Border Crisis

[ralliann]

I mean, you just confirmed exactly what he said.

So what? He asked. It added nothing to the conversation. These people are not applying for asylum.

 

[ralliann]

Why do they treat human beings like animals by "catching" them to begin with?

I would expect it if they were trespassing.

Would you like it if they "caught" your parents or grandparents like animals also? It's not in line with my Christian values or God's Word.

Like "animals". So catching someone doing something wrong makes for treating like an animal? It threatens our our way of life, our well being. Only their plight bothers you. Our government does not exist for those whom it chooses to help. They are elected for it's citizens.

 

[ralliann]

"forgive me my trespasses, and those who trespass against me, unless they are foreign, then they are icky"

Who asked for forgiveness? doesn't that admit a harm to another, and repentance?

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I would expect it if they were trespassing.
Like "animals". So catching someone doing something wrong makes for treating like an animal?

They were doing nothing wrong at all. Just as my grandparents did nothing wrong at all when they crossed the border without papers or anything in order to stay permanently in the new country. Are you saying that my grandparents did something wrong? Do you believe they should have died or been trafficked instead?

It threatens our our way of life, our well being.

How? I don't believe it does at all. Like any group of people, they will mostly add to our the good in our way of life.

Only their plight bothers you. Our government does not exist for those whom it chooses to help. They are elected for it's citizens.

Yes, their plight bothers me a lot. It doesn't bother you?

Th government exists for God to rule us, not for us to rule ourselves. We just have a mechanism to give us the illusion that we self-govern and to some extent we do but mostly we are doing what God wants us to do. The Government is His Minister of His Justice for good to you.

 

[ralliann]

They were doing nothing wrong at all. Just as my grandparents did nothing wrong at all when they crossed the border without papers or anything in order to stay permanently in the new country.

I have no idea what that countries laws are.

Are you saying that my grandparents did something wrong? Do you believe they should have died or been trafficked instead?

I have no idea what the laws were existent for them. Should they have stayed and died? No! Who is implying that?

How? I don't believe it does at all. Like any group of people, they will mostly add to our the good in our way of life.

Ignoring our laws does not improve our way of life. Our laws should exist to give us all a good life. That is why we vote as a democracy. We all get a say.

Yes, their plight bothers me a lot. It doesn't bother you?

Just their plight? And what is their plight? We have laws that are designed to determine a persons validity for their claims. Otherwise those who simply choose to come here, cannot disenfranchise those which may need to.

The government exists for God to rule us, not for us to rule ourselves.

Our form of Government is a constitutional Government, of the people by the people. The problem is that some in government will not enforce the laws they themselves made , for the people and by the people through their representative agency.

We just have a mechanism to give us the illusion that we self-govern and to some extent we do but mostly we are doing what God wants us to do. The Government is His Minister of His Justice for good to you.

We are not a theocracy. The government is not the Church.
When Government enforces the laws we send them to make for us this is true. They are not doing so with this situation. It seems it is getting worse and worse that they just ignore the law at will.
Just like they didn't keep their own covid rules. Those were for the little people underneath them.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I have no idea what that countries laws are.

This is true regardless of which country we're talking about.

I have no idea what the laws were existent for them. Should they have stayed and died? No! Who is implying that?

You are implying it when you say that people who are fleeing persecuting to the point of death and abuse and trafficking should not flee it and should be "caught" and sent back to it. I don't know what else you could be implying because I don't see what positive outcome these children and adults can have by being sent back to that.

Ignoring our laws does not improve our way of life. Our laws should exist to give us all a good life. That is why we vote as a democracy. We all get a say.

They are not ignoring our laws. Our laws don't always give everyone a good life, wouldn't you agree?

Just their plight? And what is their plight?

You brought up their plight. If you don't know what their plight is then why did you bring it up?

We have laws that are designed to determine a persons validity for their claims. Otherwise those who simply choose to come here, cannot disenfranchise those which may need to.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Those who choose to come here cannot disenfranchise those who they may need to disenfranchise? Why would those coming here need to disenfranchise anyone? And how would they disenfranchise someone else? That doesn't make any sense.

