How convenient that a day that should have been devoted to follow-ups of detailed reports of kidnappings, starvation and brutality by Trump's agents against children, we were in instead treated to endless stories about softhearted Donald not wanting to see any Iranians hurt.
Among the latest proven atrocities carried out by ICE and Border Patrol was the kidnapping of a four-month-old baby. When finally returned to her mother the baby did not recognize her and was afraid to go to her. I readily recognize this sort of atrocity as the same thing happened to my grandfather at the end of the Civil War.
When Rodney King was beaten there were 25 law enforcement officers on hand but only one raised any objections to the savagery, leading us to conclude that in Southern California 95% of police officers are savages.
Christopher Browning's outstanding history of Reserve Police Battalion 101, "Ordinary Men," found that of about 500 German policeman, only one raised even the mildest objections to the murders and other atrocities they were told to commit against Jews and other enemies of the people.
So far as it is known, no one in ICE or the Border Patrol objected in any way to the kidnapping of a four-month-old baby. If they do not have sufficient moral boundaries to draw the line there, history suggests they would not draw it anywhere.
Well, it is not like they believe those things are real human beings...
ReplyDeleteIt is the old complaint about rightwingers -- they want to protect the life of children until they're born. After that, they're on their own.
ReplyDeleteOh for pete's sake. I notice this post is completely devoid of any links to actual facts, as opposed to Harry's what comes spewing forth from Harry' spittle-flecked keyboard.
ReplyDeleteHarry: what are the relevant laws? Given that you are such a super-genius with unparalleled moral acuity, what are the alternatives, and their consequences?
And, finally, if you are going to argue for open borders, why not just do so?
It is the old complaint about rightwingers -- they want to protect the life of children until they're born. After that, they're on their own.
Here is the evergreen complaint about progs: they just make crap up.
I am not for starving children, You are. That's the difference between us
ReplyDeleteI’m not for vacuous statements of empty virtue signaling.
ReplyDeleteSo how about taking a meaningful position?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen evil is so banal that one can't even recognize it, I suppose all "virtue signaling" must seem "empty."
ReplyDeleteM: When evil is so banal that one can't even recognize it, I suppose all "virtue signaling" must seem "empty."
ReplyDeleteBecause, of course, the first and most obvious reason is because I don't care about starving children.
That's so obvious, why didn't I think of it?
Oh, wait, I know why. It is complete progressive vacuous bollocks -- gross insults where an argument belongs. No wonder you signed on to it.
Your response is about as good a description of how the banality of evil works as I could have come up with myself. Thank you.
DeleteM: I have an idea. Quote exactly what I said, and explain how it amounts to the banality of evil.
DeleteInstead of going straight to the prog play book: baseless name calling.
Go ahead, say you are against starving children. Why is that so hard for you and other rightwingers?
ReplyDeleteGo ahead, say you are against starving children. Why is that so hard for you and other rightwingers?
ReplyDeleteStop it with your fatuous nonsense -- that is so pathetically typical for a progressive that it doesn't deserve a response.
Go ahead, say, it progressives love mass murdering children. How's the shoe fit?
Instead of resorting to self-insulting nonsense, how about coming to terms with:
Harry: what are the relevant laws? Given that you are such a super-genius with unparalleled moral acuity, what are the alternatives, and their consequences?
And, finally, if you are going to argue for open borders, why not just do so?
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-rep-children-migrant-detention-facility-are-free-leave?cid=sm_fb_maddow&fbclid=IwAR1cLskUqd44i-g2ZFqfctY4jOIxYttyLldEGdXglgtziI_WGKdg4cKVK34
ReplyDeleteAlternatives? Feed them.
Skipper,
ReplyDeleteBefore resorting to your usual moral cowardice of hiding behind 'it is the law' arguments, try answer a question for a change: do you believe America has any moral imperative of saving the lives of these children? A yes or no answer will suffice.
It is a curious fact that the sources of almost all the border crossers are nations in which the US government meddled for decades with baleful effects.
ReplyDelete[Clovis:] Before resorting to your usual moral cowardice of hiding behind 'it is the law' arguments, try answer a question for a change: do you believe America has any moral imperative of saving the lives of these children? A yes or no answer will suffice.
ReplyDeleteWhat is it with progressives and simple answers to complex problems?
Does the US have a moral imperative to save lives? Sure. I'll go with yes.
But you, in your simplism, ignore a great deal underlying that question. For instance:
Does the US have a moral obligation to dissuade people risking their lives?
Does the US have a moral obligation to grant asylum to those who didn't apply to Mexico for asylum?
Do Americans have the moral obligation to provide "free" medical care for illegal immigrants (see, also, first question above)?
Does enforcing US immigration laws act as a deterrent to those considering making a dangerous journey? Does enforcing US law reduce child trafficking? If so, is it an act of moral myopia to fail to take those possibilities on board?
Does the US have a moral imperative to let into the country anyone who can make it across the border?
[According to many stories in the NYT about the border crisis and migrant caravans (all these stories came after the vote in increasing border security, btw), migrants are subject to robbery, rape, murder and sex trafficking throughout their voyage across Mexico. When Trump says Mexico sends murderers and rapists across the border, he is a racist, but when the NYT says migrants get murdered and raped, they aren't. How odd.]
[Harry:] Alternatives? Feed them.
ReplyDeleteWith what money? Money that Congress appropriates. How odd that the Democrats sought to defeat a narrowly tailored GOP bill to exactly that effect. Pelosi lost on that one.
Further consider that the border crisis wasn't a crisis until it was a crisis.
Christopher Browning's outstanding history of Reserve Police Battalion 101, "Ordinary Men," found that of about 500 German policeman, only one raised even the mildest objections to the murders and other atrocities they were told to commit against Jews and other enemies of the people.
So far as it is known, no one in ICE or the Border Patrol objected in any way to the kidnapping of a four-month-old baby. If they do not have sufficient moral boundaries to draw the line there, history suggests they would not draw it anywhere.
You and Ocasio Cortez would make a gold medal team in the All-World Indoor/Outdoor Freestyle Moral Idiocy Olympics.
[Clovis:] Before resorting to your usual moral cowardice of hiding behind 'it is the law' arguments, try answer a question for a change: do you believe America has any moral imperative of saving the lives of these children? A yes or no answer will suffice.
