The Right Side of the News

Does your memory only go back to when Trump took office? The Republican obstructionism during Obama's time in office was massive. Republicans used the filibuster a record number of times during the Obama administration. What? Border crossings were at their lowest in decades when Trump took office. What are you talking about?

IOW you can't come up with one significant achievement. (He had nothing to do with the tax bill other than signing it.)

Crossings have increased since Trump took office, although they're still far short of the peaks in the last 50 or so years. Trump's attempts haven't had a lot of effect, not even his zero-humanity policy (which right-wingers insist was very successful.) IMHO the recent uptick is partly due to it's-now-or-never thinking. If he does implement charging for asylum requests and 180 day maximum processing time there'll be almost no applications and fewer successes. Never mind the realities, dogma is inviolate.

And to go to Mar-a-Lago to boast to his friends how he had just made them all so much richer.

Well, except he lied about it A LOT...Everyone is going to get, on average $4000 less tax per year. Total bullshit, from all the Republicans too.He said he was going to hate it because he'd have to pay way more taxes, of course, if he ever paid any taxes he'd would have released his returns and crowed about how he was the best tax payer ever.He said rich people were going to hate him, because they'd have to pay more taxes. More total bullshit.It was pointed out repeatedly by every honest news outlet that this was bullshit, but Trump has continued to lie about it right to this day.Now he and the Republicans want to steal Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and give it directly to the ultra wealthy and corporations. This is blatantly out in the open and marks like Faith and Marc are bent over yelling, "Yeah, drill me Baby."Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

Wow, what a preposterous corruption of his message. Have you forgotten the Good Samaritan? How come it takes an atheist to point out that Jesus' message of love was meant for EVERYONE?

quote:

---

The message you heard from the very beginning is this: we must love one another. (1 John 3:11)

​

And now I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. (John 13:34)

​

Do not take revenge on others or continue to hate them, but love your neighbors as you love yourself. I am the Lord. (Leviticus 19:18)

​

Above everything, love one another earnestly, because love covers over many sins. (1 Peter 4:8)

​

Be under obligation to no one”the only obligation you have is to love one another. Whoever does this has obeyed the Law. (Romans 13:8)

​

My children, our love should not be just words and talk; it must be true love, which shows itself in action. (1 John 3:18)

​

No one has ever seen God, but if we love one another, God lives in union with us, and his love is made perfect in us. We are sure that we live in union with God and that he lives in union with us, because he has given us his Spirit. (1 John 4:12-13)

​

Do all your work in love. (1 Corinthians 16:14)

​

Be always humble, gentle, and patient. Show your love by being tolerant with one another. Do your best to preserve the unity which the Spirit gives by means of the peace that binds you together. (Ephesians 4:2-3)

​

To conclude: you must all have the same attitude and the same feelings; love one another, and be kind and humble with one another. Do not pay back evil with evil or cursing with cursing; instead, pay back with a blessing, because a blessing is what God promised to give you when he called you. (1 Peter 3:8-9)

---

Yeah, but that's all New Testament. Faith is Old Testament only, as demonstrated by her choice of texts and rejection of NT texts.

