What happened:

(1) Trump promoted violence and encouraged supporters to be violent.

(2) Trump targeted specific people for repeated vicious attacks.

(3) A domestic terrorist sent bombs to all the people Trump targeted.

(4) Trump blamed the media.

It's basically that simple.

"[On] Wednesday, [Trump] landed on a strategy that both minimizes the seriousness of the situation and encourages the bomber: Blaming the victims."

"Now Trump's approach is unsurprisingly being reinforced on Fox News, with multiple pundits blaming the media and the left, and framing the bomber as someone whose motivations are justified, even as they claim to denounce his methods. The idea is solidifying, at least in right-wing groupthink, that liberals and journalists should respond to terrorism by giving the terrorists what they want. This is no different than the logic of the wife-beater who tells his wife that he doesn't want to hit her, but if she can't get dinner on the table in time, then he clearly has no choice."

"Trump's idea of unity is not one where there's some terrain for reasonable compromise, or a genuine effort to argue out differences in an atmosphere of mutual respect. It's one where he can do what he wants and everyone else achieves 'unity' by lying down and letting him have his way."

https://www.salon.com/2018/10/25/donald-trump-blames-the-bombing-victims-that-didnt-take-long/

We’ve seen calls for incivility from both sides of the political spectrum . So if you chose to blame Trump go right ahead .It'll have the same impact of blaming Palin for Gabby Giffords ' shooting . I'll have to remind you of course that lefties have been routinely threatening and confronting Republicans in public recently and of course the only blood shed of public figures in the Trump era was
Majority Whip Steve Scalise who was shot and almost died from his wound.

Evita said
“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about . “That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.” But hers were noble words right ? Maxine Waters called on her constituents to "absolutely harass " Trump officials . That may be why they get chased out of restaurants .

Double digit bombs and none of them went off. hmmm. Sounds like a Dem bomb maker to me . I have no evidence of that charge but hey who needs evidence these days to incite ?

You are right Tom, no one needs evidence these days. Bombs that don't go off, does nothing work over there?

What do you expect a lying, cheating, dufus to see through those beady eyes and black heart, and big mouth?

Clete this is all a set up . I don't know who did it yet but there is forensic evidence enough to probably nail them within the week . There were not enough explosives to set off a good fire cracker . There was just enough for detection . The funnist thing so far was il Duce Cuomo saying that he too was mailed a bomb. Turned out to be a thumb drive . Now he feels left out . All the beautiful people are getting "bombs " .

a suspect has been arrested

a suspect has been arrested


Your "suspect" is a nutcase who has been radicalized by your boy Trump. Look up "stochastic terrorism".

Trump hammers every day against his targets and no one should be surprised when the weak-minded among his followers translates his tweets and comments into action. Remember pizzagate?

No one on the political or media scene comes remotely close to the evil nastiness of Trump. His responsibility is indirect but it is there nevertheless. And he knows it, as does everybody else.

And he knows it, as does everybody else.
He likes the power.

Your "suspect" is a nutcase who has been radicalized by your boy Trump. Look up "stochastic terrorism".

He was radicalized well before Trump.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/cesar-sayoc-obamas-clintons-maxine-waters-robert-deniro-cnn-donald-trump-wasserman-eric-holder-george-soros-bomber-crude-pipe-bomb-threat-suspicious-package-cory-booker/

But ok if you want to blame Trump then will you also blame Bolshevik Bernie for
James Hodgkinson shooting at Congressional Republicans ;seriously wounding Rep Scalise ?


and who do we blame when Vanessa Trump opened an envelope with white powder landing her in the hospital for 2 weeks being treated with Cipro ?

The Dufus loves power and craves approval, and always looks for a foe to demean to show how tough he is. He has no feel for nuance, sympathy or any good orderly direction. Details escape him completely as the ends always justifies his means. He is full of ideas that are great in his own mind, but leaves it to others to figure it out and hell to pay if they can't.

He can't be anything but the BOSS, and his loyalty comes with a heavy price, even for his family who seem molded into his image yet just as subordinate. As any ardent sycophant. Yes the dufus is bigger than life all right and dominates attention, but his weaponizing to the nth degree of fear and hate, red meat for his base is also a beacon for any lost loony. I recognize the country had already moved to tribal mode, but the dufus surely didn't help it but escalated it to levels I have not seen before.

Wonder if the dufus will keep his campaign promise of paying the legal fees of his supporters when they take actions against his enemies? How can you even compare Bernie's public rhetoric to the dufus's, Tom? I know it's silly season but I can find no distinction between righty loonies or lefty loonies, only that they are dangerous when focusing their out of bounds behavior. Yeah I put all these nuts in the same basket and blame them, but the actions or reactions to these events are entirely on the individual, but the prez was his usual disgusting self.

Trump is compensating, it is obvious

He has to rally his base with a steady supply of red meat to garner the votes to keep him in power. It worked to get him in power for sure. He is a campaigning machine to be fair. It would be interesting to see how he floats without so many sycophants in congress holding him up though. His margins for error are very slim.

What could the dufus be compensating for Clete? I agree but just would like your thoughts.

but I can find no distinction between righty loonies or lefty loonies, only that they are dangerous when focusing their out of bounds behavior. Yeah I put all these nuts in the same basket and blame them, but the actions or reactions to these events are entirely on the individual, but the prez was his usual disgusting self.


Agreed so call out Athos who is saying Trump is directly responsible . You did too by suggesting he should pay Sayocs legal fees .




I recognize the country had already moved to tribal mode, but the dufus surely didn't help it but escalated it to levels I have not seen before.
Evita cheered the end of civility . Maxine Waters and Eric Holder both made statements recently intended to ummmm lets say "inspire" their base to take it a step beyond bounds(incite has legal implications so I use inspire instead)


Waters :
“If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

Holder :
“Michelle always says—I love her; she and my wife are like, really tight, which always scares me and Barack—but Michelle always says, ‘When they go low, we go high.’ No. When they go low, we kick ’em.”

Agreed so call out Athos who is saying Trump is directly responsible. You did too by suggesting he should pay Sayocs legal fees .

That's what the Dufus said Tom, over and over repeatedly for a long time now. His rhetoric hasn't changed much and he gets very personal naming names and taking no prisoners. Even Faux can no longer carry the dufus show live in it's entirety. Explain that. Hard to NOT blame a loony being triggered by the words of the dufus. Loonies are easily triggered, and CONSTANTLY endorsing bad behavior, as does the dufus, then he does bear some responsibility for his words and actions that cannot and should not be ignored. You righties really should muzzle and leash your pit bull. Instead you cheer his bad behavior.

He is no leader or role model, nor should be taken as such, but recognize a rabble rouser who inspires the very worse in ALL of us. But if he gives you goodies like tax cuts and conservative judges then I guess you go along with him destroying everything else. Obviously I agree with Athos on this issue.



Evita cheered the end of civility . Maxine Waters and Eric Holder both made statements recently intended to ummmm lets say "inspire" their base to take it a step beyond bounds(incite has legal implications so I use inspire instead)

Waters :“If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

Holder :
“Michelle always says—I love her; she and my wife are like, really tight, which always scares me and Barack—but Michelle always says, ‘When they go low, we go high.’ No. When they go low, we kick ’em.[?QUOTE]

Even though you cherry picked those quotes and left a LOT out of them wholly changing the context, there is no comparison between the bully at the pulpit, and those that oppose him. This is what Hillary actually said,

[QUOTE]
"You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about," Clinton said in an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour. "That's why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that's when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength."


They all are saying Tom, don't let the bully and his sycophants keep kicking you! Sorry if you cannot understand that something has to be done about the mad dog you elected.

Agreed so call out Athos who is saying Trump is directly responsible .


Can you read? I said INDIRECTLY responsible!

Bernie is nothing like Trump - false equivalence. Bernie didn't repeatedly single out any targets by name the way Trump did - and continues to do.

Hello:

To me, hatred coming from the bully pulpit of the presidency, is 100's of 1,000's of TIMES worse than hatred coming from ANYONE who isn't president..

Trump is LIGHTING a match to a gasoline soaked nation, and then he yells FIRE.. He needs to be removed and removed NOW.


excon

https://fox17online.com/2018/10/27/multiple-casualties-in-shooting-at-pittsburgh-synagogue/

Hello Tal:

Right wingers PRETEND to like Jews.. But, we're the first ones to get picked off. If I was running things, I'd put together a Jewish militia, and go on the offensive..

It's time to pick sides and join up.. The middle AIN'T a place you wanna be.

excon, Jewish warrior

Americans used to know how to disagree with one another without being mutually contemptuous .The news media, which promote shrieking outrage in pursuit of ratings makes the problem worse.


When Democrat leaders declare themselves part of the 'resistance' ,you know Civil War is imminent .
When you look around at Democrat leaders applauding and encouraging the open harassment of political opponents out in public, and Trump at rallies applauding the body slamming of journalists , you know things are only going to get worse.
Which side are you on ? We are a nation founded on self rule, protected by our Constitution. We exist as a nation because we deem it so. If and when we reach the point that we are in "Civil War" we are no longer a nation, but warring factions or as Tal said 'tribes', set on a course toward imminent destruction.

Hello again, tom:

I think you're right, and I think it's inevitable. The next civil war is gonna be called Civil War 1.2.. That's cause we never finished the first one. We LET the south keep its traitorous monuments, and statues. We LET them fly their battle flag. We LET them keep their Jim Crow laws..

We should have unalterably VANQUISHED them, OCCUPIED them, RE-EDUCATED them, and eased them back into civil society very carefully...

