why you need to get out of the city... NOW

[moralist]

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

--Abraham Lincoln

[william.scherk]

This strikes me as evil. Does this strike William and Michael as evil? How about true? The lady seems to have her facts lined up pretty good and presents them in an informative, level-headed way.

This strikes you as evil? In particular, what is it that strikes you as evil?

I can't speak for Michael, but I will say that I need more information to decide if the lady is on point or out to lunch -- she does not seem to me to have her facts lined up in all cases, and has perhaps let her fears rule her rational mind -- she has mightily distorted the meaning of Hijra, and linked Muslim-sourced materials (in her book) into a form of conspiracy, one that drives the intent of refugees.

I don't know too much about US refugee programs, but am willing to learn. I would first check her numbers; from the rough idea I have of US refugee settlement it is around ten times the Canadian figure, which is around 10,000 persons a year.

I did discover on her blog that her home community is Hagerstown Maryland. She is upset about refugees arriving there, and her words are suggestive: '... a couple hundred ... ill-prepared ... illnesses ...' how to discover what the actual Muslim effect is there? ...

Here are some of her words and phrases that struck me in the video:

people who hate us ... problematic Muslim refugees ... cities within cities ... mosques are being built to consolidate, train and promote ... islamic supremacist doctrine called Sharia ... Muslim colonization ... the hijra ... in order to dominate all the lands of the world ... to seed them throughout the world ... no reason ... 100,000 Somalis ... 100,000 Iraqi Muslims ... soon we will be settling Syrian Muslims in large numbers ... 10,000 in the pipeline destined for our towns ... the FBI told Congress recently they cannot be properly screened ... we are ... doomed ... devasting to your children and grandchildren ...

I don't presume to know OLers' views on refugee settlement -- or whether OLers would agree that no more Muslim refugees should be admitted. I do assume OLers would generally agree with Corcoran that refugees should not be afforded government assistance, that is they should be sponsored by private charity, not collective programmes funded by the US taxpayer. Perhaps I will find the refugee settlement agencies and programmes are part of a bloated, complex, difficult to comprehend welter of agencies and programmes and so on.

Canada's refugee resettlement seems to be simple in comparison to what I imagine is your system of asylum. We select from UNHCR lists of refugees 'over there' and interview them in situ, then they come here. Here's a story I would like you to read, Brant.

Eleven new Canadians, eleven years later: How one Afghan family found freedom

-- besides that, the lady seems to think that No More Muslims is a good idea. That is for you all to figure out.

Here's some bumf (or information) from the State Department, a fact-sheet:

Resettlement to the United States is a long process that can take months, or even years. U.S. resettlement is voluntary and refugees must decide for themselves whether relocating to the U.S. is the right choice for them and their families. Resettlement processing is free of charge to the applicant. However, if you are approved, you will be asked to sign a promissory note for your family’s airplane tickets and will be required to repay the cost of the ticket over a period of time after you have arrived in the U.S.

U.S. resettlement processing involves a series of interviews with a number of agencies. Most applicants, but not all, are first interviewed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). If UNHCR refers your case to the U.S., you will then have interviews with staff of a Resettlement Support Center (RSC) RSC working on behalf of the U.S. Department of State, and then with staff of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). You must attend every interview. Only DHS can make the final decision about whether you will be accepted for U.S. resettlement. It is very important that you answer all questions from UNHCR, RSC, and DHS truthfully and honestly. Failure to do so may affect the outcome of your case, or even your status in the United States if discovered in the future. The information you provide to UNHCR, RSC, and DHS will be treated confidentially and shared only with those who will be assisting in your resettlement and have a need to know. For various reasons, DHS may not make an immediate decision on your case.

If there are any changes in your contact information, status in the country of asylum, or family composition, such as birth, death, marriage, or divorce, or if you return to your country of origin at any stage during resettlement processing, it is very important that you inform UNHCR and/or RSC as soon as possible. If you decide at any stage of the process that you are no longer interested in U.S. resettlement, you may withdraw your case by informing either UNHCR or RSC.

If DHS approves your application for U.S. resettlement, you will be required to undergo medical screening conducted by the International Organization for Migration or a physician designated by the U.S. Embassy. The results of the exam may delay your travel if you are diagnosed with a disease or condition that must be treated prior to departure, such as tuberculosis. Following successful completion of your treatment, you will be able to proceed to the U.S. It is important that you answer questions truthfully during the medical exam so that the best possible placement decisions are made to ensure the availability of any medical treatment you may require in your resettlement location.