Our form of Government is a constitutional Government, of the people by the people. The problem is that some in government will not enforce the laws they themselves made , for the people and by the people through their representative agency.

OK so now I understand your view. You believe the government is by and for the people only and God is not part of our government's equation at all - let me know if I am misunderstanding but it seems that this is what you believe.

We are not a theocracy. The government is not the Church.

Correct. Who said the government is a theocracy? Not sure why you're introducing this into the discussion.

When Government enforces the laws we send them to make for us this is true. They are doing so with this situation.
Just like they didn't keep their own covid rules. Those were for the little people underneath them.

I have not seen the government make covid laws only "for the little people underneath them" and not for themselves. Do you have even a shred of proof for this? I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that.

 

[ralliann]

This is true regardless of which country we're talking about.

Maybe it should be, but I don't know if that's true everywhere. Look at Afghanistan, I don't think a fleeing Christian is going to find a safe refuge with The Taliban.

You are implying it when you say that people who are fleeing persecuting to the point of death and abuse and trafficking should not flee it and should be "caught" and sent back to it.

No, that is what you are saying about me and my intentions.

I don't know what else you could be implying because I don't see what positive outcome these children and adults can have by being sent back to that.

Is that the law? No it is not. I want our laws enforced and respected that are there for the good of all. That all that truly need refugee status be able to get it.

They are not ignoring our laws.

Yes, they are.

Our laws don't always give everyone a good life, wouldn't you agree?

What in the world???? The Government does not exist to be the one to give us a good life. They give us the freedom to achieve a good life. That is why each of us has been given inalienable rights from God. They are inalienable because they come from God and men may not alienate those things from us.

You brought up their plight. If you don't know what their plight is then why did you bring it up?

You don't know their plight either. It needs to be validated. If they have no valid claim, then send them back.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Those who choose to come here cannot disenfranchise those who they may need to disenfranchise? Why would those coming here need to disenfranchise anyone? And how would they disenfranchise someone else? That doesn't make any sense.

You don't seem to have sense here. We cannot take in all the world at once. However you get twenty thousand people show up needing to come here, and only a thousand are being honest about it. But you let all in as the same, don't check their claims, what happens down this chain when those showing up who truly need it cannot be taken in?

OK so now I understand your view. You believe the government is by and for the people only and God is not part of our government's equation at all - let me know if I am misunderstanding but it seems that this is what you believe.

Whether you really misunderstand, or you choose to mischarachterize, I don't know. The result is still the same.
1. Our government acknowledges God has given us certain rights
This is not Godless
2. In our governments acknowledgement of the first fact, they therefore acknowledge, They are God given and no other than God can alienate them from us
This is not Godless

As for the third breakdown... It should not be necessary to break it down for you like this, but from your comments again I don't know.
3. Our Government clearly acknowledges it is NOT GOD, but of men, which men have no power of government over men to take those rights away.
not Godless

Correct. Who said the government is a theocracy? Not sure why you're introducing this into the discussion.

Government is not to have us obey God. This country does not decide what men ought to do to obey God.

I have not seen the government make covid laws only "for the little people underneath them" and not for themselves. Do you have even a shred of proof for this? I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that.

LOL, The mask rules. We find them ignoring them for themselves when nobodies looking.
Just as many send kids to private school while the little people were shut out. Just like private education is unavailable to us through our own money, to pay for private education. No we must pay for public schools with substandard education etc, and cannot use it for the school of our choice for our kids. We are just the little people.

 

[Ana the Ist]

....yea, the poster may learn what their motives are.

They may learn what struggles and obstacles are....instead of imagining they're "having to apply a couple of extra times to get a job interview".

But hey, if one doesn't understand what capitalism is, I suppose it's a lost cause.

Do tell....what is capitalism?

 

[Ana the Ist]

They didn't have much to share but apparently the morality they possess is high enough to share with people who are human beings on the verge of death. I don't know what more to tell you; you don't seem to understand this if you have to ask and I have to explain it to you.

Half of nothing is still nothing. It's easy to share when nothing is being asked of you.