ReplyDeleteI forgot to add: Do the people risking their lives to break our laws have any moral obligation not to do so?
Skipper,
ReplyDelete----
Does the US have a moral obligation to dissuade people risking their lives?
----
Define "dissuade". If kidnapping their children is covered by your definition, the answer is no, no and NO. But if this is only about building that Wall, be my guest.
----
Does the US have a moral obligation to grant asylum to those who didn't apply to Mexico for asylum?
----
Depends on the criteria for asylum.
Apparently, and correct me if wrong, severe problems of gang violence and economic destitution has been covered by your agencies as enabling asylum. In this case, Mexico is just the same shithole as the rest of Latin America, and they are damn right to don't stop by.
----
Do Americans have the moral obligation to provide "free" medical care for illegal immigrants (see, also, first question above)?
----
If functional adults, no. If children, I'd vote yes, as for any other incapacitated human being.
----
Does enforcing US immigration laws act as a deterrent to those considering making a dangerous journey?
----
No, as they are running from things far worse.
---
Does enforcing US law reduce child trafficking?
---
Marginally yes, but the majority of children brought in are not being traficked, you can bet on that.
---
If so, is it an act of moral myopia to fail to take those possibilities on board?
---
Per my answer above, you start from a misguided hypothesis.
---
Does the US have a moral imperative to let into the country anyone who can make it across the border?
---
Usually I would say no. Probably for any other country I would say no.
But you often mention that what defines America is, above all, a set of ideals. Were I to reason from those set of ideals, I would end up with a "yes" answer.
Of course, I don't believe the USA is really defined by those of ideals, and your bragging about it is BS. So, go on with a "no" answer to make my point, I don't mind.
The US is largely responsible for the violence and trouble in Central America, since it has worked for 11 decades to make sure those countries do not have democratic, stable governments. It is more than ironic (but historically precedented) that the victims of US policy would flee to the US. I think we should let any in who wat in. That would be the beginnings of morality.
ReplyDelete[Clovis:] Define "dissuade". If kidnapping their children is covered by your definition, the answer is no, no and NO.
ReplyDeleteDissuade is the opposite of encourage.
Giving drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants (as California and, now, New York do) is encouragement.
Providing free medical care to illegal immigrants (as Democrat presidential candidates want to do) is encouragement.
Releasing those who travel with children with a promise to return to court at some future date — which the vast majority do not do — is encouragement. And not just to illegally immigrate, but also to traffic children. And it, in effect, creates an open border, which is the exact opposite of dissuasion.
As for betting on the majority of children brought across the border as not being trafficked, it is at least a significant minority, which you cannot ignore. And somehow you believe that a significant incentive to do just that won't have any reaction.
Depends on the criteria for asylum.
Apparently, and correct me if wrong, severe problems of gang violence and economic destitution has been covered by your agencies as enabling asylum.
That is wrong: Asylum has two basic requirements. First, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she fears persecution in their home country. Second, the applicant must prove that he or she would be persecuted on account of one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group
And for those with valid asylum claims, they are obligated to make that claim in the first country they get to.
Per my answer above, you start from a misguided hypothesis.
My hyptotheses are these:
First: if put to an actual vote, the notion of an open border would get trounced; sovereign states are entitled to control their own borders.
Second: functional encouragement to undertake a dangerous journey itself has significant costs which you ignore.
Third: illegal immigrants have agency, and are obliged not to violate our laws. And our government is obliged to enforce those laws. If illegal immigrants, knowing that they may be separated from their children in the attempt, do so anyway, then the blame is on them, for they are moral actors, too.
Usually I would say no. Probably for any other country I would say no.
But you often mention that what defines America is, above all, a set of ideals. Were I to reason from those set of ideals, I would end up with a "yes" answer.
Does that mean we have to allow in those who don't share those ideals? Or that rate and quantity do not matter? That the government does not owe a superior obligation to its citizens than those who aren't? Or that the concept of US citizenship would be, if you had your way, meaningless?
The US is largely responsible for the violence and trouble in Central America, since it has worked for 11 decades to make sure those countries do not have democratic, stable governments.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, you completely ignore the grotesque violence of communist insurgencies in Central and South America.
And the last time I checked, these countries have as much stable and democratic government as they want. Or, in the case of Venezuela, as much as the government allows them to have: none.
What is it with you and uncaused effects?
I think we should let any in who want in.
The great democrat speaks. Why don't we put it up for a vote?
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
Third: illegal immigrants have agency, and are obliged not to violate our laws. And our government is obliged to enforce those laws. If illegal immigrants, knowing that they may be separated from their children in the attempt, do so anyway, then the blame is on them, for they are moral actors, too.
---
You can not invoke moral obligation in order to argue for obedience to immoral laws. The concept of "natural law", often invoked by the founders themselves, comes to mind too.
---
Does that mean we have to allow in those who don't share those ideals? Or that rate and quantity do not matter?
---
It means entrance comes with obligations, and there are penalties in your codes to deal with not conforming to the ideals that manifest themselves in the form of laws.
---
That the government does not owe a superior obligation to its citizens than those who aren't? Or that the concept of US citizenship would be, if you had your way, meaningless?
---
Can you specify which obligations of the government would go unfulfilled by the presence of an immigrant? Or in which way his entrance denies your own citizenship?
Apparently, anytime a baby is born in the US, you should be highly offended too in this zero-sum-game of yours.
[Clovis:] You can not invoke moral obligation in order to argue for obedience to immoral laws. The concept of "natural law", often invoked by the founders themselves, comes to mind too.
ReplyDeleteThe law isn't immoral, it makes the best of a bad situation. According to court order, children may not be housed with adults for more than 21 days. Probably good reasons for that. According to the law, people who cross the border without permission are illegal immigrants. The policy had been to release adults with accompanying minors, with the requirement to report for a future court date.
Which virtually none do. Their failure to meet their moral obligation creates the bad situation with which the law must deal.
What is your alternative?
Can you specify which obligations of the government would go unfulfilled by the presence of an immigrant? Or in which way his entrance denies your own citizenship?
Last first. An open border renders the concept of citizenship meaningless.