We'll do it this time, I betcha..

excon, Jewish warrior

is this shooting the result of Trump inciting too ? That would be a very hard case to make . Northern occupation lasted between 1865 and 1877 . It was called Reconstruction. It was a mixed bag of success and failure . Knocking down statues does not purge thought . Just ask the Taliban and ISIS if that has worked for them. This time there are no geographic delineations . So I guess your goal will be the equivalent of ethnic cleansing ; similar to what happened to loyalists after the Revolution or to Jews and Christians in most of the Middle East.

is this shooting the result of Trump inciting too?
As Athos said in this thread yesterday: "Trump hammers every day against his targets and no one should be surprised when the weak-minded among his followers translates his tweets and comments into action."

maybe you should read up on Robert Bowers . He made many comments on social media that he did not vote for Trump and did not like him because he has Jews in his cabinet . Trump's grandchildren are being raised in the Jewish faith and few President's have been more supportive of Israel. But none of that fits everyone's narrative of Trump .

maybe you should read up on Robert Bowers . He made many comments on social media that he did not vote for Trump and did not like him because he has Jews in his cabinet . Trump's grandchildren are being raised in the Jewish faith and few President's have been more supportive of Israel. But none of that fits everyone's narrative of Trump .
Trump spews hatred and harming those we hate. And that's what Bowers did.

Evil is as evil does. One or a group. It's a big mistake to assign rational reasoning to a homicidal lunatic. Better to check and see if we had a full moon. That's as valid as any other explanation.

https://www.almanac.com/content/full-moon-october

Or was he trying to top the bomb lunatic?

what nonsense ! Here Bower's tweet about Trump


https://gellerreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Bowers-did-not-vote-for-Trump.png (https://gellerreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Bowers-did-not-vote-for-Trump.png)

Remember, Tom. Facts have no place in the thinking of many people. There's no more despicable person than Maxine Waters. She has openly and repeatedly called for violence against republicans, but that's OK since she is a democrat.

Really JL? After a loony sent bombs to many former and present democratic officials, another loony kills 11 people in a synagogue, and yet another loon in Kentucky tries to enter a church fails and kills two people at a grocery store,

Kentucky gunman attempted to enter predominantly black church minutes before grocery store shooting - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ny-news-kroger-gunman-black-church-before-shooting-20181026-story.html)

All you got is Maxine is despicable? I have never heard her call for violence, harassment yes (Maybe not a good move!), but violence NO, but she did get two pipe bombs from the loon.

After horrific events this past week that's all you got and speak of FACTS? Really? The real FACT is there are a lot of dangerous homicidal lunatics just waiting to reek death and destruction on innocent people. I think its pointless to worry about the politics, but we better deal with the disaster.

Disturbing you target Maxine Waters, but leave the dufus and his long onslaughts of hate speech and actually calling for violence out of the mix.

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/cache/lw600/167/16723/1672300.jpg

Remember, Tom. Facts have no place in the thinking of many people. There's no more despicable person than Maxine Waters. She has openly and repeatedly called for violence against republicans, but that's OK since she is a democrat.


The only one that needs to worry about facts is you yourself.

Maxine Waters agreed with harassing Republicans at public places after Sarah Saunders was so harassed. Waters was roundly criticized by Democrats including Nancy Pelosi for this remark which she gave ONCE at a rally in Los Angeles - hardly "repeatedly calling for violence".

The one who repeatedly calls for violence is your Trump. He does it in the most violent words and has been doing it since he first began his campaign.

Check your facts so you don't present yourself as ignorant.

Disturbing you target Maxine Waters, but leave the dufus and his long onslaughts of hate speech and actually calling for violence out of the mix.

How about the supporter of Bernie Sanders who actually DID commit an act of violence, shooting republican congressmen? Do you hold Sanders responsible for that? I don't, just like I don't hold Trump responsible for what some loonies did. BTW, the shooter at the Jewish ceremony was actually a strong opponent of Trump, but you even want to hold Trump responsible for him. So you might be the one who needs to get his facts straight. It's just looney-tune politics to put this at Trump's feet. It's election time maneuvering.

As for Auntie Maxine, concerning the LA riots, this is what she said. See if it sounds like a denunciation of violence to you. “If you call it a riot, it sounds like it was just a bunch of crazy people who went out and did bad things for no reason. I maintain it was somewhat understandable, if not acceptable. So I call it a rebellion.” So burning down buildings, destroying private property, and killing people is viewed, to her, as "acceptable". Get serious.

Her repeated calls for harassing republicans is what I was referring to. You might not consider it violence, but if it happens to you, you'll have a different point of view. "The people are going to turn on them. They're going to protest. They're going to absolutely harass them until they decide that they're going to tell the President, 'No, I can't hang with you.'" These are the words that stir anger, and anger stirs violence.

Does Trump need to learn to keep his mouth shut? Absolutely, but don't act like he is alone in that regard. A little honesty would go a long ways.

Try explaining your excuses to these people.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/protesters-assault-trump-supporters-eggs-bottles-punches-after-rally-n585096


49077

More non-violent democrats.
https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/738580604736786434

There is violent behavior on both sides, and the only answer I see is for the rest of us to abandon our own hate speech and oppose this violence, no matter what the source. It should not be politicized. We should not fold our arms and insist that our side has no problem with violent behavior or with those who take political rhetoric to an unhealthy extreme.

How about the supporter of Bernie Sanders who actually DID commit an act of violence, shooting republican congressmen? Do you hold Sanders responsible for that? I don't, just like I don't hold Trump responsible for what some loonies did

False equivalence. Bernie never promoted violence against anyone. Trump promotes violence consistently. Backed by the power of the bully pulpit, Trump influences his supporters, especially those on the brink. As president, his responsibility is to set the proper tone to inhibit violence. He does the opposite.


As for Auntie Maxine, concerning the LA riots, this is what she said. See if it sounds like a denunciation of violence to you. “If you call it a riot, it sounds like it was just a bunch of crazy people who went out and did bad things for no reason. I maintain it was somewhat understandable, if not acceptable. So I call it a rebellion.” So burning down buildings, destroying private property, and killing people is viewed, to her, as "acceptable". Get serious.

You put words in her mouth that she never said. "Burning down buildings, destroying private property, and killing people". Those are YOUR words, not Maxine Waters'. Who needs to get serious now?



Her repeated calls for harassing republicans is what I was referring to. ... anger stirs violence

If your position is what politicians say stirs anger and anger stirs violence, then just about every politician is guilty. But political speech is not the issue here. The issue is DIRECT incitement to violence using unmistakably violent encouragements to attack the opposition.



Does Trump need to learn to keep his mouth shut? Absolutely, but don't act like he is alone in that regard. A little honesty would go a long ways.

Trump alone is guilty of this. His thuggish behavior is recorded in Tweets and videos for anyone to see. You on the right-wing ought to take your own advice re honesty. Taking a page from Trump's playbook, you accuse others of the very thing you (and Trump) are guilty of. Dishonesty is rampant among the right.

You put words in her mouth that she never said. "Burning down buildings, destroying private property, and killing people". Those are YOUR words, not Maxine Waters'. Who needs to get serious now?

That's what the people were doing whose behavior she found "acceptable". How else can it be understood??

As for Trump, who is it who attacks Trump supporters? Who is it who, by threat of violence, prevent conservative speakers from speaking on college campuses? Who is it who harass and intimidate republicans in restaurants and other venues? Who was it shot republican congressmen? If you said liberal democrats, you get to go to the front of the line. Trump needs to dial it WAY back, and I agree with you on that, but you are just another self-righteous liberal if you can't see the violence on the left directed at conservatives. It plainly does not bother you, since you say nothing at all about it.

And yes, there are self-righteous conservatives who do the same thing, and no doubt I have been one of them myself from time to time.

That's what the people were doing whose behavior she found "acceptable". How else can it be understood??

The people were doing nothing of the sort. Stop reading Infowars and watching FOX.



As for Trump, who is it who attacks Trump supporters? Who is it who, by threat of violence, prevent conservative speakers from speaking on college campuses? Who is it who harass and intimidate republicans in restaurants and other venues? Who was it shot republican congressmen? If you said liberal democrats, you get to go to the front of the line. Trump needs to dial it WAY back, and I agree with you on that, but you are just another self-righteous liberal if you can't see the violence on the left directed at conservatives. It plainly does not bother you, since you say nothing at all about it.


I have always condemned violence regardless of the source. I was the first one here to support Scalise when he was shot and to condemn the shooter. Be careful how you cast aspersions.

The discussion is about Trump and how he promotes violence. If you wish to broaden it to college campuses, start another thread. You have a tendency to make things up as you continue from post to post - not an effective way to engage in a discussion.

The people were doing nothing of the sort?? They had to call out 2,000 national guard troops. 63 were killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots


The discussion is about Trump and how he promotes violence.

Thank you for making my point. You seem to have no concern about violence unless it can be used politically. Well, perhaps that is not a fair statement, but I don't see any concern from liberals about liberal violence, just as most Trump supporters tend to overlook his overheated rhetoric.

The people were doing nothing of the sort?? They had to call out 2,000 national guard troops. 63 were killed.

[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

I had no idea you were referring to something from almost 30 years ago!! That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? I was referring to the present-day Trump presidency. But if you want to go back, be careful. Trump has a long public record of thorough nastiness unmatched by anyone in public life.



Thank you for making my point. You seem to have no concern about violence unless it can be used politically. Well, perhaps that is not a fair statement,

I don't know what hat you pulled that one out of. Perhaps, you said. PERHAPS? You answered your own comment.



but I don't see any concern from liberals about liberal violence, just as most Trump supporters tend to overlook his overheated rhetoric.

You have no idea whether I'm a liberal or a conservative or something else. What I AM is someone who appreciates the facts of a situation. When it comes to facts, Trump is a fact-deprived bozo.

I had no idea you were referring to something from almost 30 years ago!!

That was the riot that MW was referring to.


You have no idea whether I'm a liberal or a conservative or something else.

Makes no difference. You seem to be only concerned with one side of the violence, which you think traces back to Trump. If that's true, then who does the liberal violence trace back to?

The dufus is but a symptom of a greater problem. Hate, born of fear. He didn't create the problem, but he sure ain't the solution. Unfortunately I doubt you will ever understand the remarks Congressman Waters makes about those riots long ago, nor how it evolved through the decades since that affect us today in profound ways .