So you're saying that America is not the greatest or wealthiest nation in the world and can't handle any more people? I disagree. We are the wealthiest nation in th world and can help both our own and people from other parts of the world. I believe the inscription on the Statue of Liberty even if you disagree with it. What country/ies do you consider to be more wealthy and powerful than the US?

Even if we can....there's a limit. We cannot possibly help everyone who has it worse than us.

Wrong. China pollutes more than any other nation on earth, more than double what the US does.

Not per capita. The average person in the US has double the carbon footprint of the average Chinese person.

Thank you for making the case for the US implementing the Green New Deal -

I didn't make a case for committing economic suicide....but regardless, it won't happen, so I'm not worried about it.

I agree that we need to do that immediately and it's a shame and disgrace that the US is a top polluter. It's something we need to do no matter what, but especially as we bring in more people.

We should do something about before we bring in more people. Otherwise our efforts are for nothing.

When did anyone ask you to "live like them"? Now you're making things up.

Merely pointing out reality.

Not obvious because it's not true. That's a completely false and made-up fairy tale completely fabricated.

Nope. That's 100% true. There's nothing moral about your position. It's separated more children from families and gotten more people killed than the entire 4 years under Trump.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Half of nothing is still nothing. It's easy to share when nothing is being asked of you.

They didn't have "nothing" - you are the one making that up. They had little but shared what they had. It's difficult to share when you don't have much. This is a Christian principle.

Even if we can....there's a limit. We cannot possibly help everyone who has it worse than us.

No, there's no limit. We can help everyone who has iut worse than us.

Not per capita. The average person in the US has double the carbon footprint of the average Chinese person.

Again, thank you for making the case for expediting implementation for the Green New Deal. We are long overdue to eliminate fossil fuel consumption and start using renewable energies. We can easily start by being less wasteful in general.

I didn't make a case for committing economic suicide....but regardless, it won't happen, so I'm not worried about it.

Nobody is talking about "committing economic suicide" - again you are making something up and introducing it into the discussion.

We should do something about before we bring in more people. Otherwise our efforts are for nothing.

No, we can do both at the same time very easily.

Merely pointing out reality.

No, you're merely stating your politically biased and speculative opinion.

Nope. That's 100% true. There's nothing moral about your position. It's separated more children from families and gotten more people killed than the entire 4 years under Trump.

You don't understand what is moral to me and other Christians, but you should understand that in our belief:
There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12

 

[wing2000]

Do tell....what is capitalism?

do you not know?

 

[Ana the Ist]

They didn't have "nothing" - you are the one making that up.

Ok. What country are we talking about?

No, there's no limit. We can help everyone who has iut worse than us.

We can't help 6 billion people, we don't have enough wealth or space. It's childish to suggest otherwise.

Again, thank you for making the case for expediting implementation for the Green New Deal.

I'm not making any such case. The GND isn't a plan and has no feasible way to be implemented. It's a wish list from children who don't understand how things work.

We are long overdue to eliminate fossil fuel consumption and start using renewable energies.

There are no renewable energies, and there's no alternative to fossil fuels.

Nobody is talking about "committing economic suicide"

Anyone proposing the Green New Deal is suggesting economic suicide. There's no "renewable energy commercial flights" nor any massive shipping ships that run on renewables. They simply don't have the required power to move such large and heavy objects. Traditionally these two sectors pollute somewhere between the same amount as Germany or France, annually.

No, we can do both at the same time very easily.

No...doing one cancels out progress made by the other.

If we manage to reduce everyone's carbon footprint by 10% (a massive achievement we aren't remotely close to) but gain a 10% increase in population...we effectively achieved nothing.

No, you're merely stating your politically biased and speculative opinion.

Stating facts.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Maybe it should be, but I don't know if that's true everywhere. Look at Afghanistan, I don't think a fleeing Christian is going to find a safe refuge with The Taliban.

I meant your claim "I have no idea what that countries laws are" is true - you didn't say which country but I'm surmising that it's true for any country.

No, that is what you are saying about me and my intentions.

You are the one saying they are law-breakers who need to be caught and sent back. I'm saying they shouldn't be. How am I getting your statements and intentions wrong?