Now the first: illegal immigrants have virtually eliminated citizen employment for a significant number building trades, particularly in the SW US. A high rate of illegal immigration puts huge demands on schools, housing, and health care.
It means entrance comes with obligations, and there are penalties in your codes to deal with not conforming to the ideals that manifest themselves in the form of laws.
Just like in Europe.
Apparently, anytime a baby is born in the US, you should be highly offended too in this zero-sum-game of yours.
Not any baby born of those legally in the US.
Immigration needs to be democratically decided by US citizens. Our borders need to be sufficiently secure to ensure that illegal immigration becomes an insignificant fraction of illegal immigration.
What's wrong with that?
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
What is your alternative?
---
Can't you see how ridiculous it is to process them in prison for 21 days only to have them free anyway?
Let them free from day one and you solved it. It is a far superior solution in terms of use of resources, trauma to the kids, whatever other metric you want to use.
Oh, it is then open borders for people with kids and you don't like it? Heck, it is already open borders for them, you are only lifting the unnecessary pain and waste of resources.
You prefer other solution? Immediate transfer to the border/country they crossed looks fair to me too. You swear people would prefer this as opposed to open borders, but no one is trying to change your laws to make it happen, just like your Wall, so you are clearly assuming a counter-factual.
---
An open border renders the concept of citizenship meaningless.
---
Just like magic? Hocus pocus? Or you want to add a real mechanism or example to justify so? It is your point as of now which is meaningless.
----
Now the first: illegal immigrants have virtually eliminated citizen employment for a significant number building trades, particularly in the SW US. A high rate of illegal immigration puts huge demands on schools, housing, and health care.
----
Your economy is near full employment, even though you have been absorbing good numbers of immigrants, legal or not, for the last 350 years. It looks like few of those previously employed in such building trades are unable to make up a decent living. You virtually have no poverty in my definition of the word. So you may want to redress this argument, I am not convinced.
Also, it looks like to me the immigrants, legal or illegal, have been a driving force to revitalize dying economies in many places, using schools, health and housing resources that would otherwise die away for lack of people. Heck, even with all the immigration your fertility rate numbers aren't really impressive.
No, you will need to try harder if you want to prove the above points.
---
It means entrance comes with obligations, and there are penalties in your codes to deal with not conforming to the ideals that manifest themselves in the form of laws.
Just like in Europe.
---
No, it is much harder to acquire effective citizenship - in terms of real participation and recognition in the fabric of society - in Europe.
---
Apparently, anytime a baby is born in the US, you should be highly offended too in this zero-sum-game of yours.
Not any baby born of those legally in the US.
---
There again, hocus pocus. How a baby from an illegal is different from a legal one at this? Even more takinbg in account that the baby from the illegal is now a legal person due to birth in the land?
Try arguing your point in rational terms for a change, just saying to doesn't make so.
[Clovis:] Can't you see how ridiculous it is to process them in prison for 21 days only to have them free anyway?
ReplyDeleteLet them free from day one and you solved it. It is a far superior solution in terms of use of resources, trauma to the kids, whatever other metric you want to use.
So your answer to the border crisis — which it very much is — is much more of the same encouragement that created it in the first place.
And without bothering to address the moral implications of illegal immigrants breaking our laws in the first place, then the vast majority failing to appear for their court dates.
My preferred solution is in two parts. Greatly extend physical barriers, and send those apprehended right back to Mexico. Unfortunately, progressives have decided that once in the US, illegal immigrants cannot be returned without due process of law. Which requires a court date that the illegal immigrants don't show up for.
[HS:] An open border renders the concept of citizenship meaningless.
---
[Clovis:] Just like magic? Hocus pocus? Or you want to add a real mechanism or example to justify so? It is your point as of now which is meaningless.
I would have thought it obvious by examination. People who become citizens immigrate legally, often waiting considerable time to do so. Then they go through all the steps to become citizens. Declaring open borders renders all that meaningless.
It looks like few of those previously employed in such building trades are unable to make up a decent living. You virtually have no poverty in my definition of the word. So you may want to redress this argument, I am not convinced.
They aren't making a living doing what they wanted to do, that's for sure.
Just as surely as this: greatly increasing the supply of low-skill labor greatly reduces the bargaining power of US low-skill laborers. That's Econ 101: supply and demand isn't just a good idea, it's the law.
[Clovis:] It means entrance comes with obligations, and there are penalties in your codes to deal with not conforming to the ideals that manifest themselves in the form of laws.
[HS:] Just like in Europe.
Sorry, I left off the /sarc tag. There has been mass immigration to Europe, and those things aren't happening. Fifty years ago, before the cancers of identity politics and intersectionalism reared their loathsome heads, assimilation was very powerful.
Now, thanks to progressives, assimilation has been virtually repudiated.
Just like in Europe.
There again, hocus pocus. How a baby from an illegal is different from a legal one at this? Even more takinbg in account that the baby from the illegal is now a legal person due to birth in the land?
As the law stands now, there is no difference.
But this goes back to dissuasion vs. encouragement.
And what is in the US national interest.
Which is that our immigration policy be decided by Americans, and that policy has to be enforceable. Right now neither is the case, and extending birth-right citizenship to the the children of illegal immigrants only adds encouragement to illegal immigration that isn't in the US's national interest.
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
Unfortunately, progressives have decided that once in the US, illegal immigrants cannot be returned without due process of law.
---
You mean progressives wrote your constitution? Why do you hate it so much?
---
I would have thought it obvious by examination.
---
It is so obvious you couldn't answer so far. I repeat the question, why do you believe open borders invalidate citizenship?
---
Just as surely as this: greatly increasing the supply of low-skill labor greatly reduces the bargaining power of US low-skill laborers. That's Econ 101: supply and demand isn't just a good idea, it's the law.
---
You are not too good at this Econ thing, Skipper, maybe you need to study a bit more.
You are complaining about immigration at the exact moment you are in full employment, with more positions open than people to get them.
Supply and demand mandates you to get more immigrants then. Oh, my, now you don't like the "law"?
The "bargaining power" of US low-skill laborers is proportional to the relationship between supply and demand, not the absolute value of any of those two variables.
Actually, if what you want is to limit the supply of labor in order to make the low-skill earn more, it also means you want the rest of society to pay more for the same products. In other words, you want to subsidize the low skill labor for the sole reason of racial hygiene.
