Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - DCharlton

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 486
1
Your Turn / Re: Christian Nationalism? No
« on: Yesterday at 09:21:29 PM »
It would be interesting to read a informed critique of Christian Nationalism.  From what I can tell, Christian Nationalism is a repackaged version of Christian Reconstructionism.  It's very popular with a certain kind of Calvinist.  It is probably not compatible with Lutheranism.

I mentioned earlier that at least one proponent of Christian Nationalism has been outed as a white supremacist.  Although, to be fair, it was a conservative Calvinist with some sympathy toward Christian Nationalism, who outed him.

At the very least, I think we should be as wary of Christian Nationalism as we are of Christian Marxism. 

2
Your Turn / Re: Global Methodist Church Is 1 Year Old
« on: May 19, 2023, 01:41:07 PM »
My understanding is that the agreement that would have allowed an amicable divorce in the UMC was never implemented because the General Conference was delayed twice.  As a result, the agreement was never implemented.  Delay and deception triumphed once again.  The Global Methodist Church will never be a strong as it could have been if the leaders of the UMC had acted in good faith.  Instead, a strategy of leap-frogging will be put into practice, so that whatever conservative congregations that remain will be left to wither on the vine until such time as they can be occupied without resistance.

3
Your Turn / Re: A different take on the guns and schools debate
« on: May 11, 2023, 07:26:33 PM »
Agreed. It is a swamp in need of further draining.  ;)
You say "further"; what draining do you think has taken place already? Or does that get too close to the unacceptable-topics line?
The disabling of federal agencies to make sweeping, binding policies in lieu on congress voting on laws was a big step in the right direction.
I thought your earlier comment sounded uncharacteristically optimistic. How that does anything to "drain the swamp" is not clear to me. The role of big lobbying in calling the shots in our country seems undiminished. It seems to have great influence in all three branches of government as well as both main parties. Maybe I'm the pessimist.

Peace,
Michael

The cynic in me says, "Why solve a problem like immigration when it serves so well to divide Americans and keep them at each other's throats?"  The more divided we are, the easy it is to rule us.

4
Your Turn / Re: A different take on the guns and schools debate
« on: May 11, 2023, 12:37:13 PM »
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/06/10/a-majority-of-americans-say-immigrants-mostly-fill-jobs-u-s-citizens-do-not-want/

a) Over 3/4 of American citizens say undocumented immigrants mostly fill jobs US citizens don't want
b) Over half of American citizens say legal immigrants mostly fill jobs US citizens don't want.


The LCMS position for a long time, co-presented by President Kieschnick and head of Human Care Matt Harrison, has been to assist undocumented immigrants whenever possible to obtain legal status.

Dave Benke
So we should treat them as servants? Get the poor schmucks to come work for peanuts so we don’t have to? That seems more conniving than compassionate. Every job is a job Americans don’t want if it doesn’t pay enough. Bringing in people with a third world standard of living definitely fills jobs nobody wants, but it leaves out the fact that the paycheck is why must people take jobs at all. Third World people in desperate straights competing with low skill American laborers is like scabs crossing picket lines. Again, I favor immigration, but it is unfair to argue they only take jobs Americans don’t want. They only don’t want them because they pay wages suitable for Third World refugees. If nobody here wants those jobs, it is because the salary being offered is not where supply of labor meets demand. One solution is to raise wages. Another is the flood the market with supply.

At today’s very, very low unemployment rate, rejection of immigrants would only mean the jobs would not get filled

Peace, JOHN

I agree.  A very conservative Republican who I knew, who is intimately involved in the trucking industry, told me that if you removed every illegal immigrant in the US, we would run out of food in two weeks.

What I can't understand is that, given that fact, our elected leaders have yet to find a way for those necessary workers to enter into our country and remain here legally.  Well, I actually do.  It's a charade played on us by our elected leaders. 

One side pretends that it wants to end illegal immigration.  It doesn't.  It wants people to come into our country illegally, rather than legally, so they can be exploited economically and politically.   The other side pretends that it wants to welcome immigrants and migrant workers into our county.  It does and it doesn't.  I wants people to come into our country, but to do so illegally, so that they can be exploited economically and politically.

A real solution would involve changing our laws so that the people who are necessary for our economy to function wouldn't have to live in fear.  Unfortunately, our elected leaders have too much to gain by changing nothing. 