You're not alone, as many don't get it either. I find it strange you make no comment on the triggering events of those riots of which you speak, tragic in every sense, that lends the context of those comments you find so despicable. In essence you are condoning the wanton brutality and mistreatment and dismissing the anger that it fostered. In no way do I condone or justify the violence that came from the Rodney King beating video at the hands of stupid a$$ cops, but it was the acquittal of those cops of any wrong doing, that was the REAL match that ignited the explosion that followed. There was plenty of fuel already as injustice has a LONG bloody history in this country. No surprise it blew up!

Cops getting away with murder and mayhem is a theme we have seen for far to long in this country, but it's only a small part of the picture and easy to ignore and miss the implications some refuse to see yet alone acknowledge , of how ugly the bigger picture is. Some don't or can't understand that, or don't care to understand but obviously Maxine Waters does. I can only implore YOU, JL to look deeper into those comments before you dismiss her as despicable.

I do understand though how horrific events can send us to the depths of our own tribal shelters, as it's no shame to be scared, and seek safety wherever we can find it, but the important thing is what you do about it through the lessons we learn from such events and experiences. If we cannot learn and find ways to do better then we can only drown in our own shat.

I find it fascinating you can go back that far and still have not learned the lesson of those times. Have you allowed a deep seated resentment to fester. It appears that way.

Unfortunately I doubt you will ever understand the remarks Congressman Waters makes about those riots long ago, nor how it evolved through the decades since that affect us today in profound ways .

Easy for you to say. You were not among the 63 killed. I find it beyond amazing that you feel such sympathy for a group of hoodlums who killed and rampaged, but have nothing to say about the dead, their families, and the thousands who lost much of what they had in this world, most of whom were law-abiding black Americans. You looking for someone to feel sorry for and understand? Try that group. You really believe that the killers and vandals were acting out of some pent-up, justifiable anger over social conditions? Since when do you have to kill someone and burn down their business in order to protest? I think you are greatly mistaken in your sympathies. Ask me to feel sorry for the victims, and you'll find a lot of agreement.

The dufus is but a symptom of a greater problem. Hate, born of fear. He didn't create the problem, but he sure ain't the solution. Unfortunately I doubt you will ever understand the remarks Congressman Waters makes about those riots long ago, nor how it evolved through the decades since that affect us today in profound ways . Etc., etc., etc.

Well done, Talaniman. I was writing more or less the same thing, but you said it better.


Easy for you to say. You were not among the 63 killed.


You missed tal's point. He was not justifying the riots, he was giving context.

Easy for you to say. You were not among the 63 killed. I find it beyond amazing that you feel such sympathy for a group of hoodlums who killed and rampaged, but have nothing to say about the dead, their families, and the thousands who lost much of what they had in this world, most of whom were law-abiding black Americans. You looking for someone to feel sorry for and understand? Try that group. You really believe that the killers and vandals were acting out of some pent-up, justifiable anger over social conditions? Since when do you have to kill someone and burn down their business in order to protest? I think you are greatly mistaken in your sympathies. Ask me to feel sorry for the victims, and you'll find a lot of agreement.

You still cannot see the conditions that makes such events more than possible and highly probable. Let me add more data to this equation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_riots

So you see the 1992 riots were not the first in Watts. Similar events have also happened across the country. I think if you step back you would see the same themes and conditions and not just the killers and vandals who jump in during these events. Maybe once you recognize those conditions then maybe you will see that it will and has happened again. The dufus ain't the solution, he is without doubt part of the problem which has little to do with liberals or conservatives.

Don't be so distracted by your own prejudices and resentments. You should be more interested in prevention.

You should be more interested in prevention.

I just don't think making excuses for the criminals is helpful with prevention. I don't like much of what is going on in our country, but to date I have not gone out and killed anyone or destroyed their property. There is no excuse for it and no context in which it is acceptable.

Hello A:

How does Trump see himself? Well, he's NOT good at hiding things.. To me, it's CLEAR that he's Putin's puppet, and he's PROUD to be Putin's puppet.

Clearly, he's doing his BEST to DESTROY America from within so he can turn it over to Putin. His efforts are OBVIOUS.. He calls CNN the enemy of the people, and some crazy jerk thinks he's HELPING Trump and BOMBS CNN.. Did that open Trumps eyes? NOO.. He's calling CNN the enemy of the people TODAY again..

To me that GIVES a green light to the NEXT bomber.. Trump KNOWS it and wants the conflagration to begin. In either case, he needs to be REMOVED from office forthwith before he destroys us all..

excon

To me that GIVES a green light to the NEXT bomber

So who gave the green light to this guy? North Carolina republican office hit by firebomb. The article notes, " the culprits marked their hate for the party by spray-painting the words 'Nazi Republicans.'" Does that concern you, or is it only the relatively small portion of violent acts committed by Trump supporters that you are worried about?

https://nypost.com/2016/10/16/north-carolina-republican-office-torched-by-fire-bomb/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=site+buttons&utm_campaign=site+buttons&fbclid=IwAR0o0MKL1BcjaqS8TXP6ESTXsGb7ispzaIdiCm9h9 0qi594RgHWwI5nZTJY

I just don't think making excuses for the criminals is helpful with prevention. I don't like much of what is going on in our country, but to date I have not gone out and killed anyone or destroyed their property. There is no excuse for it and no context in which it is acceptable.

I made no excuses for criminals, I think that's just you being hardcore entrenched in your opinion, and ignoring the long available data into the causes of violence and civil unrest.

You just got through making excuses for criminals several posts back, excusing the violence in the LA riots. Now I know you don't approve of violence. The difference between us is that I oppose all of it. The crazy man who sent the bombs should be prosecuted. Trump needs to tone it way down, but the loonies on the left who repeatedly call Trump a nazi, compare him to Hitler, and call for violent upheaval are all equally guilty. Don't believe that last one? Check out what the Huff Post had to say.

"Violent resistance matters. Riots can lead to major change (http://www.vox.com/2015/4/30/8518681/protests-riots-work) (*note the irony of that hyperlink going to a Vox article). It’s not liberal politicians or masses that historians identify as the spark underlying the modern movement for LGBTQ equality. Nor was it a think piece from some smarmy liberal writer. It was the people who took to the streets during the Stonewall Uprising (http://www.socialistalternative.org/stonewall-riots-1969/). It was the Watts Rebellion (http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/11/local/la-me-watts11aug11), not the Watts Battle of Ideas, that exposed the enduring systemic neglect, poverty, inequality, and racism faced by that community. Similarly, it was the LA Uprising, not the LA Protests, that led to significant changes (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-17878180) in the Los Angeles Police Department."

That is in excess by far of anything Trump has said, but I don't think you pay attention to it because it is liberal propaganda. Read it for yourself.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-benn/sorry-liberals-a-violent-_b_10316186.html

I'm outside working on a project, and it hits me that Tal probably knows more about this stuff in his little finger than I know all over. I am extending an overhang out to be a screened in porch. You will notice two 2x8 supports under the old overhang. They will eventually come down. There will be, of course, 2x4's around to perimeter for support and to hold the screen. Any suggestions? Please say something nice about the porch railing. I put that in. (<:

49078490794908049081

Ex seriously ? You fell for that Manchurian Candidate stuff too ?

His efforts are OBVIOUS.. He calls CNN the enemy of the people,

Well that settles it! Anyone who calls CNN the enemy of the people is plainly out to turn the country over to the Russkies. Glad you caught that!

I'm outside working on a project, and it hits me that Tal probably knows more about this stuff in his little finger than I know all over. I am extending an overhang out to be a screened in porch. You will notice two 2x8 supports under the old overhang. They will eventually come down. There will be, of course, 2x4's around to perimeter for support and to hold the screen. Any suggestions? Please say something nice about the porch railing. I put that in. (<:

49078490794908049081

Attachments didn't work.

I see Trump's latest plan is to abolish the citizenship for those born there, never made sense anyway, but this will bring about a sh'tstorm and challenges in the Supreme Court and he just might succeed, goodbye democratic base and he just might make it retrospective. Now what was he thinking? I'll get those Demorats to play ball on Immigration reform?

Silly season pychobabble. If the racists and psychos stay home, repubs loose really BIG! Even Tom has gone off his rocker a bit with the invasion from the south. I think the Euros resent they had to take a boat trip to get here.

Silly season pychobabble. If the racists and psychos stay home, repubs loose really BIG! Even Tom has gone off his rocker a bit with the invasion from the south. I think the Euros resent they had to take a boat trip to get here.

Look I know where you are coming from with unwanted illegal immigrants, we have strong views on it too, but boat people aside. As I have said before these numbers are small bananas, it is just the thought of your border being openly "stormed". This represents wonderful political opportunity with elections days away and that is all it is

Attachments didn't work.




There obviously must be some secret to getting pics to work that I don't know. I choose the files and upload them. It worked perfectly the day I did it, but now now. I have no clue. Of course some of you had already arrived at that conclusion in several areas!!



I'll try it again. Maybe just one this time.


49085

https://scontent.fmem1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/45250666_2185499998129574_5104350429777494016_n.jp g?_nc_cat=110&_nc_ht=scontent.fmem1-2.fna&oh=71720ac903bdd623814765e3d3824e27&oe=5C4D0C26https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2185499991462908&set=pcb.2185500344796206&type=3&theater

Progress

I see Trump's latest plan is to abolish the citizenship for those born there, never made sense anyway,
yep but I don't see around the 14th amendment. The intent was not to allow for anchor babies ;but to naturalize former slaves and their children ; but the wording of the amendment is plain .


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Even Tom has gone off his rocker a bit with the invasion from the south.

sure looks like an invasion to me . Why would they be flying their national flag if they need to seek asylum from that nation ?