---
There has been mass immigration to Europe, and those things aren't happening.
---
That's mostly a lie. The assimilation of the last wave of 1 million refugees in Germany is going very well actually.
---
Fifty years ago, before the cancers of identity politics and intersectionalism reared their loathsome heads, assimilation was very powerful.
Now, thanks to progressives, assimilation has been virtually repudiated.
---
And that's another lie. Present immigrants to the USA adapt today quite faster than previous generations, mostly because they already arrive under the full acculturation of the world to American values and language.
Just like in Europe.
---
[Even more taking in account that the baby from the illegal is now a legal person due to birth in the land?]
As the law stands now, there is no difference.
---
Suddenly, you are the one against the law - oh those sacred Laws that ought to be inviolabe only to brown people.
---
And what is in the US national interest.
---
Apparently, you confuse your own opinion with national interests.
If it was in the national interest of the USA to curtail immigration completely, it would already have done so.
So far, you have been unable to even offer an explanation on why open borders go against national interests.
It was not leftists who introduced identity politics into Europe, it was fascists; and the revival of fascism is what is driving the so-called immigrant crisis in Europe.
ReplyDelete11 decades ago, when the IS adopted its policy of preventing democratic governments in the South, there were no communists. The violence in Latin America has been mostly by the right, including genocide in Guatemala that was backed by the US.
We still have a free press in this country and the past 24 hours have destroyed any claims by the anti-immigrant side to decency. The Border Patrol is filled with savage racists.
Skipper does not mention the main pull encouragement Americans give to foreigners. We push them out of their home by destroying their hopes of self-government, and we pull them by offering them work. If American employers wanted immigration reduced, conditions would change overnight.
[Harry:] It was not leftists who introduced identity politics into Europe ...
ReplyDeleteTell that to the kulaks.
Skipper does not mention the main pull encouragement Americans give to foreigners. We push them out of their home by destroying their hopes of self-government ...
Harry, instead of fulminating pronunciamentos, how about giving some examples of destroying hopes of self-government since the collapse of your favorite ideology, Soviet communism?
Interesting, of course, is the counter-factual. The Soviet Union tyrannized Eastern Europe, including virtually destroying their economies, as communism always does.
Yet those countries aren't shitholes. In fact they are leagues better off now.
(But than, unlike you, I'm crippled by only having first hand knowledge to go on.)
Makes one wonder why US meddling in Central and South America, feather light and intermittent by comparison, becomes a single factor explanation.
It must be that you think brown people have no moral agency.
[Harry:] We still have a free press in this country and the past 24 hours have destroyed any claims by the anti-immigrant side to decency. The Border Patrol is filled with savage racists.
ReplyDeleteWould it kill you to provide a link?
Might this be what was actually going on?
But never mind. I'll take what you wrote as given, despite your frequently proving that what you write has no congruence with reality.
The (presumed) existence of "savage racists" in the Border Patrol means destroys any claims of the anti-immigrant side to decency.
Fine.
The savage assault by Antifa on a journalist (and others) destroys any claims of the left to decency.
Pot, meet kettle.
[Clovis:] You are not too good at this Econ thing, Skipper, maybe you need to study a bit more.
ReplyDeleteYou are complaining about immigration at the exact moment you are in full employment, with more positions open than people to get them.
Stop and think. I'm not talking about just today, or the past year. This has been going on for decades. There are at least 11 million illegal immigrants in the US. That is a huge increase in the supply of low-skill laborers. Their bargaining power has been correspondingly reduced, for a long time.
Furthermore, don't stop at just the unemployment rate. Also consider labor force participation, and why it isn't higher. Look at the causes of the opioid epidemic.
Supply and demand doesn't mandate more low skill immigrants, unless no one cares about low skilled US citizens.
Actually, if what you want is to limit the supply of labor in order to make the low-skill earn more, it also means you want the rest of society to pay more for the same products. In other words, you want to subsidize the low skill labor for the sole reason of racial hygiene.
I don't want US citizens competing against illegal immigrants for jobs, because illegal immigrants do not carry non-wage costs of employment. I don't want low-skilled US citizens facing unfair competition.
If rich people in Southern California have to pay more for nannies, gardeners, and kale, then so be it.
That's mostly a lie. The assimilation of the last wave of 1 million refugees in Germany is going very well actually.
You don't live here. You aren't a Jew here. You haven't been to certain parts of Norway, Sweden, or England.
You don't know what you are talking about.
And that's another lie. Present immigrants to the USA adapt today quite faster than previous generations, mostly because they already arrive under the full acculturation of the world to American values and language.
No, they don't. They congregate in virtually closed communities. There are plenty of areas in Southern California, for instance, where English isn't spoken.
However, I don't attribute this to immigrants, but rather the progressive corruption of education, and its fetish with identity politics.
Apparently, you confuse your own opinion with national interests.
If it was in the national interest of the USA to curtail immigration completely, it would already have done so.
So far, you have been unable to even offer an explanation on why open borders go against national interests.
I've given you plenty. There are plenty more if you had the curiosity to do a little research on your own.
If this was put up to a national vote, rather than being held hostage to those addicted to cheap labor, no matter the cost to their fellow citizens, we'd have a wall tout suite. If illegal immigrants were coming across with Brooks Brothers suits and law degrees, a stainless steel wall 40 feet high would have stretched from Brownsville to San Diego forty years ago.
In other words, you want to subsidize the low skill labor for the sole reason of racial hygiene.
Everything I've written here is independent of race, as it must be, since Americans are comprised of every race. Rather, it is about the necessity of a sovereign country controlling its borders, and the degree of immigration being decided as a part of the political process.
Racial hygiene? You brought that all on your own.
Asshole.
Crisis, what crisis?
ReplyDelete'Tell that to the kulaks.'
ReplyDeleteHmmm. By that time there were 2 fascist governments in Europe and strong fascist parties in at least 4 more.
I am interested to see whether you are capable of even acknowledging the existence of white terror. I am sure you are incapable of objecting to it. You have had many chances but never taken one up.
'Feather-light intervention.' As in overthrowing democratic governments in Guatemala and Chile, sponsoring genocide in Guatemala, invading Panama, Grenada and the Dominican Republic; sponsoring savagely repressive governments almost everywhere.
