The Right Side of the News

It isn't "self-righteousness". It's an improved sense of decency. It's a shame that professing Christians like yourself and Trump are at the forefront of dragging "fallen" humans even lower. I am definitely capable. During the Vietnam War, I was in a discussion with some other Canadians, all of whom were against the war and all of whom were sure they would never participate in such a thing. When it was time for my opinion, I said, "If the government put a gun in my hands and told me to go halfway around the world and kill little brown people, the alternative being to go to jail or flee the country, I'd have no problem killing little brown people.But we have the benefit of hindsight and now we know that the Vietnam War was wrong, that the Nazis were wrong and that the Confederacy was wrong. You're a fine one to talk, now that you've managed to pry the brick off your caps-lock key. Yesterday you were praising hatred and spitting on the Bible.

This sounds a lot like that post-modernist, cultural and moral relativism that some on Right tend to criticize.Be that as it may, in my opinion even by the standards at the time, when most of the rest of the world was abolishing slavery and the fairly robust debate about the evils of slavery in this country, us Southerners couldn't possibly be ignorant as to the arguments against slavery.In fact, considering that at the time of the founding of this nation, there was widespread belief - even among white Southerners - that slavery was an obvious violation of the principals upon which the Republic was founded and that a means had to be found to end it. By the time of the Civil War, the South had gone backwards on the question.While I understand the principal of judging people based on "their time and culture", I believe that antebellum Southerners fail even this standard.

From the Guardian: Virginia judge rules confederate statues are war monuments and can't be removed

I remember you from a few years back, you're a pretty good poster and I appreciate it.I think there is a big difference in Christian standards when the subject is a one on one, personal conflict between a Christian and another person, versus expressing opinions about differing societal ideologies. There's no way to define just where the line is between "hate", and "strong opposition" to a differing political view. That's why the liberals are having such a hard time with Faith's posts. They also don't understand how tough, and challenging it is to defend ones views against a group of 10 to 15 people, but I've been there and I understand it very well. There's not a liberal poster here who would last one hour against a group of 10 or 15 concise, polite conservatives. If they think I'm wrong about that, I'd invite them to link me to proof of that. It's true that Democrats/liberals don't agree with Trump when it comes to environmental standards, tax cuts, immigration, foreign relations etc., but it's impossible not to see their hatred of him personally, whether it's in places like these forums or mainstream news reports. It's partly understandable, the news media is used to people like Reagan, or Bush 41 or 43, who just used to smile and get red in the face and take their insults and do their best to answer their stupid questions. They resent Trump's bluntness to them. It helps them to somewhat, or completely forget about what's good for the country, and makes getting even with him personally their top priority. It's impossible to have "protection of the environment" as described by a self-serving government, without a loss of individual freedom. It's impossible to have "social justice" (redistribution of earnings by a self serving government) without a loss of the individual freedoms of those who earn those confiscated earnings. History always has shown BIG losses of individual freedoms when a self serving government wants only itself to have guns. You seem to desire utopia in an imperfect world. And trust the government to make it happen. And there's seldom an option to turn it all back if it doesn't work. The main factor that the U.S. seems to use to determine if a president is doing a good job is the economy. I think a lot of voters that voted against him in 2016 will be voting for him in 2020 for that reason alone. I'm also seeing evidence that those voters who voted against him in 2016 are getting tired of the witch-hunts against him. What has the Democrat majority in the house accomplished since they took over? Nothing at all, other than attacks against Trump. CNN, and other mainstream news outlets don't even seem to make a secret of the fact that attacking Trump are more important to them than actually reporting news. I've no doubt that some organization, or individual like George Soros, has dangled a major cash prize in front of any Democrat or journalist who can make THE significant contribution to ending his presidency before 4 years is up. They all just keep trying and failing, and the anger builds.

Primarily yes, but it wasn't that simple. The North at that time seems to have been very similar to the sanctuary cities of today. They wanted slavery to end suddenly, but they didn't want to deal with all the problems it would cause. Most slaves were in the south, and they wanted only the south to deal with the aftermath. Just like today's sanctuary cities, they want illegals to come to the U.S. but they don't want to deal with too many of them. Trump made that clear when he offered to bus all the illegals he could to sanctuary cities, and then we all watched them cry about that. Contrary to politically correct beliefs, the North, in 1865, wasn't all lovie dovie at the thought of newly freed blacks running around in their cities. There is evidence of RACISM toward blacks in northern cities, by businesses and politicians, for 70, 80, 90 years after the civil war ended. Would you like to see a little of that evidence? There's nothing in those paragraphs that changes the brief summaries I posted about Lee's views.

quote:

---

Several historians have noted the paradoxical nature of Lee's beliefs and actions concerning race and slavery.