-- one thing stuck out from her book, blog and video: she is seemingly convinced that all the Somalis and Iraqis and Syrians hate the USA, and so it goes without saying that she believes they live a plot -- they are not fleeing war or persecution or personal destruction, no. They are all part of a plan. Do you buy that, Brant? Does anyone?

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

If anyone is interested, I will try to figure out what outrages Muslim refugees have visited upon Hagerstown. I will start with the blog-entries that the lady has compiled.

Edited July 22, 2015 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

See no evil, hear no . . .

--Brant

all you gave me was an opening for a sucker punch, so I took it

you could have taken her hypothetically and said she was or was not describing an evil, but you refuse to know evil in others--do you think she's being evil with her ideas about evil or even just morally right or wrong--can you even talk about evil?

[william.scherk]

This strikes me as evil. Does this strike William and Michael as evil? How about true? The lady seems to have her facts lined up pretty good and presents them in an informative, level-headed way.

This strikes you as evil? In particular, what is it that strikes you as evil?

See no evil, hear no . . .

--Brant

all you gave me was an opening for a sucker punch, so I took it

you could have taken her hypothetically and said she was or was not describing an evil, but you refuse to know evil in others--do you think she's being evil with her ideas about evil or even just morally right or wrong--can you even talk about evil?

Let's have a conversation. You ask a question, I answer. You ask a question, I answer. You ask a question, I answer. You ask a question, I answer. Sound good?

Looking forward to the sucker punch. I prefer Freshie to Kool-Aid.

Anyhow, yes, I could have taken Corcoran's views hypothetically. If she was right and correct that Muslim refugees are all a ticking time-bomb, or if she is right and correct that the refugee system in the USA is designed by the UN and DHS to 'seed' American with evil Muslims, well ... I think she is full of shit.

You are full of something if you actually contend that I refuse to know evil in others. But that isn't what I get from your asseverations.

-- do I think she's being evil with her ideas about evil?

No. I think she is fearful and ignorant about Muslim refugees

-- do I think she is being just morally right or wrong?

I think she is captive to her fears and ignorance.

-- can I even talk about evil?

Yes. Sure, set up the conversational parameters and I will be happy to engage.

Any other questions you would like answered?

______________________________________

Separately, Corcoran's website and efforts -- including her book -- are underwritten by the Center for Security Policy. While having a gander at their site, I came across some videos taped at their Defeat Jihad Summit.

Here is Ted Cruz, my wished-for winner of the Republican nomination:

Edited July 22, 2015 by william.scherk

[moralist]

Resettlement to the United States is a long process that can take months, or even years. U.S. resettlement is voluntary and refugees must decide for themselves whether relocating to the U.S. is the right choice for them and their families. Resettlement processing is free of charge to the applicant. However, if you are approved, you will be asked to sign a promissory note for your family’s airplane tickets and will be required to repay the cost of the ticket over a period of time after you have arrived in the U.S.

U.S. resettlement processing involves a series of interviews with a number of agencies. Most applicants, but not all, are first interviewed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). If UNHCR refers your case to the U.S., you will then have interviews with staff of a Resettlement Support Center (RSC) RSC working on behalf of the U.S. Department of State, and then with staff of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). You must attend every interview. Only DHS can make the final decision about whether you will be accepted for U.S. resettlement. It is very important that you answer all questions from UNHCR, RSC, and DHS truthfully and honestly. Failure to do so may affect the outcome of your case, or even your status in the United States if discovered in the future. The information you provide to UNHCR, RSC, and DHS will be treated confidentially and shared only with those who will be assisting in your resettlement and have a need to know. For various reasons, DHS may not make an immediate decision on your case.

If there are any changes in your contact information, status in the country of asylum, or family composition, such as birth, death, marriage, or divorce, or if you return to your country of origin at any stage during resettlement processing, it is very important that you inform UNHCR and/or RSC as soon as possible. If you decide at any stage of the process that you are no longer interested in U.S. resettlement, you may withdraw your case by informing either UNHCR or RSC.