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQlXa0p5KimcZ5_l0n5wQB-cCtJalZF1d7msQPte67VGKieVoeK0Q
(https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gannett-cdn.com%2F-mm-%2Fdec0aca9d80eace78b1403903de1786fadc709f8%2Fc%3D 310-0-5162-3648%2Flocal%2F-%2Fmedia%2F2018%2F04%2F12%2FPhoenix%2FPhoenix%2F63 6591677228506667--X8I6349.jpg%3Fwidth%3D534%26height%3D401%26fit%3Dc rop&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.azcentral.com%2Fstory% 2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fimmigration%2F2018%2F04%2F12%2 Fhonduran-ambassadors-march-caravan-migrants-mexico-called-political-theater%2F511071002%2F&docid=AzG_3c8VxQ239M&tbnid=0D_Kt-fyRJG46M%3A&vet=10ahUKEwiujfixq6_eAhWLTt8KHWgDAiwQMwhSKBMwEw.. i&w=534&h=401&bih=603&biw=1280&q=caravan%20marching%20%20flying%20flags&ved=0ahUKEwiujfixq6_eAhWLTt8KHWgDAiwQMwhSKBMwEw&iact=mrc&uact=8)

(https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiR27DEq6_eAhXqRd8KHZoUArgQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bizpacreview.com%2F2018%2F10 %2F26%2Fseven-unaccompanied-minors-recovered-from-human-smugglers-in-migrant-caravan-687278&psig=AOvVaw2ASVzyZ7-xng2aA-XviXq1&ust=1541029234408481)https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSlrJveDKuSZNJys8KenOb7rizt1Sc7m oZ9Gl3vQct6OS8VYDem3A
(https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Ftwt-thumbs.washtimes.com%2Fmedia%2Fimage%2F2018%2F10%2 F19%2Fcentral_america_migrant_caravan_33739_c0-254-6016-3761_s885x516.jpg%3Fb15687a120218e1c9a0c2c20c7c398 5d928ba894&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2F news%2F2018%2Foct%2F19%2Fmainstream-media-joins-honuran-caravan%2F&docid=p75ZrkFBHE-iHM&tbnid=juLmE_0w7457TM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwiujfixq6_eAhWLTt8KHWgDAiwQMwhPKBAwEA.. i&w=885&h=516&bih=603&biw=1280&q=caravan%20marching%20%20flying%20flags&ved=0ahUKEwiujfixq6_eAhWLTt8KHWgDAiwQMwhPKBAwEA&iact=mrc&uact=8)

yep but I don't see around the 14th amendment. The intent was not to allow for anchor babies ;but to naturalize former slaves and their children ; but the wording of the amendment is plain .


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.


Yes, but the Constitution is an inconvenience for a Dictator, he probably hasn't read it, can he read? Or just write dribble? Anyway let him write his order which will probably say no pregnant woman can cross the border

The 14th amendment clearly was not written with pregnant Mexican women in mind. I think we need to be sure that we don't mistake generosity for stupidity. It is crazy for Mexican women to cross the border to have a baby here for no other purpose than citizenship. That's not a knock on the women, but a knock on our own stupid policies.

The remedy to the law is change the law through the process.

That's not a knock on the women, but a knock on our own stupid policies.

Hello j:

You SAY the founders didn't have pregnant Mexican women in mind when they wrote it.. But, you have no idea what was in their minds. Clearly, they had SOME pregnant non citizen woman in mind when they wrote the amendment.. Otherwise, why write it? So, it absolutely DOES include Mexican women, and purposefully so.

Be that as it may, the gropenfuhrer cannot change the Constitution with an executive order. It's HARD to change.

Do you know WHY I love the Constitution?? It's because it was written for dummies like me.. It's pretty short, and doesn't use any big words. So, to me, what these words mean is CLEAR: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."


I thought right wingers LOVED the Constitution too.. No, huh?

excon

You SAY the founders didn't have pregnant Mexican women in mind when they wrote it.. But, you have no idea what was in their minds. Clearly, they had SOME pregnant non citizen woman in mind when they wrote the amendment..

Uhm... actually, we do know what was in their minds. The amendment, passed in 1866, was clearly enacted with former slaves in mind, and was done to counteract the policies enacted in southern states which severely limited the rights of the newly freed slaves. It was considered so essential that southern states had to ratify the amendment in order to regain congressional representation. The idea that pregnant women would cross the border ILLEGALLY, have a child in the U.S. (paid for, of course, by us), and then have automatic citizenship bestowed upon them was never imagined and would have, we can be sure, been considered an insane idea.

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/fourteenth-amendment

I think it's a real stretch to imagine that the protections of the Constitution should be extended to those who have broken the law to enter the country and are thus here illegally. It would be somewhat similar to extending Constitutional protections to spies or enemy troops who have invaded. Not as extreme, to be sure, but still the same principle.

I am originalist and textualist. That is the quandary . Original intent was to make sure former slaves and their children would be citizens Textually it supports current interpretation. The only case law is 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark ruling in favor of current interpretation ; and it has not been challenged since . The one thing I'm clear on is that it can't be reversed by EO . The law has to be changed by Congress and then the law has to survive court challenges and all the stare decisis silliness .

Besides illegals there is the issue of Birth tourism. The Chinese are creating a 5th column with that.

So are the Russians potentially.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/birth-tourism-brings-russian-baby-boom-miami-n836121



The child gets a lifelong right to live and work and collect benefits in the U.S. And when they turn 21 they can sponsor their parents' application for an American green card.


That doesn't seem to be a smart policy either, but seems to be a profit motive involved, since I haven't heard a peep about THOSE anchor babies, but everybody is up in arms about poor brown babies.

I only call em as I see it . My point is that it becomes a national security concern regarding specifically Chinese birth tourism. I also think that if the parents are not here legally then they are NOT 'subject to the jurisdiction therof " ;nor should their children be . That is old English feudal law where a person born in a land is a subject of that land ("Jus Soli"). "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was purposely inserted by Congress to prevent Jus Soli in America. When we have that article 5 convention ,this is one of the subjects that needs to be brought up.

Here legally on a temporary visa for a luxury vacation with the purpose of giving birth to an anchor baby for American benefits later seems to go against everything the dufus campaigned on. Why? Because he profits. Now if you said no pregnant females from anywhere can enter this country LEGALLY then we may have agreement.

Until then... forget about it as far as I'm concerned. My way sound fair enough to me! What Russians with American rights isn't as potential a security threat or something?

Here legally on a temporary visa for a luxury vacation with the purpose of giving birth to an anchor baby for American benefits later seems to go against everything the dufus campaigned on. Why? Because he profits. Now if you said no pregnant females from anywhere can enter this country LEGALLY then we may have agreement.

Until then... forget about it as far as I'm concerned. My way sound fair enough to me! What Russians with American rights isn't as potential a security threat or something?

Then we finally agree. No woman can enter the country, legally or otherwise, for the purpose of giving birth on American soil so their child can have American citizenship. Deal!

Unfortunately, we don't make or enforce the law and it's unlikely the dufus or congress will make that change, unless we change the congress and that includes the president.

I think it's a real stretch to imagine that the protections of the Constitution should be extended to those who have broken the law to enter the country.

Hello j:

Nahhh… The NEW citizen didn't break any law.

excon

The NEW citizen didn't break any law.

As every fourth grader in America knows, the NEW citizen would not have been in the U.S. if mom had not brought him/her in. It boggles the mind to think that there are people who support those who break the law and profit from it, which then serves to encourage many others to do likewise. Who profits? Democrat politicians, which explains their enthusiastic support for it.

Unfortunately, we don't make or enforce the law and it's unlikely the dufus or congress will make that change, unless we change the congress and that includes the president.

That one made me laugh. You can be sure that a democrat president and congress will be sure to tighten up immigration laws in the great tradition of that famous hard-liner on immigration, Barack Obama.

Blather on about liberals but repubs have done NOTHING to solve the problem, and you run the government. Your only claim to fame is a trade war, and making the rich richer, and trying to dismantle the affordable care act, while you run up the debt. While you rail against the brown people you make laws to keep out, you allow for rich foreigners with brighter skin to make this their future retirement homes. What has the dufus done about it? Jack up his rent.

And repubs say and do NOTHING about it. You say and do nothing about it. For you conservatives its all about the brown people staying out, and the southern border, while the east and west are open to ALL with CASH. That's why you will see more troops at the southern border than deployed in the shooting war with the Taliban.

We may agree on NO anchor babies across the board, but we both know it ain't going to happen, because for repubs it's just about the brown people and their kids.

While you rail against the brown people you make laws to keep out, you allow for rich foreigners with brighter skin to make this their future retirement homes. What has the dufus done about it? Jack up his rent.

Skin color has nothing to do with it. Illegal entry has EVERYTHING to do with it. Now you are right about deficit spending, but considering you supported Mr. Obama for eight years, you have no grounds for complaining. He is the all time world champ. I would agree, however, that it will eventually ruin us.

Hello again, j:

Way back in 1978, my wife and I took a vacation in Mexico, when all of a sudden, she delivered.. Who expected THAT? My son now has duel citizenship. It's afforded him and his family, many opportunities in Mexico that a tourist doesn't get.

Did I do a bad thing? Would you have a problem if a Mexican couple vacationed here legally and had a kid??

excon

Tal stop the "brown skin" bs. Employers in this country welcome and NEED more workers . You see more and more stories like this all over the country .
https://www.westword.com/restaurants/food-service-labor-shortage-hits-grateful-bread-company-hard-10454517

All I ask is that they enter the country legally .

Grant them asylum and give 'em those jobs you say you need filled, I mean that Russian pregnant rich girl sure ain't going to work in a kitchen or wait tables. You only assume they will sneak in when the last batch stood in line for days waiting to get in legally. Sure some got tired of waiting, but sending soldiers instead of processors is how the dufus rolls and you go along with it.

I don't!

Did I do a bad thing? Would you have a problem if a Mexican couple vacationed here legally and had a kid??

Ex, I don't know how else to explain a simple concept to you. If I go into a bank and walk out with money I withdrew from my account, then that is a good thing. If I walk out with money I took in a robbery, then it is not a good thing. The difference is in the legality of the act.

Now think about that for two minutes, and you'll pretty much have it. Tal might even get it as well. "
Sure some got tired of waiting, No, they didn't get tired of waiting. They didn't wait at all. It's just incredible to me that you have so little regard for the law. Those who are doing things the right way get to wait, while those who are breaking the law get in ahead of them. What a strange view of things you have. And the only plea you seem to make is to resort to the tired, moth-eaten liberal strategy of crying about race. I wouldn't care if the caravan was made up of Norwegians. They are breaking the law.