---

It's "paradoxical" only because it's not possible for anyone today to go back in time and understand that generation's views of the world, when they couldn't see how the future would play out. YOU DID, IN Message 1464 I LOVE THIS PLACE! I largely don't because 80 years later, business leaders and politicians in northern cities were fine with not admitting blacks to many movie theaters and restaurants. But since they were from the north, I guess they weren't racists. But it means respecting the views of others in your country who don't want traditional, time honored monuments to be torn down because of nothing more than emotional whims.

Because you made a false statement, and got busted for it. So you now agree that your statement was FALSE? Let's look at it again;

quote:

---

We have an entire group of calm, respectful people.

---

"Cherry picking" is not the issue, if you claim an entire group of people to be calm and respectful, it only takes one example of one of them going into an emotional, profanity laced rant that would make an Origin-of-Species thumping middle school child blush, to make your statement 100% false. You don't agree? Can we say that Jeffery Dahmer was an absolutely fine person because it was only a comparative few minutes of his several million minute long life where he killed and ate people? Does one of your calm, respectful people get a pass just because he lost his calmness and respectfulness just for one sentence? "The floor"? A floor that consists of nothing more than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's base?

Why the fairy tale Marc?You know what the sanctuary cities are really saying:Come here to our city. We will do what we can to protect you from the racism of our own fuckin' Federal government.Why the need to lie about this?

quote:

---

Primarily yes, but it wasn't that simple. The North at that time seems to have been very similar to the sanctuary cities of today. They wanted slavery to end suddenly, but they didn't want to deal with all the problems it would cause.

---

No. The North wasn’t determined to end slavery immediately, even in the early stages of the war. That’s implicit in the fact that the North wasn’t fighting to end slavery. Slavery was under pressure and would have had to end eventually, but a phasing out of slavery was still possible. But the Confederacy wouldn’t accept an end at all.(The alleged parallel to “sanctuary cities” seems odd, too. Surely by encouraging illegal immigrants to live in their jurisdiction, they are inviting any problems the illegal immigrants being with them and will have to deal with them)Your “explanation” doesn’t make a lot of sense either:

quote:

---

Trump made that clear when he offered to bus all the illegals he could to sanctuary cities, and then we all watched them cry about that.

---

The “sanctuary cities” are obviously dealing with their share of the problems. Why should they want additional problems foisted on them?

quote:

---

Contrary to politically correct beliefs, the North, in 1865, wasn't all lovie dovie at the thought of newly freed blacks running around in their cities. There is evidence of RACISM toward blacks in northern cities, by businesses and politicians, for 70, 80, 90 years after the civil war ended. Would you like to see a little of that evidence?

---

Any such evidence would be irrelevant to my position. Of course there were racists everywhere.

quote:

---

There's nothing in those paragraphs that changes the brief summaries I posted about Lee's views.

---

They show that the “summaries” mislead by leaving out important information. Which is no doubt what you intended since you are trying to cover up Lee’s racism.

quote:

---

Who says that I called him racist for his position on slavery?

​

PaulK writes:

​

So racists become “very fine people” if they stand up for the statue of a racist who fought for slavery.

​

YOU DID, IN Message 1464 I LOVE THIS PLACE!

---

You love this place because we can all see that you are lying?
We can all see that the quote simply describes Lee as”a racist who fought for slavery”. It does not at all state why I considered him a racist.

quote:

---

I largely don't because 80 years later, business leaders and politicians in northern cities were fine with not admitting blacks to many movie theaters and restaurants. But since they were from the north, I guess they weren't racists.

---

I guess you don’t care about making sense either. That other people of the time were racist - and apparently less racist than Lee - hardly makes Lee less racist.

quote:

---

But it means respecting the views of others in your country who don't want traditional, time honored monuments to be torn down because of nothing more than emotional whims.

---

Since you clearly don’t respect the views of those who want the statue removed - and since respecting contrary views doesn’t mean giving in to them - you don’t have a point here, either.

What are you talking about?Yes, let's look at it again:

quote:

---

We have an entire group of calm, respectful people.

---

I do not say that all people are all calm and all respectful all the time.
I said we have an entire group of calm, respectful people.And, again, here's the proof... taken from an un-biased, un-cherry-picked stream simply by looking at the 4 posts ahead of your complaint:

quote:

---

I will now show you 4 calm, respectful responses to Faith.
And, just so I don't cherry-pick like you did, I'll grab the 4 responses closest to the post you just made (the one I'm replying to.)

