Trump lays a rotten egg

[hells_unicorn]

Slavery was legal before the 1960s. Is that Traditional American Culture?

I think you mean the 1860s, and if you are talking about Jim Crow laws, while I'm not exactly keen on the concept, it is stipulated that the cessation of segregation coincided with the destruction of the black family. This was more likely due to how Jim Crow was ended rather than that it was ended, and it's actually somewhat ironic that the man who essentially destroyed the black family (Lyndon Johnson) is all but universally loved in the black community. Such stupidity does tend to feed into the arguments of racial separatists, I fear.

This discussion could be so much more productive if you would stop dancing around, and take a position.

My position is that I've rejected the entire premise of your argument. If you want to keep obsessing over this fantasy world where because there was slavery in American history that we need to allow the whole world to pour into our country, you can do it alone, I have better things to do with my time.

It is not intellectually dishonest to allow an opponent to state and clarify one's vague position before debating.

The way you are approaching this is the textbook definition of intellectual dishonesty. You are essentially setting up qualifiers that would trap a person into saying something that you want to hear so you can yammer incessantly about how illogical such a thing would be. Again, if I had time to waste, I might be interested, but sadly, I don't.

Jesus expounded on the emphasized saying, in Matthew 5.

That's a good chapter, have you ever read John 14? Try it some time, and pay particular attention to verses 6-15, and then come back to me with this nonsense about how Islam should be allowed to envelope the Christian world with its idolatry and heresy.

 

[nikcers]

Americans value privacy? Americans value independent thinking? What evidence do you have of that?

Possessions have value, we are a nation of dependent thinkers that worship independence. We are a nation that is slowly forgetting how to agree to disagree which is a slippery slope.

 

[cindy25]

On the contrary, Rand should come out in favor of letting us welcome as many as we want, rather than bossing us all around and telling us we can't.

This still gives Rand the advantage over Trump, because in Rand's case it shows his consistency, and in Trump's is shows how flawed his anti-immigration rhetoric has been all along. Trump continues to shoot himself in the foot.

the sensible thing would be to accept religious minorities (Christians) and only as families. let Saudi and the Gulf states take the Muslim men. they caused this mess

 

[Jan2017]

And this is truly a Miracle of the House of Brandenburg type moment for Rand. . . . and now Trump has inexplicably pulled a complete reversal on the issue that has catapulted him to the top of the polls just prior to what should be the most watched primary debate in history. All Rand has to do is pick up the ball Trump dropped and ride it to victory!

And the fact ending Muslim immigration was a prominent position of his father's adds a huge dose of much needed credibility to Rand's position.

Ron had introduced at least two bills about restricting immigration and/or student visas from terrorist supporting nations . . .
Yemen was on the list - among others - and as I recall these House Bills never got out of committee.

 

[moostraks]

The thing that you would like to see destroyed. It's easier to define in terms of what it is not, and what it is not is a place where THIS is allowed.



If we're talking about something that occurred after the 60s counter-culture movement, it's a pretty safe bet that "Traditional" does not apply to it. Granted, I adhere to the Christian faith (as I'm guessing you do), and while Christianity does call for me to love my neighbor, it says NOTHING to allowing the legions of the Eastern Antichrist to swarm in my neighborhood.

Luke 6: 27“But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29“Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. 30“Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back. 31“Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. 32“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33“If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34“If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners in order to receive back the same amount. 35“But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. 36“Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

37“Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned. 38“Give, and it will be given to you. They will pour into your lap a good measure—pressed down, shaken together, and running over. For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return.”

 

[moostraks]

So, to you, anyone who doesn't want their country overrun is somehow a "white power idiot"? Curious.

I agree that this is blowback from a meddling foreign policy, but sorry, I'm not willing to have my country destroyed because of it. Sad that you are.

And yes, I am sure I would want to be out of Syria too. But, if I was fortunate enough to be welcomed into another country, I wouldn't be doing this....

...I was born, raised and educated in Oklahoma. Both of my grandfathers participated in the Land Run. So, do tell me all about Oklahoma history.

...My beef is that Americans have been taught that our forebears did something that no one else in the world ever did. Like they invented the concept of fighting over land. Grow the hell up.

I am perplexed as to how you can reconcile these comments.

 

[staerker]

I think you mean the 1860s, and if you are talking about Jim Crow laws, while I'm not exactly keen on the concept, it is stipulated that the cessation of segregation coincided with the destruction of the black family. This was more likely due to how Jim Crow was ended rather than that it was ended, and it's actually somewhat ironic that the man who essentially destroyed the black family (Lyndon Johnson) is all but universally loved in the black community. Such stupidity does tend to feed into the arguments of racial separatists, I fear.