Is that the law? No it is not. I want our laws enforced and respected that are there for the good of all. That all that truly need refugee status be able to get it.

Then why are you talking about "catching" people? If you understood our asylum laws you'd understand that people who enter seeking asylum can do so without documentation or through regular border crossings. You yourself posted the definition of this earlier - so why do you say these people at the border now, the children especially, need to be "caught"???

Yes, they are.

How? You keep saying they are but you never, ever produce once shred of evidence to back it up. And that's because there is no evidence to back it up.

What in the world???? The Government does not exist to be the one to give us a good life. They give us the freedom to achieve a good life.

You are the one who said that "Our laws should exist to give us all a good life. " Now, here you are saying "The Government does not exist to be the one to give us a good life." Well, the Government is who gives us the laws. I don't think you have a good understanding of how this all works. Or, perhaps you just need to make up your mind whether our Government and its laws are in existence to give us a good life or NOT the one to give us a good life.

I can't even be in agreement or disagreement with you on this because you're affirming two directly conflicting ideas, two opposites. I don't know which one you actually believe.

That is why each of us has been given inalienable rights from God. They are inalienable because they come from God and men may not alienate those things from us.

Where is this in God's Word? I don't believe that these come directly from God. They come through government and different peoples around the world have different rights, many of which are alienable.

You don't know their plight either. It needs to be validated. If they have no valid claim, then send them back.

You earlier said to me , "Only their plight bothers you." So you obviously believe that I do know their plight and now you're changing that story because it's convenient at this juncture for you. But you already tipped your hand earlier.

As for their claims needing to be validated, per the law you yourself posted, they have at least one year to do so. None of them should be sent back immediately unless they're found to have some record already, which is a small minority of them, and certainly not the children.

You don't seem to have sense here. We cannot take in all the world at once.

Oh hold on a second - it's you who doesn't seem to have sense here. We are not and never have been in the position of being asked or expected to "take in all the world at once". If you think that that is what's happening, that the whole world, every person from every country in the world is trying to cross our southern border at once (and that would include Canadians which wouldn't make sense because why wouldn't they just cross the Northern border that they share with us???) then I could see your concern.

But the reality is we are not in the position of having to consider taking "in all the world at once". Not even close! It's a very small amount compared to the whole world's population, less than 1%!!!

However you get twenty thousand people show up needing to come here, and only a thousand are being honest about it.

Where did you get these numbers? Can you share your source? Or is your source just your own guess (which is completely speculative and based on your political bias)??? (I have a feeling I know your "source".) If you have a valid source, feel free to share it with us so we can see you're not just making up numbers out of thin air.

But you let all in as the same, don't check their claims, what happens down this chain when those showing up who truly need it cannot be taken in?

Why wouldn't they be able to be taken in? They can always be taken in. You just accept them in - that's it, problem solved.

Whether you really misunderstand, or you choose to mischarachterize, I don't know. The result is still the same.

This is exactly what I'm thinking about you as well.

1. Our government acknowledges God has given us certain rights
This is not Godless

Our Government does not identify these rights as being from the Bible.
Our Government does not identify God as Jesus Christ.
Our Government likes to use Masonic and Occultic symbols for everything Government-related and never uses Biblical or Christian imagery.
And through all that, God controls our Government to a large extent to govern us and deliver His Justice to us. The Government is ordained by God as His minister to us for good and to resist is to bring damnation on yourself. And yet none of that means the government is "Godly" in any way - because it simply isn't.

2. In our governments acknowledgement of the first fact, they therefore acknowledge, They are God given and no other than God can alienate them from us
This is not Godless

I guess it's technically not "godless" - just depends on how "god" is understood. From what I see from our Government, "god" to them is not the same as the True God, Jesus Christ.

If they meant these inalienable rights came from the True God they would quote His Word, the Bible, to prove it. But they don't. Also bear in mind they declared these "inalienable rights" for "all man" even while they enslaved millions of blacks, so thy never really believed those rights were inalienable for all men.