ReplyDeleteYou cannot excuse US behavior by citing Russian behavior in eastern Europe. The Russians at least had the justification of wanting a cordon sanitaire against a 3rd catastrophic invasion byte Germans. What threat was the US responding to?
If you are going to keep posting here, I'd appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting my opinions about soviet communism.
(I once asked you to leave; I have since revised that wish; you are valuable as a pluperfect example if American rightwing nonsense, sort of like the guy the Spartans hired to stay drunk as a caution to the youth.)
[Harry:] You cannot excuse US behavior by citing Russian behavior in eastern Europe.
ReplyDeleteYour reading comprehension sucks. Which if you bothered to quote what I actually wrote -- which you always need to, but never, do -- would demonstrate that quite clearly.
Let me help:
Interesting, of course, is the counter-factual. The Soviet Union tyrannized Eastern Europe, including virtually destroying their economies, as communism always does.
Yet those countries aren't shitholes. In fact they are leagues better off now.
So, for the concept impaired and journalists: your single factor explanation is childish nonsense. Whatever the US did in Central and South America, it is feather light in comparison to what the Soviets did in Central Europe.
Yet despite decades of communist idiocy and not a shred of democratic government, Central Europe is hugely improved over 30 years ago.
How do I know? Been there, both before and after.
So putting down Central and South America's current problems to US interventions decades ago doesn't pass even a cursory sanity check. Never mind utterly failing to account for Mexico, in which the US hasn't intervened for 170 some odd years.
The Russians at least had the justification of wanting a cordon sanitaire against a 3rd catastrophic invasion byte Germans.
You keep flogging that idiotic line. By multiples, the Warsaw Pact had military superiority over NATO, never mind Germany. It is clear to anyone but a blinkered apologist that the Warsaw Pact acted to tyrannize the USSR's colonies (ever hear of Hungary?) and hope to cow the West into submission.
Of course, there is that massive invasion of the former USSR after the War Pac collapsed into ignominy. Oh, wait. That never happened.
What threat was the US responding to?
Socialist revolutions in Central and South America.
Which you keep completely forgetting, in your apologetic
fervor.
Isn't one Cuba enough?
[Harry:] If you are going to keep posting here, I'd appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting my opinions about soviet communism.
ReplyDeleteYou defamed me. You routinely either witlessly misunderstand, or willfully distort what write. You never have the decency to quote what I said. And not only do you defame me, but you routinely slime others based on nothing more than your incurable ignorance.
Which I am only too happy to point out.
As for your attitude towards communism? You memhole its predations in Central and South America, and make every excuse possible for that murderous ideology.
Hmmm. By that time there were 2 fascist governments in Europe and strong fascist parties in at least 4 more.
ReplyDeleteWhen was Das Kapital written? Don't know the exact year, not going to look it up, but it well predated any fascist government.
How is class warfare not the epitome of identity politics?
(And here is yet another example of your engaging in Marxist apologetics.)
Well, if you are going to go that route, then identity politics was at the bottom of the Thirty Years War. The kind that dominated the 20th century was purely the product of fascism, beginning in France and taking over almost all Europe by 1939.
ReplyDeleteEurope is at heart fascist as we are seeing now with the revival of fascist regimes in Hungary, Poland and elsewhere.
Let's have test of your definition of featherlight, Skipper. What precisely was the difference between the killings of Masaryk and Allende?
ReplyDelete[Harry:] Let's have test of your definition of featherlight, Skipper. What precisely was the difference between the killings of Masaryk and Allende?
ReplyDeleteLet's have a test of your reading comprehension. What is the difference between the USSR's subjugation of Eastern Europe and the killings of Masaryk and Allende?
Yes, I know. That is a really stupid question.
It is the one you are, in effect, asking. The comparison is between the US interventions in C & S America, compared to the USSR's occupation of Eastern Europe.
It is a monumental insult to reason to compare either of those to individual incidents.
The kind that dominated the 20th century was purely the product of fascism, beginning in France and taking over almost all Europe by 1939.
ReplyDeleteThat is tedious nonsense. Communism is predicated upon identity politics. The homolodor had killed 6 million Ukranians before Hitler got his boots on.
Fair enough, fascism is also predicated on identity politics.
You, here, have demonstrated you are a communist. Communists hate fascists (never mind that communists -- you are the perfect example abuse the hell out of the word). Communists do not hate communists.
Fascists hate communists, but do not hate themselves.
Those of us who are neither hate you both for the malignant collectivisms you are, that differ in only two meaningful ways:
1. Communism is universalist (no wonder you admire Islamism so much); fascism is limited to blood and soil.
2. Fascists have better tailors.
You still refuse to acknowledge the existence of white terror. That's all we need to know about you.
ReplyDeleteYou still refuse to acknowledge the existence of white terror. That's all we need to know about you.
ReplyDeleteThat sentence is incoherent.
Please, by all means tell me about the white terror I have refused to acknowledge. Use direct quotes
You won't, because you can't.
Which is all we need to know about you. You are a liar.
Oh, just what the heck is the meaningful distinction of "ship killing mine"?
ReplyDeleteThere was an engineered famine in Ukraine 40 years before the red version, and you know about it because I've mentioned it before. Your refusal to acknowledge white terror tells us everything we need to know about you.
ReplyDeleteThere was an engineered famine in Ukraine 40 years before the red version, and you know about it because I've mentioned it before.
ReplyDeleteReally? I don't believe you. Prove me wrong.
Your refusal to acknowledge white terror tells us everything we need to know about you.
That you can write such an incoherent sentence, without a shred of evidence about what you said, or my response, says a great deal about you.
You are a liar.
Prove me wrong.
Try as I might, I can't find any reference to a Ukranian famine of the 1890s.
ReplyDeleteProve to me there was such a thing.
Try typing 'famine in Russia in 1892' into Bing. God knows that was simple enough.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do not rely on search engines fr history; I read history books, including several on agricuture in Russia.