What the North's intentions were undoubtedly varied greatly among northerners in the times leading up to, and in the early stages of the war. I believe the general consensus of the North WAS to end slavery as quickly as possible, considering their aggression in starting the war (they fired the first shots, in southern territory) and the following Emancipation Proclamation and 13th amendment. And my point is that that is ALL the North was concerned with, they showed little if any concern about how the suddenly freed slaves were supposed to fit in to society at that time. While society at that time was primitive compared to today, it was more complex than the African areas where most of the slaves came from. (largely against their will) The implication of sanctuary cities is that illegals don't have problems, that they seeking a better life, seeking to do jobs that Americans aren't willing to do, will be almost nothing but a benefit to their cities. Their sudden realization that too many of them could cause them unforeseen problems, is them admitting something they've probably known all along, that there are good reasons for immigration laws. But San Francisco for example, wants as many of them as possible in the country for their votes, but they'd rather others far from them, in border towns, deal with their illiteracy and all their problems. Democrats will get their votes, that's the only thing sanctuary cities want from immigrants.All the North seemed to want was for recently immigrated blacks to not be slaves, yet they expected the South to deal with their likely problems in adjusting to life in the U.S. Yet the problem was much more minor with those freed slaves than it is today with illegal immigration. There was no free stuff in those days, and no political party was constantly calling for it. Forcing them to finally admit that illegal immigration DOES have problems is a big first step, thank you Trump. If there were "racists everywhere", then it makes sense (160 years later) to attempt to either get even with all of them, or none of them. If we can't do anything to the arrogant business owners in northern cites who refused to admit blacks into their businesses as late as 1950, then we don't need to attempt to get even with Robert E. Lee and all those today who have an admiration for him.Why would anyone today have an admiration for Robert E. Lee? My guess is that most soldiers during that war were far more concerned with their own skin than they were with 11 or 12 year old boys blundering onto a battlefield and getting killed. I'd guess that Lee had other things to think about when he saw those boys gathered outside his headquarters. I don't think his questions about "their schools and farms" was high on his list of things to know. He was taking a little time to gain their admiration and respect, so they'd listen to him when he warned them to "stay out of danger". It means something to me, and I don't see a knowledge or interest of U.S. history when I see people just refer to him as a racist and want to rip his memorials down and try to erase history.If there were "racists everywhere", and none of us can thoroughly understand what times were like back then, maybe accusations of racism of past generations isn't appropriate, in going so far as stirring up conflict by removing monuments that some people don't want removed. Why can't some things be left alone?As has been pointed out, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Is there a timeline when THEIR memorials come down? Is that future time a secret, of does it happen at the whim of some future gangs of angry Democrats? And that quote shows nothing more than a sloppy generalization, and lack of interest in actual American history. Apparently to whom? The black racists that are so vocal in the U.S. today? To Jussie Smollett? My point is that memorials were put into place in the past, by people who were closer to those moments in history than we are. My point is that if changing something for the sake of change creates conflict, then LEAVE IT ALONE.

Hellllooooooo down there!!!!!!!!! If I have a shovel, you're on the world's biggest excavator, and you're halfway to China!I have no idea what it's like to post as part of a gang of 10 or 15 people, to mercilessly hammer on one person of another view, being part of a group constantly stumbling and falling over each other trying to cover for, prop up, come at the person from several directions etc. I wouldn't feel the need to do it, I'm confident enough in my own position to depend on myself. But I see that some members of those groups are sometimes too frantic to carefully enough read what their allies say, then make a laughable generalization about how well they all work together! HahahahaI'm sure you clearly see what you did, and you might even try to avoid it in the future. But I'm not expecting any miracles on that front either. So I'll leave you alone now, go ahead and fire up that excavator and enjoy your last word. I'm sure your helpers will support you.

That's strange, I've seen more than once on these forums people who are not extreme left wing Democrats refer to ANYONE else as "Trump's base". I don't agree with everything Trump says - is there anything that AOC says that you disagree with? I can't imagine what it would be.Here's something Trump said that I don't agree with, he said that no future president should have to put up with a witch-hunt investigation like he did. I don't agree, it there's something questionable about any Democrat president, it should be gone after by Republicans with the same passion that Democrats did with Trump. For example, I'm sure many to Republicans wish there would have been a 2 year investigation on just where Obama was born. All the mystery and secrecy concerning his birth certificate should have been clearly exposed. I wish it would have happened, I'd really like to know if his miserable presidency was 100% unconstitutional. If so, I'd like to see the 3 story high mural of him in a downtown Cincinnati ghetto painted over.

quote:

---

What the North's intentions were undoubtedly varied greatly among northerners in the times leading up to, and in the early stages of the war. I believe the general consensus of the North WAS to end slavery as quickly as possible, considering their aggression in starting the war (they fired the first shots, in southern territory) and the following Emancipation Proclamation and 13th amendment.