If DHS approves your application for U.S. resettlement, you will be required to undergo medical screening conducted by the International Organization for Migration or a physician designated by the U.S. Embassy. The results of the exam may delay your travel if you are diagnosed with a disease or condition that must be treated prior to departure, such as tuberculosis. Following successful completion of your treatment, you will be able to proceed to the U.S. It is important that you answer questions truthfully during the medical exam so that the best possible placement decisions are made to ensure the availability of any medical treatment you may require in your resettlement location.

This is what William revels in...

...bloated, pin headed, complex, convoluted, regulated, paper shuffling, obscenely expensive, tax wasting, multi departmental, alphabet soup acronyms...

...also known as:

BUREAUCRACY

Greg

[Selene]

Remember the title of this thread...

And a little Christian objectivist shall lead them...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-22/these-are-the-top-20-cities-americans-are-ditching

[moralist]

I only lead myself.

It's worth noting that all of the cities with the most abandonment are also the most liberal Democrat controlled.

Greg

[william.scherk]

Resettlement to the United States is a long process that can take months, or even years. U.S. resettlement is voluntary and refugees must decide for themselves whether relocating to the U.S. is the right choice for them and their families. Resettlement processing is free of charge to the applicant. However, if you are approved, you will be asked to sign a promissory note for your family’s airplane tickets and will be required to repay the cost of the ticket over a period of time after you have arrived in the U.S.

U.S. resettlement processing involves a series of interviews with a number of agencies. Most applicants, but not all, are first interviewed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). If UNHCR refers your case to the U.S., you will then have interviews with staff of a Resettlement Support Center (RSC) RSC working on behalf of the U.S. Department of State, and then with staff of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). You must attend every interview. Only DHS can make the final decision about whether you will be accepted for U.S. resettlement. It is very important that you answer all questions from UNHCR, RSC, and DHS truthfully and honestly. Failure to do so may affect the outcome of your case, or even your status in the United States if discovered in the future. The information you provide to UNHCR, RSC, and DHS will be treated confidentially and shared only with those who will be assisting in your resettlement and have a need to know. For various reasons, DHS may not make an immediate decision on your case.

If there are any changes in your contact information, status in the country of asylum, or family composition, such as birth, death, marriage, or divorce, or if you return to your country of origin at any stage during resettlement processing, it is very important that you inform UNHCR and/or RSC as soon as possible. If you decide at any stage of the process that you are no longer interested in U.S. resettlement, you may withdraw your case by informing either UNHCR or RSC.

If DHS approves your application for U.S. resettlement, you will be required to undergo medical screening conducted by the International Organization for Migration or a physician designated by the U.S. Embassy. The results of the exam may delay your travel if you are diagnosed with a disease or condition that must be treated prior to departure, such as tuberculosis. Following successful completion of your treatment, you will be able to proceed to the U.S. It is important that you answer questions truthfully during the medical exam so that the best possible placement decisions are made to ensure the availability of any medical treatment you may require in your resettlement location.

This is what William revels in...

...bloated, pin headed, complex, convoluted, regulated, paper shuffling, obscenely expensive, tax wasting, multi departmental, alphabet soup acronyms...

...also known as:

BUREAUCRACY

I wrote that I did not know much about the American refugee settlement system, and wondered if it were as streamlined and straightforward as the Canadian system.

It ain't. It is a complicated, multi-agency, hog-tied by red-tape and procedural-delays monster. The import of the paragraphs your little schoolhouse brain could not get around, quoted in your steaming reply -- was to contrast it with the misleading and incorrect telling by the woman in the video you posted. The bottom-line is that the facts contradict those purported in the video. Refugees must pass the DHS -- Homeland Security -- and other hurdles. Refugee resettlement in the USA can be a looooong, protracted affair. It is not a UN plot to destroy Hagerstown.

The video you put up was then in my opinion a fearmongering assembly of wrong information and half-baked propaganda. Even then, it was more coherent and convincing than your last dump of angry accusations.

Did I mention I am always happy to explain simple things to you, Greg?

On that note, what did you think about the refugee resettlement system? Any parts of it that make you get red-faced and whingey, or is that state of BOLDing reserved for me? Or, are you entirely ignorant, much like I was this morning?

[Selene]

This would happen in NY City also...

 

 

[Brant Gaede]

Resettlement to the United States is a long process that can take months, or even years. U.S. resettlement is voluntary and refugees must decide for themselves whether relocating to the U.S. is the right choice for them and their families. Resettlement processing is free of charge to the applicant. However, if you are approved, you will be asked to sign a promissory note for your family’s airplane tickets and will be required to repay the cost of the ticket over a period of time after you have arrived in the U.S.