It was a natural famine but the capitalists turned it into one of the great disasters of the 19th century.On purpose, which is how it qualifies as white terror:
ReplyDeleteWeather alone cannot be blamed as there was enough grain in Russia to feed the starving areas.[citation needed] The peasants used medieval technology like wooden ploughs and sickles. They rarely had modern fertilizers or machinery (the Petrovsky academy in Moscow was Russia's only agricultural school). Russia's primitive railways were not up to redistributing grain. The affected area was a stronghold of communal land distribution so that households had no incentive to improve the land or mechanize, but every incentive to produce as many children as possible (Russia had Europe's highest birth rate[citation needed]). The main blame was laid at the government, which was discredited by the famine. It refused to use that word: golod, they called it a poor harvest, neurozhai, and stopped the papers reporting on it.[1] The main reason the blame fell on the government was that grain exports were not banned until mid-August and merchants had a month's warning so they could quickly export their reserves. Minister of Finance Ivan Vyshnegradsky even opposed this late ban.[1] He was seen as the main cause of the disaster as it was his policy to raise consumer taxes to force peasants to sell more grain.[1] Even Russia's capitalists realized the industrialization drive had been too hard on the peasants.[citation needed] The government also contributed to the famine indirectly by conscripting peasant sons, sending taxmen to seize livestock when grain ran out, and implementing a system of redemption payments as compensation to landlords who had lost their serfs.
[Harry:] There was an engineered famine in Ukraine 40 years before the red version
ReplyDelete[Later Harry:] Try typing 'famine in Russia in 1892' into Bing. God knows that was simple enough.
I didn't know Ukraine was an alternate spelling for Russia. Google apparently didn't either.
Let me help you out here, since links seem beyond you.
Go to autocorrect on your computer. Pick a non-grammatical series of characters. I use dothr (replace dot with .) Then enter this as the replacement string:
[a href=""][/a], only replace [ with < and ] with >
Then, whenever you want to create a link, type dothr and paste the URL between the quote marks, and the text reference between the brackets. Like this:
[a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1891%E2%80%9392"]The Ukrainian Famine that actually happened in Russia and hasn't got heck all to do with capitalism.[/a]
Going live, it looks like this:
The Ukrainian Famine that actually happened in Russia and hasn't got heck all to do with capitalism, but don't bother me with facts.
Took seconds.
So now that you have no excuse for not being able to embed links ...
... and you know about it because I've mentioned it before. Your refusal to acknowledge white terror tells us everything we need to know about you.
Link to where you have mentioned it to me before. And my refusal to acknowledge that thing you have mentioned to me before. That happened in Ukraine except it was in Russia.
Despite having demonstrated how to do this quickly and easily, I'm not worried that I'll be seeing any such link.
Because you are lying.
It was in Ukraine, which was, as anybody but you would know,a part of the Russian Empire in 1892.
ReplyDeleteIt was in Ukraine, which was, as anybody but you would know,a part of the Russian Empire in 1892.
ReplyDeleteWhich has square root of zero to do with trying to track down which famine you are talking about.
Big question here: anyone with basic reasoning capabilities would know that. Why didn't you?
[Harry:] ... and you know about it because I've mentioned it before. Your refusal to acknowledge white terror tells us everything we need to know about you.
ReplyDelete[HS:] Link to where you have mentioned it to me before. And my refusal to acknowledge that thing you have mentioned to me before.
How about clearing that up?
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
Supply and demand doesn't mandate more low skill immigrants, unless no one cares about low skilled US citizens.
---
You should read your own link. It clearly states the ups and downs are mixed, and a net good is a very real possibility:
"Although available data did not distinguish precisely between legal and illegal immigration
in their effects on wages and employment of black workers, most panelists agreed that illegal
immigration appears to have had at least some negative effects on the wages and employment
of workers in the low-skill labor market. The panelists disagreed as to the magnitude of that
effect, which ranged from very small to substantial. Three of the panelists who were
economists argued that immigration, both legal and illegal, has economically benefited the
United States on a national basis in the form of lower prices to consumers and increased
economic investment in the country."
---
[Clovis] That's mostly a lie. The assimilation of the last wave of 1 million refugees in Germany is going very well actually.
You don't live here. You aren't a Jew here. You haven't been to certain parts of Norway, Sweden, or England.
You don't know what you are talking about.
---
I guess the argument is over, since you look to decide what I know or not know about Germany today. Better let you discussing with a mirror.
---
No, they don't. They congregate in virtually closed communities. There are plenty of areas in Southern California, for instance, where English isn't spoken.
---
"Plenty"? Can you give numbers here?
Speaking of immigrants who can't adapt and speak the language, how are you doing with your Deutsch?
---
Everything I've written here is independent of race, as it must be, since Americans are comprised of every race. Rather, it is about the necessity of a sovereign country controlling its borders, and the degree of immigration being decided as a part of the political process.
---
Yeah, yeah, it has nothing to do with race, blink, blink.
[Clovis:] You should read your own link. It clearly states the ups and downs are mixed, and a net good is a very real possibility:
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right, a net good is not only a very real possibility, it is nearly certain.
I have at least a couple times noted that if illegal immigrants had been coming across the border in Brooks Brothers suits carrying briefcases and law degrees, the border would have had a 60' tall stainless steel wall from Brownsville to San Diego forty years ago.
That is the problem here.
Fine, there is a net gain to the country as a whole. But if that gain keeps coming at the cost of the same group of people every damn time, then the rest of us need to take that on board.
[Clovis] That's mostly a lie. The assimilation of the last wave of 1 million refugees in Germany is going very well actually.
I guess the argument is over, since you look to decide what I know or not know about Germany today. Better let you discussing with a mirror.
For you to have made that remark betrays a great deal of ignorance; forgivable, since you don't actually live here.
"Plenty"? Can you give numbers here?
I grew up there. There are areas beyond counting (Whittier, East Los Angeles, Pico Rivera, El Monte, and so on and so forth) where you will scarcely find an English language store front.
Speaking of immigrants who can't adapt and speak the language, how are you doing with your Deutsch?
Extremely poorly.
At work, I'm not in Germany. And when I travel, it is almost never in Germany. Outside Germany, no one speaks German.
As a consequence, I almost never have the opportunity.
Yeah, yeah, it has nothing to do with race, blink, blink.
Speaking of looking in a mirror.
To bring up race when it could not have possibly been involved? You really are an asshole.