​

Your post: Message 1525

​

Calm, respectful response to Faith #1: Message 1524

herebedragons writes:

​

Clearly you aren't really concerned with what the Bible says, but with what you want it to say in order to justify your own opinions, but I'll try anyway...

​

...

​

Calm, respectful response to Faith #2: Message 1523

Tanypteryx writes:

​

So, I guess you know what the "Final Solution" should be for all the people you hate...

​

Calm, respectful response to Faith #3: Message 1522

JonF writes:

​

I note you reject Christianity.

​

Calm, respectful response to Faith #4: Message 1521

ringo writes:

​

He was an adulterer and a murderer, hardly a role model.

​

...

​

That's how you look at something without bias. Don't worry though, everyone can see right through the tricks you've attempted.

---

Uh.. no.. .that's stupid.Why would anyone take the saying "we have an entire group of calm, respectful people" to mean "you can not ever find anything any of these people have ever said to be un-calm or un-respectful?"Have you ever met people?
No one alive has ever been "always calm" or "always respectful."
The bar your setting isn't met by any human ever in all of history.Yet you seem to think it should exist on a message board on the internet? You're nuts. Of course not.
Which brings us to the point of cherry-picking.If you cherry-pick Jeffery Dahmer... of course you can find a few calm, respectful moments.
But if you take an unbiased, objective look... you see the truth... a terrible human being.Now, if you cherry-pick the posts here... of course you can find a few un-calm, disrespectful moments.
But if you take an unbiased, objective look (as proven by the unbroken sample I've shown you)... you see the truth... a group of calm, respectful people.Thank you for proving my point? Of course they do.
Just like I do.
Just like you do.
Just like Faith does.But the problem is... Faith didn't just lose her calmness or respectfulness on one sentence... did she?
And... the people you quoted did... didn't they?This is how people work.
This is how fair judgement works.We don't fairly judge people by cherry-picking single things.
We fairly judge people by taking a large sample and describing the overall issue.Most kids learn this before they even go off to kindergarten. It's sort of an ingrained thing that comes along with "any level of intelligence."
But I don't mind explaining it to you, if you need a refresher.
All it does is prove the point I'm making over and over and over again... So again - thank-you. I think you've lost it.
Perhaps you should take a moment, calm down, and try to re-assess the situation.I would suggest putting the shovel down. You're deep enough.

This comment continues to show your dishonesty an unwillingness to hff Ave a substantive debate. When you actually want to discuss the issues with facts and data, please do. Until then you are not worth even reading.

Trump didn't "offer" he threatened. The objection was to using human beings (vulnerable people at that) as pawns in a political debate to punish sanctuary cities for defying him.

quote:

---

Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous immigration laws, we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities only....
- D. Trump

---

It really was a disgusting ploy and it is hard for me to believe you support such nonsense...HBD

Plus Marc is way out of touch. Trump claims that undocumented immigrants are being almost exclusively released into sanctuary cities, which is of course false (since it's Trump). President Trump’s claim that migrants are being sent to sanctuary cities:

quote:

---

The Department of Homeland Security has not announced that it is implementing Trump’s plan to deposit migrants in sanctuary cities. A DHS spokesman declined to comment for this fact check and referred us to the White House, which did not respond to our questions. We also sent questions to ICE and did not receive a response....

​

We asked several of the biggest sanctuary jurisdictions whether the Trump administration had begun to release undocumented immigrants in their turf. “We have not seen any sort of uptick to warrant this claim,” said Matthew McGrath, a spokesman for Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D). “But if we did, and as the mayor has indicated, we’d welcome it.” A spokesman for New York Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) told us, “We have seen nothing to indicate such actions from the Trump administration, and we are certainly not turning anyone away.”

​

Perhaps one sanctuary city on Trump’s mind is Oakland, Calif. The president didn’t mention it at the rally or in the interview, but he has feuded with Mayor Libby Schaaf (D) in the past and criticized her again in an April 13 tweet: “So interesting to see the Mayor of Oakland and other Sanctuary Cities NOT WANT our currently ”detained immigrants’ after release ...”

​

In fact, Schaaf said the opposite. “My job as a mayor is to welcome people,” Schaaf told NPR in an interview the same day as Trump’s tweet. “I don’t build walls. It’s our job to welcome everyone into our city, ensure their safety, ensure that their families can thrive. And that is my job no matter where those people came from or how they got there.” (There’s no evidence that the Trump administration has begun to release immigrants into Oakland.)