5
Your Turn / Re: A different take on the guns and schools debate
« on: May 10, 2023, 11:00:07 AM »
We as a nation have the capacity to deal with those seeking asylum here. We just don’t have the compassion to do so.
So we perk up our ears when someone alleges “guns” or “drugs” or “criminals” as take that an excuse for not planning to care for those needing our help or we

What a vile slander, Charles.  That is the exact opposite of what I wrote.  I wrote that we change our laws so that it is easier for people to seek asylum in the US without subjecting themselves to a dangerous journey and exploitation by human traffickers.  I added that in doing that, we could focus on the criminals who smuggle drugs and guns across the border.  You distort my words in the most dishonest way.

6
Your Turn / Re: A different take on the guns and schools debate
« on: May 10, 2023, 10:50:16 AM »
What is the issue here?
We don’t have room for immigrants ? But we do.
We don’t have jobs for immigrants? But we do.
We don’t have structures to deal with immigrants? But we do.
Receiving large numbers of immigrants is a new challenge? No, it isn’t.
What is the issue here?

It's inhumane to encourage people to enter the US illegally.  This subjects people to dangers and exploitation that are unnecessary.  Increasing legal immigration while simultaneously increasing funding for law enforcement on the border  is the reasonable thing to do.

Most of the thousands stalled at the border because of  are waiting to turn themselves in to the authorities so that the asylum process can begin. They are then here legally. The ending of Title 42 which prevented them from entering to help prevent the spread of COVID is ending.

And what is humane about forcing people to remain stalled at the border?  If the US would change its laws and make a better process, people would not have to take the risks they are taking at this time.  Why do you want people to subject themselves to rape, human trafficking, extortion, starvation, dehydration, and drowning to get to the US when there are better ways?

7
Your Turn / Re: A different take on the guns and schools debate
« on: May 10, 2023, 10:47:49 AM »
Dangers? Like death from gang violence or civil unrest or starvation in your homeland?

Like rape, extortion, starvation, dehydration, drowning.  Can't we find a more humane way for people seek asylum than having them travel on foot?  I understand your desire for more people to be able to come to America.  Why do you want them to have to take most dangerous route?

I personally know two people from Venezuela who tell me that they would not recommend that anyone try coming to America by foot.  Do you know better than they?

8
Your Turn / Re: A different take on the guns and schools debate
« on: May 09, 2023, 09:59:38 PM »
What is the issue here?
We don’t have room for immigrants ? But we do.
We don’t have jobs for immigrants? But we do.
We don’t have structures to deal with immigrants? But we do.
Receiving large numbers of immigrants is a new challenge? No, it isn’t.
What is the issue here?

It's inhumane to encourage people to enter the US illegally.  This subjects people to dangers and exploitation that are unnecessary.  Increasing legal immigration while simultaneously increasing funding for law enforcement on the border  is the reasonable thing to do. 

9
Your Turn / Re: A different take on the guns and schools debate
« on: May 09, 2023, 03:26:51 PM »
Let’s hear some statistics about guns crossing our southern border. I suspect the guns that are doing the damage are made right here in this country. prove me wrong.

The guns flow both ways.  Probably more are exported , but illegal guns are also imported.  Why would you want to do nothing to stop gun trafficking.?  Oh yes, for the same reason you don't want to do anything about fentanyl.  It's not about solving problems.  It's about sticking it to the Right.

A policy of banning the manufacture and sale of guns, combined with increased law enforcement both within the US and on the border might significantly decrease gun deaths, both in the US and in Mexico.  It might also decrease human trafficking , sex trafficking, and fentanyl deaths.   Unfortunately, the Right is opposed to more gun control, while Charles and his friends on the left want to defund the police and have open borders.  But who wants to sacrifice ideological purity?



10
Your Turn / Re: A different take on the guns and schools debate
« on: May 09, 2023, 02:59:33 PM »
The “illegals“ often work for less than a proper wage, so the people who employ them benefit.
I’d like to see data on guns coming across our “open” borders. I think we have plenty of guns already here, manufactured by US companies in the United States.

Oh, I see that you're not serious about saving lives and preventing gun deaths, not to mention deaths from fentanyl.  You just want to stick it to the Right.  Any reasonably informed person knows that the is a trade in illegal guns.  To lower gun deaths would require us to address bother legal and illegal guns, but you don't care about that. 