Skipper,
ReplyDeleteI have been to Los Angeles a few years ago. After a a few days of high calories and fat American food, I needed some break, and Mexican-related food was it. Lots of those places were speaking Spanish indeed, but when I got to the counter, they changed to English without trouble. I can't remember a single place where they couldn't speak English. Same every other place I've been in the US.
Of course, your problem is not that they speak Spanish, but that even though they are an inferior race, they managed to be better migrants than you are.
By the way, Ahmed back there in the Donner stand nearby your home in Dusseldorf speaks German better than you. A number of those 1 million refugees you hate do so by now too.
And to you, I am not an asshole, but an Arschloch, you dummer Ausländer.
My experience also, Clovis. Most Latinos I meet are fluent in American English. As are the Korean owners of the Caribbean market I go to, along with their mostly islander and African customers. (In fact, it is rare to the point of never happening that I see a customer who looks like me.)
ReplyDeleteOf course, your problem is not that they speak Spanish, but that even though they are an inferior race, they managed to be better migrants than you are.
ReplyDeleteHow about you knock off that racist nonsense?
Not a word I have written here, or anywhere, could be interpreted that way except by someone absolutely determined to do so, regardless. So to avoid my concluding you are a typical progressive asshole, try making an actual argument.
By the way, Ahmed back there in the Donner stand nearby your home in Dusseldorf speaks German better than you. A number of those 1 million refugees you hate do so by now too.
No doubt. And if I spent most of my waking hours dealing with Germans, I would, too.
But I don't. It makes a difference.
The NYT is racist.
ReplyDeleteBehind that news, is the fact those children are learning English nonetheless. There again, better migrants than you, Arschloch.
ReplyDeleteClovis, I'm sorry. I missed you explanation as to why you dragged race into a discussion that had nothing to do with race.
ReplyDeleteBonus round. Explain what my peculiar life circumstances has to do with any of this.
And one other thing, Clovis. Regardless of my language skills, my taxes increase by tens of thousands of dollars a year to work here.
ReplyDeleteI must leave Germany before four years eleven months here.
Why?
Because if I stay here longer, I will get to take advantage of all the bennies my taxes have been helping to fund.
Yep, I sure am a horrible immigrant.
Kind of like in America where immigrants pay taxes for years and then get kicked out.
ReplyDeleteSkipper,
ReplyDeleteSo you not only don't adapt to the local culture and language, but also complain about paying taxes?
No wonder you hate immigrants so much, you must take them by your own measure.
[Clovis:] So you not only don't adapt to the local culture and language ...
ReplyDeleteClovis, I have an idea: stick to the argument. And remember this dictum about the internet: the moment you accuse someone of being a racist/fascist/homophobe/et al, you have admitted defeat.
Kind of like in America where [illegal] immigrants pay taxes for years and then get kicked out.
FIFY.
There is no argument, Skipper, just willful ignorance by your part. Every finger you point to immigrants - higher crime, non-adaption to the local culture and language, drag to the economy - you've been shown wrong in multiple discussions, numerous times.
ReplyDeleteAfter a while, one can only guess the reasons you keep insisting on the same wrong points. Racism is the only answer I could come up so far, but feel free to prove me your prejudices are rooted elsewhere.
Fear explains a lot. As I have said before, if employers did not want illegal immigrants there would not be any. The Republican Party is nothing if not subservient to employers.
ReplyDelete[Clovis:] There is no argument, Skipper, just willful ignorance by your part. Every finger you point to immigrants - higher crime, non-adaption to the local culture and language, drag to the economy - you've been shown wrong in multiple discussions, numerous times.
ReplyDeletePoint by point.
You didn't disprove higher crime, you only proved your gullibility for statistics you find attractive, no matter how empty further investigation shows them to be. As I showed at the time, the underlying data is so weak that it is impossible to say anything one way or the other about immigrant crime rates, whether you acknowledge that fact or not. Not only that, you fail to understand the obvious: every crime committed by an illegal immigrant is a crime that would not have occurred absent illegal immigrants.
Drag to the economy. Stop attributing things to me I never said. I specifically stated that illegal immigration has been contrary to the economic interests of low-skilled American citizens, and even provided a link to that effect.
Non-adaption. You don't know what you are talking about.
Now, read this.
And keep in mind the US is a sovereign country, the citizens of which are overwhelmingly opposed to illegal immigration.
Oh, Clovis, please take on board race appears nowhere. And also note that everytime you invoke something that is irrelevant, you show that your thinking has stopped.
ReplyDeleteSkipper,
DeletePoint by point.
On crime, you only proved in that discussion that I greatly waste my time trying to argue statistics with you. And you didn't start on that one by claiming statistics were ambiguous, but that it was manipulated garbage for politicla purposes. Now you temper your point, but I already know your number.
Now, you read this.
Sorry, this.
DeleteHarry,
ReplyDeleteDo you really think someone like Skipper fears immigrants?
Heck, he even has a gun, or more than one I guess.
No, it is not about fear, not for most of them.
It is, ultimately, a lack of finding higher meaning to their lives. Even though Skipper has great resources, economic and social, he is still wandering, and losing time and energy in his (lack of) pursuit of happiness. It is the tragedy of most people living such comfortable lives.
In fairness, in Skipper's case you can add a tiny bit of Asperger too.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAs to Germany, there was no panic when Germans thought they needed millions of non-German-speaking Muslims to do their scut work and help make them rich. Now there is panic. What changed?
ReplyDeleteI grew up in a part of the US that was not democratic ad controlled by racists and dominated by their fear of blacks, Jews and Catholics, and by the non-racists residents' fear of the racists. Eventually, the national government intervened and although the racists remain, the fear of blacks, Jews and Catholics has receded considerably, Fear of the racists remains and is well-founded.
Clovis: “On crime, you only proved in that discussion that I greatly waste my time trying to argue statistics with you.”
ReplyDeleteGoogle [us illegal immigrant crime rates]. If you get the same results I do, the first hit will be a criminology journal article stating that the underlying data is so thin and incomplete that no meaningful conclusions can be drawn. Don’t like that answer? Take it up with them. (I’m on the road, relegated to an iPad, so linking is a right PITA.)
Also, Clovis, stop attributing to me positions I haven’t taken. You are as bad as Harry, which is saying something, none of it good.