One thing I know for sure. If those illegals were taking YOUR job, you'd suddenly become a rock-ribbed conservative supporter of border security.

You speak of the law only when convenient. It's the dufus breaking the law since seeking asylum is LAWFUL.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/asylum-seekers-turned-away-from-border-bridges-ahead-of-caravan/ar-BBPbrPM



Instead of expanding capacity to process asylum seekers at border crossings, officials have forced them to wait. The method varies from crossing to crossing
.

Obviously it's you who have NO regard for the law or the process that maintains order.

sending soldiers instead of processors is how the dufus rolls
I totally agree, tal. If the twitler sends as many processors as he is sending troops, we would begin to regain the world's respect.

We would get to keep our own dignity and self respect above all by treating our fellow humans humanely as they exercised their rights under law to seek asylum. It's as simple as being a good human. I don't know a thing about what happens after death, but what we do while on this earth is the difference between heaven or hell right here on Earth.

Ex, I don't know how else to explain a simple concept to you. If I go into a bank and walk out with money I withdrew from my account, then that is a good thing. If I walk out with money I took in a robbery, then it is not a good thing. The difference is in the legality of the act.

Hello again, j:

Simple??? I'm not so sure.

What about my friend Tio? Tio came across the border over 50 years ago.. It's only recently that we've demeaned people like Tio who crossed the border.. Actually, we used to LOVE them.. They picked our lettuce, washed our dishes and made our beds.. Johnny Carson even joked on the Tonight Show about his illegal nanny..

So, you tell me.. With the exception of the last few years, when a Mexican got to our border, they didn't see a DO NOT CROSS sign... They saw a HELP WANTED sign..

Did Tio rob us?

excon

Grant them asylum and give 'em those jobs you say you need filled, I mean that Russian pregnant rich girl sure ain't going to work in a kitchen or wait tables. You only assume they will sneak in when the last batch stood in line for days waiting to get in legally. Sure some got tired of waiting, but sending soldiers instead of processors is how the dufus rolls and you go along with it. Let them apply for asylum at the US embassy in their country . Processing takes months the way they are doing it . The people of the caravan may or may not have legit asylum claims .They may be victims in their country . But I am sure that they are victims of the organizers of the caravan .Shame on the organizers for convincing people to walk 2,000 miles . Once the election is over the organizers won't give a rat's @ss about the people of the caravan .

We would get to keep our own dignity and self respect above all by treating our fellow humans humanely as they exercised their rights under law to seek asylum. Asylum is granted to foreigners who have been persecuted, or legitimately fear persecution, in their home country based on their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Economic issues are not pertinent .

They should've proved their legitimate claim for asylum BEFORE they began their trek .

When are you guys moving to Honduras or Guatemala to work at those really good jobs there?

Did Tio rob us?

So Tio is here illegally? If so, then he is breaking the law. Again, it's a simple concept. I suspect he has a green card.

We have, as your story perhaps illustrates, stood around for decades, dems and repubs, and done nothing while people have poured across our southern border illegally. Finally we have a president who is determined to enforce the law.

The law says they can present themselves at the border to apply for asylum. Not their fault you don't prepare to do that job and you have advanced notice they are on their way. That's incompetence. The dufus knows full well he can shift the blame from his incompetence to the immigrants by vilifying them for political gain, just as he used the dreamers for political leverage.

The Dufus's campaign strategy during this silly season is the southern strategy and Willie Horton on steroids, feeding fear and insecurity to his base with his lies and exaggerations.

You will have to enlarge your teacup else the storm overtake you. You have borders, you have check points, you have border guards, what you don't have is effective policy. Your foreign policy has created many of these situations, but you don't take responsibility for the aftermath. Your paranoid behaviour must stop, that is the only way the flood will stop

This is the problem!

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/167/16734/1673443.gif

You will have to enlarge your teacup else the storm overtake you. You have borders, you have check points, you have border guards, what you don't have is effective policy.
We also don't have enough immigration agents, and maybe not enough WELL-TRAINED agents.

Great rip

America is and has faced many skilled labor short falls in the social services area, mostly budgetary, especially on state levels. A growing aging country has more challenges, not less, that have to be faced and not ignored. The dufus would rather exaggerate military spending than address the needs of the country though as he subjects his austerity on essential areas of the economy and neglects the very real needs of a nation.

So listen to him holler about immigration to bolster his base during this silly season cycle, while the rest of us bear his debts for his trickle down theories of wealth extraction, and old people and kids go without care, and young people still work 2 low paying jobs for groceries in this great economy. Doesn't anyone care about teachers waiting tables to pay the rent and fund crayons for kindergarteners? We know the dufus and his sycophants do not.

Hello again,

Trump said if the children throw rocks, SHOOT 'em.

"I hope there won't be that, but I will tell you this — anybody throwing rocks ... we will consider that a firearm, because there's not much difference,"

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-i-hope-us-military-does-not-shoot-at-migrant-caravan-2018-11

excon

"I hope there won't be that, but I will tell you this — anybody throwing rocks ... we will consider that a firearm, because there's not much difference,"

I would agree that he made a really foolish statement.

tal we need more laborers across the board . The only question is do we believe in the rule of law or not ? Short of open borders I'm open to just about any policy that would legally bring in people who want to embrace the American way ;and is willing to work .

The only question is do we believe in the rule of law or not ?

Agree completely.

tal we need more laborers across the board . The only question is do we believe in the rule of law or not ? Short of open borders I'm open to just about any policy that would legally bring in people who want to embrace the American way ;and is willing to work .
No to open borders, but we need more WELL-TRAINED border agents at more locations along the southern border. We will also need sponsors (hello, churches/synagogues/mosques) who will take the immigrants under their wing until they have gotten settled with a place to live, a job, connections to the community, etc.

ah the good old days of Boss Tweed . Maybe bring back an expanded version of the Bracero program. ok but short of open borders (which I believe is the only solution progressives find suitable ) and more processing agents at the border ,and domestic sponsors ;who would you restrict ? Is there any number that you would say no more ? Would you be in favor of outlawing sanctuary towns ,cities ,states ?

We also need to have a discussion on what to do with the millions of illegal aliens already in the country . The international rules are very clear on who is eligible for asylum ,and most of the emigrants that come here have economic reasons that do NOT fall under asylum guidelines . You see ;this lawless invasion have left us in a bind in that we are over 200,000 behind in processing those who claim asylum. I don't see how we can have an orderly process to this without border barriers . We've tried it the other way and it doesn't work.

Tom, you live in poverty and have no hope for the future. Walk from Honduras to the Arizona border and end up staring at a wall, then let me know how you feel.

Tom, you're a gang member and murderer. Would you really walk from Honduras to the Arizona border? For what???

Me I would'n't be stupid enough to do it unless I had guarantees of admission . Even then I would go to the American embassy in Honduras and make my claim and file my application there ....many fewer miles to walk. I want to hear their asylum case because I don't believe they have one . Poverty is not criteria for granting asylum. They are not being persecuted . Why weren't they walking to America before a conservative was elected President of Honduras . I have already traced the funding for you so you know that these poor folks are being used

Yes, Honduras is such a lovely place to live! (But the way mass murders have been increasing in number in this country, Honduras might be the place to move to.)

"Crime in Honduras concerns how in recent years Honduras (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honduras) has experienced very high levels of violence and criminality.[1] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Honduras#cite_note-1) Homicide violence reached a peak in 2012 with an average of 20 homicides a day.[2] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Honduras#cite_note-:14-2) Cities such as San Pedro Sula (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Pedro_Sula) and the Tegucigalpa (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tegucigalpa) have registered homicide rates among the highest in the world. The violence is associated with drug trafficking (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade) as Honduras is often a transit point, and with a number of urban gangs, mainly the MS-13 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-13) and the 18th Street gang (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/18th_Street_gang)." (Wikipedia)

The mistake immigration hardliners make is that progressives are for open borders. That's not true, and personally I was originally against a fence years ago, but that ship has sailed. We have a fence. We also have the ability to process more people humanely and orderly if not for the lack of will to do so, opting instead for military? That's ridiculous. You need workers? Simple, let the ones who need them process and provide so they can work. Employer responsibility, why NOT.

I see no reason where sanctuary cities and feds should be adversaries, again just supply a humane process for these helpless people. If you don't know how to count heads and manage the work force, you're in the wrong business anyway an should be replaced by someone who can do the job. I mean think about it a minute, using strongarm police state tactics is totally unnecessary, and that's really the problem in that a climate of fear and intimidation creates those scared desperate counter tactics which make the problem worse not better.

The solution is really simple, get rid of those macho conservative men and replace all of them with smart efficient females who know how to deal with desperate afraid helpless men women and children and FAMILIES! This is a Christian nation so how about proving it! Forget what the dufus is doing... @JL... what would Jesus do... show me!

Crime in Honduras concerns how in recent years Honduras (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honduras) has experienced very high levels of violence and criminality.[1] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Honduras#cite_note-1)Homicide violence reached a peak in 2012 with an average of 20 homicides a day.[2] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Honduras#cite_note-:14-2) Cities such as San Pedro Sula (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Pedro_Sula) and the Tegucigalpa (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tegucigalpa) have registered homicide rates among the highest in the world. The violence is associated with drug trafficking (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade) as Honduras is often a transit point, and with a number of urban gangs, mainly the MS-13 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-13) and the 18th Street gang (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/18th_Street_gang)." (Wikipedia)








When are you going to flee Chi-town and make refugee claims with Canada ?

The solution is really simple, get rid of those macho conservative men and replace all of them with smart efficient females who know how to deal with desperate afraid helpless men women and children and FAMILIES! This is a Christian nation so how about proving it! Forget what the dufus is doing... @JL... what would Jesus do... show me!
Oh, my! I think I love you!!!!! Jesus does too!!!