As for the third breakdown... It should not be necessary to break it down for you like this, but from your comments again I don't know.
3. Our Government clearly acknowledges it is NOT GOD, but of men, which men have no power of government over men to take those rights away.
not Godless
Government is not to have us obey God. This country does not decide what men ought to do to obey God.

So this government wants to enforce the inalienability of God-given rights BUT does not want to have us obey God? Huh??? Our government is of men but men have no power of government over men??? HUH????

Do you truly not see how self-contradictory you are in your assertions??? It's remarkable.

LOL, The mask rules. We find them ignoring them for themselves when nobodies looking.
Just as many send kids to private school while the little people were shut out. Just like private education is unavailable to us through our own money, to pay for private education. No we must pay for public schools with substandard education etc, and cannot use it for the school of our choice for our kids. We are just the little people.

And again, you make claims but not a shred of evidence. I asked for even a single shred of evidence and all you did was tell me stories that someone made up.

I have yet to see where the government has made laws for the people beneath them that didn't apply to them. I have yet to see where people in government completely disobey Covid restrictions while strictly enforcing them on everyone else.

If all you have a stories then I know that they are made up and not true. The political right wing has made up many stories and never can substantiate them, not a single one, with fact. And when I ask you, the same thing - more stories and not a single substantiation with proof.

And by the way, where do you liev where you have to pay for public school?

 

[Ana the Ist]

do you not know?

I'm pretty sure I do...but the context of your post suggests otherwise.

That's why I'm asking what you think.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why do they treat human beings like animals by "catching" them to begin with?

What part of "illegally crossing the border" don't you understand?

Do you understand that it's the difference between where one nations laws begin and another end?

Do you understand that if people could just cross it freely without consequences, then we create an opportunity for criminals on either side who want to avoid justice for their crimes?

Surely you remember watching at least one western where the "bad guys" headed for Mexico? Why do you think they were doing that?

You sound like you've never given this any thought at all.

 

[wing2000]

I'm pretty sure I do...but the context of your post suggests otherwise.

That's why I'm asking what you think.

do you disagree with any of my prior statements?

I agree, employers have been able to keep wages low due to the supply of labor. Why hasn't our government taken steps to enforce legal employment? btw, this is good old capitalism at work......

From a capitalist perspective, why should an employer pay more for labor when motivated workers are available for less?

An employer made a decision to hire an illegal immigrant.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Ok. What country are we talking about?

Syria

We can't help 6 billion people, we don't have enough wealth or space. It's childish to suggest otherwise.

That's the entire rest of the world. I said everyone who has it worse than us. Do you think everyone in the entire rest of the world has it worse than us? Do you think Swedes, British, Irish, Japanese, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Swiss, Germans, Italians, etc. are all clamoring to leave their nations to come live in the US with no health care? Really? Because they're not.

I'm not making any such case. The GND isn't a plan and has no feasible way to be implemented. It's a wish list from children who don't understand how things work.

You're making the case repeatedly, albeit inadvertently. You're right that we can't go on polluting the way we are and it must be stopped ASAP. The GND is the only plan in place at this time so if you are endorsing taking action against pollution then at this time you're endorsing the GND.

There are no renewable energies, and there's no alternative to fossil fuels.

However you wnt to word it, "renewables" is the commonly applied label, particularly on The Street. Alternative or cleaner forms of energy are available and becoming more abundant daily. There also has to be a paradigm shift in forms of consumerism.

Anyone proposing the Green New Deal is suggesting economic suicide. There's no "renewable energy commercial flights" nor any massive shipping ships that run on renewables. They simply don't have the required power to move such large and heavy objects. Traditionally these two sectors pollute somewhere between the same amount as Germany or France, annually.

The GND is more of an actionable set of guidelines than a strict plan. It is a set of goals and ideals. If implemented, things can be adjusted to "reality" (which can be subjective by political bias also, unfortunately). The point of the GND is that there are other ways of doing things which have to be seriously invested in rather than doing what's "easy for now" just for the benefit of private enterprise and finance and at the expense of global public welfare. You are bemoaning the massive and out of control pollution yourself, yet you are simultaneously attacking one of the biggest things (if not the biggest thing) that seeks to address the problem.

it will involve some econmic pain on some levels. If you don't want "economic suicide" then address it now so you don't have economic suicide later. There are interests in this world who prefer kicking the can down the road because they can enrich themselves now and be ready for the "economic suicide" that will hurt the rest of us.

