?

People are fascinating. So, is there a reason you care about what Nike puts o the sole of it's shoes, or whether they will change it?

In this case, absolutely. I'd love to hear you justify a disagreement.

So, his feelings of not being welcome need to be justified to be legitimate? I'm not sure how one would justify feelings. As an example, can you justify your offense to people criticizing a public figure for working for an anti-LGBTQ school?

Regardless, a historical picture of dirty coal miners is not offensive. In fact, the "offended" one is being racist by associating dirt with black people. Very racist.

I'm glad it's not offensive to you. I think it's odd a couple of the miners have completely blackened faces while their clothes are not nearly as dirty. Did they mine with their teeth? Others have a very explicit line between the blackened part and their skin. The ears were immune to coal dust?

Here's a thought: it looks like both sides are true. It is just a bunch of miners relaxing after their work, and as was common at the the time, one of the ways of relaxing was by making their faces darker and imitating minstrel shows. Passing this off as just dirt is ignoring the actual photograph.

bmiller said...

At the heart of the argument that we shouldn't base our votes on a *single* issue is consequentialism. Consequentialism scores the morality of actions by the outcomes they supposedly achieve and not by the actions themselves. The ends justify the means.

So it is immoral to oppose an evil that supposedly cannot be overcome and instead one can justify supporting that evil so that other goods may come of it. So in the realm of our government, we can justify voting for practically anything as long as the scorecard shows more "good" things than "bad" things.

But of course the question is "how do we decide to score things". Are all "good" things and "bad" things equal and I can just add them up? Or do some "good" or "bad" things score higher. As a Catholic I understand that there is a moral hierarchy that does not allow me to enable certain evildoing even though some perceived good will come of it. The killing of innocent people is at the top of that hierarchy and is not just one issue among many. I need to make sure that, if given a choice, my vote goes toward those who will advance laws preventing the killing of innocent people. I am not called necessarily to succeed in this life, but only to do good and resist evil.

I may think bombing innocent people in Dresden will save lives in the long run, but killing innocent people intentionally is morally wrong so it must not be allowed. This is a hard pill to swallow for some Catholics and others as well.

Consequentialism is something we all need to keep guard against.

Legion of Logic said...

One Brow,

If he suspected it was blackface and was informed it was not, but rather a picture of coal miners dirty after work, then he no longer has any ground to be offended. The facts and context rule out offense, unless he is offended by the sight of coal miners - in which case, too bad for him.

Ever seen anyone change dirty clothes before getting in a vehicle, even if they don't shower also? Ever seen someone with safety goggles and ear protection working a dirty job? Their eyes and ears look squeaky clean while the rest is dirty. I've seen and done both, and not once was I attempting to offend a minority.

There are perfectly legitimate and more likely explanations than bigotry. He has the right to ask it to be taken down - though the lack of reasoning and emotional maturity prompting such a request is cringeworthy - but he has no justifiable reason to whine about it if it isn't. There is no offense there.

bmiller said...

Noooo!!!!

Even Mary Poppins is an evil racist now! :-)

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 233   Newer› Newest»