The solution is really simple, get rid of those macho conservative men and replace all of them with smart efficient females who know how to deal with desperate afraid helpless men women and children and FAMILIES! This is a Christian nation so how about proving it! Forget what the dufus is doing... @JL... what would Jesus do... show me!

Since, so far as I can tell, you don't accept what Jesus said to begin with, why would it interest you to know what Jesus would have done?

Since, so far as I can tell, you don't accept what Jesus said to begin with, why would it interest you to know what Jesus would have done?
Wow!!!! WWJS!!!! Oh, He did, Matthew 7:1 (NIV): "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

Yes, He said that. So are you judging me?

Wondergirl, I don't like playing games. This is all too serious for that. If we are going to believe what Jesus said, then we have to take all of it. As far as I can tell, most of the posters here do not believe that Jesus is going to judge people at the end of this age despite the fact that He very plainly said He would. On the basis of that I asked Tal a question, and you say I am judging. But if asking a question is judging, then your post is judging, and you are guilty of what you seem to be accusing me of doing. Asking questions and quoting Jesus does not amount to judging.

you say I am judging
JL: "so far as I can tell, you don't accept what Jesus said to begin with"

Since you didn't answer, I'll ask again. Are you judging me?

If I misread Tal, he will let me know. That's why I stated, "so far as I can tell". If you had posted the entire sentence, you might have noted the question mark at the end. It seems a little shady to me to post only a part of what was plainly a question.

Wondergirl, since you are following Christ, then you have, as do I, a responsibility to tell people the truth, even if it disagrees with the culture, our politics, our comfort, or whatever. I do not want to stand before Christ someday and find that I fudged on the truth.

I only say that to let you know where I come from on this. I never wish to hurt anyone's feelings or come across as rude, but more than that, I want to be honest and relay the truth of God as best I can.

Since you didn't answer, I'll ask again. Are you judging me?
No.


If I misread Tal, he will let me know. That's why I stated, "so far as I can tell". If you had posted the entire sentence, you might have noted the question mark at the end. It seems a little shady to me to post only a part of what was plainly a question.
There were two complete sentences connected by a conjunction. The first independent sentence was a judgment.


Wondergirl, since you are following Christ, then you have, as do I, a responsibility to tell people the truth, even if it disagrees with the culture, our politics, our comfort, or whatever. I do not want to stand before Christ someday and find that I fudged on the truth.
You are proving the Bible is true by quoting from the Bible. Is that the way to do it?

The first independent sentence was a judgment.
You're splitting hairs. Either you judge me as being judgmental or you don't. Which one is it?

It was not two sentences. It was two independent clauses joined by a conjunction which made one sentence. As a former librarian I have to believe you already know that.


You are proving the Bible is true by quoting from the Bible. Is that the way to do it?


We are not talking about the Bible being true right now. We are talking about believing the words of Christ.

Since, so far as I can tell, you don't accept what Jesus said to begin with, why would it interest you to know what Jesus would have done?

Just want to add to my data base, and your view is valued and important to me.

It was not two sentences. It was two independent clauses joined by a conjunction which made one sentence. As a former librarian I have to believe you already know that.
I'm a former teacher and am a freelance editor. An independent clause is a complete sentence with a subject and verb. I was focusing on the first independent clause in your compound sentence.

Just want to add to my data base, and your view is valued and important to me.

I appreciate that comment. You know I value our discussions. As to what Jesus said, I don't think that He ever commented on a situation like exists with the crowd of people heading north in Mexico. Of course it goes practically without saying that we are to love people. I'm not sure how loving it is to assist them in getting to the border only to say, "You cannot cross without breaking the law, so we are turning you away." Now if a church or an individual wants to assist a legal immigrant, then that is a great thing to do. I just don't see an endorsement for Jesus for our government to ignore our laws and let people in at any time. How we are to explain that to those who are going through the legal process is a mystery to me.

There is a LEGAL process for asylum. Is it their fault WE cannot apply it? I'm sure between Mexico and the US, food and shelter for weary travelers would be the thing Jesus would approve of as the process worked. Seems as many times as it's happened in the past we would just know what's needed, especially given EVERYBODY knew they were coming.

I'm more interested in what Jesus would want me to do . And that is my call and my consequences . I'm called to do greater works than he did . But I don't know how that is possible .I pray I do the right things .

I'm more interested in what Jesus would want me to do . And that is my call and my consequences . I'm called to do greater works than he did . But I don't know how that is possible .I pray I do the right things .

You and me both.

I'm sure between Mexico and the US, food and shelter for weary travelers would be the thing Jesus would approve of as the process worked.

That's what our problem is. Everyone expects the government to take care of things. That would be the same government that is more than 22 trillion dollars in debt. If people feel that strongly about it, then they need to take their own funds and go help out.

That's what our problem is. Everyone expects the government to take care of things. That would be the same government that is more than 22 trillion dollars in debt. If people feel that strongly about it, then they need to take their own funds and go help out.

It is obvious your government has no funds to deal with this issue, having wasted its funds in various ways. A government that cannot balance its budget doesn't need more mouths to feed, cloth, house and help. A dose of reality has dissended upon you

I disagree with you both slightly in that but for the extractive nature of our more capitalists citizens helped by a bought and paid for lawmakers we would not only be rolling in dough, but have a vibrant balanced consumer driven economy.

we have a vibrant consumer driven economy because of our capitalist system. The government just spends too much . Don't tell me that is not so. Our debt ration is over 105% of GDP. You can't tax your way out of that even if you seized the wealth of all the rich.

Yes your economy has picked up which is good to see, but what damage have you done

Adding debt during a modest growth is not the way out as a downturn or slowdown would destroy the economy. That trickle down stuff never works and worse enrich the rich without targeted guide lines is robbery. Tax cuts never pay for themselves, and only create debt without flexibility and structure. None of that is present now, and just lays the foundation for austerity and bankruptcy.

The dufus is a bankruptcy expert, as was Bush to a lesser extent. Of course big biz will blame rising costs on labor, and what they cannot pass on viably, they just reduce and mitigate. Repubs did the country no good cutting biz taxes permanently, while not closing loopholes. It was poorly structured and left out the consumer and such plans always cost us all more than they are worth.

Not like we have not seen this play before. Or the results that are sure to come. Repubs KNEW their plan was insufficient, and never touted such an "accomplishment" during silly season. Don't worry Tom, dems always come in and clean up repub fiscal messes, so repubs can come back and screw it up again.

Past behavior and present conditions have been recorded in history.

Adding debt during a modest growth is not the way out as a downturn or slowdown would destroy the economy.

You do realize that this is exactly what Mr. Obama did, to the tune of doubling the national debt? He never had anything more than modest growth.

And a falling unemployment figure, stable prices, and a very good job creation record. Modest growth wasn't a bad thing. Tell the whole story and not just part of it. How do you ignore Obama starting out with a complete fiscal disaster?

I'm not arguing about the details. I'm just saying that if "adding debt during a modest growth is not the way out as a downturn or slowdown would destroy the economy", then Mr. Obama was in error in adding so much debt.

I'm not arguing about the details. I'm just saying that if "adding debt during a modest growth is not the way out as a downturn or slowdown would destroy the economy", then Mr. Obama was in error in adding so much debt.

He had little choice in the conditions he was in, but to manage a collapsing economy bleeding jobs at a rate rivaling the great depression, with GLOBAL implications. Even with the debt increasing under Obama the economy was GROWING. Also a good chunk of the Obama debt was making the Bush off the books trillion dollar war accountable in the budget.

The devil is always in the details of which there are many to factor in for accuracy. I would also submit it's as complex a MANAGEMENT problem as our own personal debts. No different than borrowing when an emergency arises, but has to be dealt with after that emergency. You have to admit that Obama dealt effectively with his emergency, and left the dufus with a rather healthy growing economy.

That's a very positive endorsement of the last presidents efforts. The dufus OWNS the stewardship of the economy and is responsible for managing the debt NOW!

That's a very positive endorsement of the last presidents efforts

Just saying that, according to your standard, his method was "not the way out." I think that we tend to agree on the lack of wisdom of deficit spending. I just apply it to everyone. We have spent our way into an enormous hole and everyone is to blame.

You misunderstand my standard. A deficit funded tax cut benefiting greatly the rich and made permanently guarantees the debt will grow far beyond present levels. That's not what the dufus promised is it? No he said MIDDLE CLASS tax cuts. That sets up the financial dynamic of any further tax cuts adding to the deficit further. Ideally any tax reduction would have some balancing mechanism such as spending reductions, but this has none and the budget has grown as well as the debt.

Even Reagan and his democratic congress raised taxes after cutting them to deal with the debt, and Clinton balanced the budget with military cuts with the repub congress. There is no such countering move with this present congress and administration. Not even a deficit funded tax cut for the middle class, or infrastructure bill.

Look at the stats. The top 10% of wage earners pay almost 70% of the income tax. Kind of hard to give a tax break to people who pay very little in taxes.

49103

Just to update your data:

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-2017/


Yeah it would be hard to find the money to give middle wage earners a break, considering the rich guy tax cut already took most of the wealth through direct tax reduction, and continuing deductions which had already lowered the taxable income for wealthier citizens. Had they closed those loopholes, and put conditions on those cuts, instead of give, the wealthy could earn them maybe the debt would be mitigated, leaving a few bucks for mid America.

Hard yes but not impossible. That was what the dufus ran on as I remember. Did he lie? Of course he did!

Just to update your data:

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-2017/


Yeah it would be hard to find the money to give middle wage earners a break, considering the rich guy tax cut already took most of the wealth through direct tax reduction, and continuing deductions which had already lowered the taxable income for wealthier citizens. Had they closed those loopholes, and put conditions on those cuts, instead of give, the wealthy could earn them maybe the debt would be mitigated, leaving a few bucks for mid America.

Hard yes but not impossible. That was what the dufus ran on as I remember. Did he lie? Of course he did!

You see, you have no idea of sheep farming over there, the idea is to shear the sheep, not listen to their bleeting

Just to update your data:

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-fe...tax-data-2017/ (https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-2017/)

Yeah it would be hard to find the money to give middle wage earners a break, considering the rich guy tax cut already took most of the wealth through direct tax reduction, and continuing deductions which had already lowered the taxable income for wealthier citizens.