U.S. resettlement processing involves a series of interviews with a number of agencies. Most applicants, but not all, are first interviewed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). If UNHCR refers your case to the U.S., you will then have interviews with staff of a Resettlement Support Center (RSC) RSC working on behalf of the U.S. Department of State, and then with staff of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). You must attend every interview. Only DHS can make the final decision about whether you will be accepted for U.S. resettlement. It is very important that you answer all questions from UNHCR, RSC, and DHS truthfully and honestly. Failure to do so may affect the outcome of your case, or even your status in the United States if discovered in the future. The information you provide to UNHCR, RSC, and DHS will be treated confidentially and shared only with those who will be assisting in your resettlement and have a need to know. For various reasons, DHS may not make an immediate decision on your case.

If there are any changes in your contact information, status in the country of asylum, or family composition, such as birth, death, marriage, or divorce, or if you return to your country of origin at any stage during resettlement processing, it is very important that you inform UNHCR and/or RSC as soon as possible. If you decide at any stage of the process that you are no longer interested in U.S. resettlement, you may withdraw your case by informing either UNHCR or RSC.

If DHS approves your application for U.S. resettlement, you will be required to undergo medical screening conducted by the International Organization for Migration or a physician designated by the U.S. Embassy. The results of the exam may delay your travel if you are diagnosed with a disease or condition that must be treated prior to departure, such as tuberculosis. Following successful completion of your treatment, you will be able to proceed to the U.S. It is important that you answer questions truthfully during the medical exam so that the best possible placement decisions are made to ensure the availability of any medical treatment you may require in your resettlement location.

This is what William revels in...

...bloated, pin headed, complex, convoluted, regulated, paper shuffling, obscenely expensive, tax wasting, multi departmental, alphabet soup acronyms...

...also known as:

BUREAUCRACY

I wrote that I did not know much about the American refugee settlement system, and wondered if it were as streamlined and straightforward as the Canadian system.

It ain't. It is a complicated, multi-agency, hog-tied by red-tape and procedural-delays monster. The import of the paragraphs your little schoolhouse brain could not get around, quoted in your steaming reply -- was to contrast it with the misleading and incorrect telling by the woman in the video you posted. The bottom-line is that the facts contradict those purported in the video. Refugees must pass the DHS -- Homeland Security -- and other hurdles. Refugee resettlement in the USA can be a looooong, protracted affair. It is not a UN plot to destroy Hagerstown.

The video you put up was then in my opinion a fearmongering assembly of wrong information and half-baked propaganda. Even then, it was more coherent and convincing than your last dump of angry accusations.

Did I mention I am always happy to explain simple things to you, Greg?

On that note, what did you think about the refugee resettlement system? Any parts of it that make you get red-faced and whingey, or is that state of BOLDing reserved for me? Or, are you entirely ignorant, much like I was this morning?

Bureaucracy tying itself into knots is a virtue. The inefficiency of government makes it possible to keep out of its clutches to a great extent, but that may require one to do or not do things one would rather not. The basic problem of allowing Muslim immigration is not Mom and Dad Muslim--who may be virtuous people by American standards, but their male children. They may want to grow up to be the wrong kind of cowboys. The whole world is at war with ISIS, including all Muslims who don't submit to ISIS. This problem, which the United States did so much to create by invading Iraq and toppling Hussein (not this simple, of course--I can always blame the Brits and/or WWI just for starters and frequently do), is rooted in the religion itself and the Prophet Mohammad--the Devil be on him--from sexual congress with little girls to submission ("peace") and conquest to the fascist state calling itself "The Caliphate." Fascism is a key aspect of Islam. The rest is standard religious nonsense. (Or, for Greg, evil and its nonsense.) Christianity is evil in that it sanctioned the Inquisition, for instance, but time, ideas and circumstances have somewhat pacified it to the extent so far of its not going to war against Islam which has not been pacified--yet--however that is to be done. In today's moral milieu you can't make traction by fighting Islam as a religion per se, but--BOY!--can you by fighting fascism--not theorectical fascism but basic fascism--which is the consistent mantra of the left since Hitler invaded the USSR in 1941. The left is purblind to the difference of these two fascisms. All they can think about is the Nazis (and that M guy in Italy and the Americans they don't like), not understanding that deep down what they advocate and want and what they are is fascism and fascists. They cannot adjust to a war against fascism, for they must gut level know it would sweep them up, so they opt out to pluralism and ignore the danger of Islam.