ReplyDeleteAnd in related news, a WaPo/Reforma survey showed 60% of Americans believe illegal immigrants are taking jobs and benefits that should go to US citizens, and that 55% believe illegal immigrants from Central America should be deported.
ReplyDeleteThose Americans sure are racist bastards.
Did I forget to mention the survey was of *Mexican* Americans?
Sorry. Silly me.
It is often the last wave of immigrants the ones that most complain about the new wave of immigrants. That's pretty natural, and not to be confused with the ever present racists and nativists, who object to other people breathing in general.
ReplyDeleteTo the surprise of no one, Trump and his anti-immigrant acolytes are both mealymouthed and two-faced about immigration. When trying to appear reasonable and lawful they will insist they welcome immigrants, at least a certain sort. On the other hand Trump went down to the border and brayed that America has no more room. This would have to apply to both those standing in the long lines we make them wait in and to the wetbacks. In fact it's racial.
ReplyDelete[Clovis:] It is often the last wave of immigrants the ones that most complain about the new wave of immigrants. That's pretty natural, and not to be confused with the ever present racists and nativists, who object to other people breathing in general.
ReplyDeleteThat has to be the most intellectually lazy comment I've read in a long time, with the possible exceptions of a half dozen others of yours, and all of Harry's.
Question obvious, left unaddressed: why does the previous wave of illegal immigrants complain about the current one? Is their complaint perhaps based upon economic self-interest? If so -- and that is the right answer -- then the objection to illegal immigration by low-skilled citizens, and those who have tired of seeing them rubbished by every economic trend, is not racist, but merely acting in their own self interests.
Just as communities might very well have self interests having nothing to do with race. For instances: funding new demands on schools. Reductions in quality of education due to having to deal with non-English students. And illegal immigrant students not assimilating well.
People advocating their self interests isn't racist. It is, however, racist to make the accusation.
[Harry:] When trying to appear reasonable and lawful they will insist they welcome immigrants, at least a certain sort. On the other hand Trump went down to the border and brayed that America has no more room.
ReplyDeleteWithout any link to go on, it is hard to judge the veracity of your characterization, except that it is probably wrong.
However, let's, despite the odds, take it as written.
You have no idea what he is talking about.
Immigrants aren't an undifferentiated mass, nor are citizens. Presuming you can take that on board, it is a very short step to understanding that the US has plenty of room for high-skilled immigrants, but far less room for low-skilled immigrants.
Unless, of course, you don't give a damn about low-skilled US citizens.
As long as Americans eat chicken nuggets, there's room for low-skilled people, immigrant or otherwise. Where I live there are signs on the telephone poles offering immediate work for the untrained.
ReplyDeleteYou have just proven that the law of supply and demand is alien territory to you.
ReplyDeleteSkipper,
ReplyDelete---
Reductions in quality of education due to having to deal with non-English students.
---
Well, at least you do not even pretend to not be a racist anymore. And a stupid one at that.
Well, at least you do not even pretend to not be a racist anymore. And a stupid one at that.
ReplyDeleteYou have just proven yourself to be immune to the completely obvious.
Influxes of students who must be provided for, despite not paying taxes to support their additional burdens on the school system must reduce the quality of education in the affected school systems.
Having to take time and effort to provide instruction to illegal immigrant students must, by definition, reduce the quality of the education to the other students.
The link between immigration and school curriculum highlights one of the
main burdens that immigration has on a community, from both financial and a
cultural perspectives. In order to understand the impacts that immigrant students
are having on schools, it is important to see what programs are being implemented
for immigrant students, such as English language programs, and cultural
assimilation programs. In addition, it is vital to see what programs are being
created, but might not reaching their potential success rates, and why. The cost of
creating new programs, hiring new teachers, and teaching alternative courses are
specific examples of how a large foreign population will impact a school, and often
force administration to make tough choices regarding the allocation of funds.
You clearly do not know what the word racist means. You should stop using it until you figure it out.
Speaking of things you should figure out — the whole concept of opportunity cost.
Until you do both of those, calling others racist and stupid is decidedly not a good look.
Clovis, I think we here in the US hit an inflection point oer the past 8 or 9 days. When I was young, racists were loud and proud. Then it became a social solecism to e openly racist. That lasted for quite a while but norteamericanos began to revert to open racism with the ea Party movement.
ReplyDeleteTrump has been testing to see just how openly racist it is safe for rightwingers to be. Completely open, as it turns out.
How openly racist, you ask? Completely open.
ReplyDeletehttps://juanitajean.com/okay-were-going-to-talk-about-this/
No one was reported to have walked out, objected or countered her.
Harry,
ReplyDeleteIndeed, we are going through darker times again.
[Harry:] Trump has been testing to see just how openly racist it is safe for rightwingers to be. Completely open, as it turns out.
ReplyDeleteHey, I have an idea. Quote exactly what Trump said, and demonstrate how it fits the definition of racism.
Pro-tip: be sure you don't inadvertently accuse members of Team Progressive in the process.
Re: your twin separated at birth, Juanita Jean. That Arizona state senator didn't say a darn thing that demographers and leftist prognosticators haven't already said. They are statements of the blindingly obvious, and not racist in any regard.
But go ahead and prove me wrong. Using the dictionary definition of the term, show how what she said fits.
Clovis:
You have been a font of nonsense in this thread, for which you owe many apologies.
Your fear of darker times is, based on the evidence here, clear evidence of a cranial-rectal inversion.
Skipper,
ReplyDeleteYou are one good - and sad - example of the times ahead. This is the last answer I give to you, I no longer intend to feed the trolls. You don't deserve a place in polite society.
You don't deserve a place in polite society.
ReplyDeleteYou got supply and demand wrong, completely failed to comprehend the inverse correlation between immigration rate and assimilation, were completely ignorant of the burden illegal immigration imposes on schools.
And when those incomprehensions were pointed out to you, not one single acknowledgment of your errors. Instead, insults you cannot possibly justify. NB: I am echoing the same arguments against illegal immigration that both Clinton and Obama made during State of the Union addresses.
And, when challenged to point out exactly what Trump says that was racist, and why --
crickets.
And I'm the troll?
Good Lord, man, marvel at the fact void you have left behind here.