The definition you chose to stand behind, was "American Culture" (no explanation) and "Traditional" (before the 1960s.) Based on the definition you gave me, every cultural norm that happened in America before the 1960s fits the bill. See the problem with using platitudes?

The way you are approaching this is the textbook definition of intellectual dishonesty. You are essentially setting up qualifiers that would trap a person into saying something that you want to hear so you can yammer incessantly about how illogical such a thing would be. Again, if I had time to waste, I might be interested, but sadly, I don't.

I'm requesting you to explicitly define a vague term (that is prevalent) so that we can accurately discuss it, instead of arguing over multiple strawmen. I have never heard that called "setting up qualifiers that would trap a person."

That's a good chapter, have you ever read John 14? Try it some time, and pay particular attention to verses 6-15, and then come back to me with this nonsense about how Islam should be allowed to envelope the Christian world with its idolatry and heresy.

The Power within us is greater than that in the world, right now you have a spirit of fear. John 14 says there is one way, and there are billions that are lost.

I can only imagine twiddling my thumbs when God asks why we didn't go the ends of the earth. And when He tried to bring the ends of the earth to us, we spat on Him.

 

[Brett85]

But yet Trump's mindless supporters will still support him regardless of what he says or does.

 

[erowe1]

What you're essentially arguing is that because there might be some people who are willing to house these "refugees", that we have to let all of them in.

No I'm not. All I'm saying is that you have no right to prevent anyone else from doing that. You can control your own property, and that's all.

 

[erowe1]

But yet Trump's mindless supporters will still support him regardless of what he says or does.

Support him, yes. Show up to vote? Or even register to vote? Or even be aware that there's such a thing as voter registration? All that is yet to be seen.

 

[Jan2017]

Rand is in the CNN debate now as of today . . . he has to pick up the ball here is right . . . put Trump down over this.
100,000 immigrants from Middle East countries per year to USA has been fairly consistent over the last decade.
And 51% now think - maybe from the SC poll - that immigration is THE issue this Presidential cycle.

 

[hells_unicorn]

The definition you chose to stand behind, was "American Culture" (no explanation) and "Traditional" (before the 1960s.) Based on the definition you gave me, every cultural norm that happened in America before the 1960s fits the bill. See the problem with using platitudes?

Nope, didn't say that. I stated that Traditional American Culture is "what you are trying to destroy". At no point did I assert that all things prior to the 1960s was either part of my definition or otherwise good, what I did assert was that if something occurred within the past 50 years it is likely not in keeping with said tradition. Furthermore, slavery was not a cultural norm even in the Antebellum South apart from the fact that it was tolerated, it was an exclusive privilege of the upper-class that represented maybe 2-3% of the population at best. This is something that is known by every person that understands American history and approaches it honestly, and my biggest mistake here was holding out any degree of hope that you would approach this discussion honestly.

See the problem with running with a premise prior to beginning the discussion?

I'm requesting you to explicitly define a vague term (that is prevalent) so that we can accurately discuss it, instead of arguing over multiple strawmen. I have never heard that called "setting up qualifiers that would trap a person."

Nope, you are asking for a definition that fits into your comfortable little world view where there are no nations or governments, that's clearly obvious given how you've already approached this subject prior to our present interchange. I'm not interested in hashing out a definition that you clearly have no interest in hearing, if you don't like that, that's your problem. It's a tough old world son.

The Power within us is greater than that in the world, right now you have a spirit of fear. John 14 says there is one way, and there are billions that are lost.

I can only imagine twiddling my thumbs when God asks why we didn't go the ends of the earth. And when He tried to bring the ends of the earth to us, we spat on Him.

Unless you are presently preaching the gospel in the Middle East and enduring all the hardships that go with it, you should realize that what you've just asserted is bold faced hypocrisy of the sort condemned right in Matthew 7:1-3. If you want to put your own ass on the line, you are free to do so, but you have no charge to compel anyone else to do so. Furthermore, unless you are suggesting that all of us go the way of Job, I don't see any requirement in the Gospel to allow throngs of Sabians into our land so that they can tear our nation asunder. I'd be perfectly fine with doing what is necessary to protect Christ's church from the cruelty and idolatry of Islam, but I am not going to endorse the pagan U.S. government's policy of wiping out the Western Church by flooding its nations with the cruel and idolatrous adherents of Antichrist.

I've already stretch my allowance for erroneous interpretations of the gospel beyond the limit denoted in Titus 3:10, so unless you have something of merit to say on the subject, I think this conversation is over, and if so, I am glad of it.

 

[erowe1]

Rand is in the CNN debate now as of today . . . he has to pick up the ball here is right . . . put Trump down over this.
100,000 immigrants from Middle East countries per year to USA has been fairly consistent over the last decade.
And 51% now think - maybe from the SC poll - that immigration is THE issue this Presidential cycle.