---

Also, "Trump made that clear when he offered to bus all the illegals he could to sanctuary cities, and then we all watched them cry about that" is just another right-wing fantasy, assuming what they want to happen did happen. Trump threatened sanctuary cities, and they shrugged”here’s why

quote:

---

The president believes the transfer of asylum-seekers to sanctuary jurisdictions would put such an undue burden on those local governments and populations that the people would rise up against their governments’ embrace of sanctuary status. In reality, however, as Table 1 shows, all families apprehended so far this year total an equivalent of 0.16 percent of the population of those sanctuary jurisdictions. Put differently, if those asylum-seekers were spread across sanctuary jurisdictions according to population, those jurisdictions would receive 16 asylum-seekers per 10,000 residents....

​

President Trump’s ideas about relocating immigrants depend on a misunderstanding (perhaps deliberate) of the levels of immigration, the composition of those seeking to come to the United States (and particularly those seeking asylum), the impact of relocation on sanctuary jurisdictions, and the legal basis for his ongoing policy-proposal-by-tweet. Many of the mayors and governors who have declared sanctuary status for their jurisdictions, have effectively said “bring it on.” And why shouldn’t they? The president is offering to send them a host of new, productive economic actors.

---

Not really... when you say "I HATE ALL YOU LYING LEFTISTS" that's not all that ambiguous. I think the "liberals" have a hard time with Faith's posts because they typically lack substance and usually just rail against opposing views. But all of a sudden it is easy to distinguish the line between "hate" and "strong opposition".Trump is the most inept, egotistical and ethically bankrupt person to ever hold the office of President of the United States. The reason people support him is because he plays to their own personal fears and biases.* Note: the above is "strong opposition, not hate" This is the big conservative lie and part of why I don't consider myself conservative anymore.Have you ever heard of externalization? This is when a portion of the cost of producing a good or service is put on a third party without their consent. I had a boss that told me he used to dump all his used coolants into the river out behind the building. It would have cost him $1000s to dispose of them properly, but instead he put that cost on the communities that surround the river. Sure he was able to maximize his profit and sell his product at the lowest price possible... but at what cost to others who did not agree to bear the cost of producing his goods?Sure we can have cheap energy, but at what cost to third parties? Do coal miners agree to contract black lung when they take the job? Do we all agree to destroy our natural landscapes to allow the cheapest extraction of resources as possible? Do cities agree to smog and air pollution in order for factories to produce goods at the lowest cost possible?We don't agree to those things. One role of government is to protect the freedoms of the many from the freedoms of individuals. I think a good example is public smoking. I respect the rights of individuals to smoke, but when I go into a restaurant and the people at the table next to me are smoking, I am forced to share in that - without my consent (some may say I give consent by going to the restaurant, but there is nothing inherent about going to a restaurant that implies partaking in cigarette smoke). Fortunately, our state legislature decided to protect the communities right to go to public spaces and not smoke over the individuals right to smoke. People who smoke may not agree with my assessment here, and may feel like their individual freedoms have been restricted, but communities need to find this balance between individual freedoms and the freedoms of the community as a whole. People are still free to smoke, just not where it compromises other's freedom to not smoke.Given a free hand, corporations will, without a doubt, externalize as much of the cost of producing their goods as possible to third parties. History proves that. Thus it is a major role of government to protect the public from excessive externalization. The BIG LIE of conservatives is that free markets will self correct and eliminate exploitation of these third parties.Where I do think we need to improve is HOW regulations are implemented. There is so much bureaucracy and red-tape and inefficiencies in our government, that it can be vary costly to navigate. Our government needs to become more streamlined and efficient, but that is completely different than the deregulation of the Trump administration. All we are doing is making it easier for the rich to put more of the burden of cost on the unsuspecting public. No thanks!!HBD

Seriously???? I am in the wrong for calling you out for clearly inappropriate and un-Christian behavior? I tried to stay out of it as I really haven't had the time to spend on here, but you were so far off the rails and displaying an image of how Christians behave that I felt I just had to say something. You should be thanking me for speaking the truth in love, instead you condemn me for daring to confront you for your vile behavior. My response was respectful and had no intention of self-righteousness or moral superiority. But instead of just admitting wrong and getting yourself on the right path, you have deflected the wrong doing onto me.Once again, you show your true colors...HBD

Well, aside from the historical fact that "suddenly ending slavery" was a minority position - and a very unpopular one at that, even in the North - I'm kind of curious:What problems would have resulted from human beings no longer being property that would have justified continuing to deny a large number of human beings basic human dignity?