---

The strategy in place was aimed at a gradual removal of slavery. Lincoln publicly and strongly denied any intention to bring about an immediate end to slavery. My reading indicates that the Confederate shelling of Fort Sumter was the opening shots in the war. The Emancipation Proclamation came more than a year after the start of the war, and the 13th Amendment came as a natural consequence of that.So you really don’t seem to have much there.

quote:

---

The implication of sanctuary cities is that illegals don't have problems, that they seeking a better life, seeking to do jobs that Americans aren't willing to do, will be almost nothing but a benefit to their cities. Their sudden realization that too many of them could cause them unforeseen problems, is them admitting something they've probably known all along, that there are good reasons for immigration laws. But San Francisco for example, wants as many of them as possible in the country for their votes, but they'd rather others far from them, in border towns, deal with their illiteracy and all their problems. Democrats will get their votes, that's the only thing sanctuary cities want from immigrants.

---

Leaving aside the propaganda there is no reason to think that the “sanctuary cities” are creating problems elsewhere. Surely it is obvious that illegal immigrants elsewhere get no benefit from the protections in those cities. It’s more likely that they reduce the problems elsewhere.

quote:

---

Forcing them to finally admit that illegal immigration DOES have problems is a big first step, thank you Trump.

---

As JonF points out he may not have succeeded even there. Even if there were objections, dumping large numbers of people in a city is not a good thing to do.

quote:

---

If there were "racists everywhere", then it makes sense (160 years later) to attempt to either get even with all of them, or none of them. If we can't do anything to the arrogant business owners in northern cites who refused to admit blacks into their businesses as late as 1950, then we don't need to attempt to get even with Robert E. Lee and all those today who have an admiration for him.

---

I’m all in favour of removing any statues of those people that honour them for supporting segregation. So there is no unfairness there.

quote:

---

If there were "racists everywhere", and none of us can thoroughly understand what times were like back then, maybe accusations of racism of past generations isn't appropriate, in going so far as stirring up conflict by removing monuments that some people don't want removed. Why can't some things be left alone?

---

Lee was racist even for his own time and is honoured for his deeds supporting slavery. I think that those are good reasons for removing his statues.

quote:

---

As has been pointed out, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Is there a timeline when THEIR memorials come down? Is that future time a secret, of does it happen at the whim of some future gangs of angry Democrats?

---

I think that the fact that they are being honoured for other achievements puts their statues in a better light.

quote:

---

And that quote shows nothing more than a sloppy generalization, and lack of interest in actual American history.

---

And yet it is entirely true and not even misleading. Which is rather better than your presentation of Lee’s views on slavery. Trying to pretend that Lee’s objections to slavery show that he was not a racist when his concerns were more for the free Whites than the Black slaves is a pretty disgusting piece of dishonesty.

quote:

---

Apparently to whom? The black racists that are so vocal in the U.S. today? To Jussie Smollett?

---

To any honest person. Except for modern racists.

quote:

---

My point is that memorials were put into place in the past, by people who were closer to those moments in history than we are. My point is that if changing something for the sake of change creates conflict, then LEAVE IT ALONE.

---

That certainly wasn’t your original point. And I don’t think you believe it. Trump’s wall is certainly a change that is creating conflict - but I bet you are all for it.

"Using human beings as pawns", that's a pretty ironic accusation. When Bill Clinton's EPA director mandated that certain areas in certain states implement auto emission testing 20 years ago, (crippling and destroying the lives of many working U.S. citizens) those states were informed that if they ignored federal law, they would lose certain federal funding. Yet today, when some cities declare themselves sanctuary cities (in comparable, identical) violation of federal law, they don't seem to receive those threats. I guess the EPA has more supreme power than other government agencies. Maybe something can be done about that during the Trump administration.P.S. I'll try to get to your following message later, if this thread isn't closed.

At least Washington and Jefferson understood that slavery was wrong and a blatant contradiction of the (small r) republican ideals they worked for. Washington, in fact, did free his slaves - albeit after his death - and Jefferson supported forbidding slavery in the territories... and I'll remind the viewing audience that forbidding slavery in the territories was one of the issues that so enraged the Southern successionists.I would say that Washington and Jefferson did much to establish the very republican (small r) principles under which slavery was eventually abolished.

Yes they did. They fed the five thousand and the seven thousand. And the parable of the good Samaritan shows that we should emulate the Samaritan by doing good to our enemies as well as our friends.

You should stop wasting your time on them.