Rand has already defined himself as the pro-immigration candidate. He can't flip-flop on that now.

 

[Jan2017]

Rand has already defined himself as the pro-immigration candidate. He can't flip-flop on that now.

Rand has already said we should enforce existing immigration policy . . . Mexico way over that limit already so Rand would not allow what has been going on. Not sure where Rand is about amnesty I admit.

No flip-flops needed . . . after Chattanooga shooting Rand stated restrictions from some nations like his Dad . . .
EU nations do not want quotas to divide up the mass migration . . . US does not need Trump advice here for certain

 

[erowe1]

Rand has already said we should enforce existing immigration policy

Can you find the exact quote saying that?

His website says he wants to encourage legal immigration. That tells me he's against the existing immigration policies.

 

[Jan2017]

Can you find the exact quote saying that?

His website says he wants to encourage legal immigration. That tells me he's against the existing immigration policies.

I'll try to find this from early in the summer or spring - maybe it was a YouTube with Hannity or something. I was not aware of Rand's website statement.

This will be the big issue,.
Legal immigration from non-Mexico IS within guidelines - Mehhico legal and illegal immigration is the crux of the US situation.

 

[staerker]

Nope, didn't say that. I stated that Traditional American Culture is "what you are trying to destroy". At no point did I assert that all things prior to the 1960s was either part of my definition or otherwise good, what I did assert was that if something occurred within the past 50 years it is likely not in keeping with said tradition. Furthermore, slavery was not a cultural norm even in the Antebellum South apart from the fact that it was tolerated, it was an exclusive privilege of the upper-class that represented maybe 2-3% of the population at best. This is something that is known by every person that understands American history and approaches it honestly, and my biggest mistake here was holding out any degree of hope that you would approach this discussion honestly.

See the problem with running with a premise prior to beginning the discussion?

Nope, you are asking for a definition that fits into your comfortable little world view where there are no nations or governments, that's clearly obvious given how you've already approached this subject prior to our present interchange. I'm not interested in hashing out a definition that you clearly have no interest in hearing, if you don't like that, that's your problem. It's a tough old world son.

Okay. A lot of words, but you still have no solid definition (neither fitting in my worldview, or yours.)

If you don't want to take to time hash out a definition, then don't enter a conversation using vague terminology. Intellectually honest people who value clear and coherent debate won't tolerate it.

Unless you are presently preaching the gospel in the Middle East and enduring all the hardships that go with it, you should realize that what you've just asserted is bold faced hypocrisy of the sort condemned right in Matthew 7:1-3. If you want to put your own ass on the line, you are free to do so, but you have no charge to compel anyone else to do so. Furthermore, unless you are suggesting that all of us go the way of Job, I don't see any requirement in the Gospel to allow throngs of Sabians into our land so that they can tear our nation asunder. I'd be perfectly fine with doing what is necessary to protect Christ's church from the cruelty and idolatry of Islam, but I am not going to endorse the pagan U.S. government's policy of wiping out the Western Church by flooding its nations with the cruel and idolatrous adherents of Antichrist.

I've already stretch my allowance for erroneous interpretations of the gospel beyond the limit denoted in Titus 3:10, so unless you have something of merit to say on the subject, I think this conversation is over, and if so, I am glad of it.

I charge you to show how my statement is hypocritical. Then reread my statement without projecting.

 

[erowe1]

Depends upon the church. And there's that "we" again. "We" need to take out Saddam. "We" need to take out Assad. "We" need to take out Iran. "We" need to invite all of the refugees and victims into our homes.

Obviously, in the context "we" referred to born again Christians, of whom I am one, which also answers your last question.

Good question. Which religion are you?

See above. BGFree wants to require people to pass a religious test before he will allow me to hire them to work for me using my own money lest I be punished by the government, but he won't admit whatever he is because he knows that if we had that test he wouldn't pass.

 

[BGfree]

.


See above. BGFree wants to require people to pass a religious test before he will allow me to hire them to work for me using my own money lest I be punished by the government, but he won't admit whatever he is because he knows that if we had that test he wouldn't pass.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Obviously, in the context "we" referred to born again Christians, of whom I am one, which also answers your last question.

Well, "born again" is pretty vague to many people. Many Catholics would say they were "born again" without understanding the implications of the modern definition of the "born again" movement. Catholics and mainline Protestants often simply think of traditional baptism as being born again.

The point here is that you, and your very specific church, are not speaking for all Christians:

BGFree may not have heard about this. But Americans who are regular church-goers and who vote in disproportionately high numbers in Republican primaries are hearing about it and praising the Lord. We want to be a part of this.

So even if refugees do convert to Christianity, there is no guarantee they will join your sect. And can we assume that if they are not members of your specific religious sect, that they can not become members of your voluntary community?