Not sure what the purpose of the link was. It showed the top one percent earning about twenty percent of the income and paying about forty percent of the taxes.

As to your wealth transfer scheme, in what way does the top one percent paying forty percent of the taxes somehow become a scheme to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich?? Looks to me like it would be wealth transfer in the other direction. And if the taxable income of the wealthy has been lowered, then how is it that the wealthy ended up paying forty percent of the taxes? Your comment just makes no sense.

Of course it would make no sense to us average people who cannot imagine the many ways that huge sums of money can be socked away. In a lot of cases though this leads to a very restrictive condition of money not being able to circulate throughout the economy. Even your own chart shows this. Perhaps we get a better understanding if we add more DATA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Wealth_Inequality_in_America_by_politizane.webm/220px--Wealth_Inequality_in_America_by_politizane.webm.jp g

Please watch this video tucked over in the right under wealth and income.

Right off the bat, the man on the video does what I hate. He injects an opinion and treats it as fact. He states that the wealth gap is "unfairly skewed" and "shockingly skewed". It is, he says, "mind blowing". Says who? It is skewed, yes, but on what planet is it unfair that a person, for instance, who goes through five years of rigorous and difficult schooling to become an architect and ends up with a net worth of millions of dollars has a much higher net worth than a person who chose to drop out of school and have four children out of wedlock? They both made choices, and they both live with their choices. Should the feds take money from the person who was been responsible and give it to the person who made much lower quality choices? My view is absolutely not.

So it should be a certain way because, after all, many people think it is that way? That kind of thinking belongs in a first grade classroom.

Right off the bat, the man on the video does what I hate. He injects an opinion and treats it as fact. He states that the wealth gap is "unfairly skewed" and "shockingly skewed". It is, he says, "mind blowing". Says who? It is skewed, yes, but on what planet is it unfair that a person, for instance, who goes through five years of rigorous and difficult schooling to become an architect and ends up with a net worth of millions of dollars has a much higher net worth than a person who chose to drop out of school and have four children out of wedlock? They both made choices, and they both live with their choices. Should the feds take money from the person who was been responsible and give it to the person who made much lower quality choices? My view is absolutely not.

So it should be a certain way because, after all, many people think it is that way? That kind of thinking belongs in a first grade classroom.


What about the four children in your example? Can the feds help them?

That to me is not the question. The question should be, can you help them? If you want to talk to me about the two of us being helpful, then you can make progress, but my experience with most liberals is that they don't give a horse's rear-end about the poor unless you are talking about taking money from B to help C so that A (the liberal) can feel good about him/her self.

When it comes to assisting children, the problem is to avoid the establishment of a reward system for women to have children out of wedlock. I would agree we need to help, but it is the how to do it part we need to look at.

That to me is not the question.



That may not be the question you wanted, but that is the question asked which you have declined to answer. You have a habit of doing that.


...my experience with most liberals is that they don't give a horse's rear-end about the poor unless you are talking about taking money from B to help C so that A (the liberal) can feel good about him/her self.

My experience with most conservatives is that they don't give a horse's rear-end about the poor unless they can make money from them.



When it comes to assisting children, the problem is to avoid the establishment of a reward system for women to have children out of wedlock. I would agree we need to help, but it is the how to do it part we need to look at.

Ah, agreement. Well, that's a start.

That may not be the question you wanted, but that is the question asked which you have declined to answer. You have a habit of doing that.

Ahh, but I did answer it, and I'm glad we have a start!

I answered this in another question but it's apt here. If Jesus said give Caesar his due then why complain when the government takes YOUR money to help he poor old and children? It's not your picture on the money is it?

I answered this in another question but it's apt here. If Jesus said give Caesar his due then why complain when the government takes YOUR money to help he poor old and children? It's not your picture on the money is it?

Well, it is one way of looking at it, and we should take this view that God appoints governments and what they do with our money is lawfull particularly if it alleviates poverty in all its forms however only godly people will comply and the rest remain rebellous

Well I don't know how godly our government is right now, and only the wealthy are exempt from poverty but I would settle for honesty though.

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arcamax.com%2Fnewspics% 2F167%2F16775%2F1677502.gif&t=1542377983&ymreqid=acd6ec88-63d3-b076-1ca9-e60001019200&sig=Z9A0qwCq3zji6ar8J4NNtA--~C (https://www.arcamax.com/mikeluckovich/s-2146396?ezine=641)


https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/167/16778/1677886.gif

I answered this in another question but it's apt here. If Jesus said give Caesar his due then why complain when the government takes YOUR money to help he poor old and children? It's not your picture on the money is it?

That is a great question! I could phrase it a bit differently. When politicians take your money and my money and give it to the non-workers, the lazy, and the irresponsible for the twin purposes of buying their votes and satisfying those who love to brag that they love the poor so much they are willing to help them with money extracted in taxes from others, then should we be against that?

You would have to embrace that every body who gets help is lazy, and that I don't buy, and all elected officials are out to get votes, which is plausible, but who expects to get votes from those that offer NOTHING but a mouth full of gimme and not so much as a much obliged? I thing that's just basic human nature, as surely as denigrating and lumping the poor and needy into one category that they might not fit, or be fair. That would be prejudging... prejudiced... against a particular group wouldn't you say? Wouldn't that preclude as your savior says to NOT judge? It seems that taking the time to get the facts of a humans condition is exactly what the system is about, and not just an automatic thing you suggest.


I get the suspicions though, but verifying is part of the process in my view before badmouthing occurs. Some may deserve it, but some may not, and those should be spared humiliation based on feelings and not facts.

WE vote for these officials.

as surely as denigrating and lumping the poor and needy into one category that they might not fit,

I would agree with your conclusion if I had said that, but in fact I have not. What I HAVE said is, to me, unarguable, which is that many people on welfare should not get a dime because they could be working, especially in this dynamite economy we have now. They could work two jobs if need be and support themselves.

We can make a case for those who are genuinely physically or mentally disabled to be on public assistance of some sort, and for children as well, but that should be it, and even those who are adults should have jobs that they are capable of doing. There is great dignity in work.

Yes, a lot of poor people vote democrat because they are viewed as the party of giveaways. Reference the Obama cell phone give away program.

We can make a case for those who are genuinely physically or mentally disabled to be on public assistance of some sort, and for children as well
Who's taking care of the disabled adults and children, and children in general?

Hopefully their parents are, but with the insanity of single parent homes which has now become so dominant, it is a problem. The feds have quite a number of programs for children, all the way from food stamps to AFDC to free schooling to medicaid.

Hopefully their parents are
Then who's working at all those great jobs?

Those who believe in taking care of their own needs and not expecting someone else to do it. BTW, I have made no reference to "great" jobs. I have worked many jobs in my life that were not "great", but they served to meet my needs so I would not be dependent on others. In that sense only were they great.

many people on welfare should not get a dime because they could be working, especially in this dynamite economy we have now. They could work two jobs if need be and support themselves.
Here's your mention of great jobs ("dynamite economy").


I have worked many jobs in my life that were not "great", but they served to meet my needs so I would not be dependent on others. In that sense only were they great.
Where were your small children?

Small children?? We raised three.


Here's your mention of great jobs ("dynamite economy").


Now that's really funny. You say, "Here's your mention of great jobs," and then can't find any mention of great jobs. Yes, we have a dynamite economy with under 4% unemployment, so people who want to work can find a job. I said nothing about every job is a great job, so for you to suggest I did seems to border on being deceitful, does it not?

Small children?? We raised three.
You're avoiding my question. Where were they while you and your wife worked?


Now that's really funny. You say, "Here's your mention of great jobs," and then can't find any mention of great jobs. Yes, we have a dynamite economy with under 4% unemployment, so people who want to work can find a job. I said nothing about every job is a great job, so for you to suggest I did seems to border on being deceitful, does it not?
Stop nattering! Any job is a great job. I shelved library materials for $3 an hour. That was a great job that led to a career.

You're avoiding my question. Where were they while you and your wife worked?

I did not avoid your question. I misunderstood what you were asking. When they were young, my wife worked part time and WE paid someone to watch them while she worked. They later enrolled in school, spent some time in daycare which WE paid for, or participated in sports that WE paid for. So what's your point? If it's that schools are government agencies, I have already pointed that out myself. What else??


Stop nattering! Any job is a great job. I shelved library materials for $3 an hour. That was a great job that led to a career.

I would agree with that about jobs. Nattering??? Me??? Who would ever think such a thing!

I did not avoid your question. I misunderstood what you were asking. When they were young, my wife worked part time and WE paid someone to watch them while she worked.
So it would be best if every couple, even very poor ones, with small children or disabled children (who may be disabled adults) follow this plan.

So it would be best if every couple with small children or disabled children (who may be disabled adults) follow this plan.

No question mark, so I assume that is a statement with which I would certainly agree.

Great plan on paper, but reality is many one earner households are females with kids who don't have the option of PAYING for childcare, so what plan do you have for them, and their kids, since we cannot go back and undo what has been done?

Great plan on paper, but reality is many one earner households are females with kids who don't have the option of PAYING for childcare, so what plan do you have for them, and their kids, since we cannot go back and undo what has been done?

Many women are getting pregnant out of wedlock and having kids with the expectation of federal support. You might could talk me into continuing to provide help if we had a "sunset clause" in the legislation to the effect that, for instance, after the end of 2019, that support would not be available for woman having babies out of wedlock born after that date. We are subsidizing this nonsense and it needs to stop. When the subsidy stops, the poor decision making will begin to decline.

The idea of women saying, "If you want to sleep with me, you will have to marry me because I am not going to assume the risks of pregnancy and the task of raising children by myself," is a pretty good idea. Women should not be viewed as sexual conquests, and they should not allow themselves to be treated that way.

We are subsidizing this nonsense and it needs to stop
Then change the media (messages in songs, in tv shows, in movies, in popular fiction, in print media) and make sure parents are teaching their children that providing sex is not how girls get guys to love them, that having babies is not how to lock in a boyfriend and make him yours forever, and, in general, about the facts of life, birth control, and the responsibilities of parenthood.