A party that wants to defund police while ignoring trafficking of guns, drugs, and human beings on the border in the name of being "pro-immigrant" isn't serious about saving lives.  It is driven by a lust for political power. 

11
Your Turn / Re: A different take on the guns and schools debate
« on: May 09, 2023, 02:32:06 PM »
Exactly HOW? Exactly how does anyone "close" a border that is 2,000 miles long? What else is a border that is 2,000 miles long, but mostly open?

Even if, in the unlikely event that we could ever afford to build a wall for 2,000 miles, the border would be open for the most part. How about drones?

"Closed" and "open" make for dramatic sounding politics but not much else.

Major unemployment and a bad economy would certainly help keep people out. It seems that neither party is in favor though.

Peace, JOHN

I've already explained what I mean by that phrase.  Work to stop trafficking, guns and drugs.  A party that wants to get rid of guns, but is simultaneously against law enforcement, isn't serious about stopping gun violence.

12
Your Turn / Re: A different take on the guns and schools debate
« on: May 09, 2023, 01:21:43 PM »
For the second time, I asked Charles whether he was willing to increase law enforcement and close the border to order to facilitate his plan of gun control.  He has yet to answer me. 

"Close the border?" That just won't work. Farmers in our area require 30,000-40,000 farm workers each harvest. A majority of those come across from Mexico - often waiting as long as 2 hours at the border crossing every day. Those farm owners can't afford to have the border closed.

Hundreds if not thousands of Americans and Canadians cross into Mexico each day for cheaper medicines, dental work, optometry work & glasses, some even for haircuts. We could get insulin for about 1/6 the cost that it was in the U.S. even with insurance. Those folks don't want the border closed.

Periodically, their are reports of the finding of illegal drugs coming across the border - even finding a tunnel that went under the border. I don't recall any reports about finding the smuggling of guns across the border. (We do have the fence all along our border here.)

"Close the border" means to decrease illegal crossings.  I'm in favor of an "open border" if you mean legal crossings.  I'm even in favor of changing immigration laws so that refugees and economic migrants can come into the US openly.  It is clear that the elected leaders of the USA want immigration to continue.  The question is why they want there to be so much illegal immigration.  Who benefits from it?  Not the refugees and economic migrants.  Human traffickers benefit.  Who else?

13
Your Turn / Re: A different take on the guns and schools debate
« on: May 09, 2023, 01:15:50 PM »
I am in favor of efforts to stop illegal entry to our country. But I am also in favor of immigration of refugees fleeing their homelands, recognizing that their needs might be special.

Two comments: 

1. I'm in favor of changing immigration laws so that refugees and those seeking economic opportunity don't have to cross our border illegally.  When the US permits and encourages illegal entry into the US, they make refugees and economic migrants vulnerable to exploitation by cartels.  Those same cartels use the open border to smuggle drugs and guns into the US.  I don't know why our ruling class prefers illegal immigration to legal immigration. Who benefits?  Not refugees and economic migrants.

2.  What about increasing funding for law enforcement?  I don't see how we can defund the police at the same time that we pass new anti-gun legislation.  Our current laws are not enforced well enough.  How will fewer law-enforcement officers be able to handle the job of disarming the populace?

14
Your Turn / Re: A different take on the guns and schools debate
« on: May 09, 2023, 10:36:58 AM »
For the second time, I asked Charles whether he was willing to increase law enforcement and close the border to order to facilitate his plan of gun control.  He has yet to answer me. 

My conclusion is that like others on the left, he is not really serious about gun control.  Gun control is a wedge issue for the Democratic Party that is used to increase votes.  If the problem was solved, they would lose a great political weapon.  By the way, this is the same conclusion that I came to about the Republican Party over a decade ago in regard to abortion. 

15
Your Turn / Re: A different take on the guns and schools debate
« on: May 08, 2023, 07:33:30 PM »
OK, here’s another idea. Let’s take everybody’s big military style guns away. If the killings and the mass shootings don’t go down, then we’ll give everybody their guns back.

Not being a gun owner myself, I have nothing to lose by your proposal.  However, I suggest that you will have to increase funding for law-enforcement and lock down the border.  You can't seize all guns while defunding the police and leaving the border open for gun trafficking.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 486