No...doing one cancels out progress made by the other.

No, it doesn't.

If we manage to reduce everyone's carbon footprint by 10% (a massive achievement we aren't remotely close to) but gain a 10% increase in population...we effectively achieved nothing.

We're not close to reducing carbon footprints because we allow corporate interests to prevent us from moving into clean energy.

As for 10% increase in population - when does that ever happen? Legal immigration in the past 15 years or so has been under 15 million, which is under4% increase in population over all those years. So what scenario are you talking about?

Stating facts.

Apparently "alternative" facts that don't come from verifiable data but instead from your politically-influenced, subjective opinion.

 

[ralliann]

do you disagree with any of my prior statements?

I meant your claim "I have no idea what that countries laws are" is true - you didn't say which country but I'm surmising that it's true for any country.


You are the one saying they are law-breakers who need to be caught and sent back. I'm saying they shouldn't be. How am I getting your statements and intentions wrong?


Then why are you talking about "catching" people? If you understood our asylum laws you'd understand that people who enter seeking asylum can do so without documentation or through regular border crossings. You yourself posted the definition of this earlier - so why do you say these people at the border now, the children especially, need to be "caught"???


How? You keep saying they are but you never, ever produce once shred of evidence to back it up. And that's because there is no evidence to back it up.


You are the one who said that "Our laws should exist to give us all a good life. " Now, here you are saying "The Government does not exist to be the one to give us a good life." Well, the Government is who gives us the laws. I don't think you have a good understanding of how this all works. Or, perhaps you just need to make up your mind whether our Government and its laws are in existence to give us a good life or NOT the one to give us a good life.

I can't even be in agreement or disagreement with you on this because you're affirming two directly conflicting ideas, two opposites. I don't know which one you actually believe.


Where is this in God's Word? I don't believe that these come directly from God. They come through government and different peoples around the world have different rights, many of which are alienable.


You earlier said to me , "Only their plight bothers you." So you obviously believe that I do know their plight and now you're changing that story because it's convenient at this juncture for you. But you already tipped your hand earlier.

As for their claims needing to be validated, per the law you yourself posted, they have at least one year to do so. None of them should be sent back immediately unless they're found to have some record already, which is a small minority of them, and certainly not the children.


Oh hold on a second - it's you who doesn't seem to have sense here. We are not and never have been in the position of being asked or expected to "take in all the world at once". If you think that that is what's happening, that the whole world, every person from every country in the world is trying to cross our southern border at once (and that would include Canadians which wouldn't make sense because why wouldn't they just cross the Northern border that they share with us???) then I could see your concern.

But the reality is we are not in the position of having to consider taking "in all the world at once". Not even close! It's a very small amount compared to the whole world's population, less than 1%!!!


Where did you get these numbers? Can you share your source? Or is your source just your own guess (which is completely speculative and based on your political bias)??? (I have a feeling I know your "source".) If you have a valid source, feel free to share it with us so we can see you're not just making up numbers out of thin air.


Why wouldn't they be able to be taken in? They can always be taken in. You just accept them in - that's it, problem solved.


This is exactly what I'm thinking about you as well.


Our Government does not identify these rights as being from the Bible.
Our Government does not identify God as Jesus Christ.
Our Government likes to use Masonic and Occultic symbols for everything Government-related and never uses Biblical or Christian imagery.
And through all that, God controls our Government to a large extent to govern us and deliver His Justice to us. The Government is ordained by God as His minister to us for good and to resist is to bring damnation on yourself. And yet none of that means the government is "Godly" in any way - because it simply isn't.


I guess it's technically not "godless" - just depends on how "god" is understood. From what I see from our Government, "god" to them is not the same as the True God, Jesus Christ.

If they meant these inalienable rights came from the True God they would quote His Word, the Bible, to prove it. But they don't. Also bear in mind they declared these "inalienable rights" for "all man" even while they enslaved millions of blacks, so thy never really believed those rights were inalienable for all men.