Or just cut off the incentive.

Or just cut off the incentive.
The media create incentives for women -- to be sexy, to be loved, to be desirable, to attract a sex partner, even a mate. Too often a baby is the afterthought, the accident, the mistake. Much less often is there a financial incentive.

The media create incentives for women -- to be sexy, to be loved, to be desirable, to attract a sex partner, even a mate. Too often a baby is the afterthought, the accident, the mistake. Much less often is there a financial incentive.

Ten bucks a month for birth control pills. Don't try to tell me that women are getting pregnant as an "afterthought". They know the feds are there to send in the checks. Just the slightest amount of "beforethought" would take care of the problem for anyone who actually cares. I'm done with making excuses for people. It's time we started expecting people to behave like grownups.

Or you could train MEN and boys to behave better and step up to their responsibilities. Or maybe the need to breed is beyond both men and women. Hmm!

Ten bucks a month for birth control pills. Don't try to tell me that women are getting pregnant as an "afterthought". They know the feds are there to send in the checks. Just the slightest amount of "beforethought" would take care of the problem for anyone who actually cares. I'm done with making excuses for people. It's time we started expecting people to behave like grownups.
Trouble is, they're not grownups; they're emotionally immature and factually uninformed "woman-childs" looking for love. Visit Catholic Charities or Lutheran Social Services or your county health department. Ask questions; do some research.

Or you could train MEN and boys to behave better and step up to their responsibilities. Or maybe the need to breed is beyond both men and women. Hmm!

Yes, that is a desperate need. I agree, but men don't get pregnant. That's an issue that hits women far harder, and they have a far greater personal stake with this. In this day and age, if a woman has consensual sex and gets pregnant, then it is on her. Yes, the man should have behaved better, but he won't be the one getting pregnant.

I would hope that everyone would keep their doors locked at night, but no one has any greater stake in ME keeping my doors locked than ME. It's the same principle. Take care of yourself.

Isn't it amazing that, here in the age of practically limitless birth control options, the out of wedlock birth rate is over ten times greater than it was in 1960?


Trouble is, they're not grownups; they're emotionally immature and factually uninformed "woman-childs" looking for love. Visit Catholic Charities or Lutheran Social Services or your county health department. Ask questions; do some research.

Stop incentivizing it. Yes, music and movies are a serious problem, but the democrats who run most of that have no interest in changing it. And please don't suggest I do research. I've been around this in public education for more than thirty years.

Yes, the man should have behaved better, but he won't be the one getting pregnant.
And if she says no because she isn't on the pill or doesn't have an IUD in place or doesn't have a condom in her purse, then what? Will he pat her on the shoulder and tell her he understands why she is saying no to him?


Isn't it amazing that, here in the age of practically limitless birth control options, the out of wedlock birth rate is over ten times greater than it was in 1960?
Check the media and the music back then, the movies and the messages sent to teens and unmarried 20-somethings. Oh, and I was a teen back then, so feel free to ask me questions. :D

And if she says no because she isn't on the pill or doesn't have an IUD in place or doesn't have a condom in her purse, then what? Will he pat her on the shoulder and tell her he understands why she is saying no to him?

Are you serious?? What an incredible question! Yes, yes, yes she should risk getting her feelings hurt rather than risk getting pregnant. Maybe you should tell her to grow up and join the adult world. Grow a backbone. Value herself. No man is worth her getting pregnant and raising a child by herself.

And all this time I thought you were a "modern woman", and yet you certainly seem to be suggesting that women engage in sex just so they can keep their man. I don't mean to overreact, but that is such an outrageous suggestion you have framed in your question.

I must confess that I am rather pleased to now be the one defending the rights of women.

Are you serious?? What an incredible question! Yes, yes, yes she should risk getting her feelings hurt rather than risk getting pregnant. Maybe you should tell her to grow up and join the adult world. No man is worth her getting pregnant and raising a child by herself.

And all this time I thought you were a "modern woman", and yet you are suggesting that women engage in sex just so they can keep their man? I don't mean to overreact, but that is such an outrageous suggestion you have framed in your question.
My question was, will HE pat her on the shoulder (after time spent kissing and petting) and say, "Okay, sweetie. Let's get some ice cream."

You totally missed my point. My point was: What will HE do? How will HE react? Will HE take no for an answer?

You need to be female for at least a month.

My question was, will HE pat her on the shoulder (after time spent kissing and petting) and say, "Okay, sweetie."

Who gives a flying rip what he thinks? Tell her to kick his backside out and find someone who has some sense. If the man is behaving stupidly, then the answer is not for the woman to also behave stupidly. If he wants to be insistent, call the cops. I have no patience with that kind of behavior. Better yet, let him know from the beginning that sexual favors are reserved for marriage.

I think I got your point very well.

Who gives a flying rip what he thinks? Tell her to kick his backside out and find someone who has some sense. If the man is behaving stupidly, then the answer is not for the woman to also behave stupidly. If he wants to be insistent, call the cops. I have no patience with that kind of behavior. Better yet, let him know from the beginning that sexual favors are reserved for marriage.

I think I got your point very well.
Nope, you haven't. He's in control; he has the physical power. He runs the con. Call the cops? Not always possible or even "allowed" by the guy. Just because she says sexual favors are reserved for marriage (who says that in 2018???) doesn't mean he can't get past that boundary or certainly try to.

Nope, you haven't. Call the cops? Not always possible or even "allowed" by the guy. Just because she says sexual favors are reserved for marriage (who says that in 2018???) doesn't mean he can't get past that boundary or certainly try to.

You are the parenting expert on this board. Maybe it's time for you to start saying it. Women need to take charge of their own lives. It's just amazing to me that I'm the one championing the cause of strong women here. I will grant you that it will take a moral revolution to see this happen, but I plan on doing my part. We've seen the results of the free sex revolution, and it has been a disaster. I vote that we try something else.

You are the parenting expert on this board. Maybe it's time for you to start saying it. Women need to take charge of their own lives. It's just amazing to me that I'm the one championing the cause of strong women here. I will grant you that it will take a moral revolution to see this happen, but I plan on doing my part. We've seen the results of the free sex revolution, and it has been a disaster. I vote that we try something else.
Did you always quit when a girl said no? If you did, you were a rare bird. In order to take charge of our own lives: no more dating. Perhaps the Indians have the best solution with arranged marriages. Also, we will have to be very careful what we wear, how we fix our hair, and what we say so we don't encourage lust in a guy's heart. (Btw, you're missing the sarcasm font in much of my posts here.)

Okay, now please tell me how women should take charge of their own lives.

Yes, I always quit when a girl said no. I imagine the great majority of men do, even in this sick age in which we live.

How do women take charge of their lives? Get an education, learn to take care of yourself, set some standards, and don't consider yourself to be a poor little ole female that needs some big man to take care of her. Don't follow our sick culture. Above all else, commit your life to Christ and trust Him to guide you. When you marry, marry a man you love but also a man you can respect and trust. Have sex after marriage, not before.

How do you propose that women take charge of their own lives?

Where did you get this idea men are monsters? I know your society is skewed towards thinking sex is a right, but this isn't so in many societies.

Women are already getting educations, good jobs, and taking charge of their lives, and that will only continue despite the oppositions and challenges. It's a process long overdue, but many have not advance to such levels and are caught in that empowerment transition thing and need assistance to achieve it. That small group that conservatives bad mouth and seek to further disenfranchise and hold back is exactly the problem. There are already many restrictions on that assistance, having been around many that have gone through that process, and childcare being the greatest challenge, with conservatives refusing to step up.


In America sex between consenting adults is really nobody's business but theirs. Some people unfortunately cannot mind their own business. Monstrous behavior is not limited to men as woman are as capable of such behavior too, but as women become more empowered, men will be less likely to victimize them.

So Clete some men are monsters to that extent, and should not be ignored or supported, or further enabled.

In America sex between consenting adults is really nobody's business but theirs.

That's certainly true, but if a woman becomes pregnant, then it becomes an issue between the father, her unborn child, and her. If she expects someone else (the taxpayer) to support her financially, then it becomes everyone's business who is one of those taxpayers.

No it doesn't. It's not even the welfare departments. The issue is does she/he need help and how much, and why.

The issue is does she/he need help and how much, and why.

That's the kind of thinking that has put us 21 trillion in debt. If you want to support her, then go for it, but if you want others to support her, then it becomes their business. How the feds spend my money is very much my business.

Seems like the only solution is vasectomies for all prepubescent males.

That's the kind of thinking that has put us 21 trillion in debt. If you want to support her, then go for it, but if you want others to support her, then it becomes their business. How the feds spend my money is very much my business.

Welfare people didn't put us 21 trillion in debt, nor did they tank the economy, EVER!

No, but the idea that if Tal (or whoever) thinks some money needs to be spent, then by George it just MUST be spent. Hang the taxpayer and forget personal responsibility. It just must be spent!

Tal ain't spent nuttin', repubs have had the power of the purse since 2011!

Tal ain't spent nuttin', repubs have had the power of the purse since 2011!

I agree with your statement about republicans. It's a disgrace that we are still spending money hand over fist with the economy we have now. I guess we'll see if this democrat congress can control spending any better. I'll let you take the first guess as to the answer.

Repub senate and dem house. Dufus president. Lots of fights and there is still a month of repubs TOTAL control to get through. I see little changes for the better at this time. Don't worry the dufus show will continue! That's all I got.

Enjoy The WH Purge.

I agree with your statement about republicans. It's a disgrace that we are still spending money hand over fist with the economy we have now. I guess we'll see if this democrat congress can control spending any better. I'll let you take the first guess as to the answer.

Surely you jest

Surely you jest

About what?

If you saw the disgusting dufus display calling commanders from his Mar a Lago palace on Thanksgiving Day you would conclude that any sort of help the dems can give to stem the Dufus's antics would be welcome.

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/168/16851/1685163.gif

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/cache/lw600/168/16849/1684929.jpg