So this government wants to enforce the inalienability of God-given rights BUT does not want to have us obey God? Huh??? Our government is of men but men have no power of government over men??? HUH????

Do you truly not see how self-contradictory you are in your assertions??? It's remarkable.


And again, you make claims but not a shred of evidence. I asked for even a single shred of evidence and all you did was tell me stories that someone made up.

I have yet to see where the government has made laws for the people beneath them that didn't apply to them. I have yet to see where people in government completely disobey Covid restrictions while strictly enforcing them on everyone else.

If all you have a stories then I know that they are made up and not true. The political right wing has made up many stories and never can substantiate them, not a single one, with fact. And when I ask you, the same thing - more stories and not a single substantiation with proof.

And by the way, where do you liev where you have to pay for public school?

They didn't have "nothing" - you are the one making that up. They had little but shared what they had. It's difficult to share when you don't have much. This is a Christian principle.


No, there's no limit. We can help everyone who has iut worse than us.


Again, thank you for making the case for expediting implementation for the Green New Deal. We are long overdue to eliminate fossil fuel consumption and start using renewable energies. We can easily start by being less wasteful in general.


Nobody is talking about "committing economic suicide" - again you are making something up and introducing it into the discussion.


No, we can do both at the same time very easily.


No, you're merely stating your politically biased and speculative opinion.


You don't understand what is moral to me and other Christians, but you should understand that in our belief:
There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12

As a Christian I agree. It is not moral what has gone on at the border, nor has it been a kindness. So please do not lump what you think on this subject as Christian.

 

[Ana the Ist]

do you disagree with any of my prior statements?

Nope.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Syria

Gotcha...and I doubt that Syria currently has a robust support system for illegal immigrants, what with its status as a war torn nightmare. What did it do back when your grandparents showed up?

That's the entire rest of the world. I said everyone who has it worse than us. Do you think everyone in the entire rest of the world has it worse than us?

No it's about 2 billion short of the rest of the world....I left out all the people you mentioned.

You're making the case repeatedly, albeit inadvertently.

Nope.

The GND is the only plan in place at this time so if you are endorsing taking action against pollution then at this time you're endorsing the GND.

Nope. I pointed out, like many things, the GND has no plan for commercial flight.

What does the GND suggest we do? Stop flying entirely? Hanggliders?

However you wnt to word it, "renewables" is the commonly applied label, particularly on The Street.

It's a lie...sold to you, to get your vote. Nothing more.

The GND is more of an actionable set of guidelines than a strict plan. It is a set of goals and ideals.

It's not actionable...not without murdering the economy.

If implemented, things can be adjusted to "reality" (which can be subjective by political bias also, unfortunately). The point of the GND is that there are other ways of doing things which have to be seriously invested in rather than doing what's "easy for now" just for the benefit of private enterprise and finance and at the expense of global public welfare. You are bemoaning the massive and out of control pollution yourself, yet you are simultaneously attacking one of the biggest things (if not the biggest thing) that seeks to address the problem.

I'm not at all worried about it....no one is going to do it.

It's just a ploy to get your vote.

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does.

We're not close to reducing carbon footprints because we allow corporate interests to prevent us from moving into clean energy.

Did you buy an electric car? They exist....did you buy one?

I didn't. I'm not going to pay more money for a car that performs worse. The technology isn't there.

As for 10% increase in population - when does that ever happen? Legal immigration in the past 15 years or so has been under 15 million, which is under4% increase in population over all those years. So what scenario are you talking about?

Let's see...we're on pace for 2 million people crossing illegally this year, that we know of, and far more if we count those not apprehended at the border. Since Covid won't likely end, and these nations won't likely improve, it would take around 15-20 years to gain 10 increase in the population due to illegal immigration at this rate.

Apparently "alternative" facts that don't come from verifiable data but instead from your politically-influenced, subjective opinion.

Do you want it straight from the mouths of the illegals trafficked by human smuggling organizations or the people who collect intelligence on human smuggling organizations?

Your "help" gets a lot of people killed and exploited.