Now, what young Muslim men yearn for even deeper than their religion, is to provide and protect, hunt and fight. It's the common, biological human wiring. The attraction of ISIS is its creation of the Caliphate--The Caliphate. So they flock to Iraq-Syria to fight for it. The solution is to destroy this Caliphate. A simple, delimited and mostly military job in the name of fighting fascism--which it certainly is--not Islam. I mean, how many Muslims are there? One and a half or more billion? Just smash the Caliphate. ISIS fighters then essentially would be left like ants without an ant nest. No place to protect and fight for. Might as well stay home and deliver pizza and make love, not war. Maybe the resultant sons will one day do what Dad couldn't or didn't so make a lot of them so they might make him proud. Our concern is with Dad today, not his sons tomorrow. Fascism can be smashed tomorrow too. It's not just the Muslims, it's the advocates of initiation of force everywhere. You know them. Greg thinks they're "secularists," but that would include me and Ayn Rand and most libertarians, so it's not my word of damnation. Mine is the aforementioned fascists and their fascism. (Marxism, communism, socialism, fascism, mixed-economyism, crony-capitalism, take care of the childrenism, elitism, etc.) Smashing The Caliphate might be the best place to start--a sort of pinning the tail on the statist donkey--"Hey, hey, everybody! Lookie here! The practical is the moral. Fighting for freedom is moral! It's good! It's right! Muslims can do it too!"

The bad guys get a knuckle sandwich while their advocates run for cover, only the university advocates of fascism and their lackeys, even in the government bureaucracy, cannot survive in daylight. All Americans--or anyone--have to know is what fascism is at the root: the violation of human rights and the evil of that.

--Brant

win-win

[moralist]

Bureaucracy tying itself into knots is a virtue.

Yes it is... and the bigger the bureaucracy, the bigger the cracks through which to fall.

There are two different worlds in real life, just as there were in Atlas Shrugged. There's the bureaucratic Mouch world of unethical unearned gain at the loss of others... and then there's the Galt's Gulch world of honest ethical earned win/win merit. I have no problems with the bureaucratic world. Having no need for what it offers is what puts me outside the boundaries of its grasp just as Galt's Gulch was beyond the grasp of the Mouch world..

That's where the bureaucracy sets all the hooks... in our NEED of it.

Greg

[william.scherk]

The attraction of ISIS is its creation of the Caliphate--The Caliphate. So they flock to Iraq-Syria to fight for it. The solution is to destroy this Caliphate. A simple, delimited and mostly military job in the name of fighting fascism--which it certainly is--not Islam. I mean, how many Muslims are there? One and a half or more billion? Just smash the Caliphate. ISIS fighters then essentially would be left like ants without an ant nest. No place to protect and fight for.

I think you are mostly right -- the target of the Western Coalition operating in Syria/Iraq is the death-cult 'state' run by ISIS.

That is the imperative: destroy the Caliphate (destroy its command and control, its leaders, its military assets, its recruiting networks, its financial backers and institutions, its supply lines, its ability to hold territory).

Then of course the details ... the how.

Brant, what is the Coalition doing wrong (or right) at the moment, in your mind? Do you have more detail to offer?

[Brant Gaede]

The attraction of ISIS is its creation of the Caliphate--The Caliphate. So they flock to Iraq-Syria to fight for it. The solution is to destroy this Caliphate. A simple, delimited and mostly military job in the name of fighting fascism--which it certainly is--not Islam. I mean, how many Muslims are there? One and a half or more billion? Just smash the Caliphate. ISIS fighters then essentially would be left like ants without an ant nest. No place to protect and fight for.

I think you are mostly right -- the target of the Western Coalition operating in Syria/Iraq is the death-cult 'state' run by ISIS.

That is the imperative: destroy the Caliphate (destroy its command and control, its leaders, its military assets, its recruiting networks, its financial backers and institutions, its supply lines, its ability to hold territory).

Then of course the details ... the how.

Brant, what is the Coalition doing wrong (or right) at the moment, in your mind? Do you have more detail to offer?

William, air strikes have driven ISIS into urban areas where the air strikes don't follow and represent the worst offensive fighting environment. The Germans couldn't get the Russians out of Stalingrad even after over-running most of it. Pure use of airstrikes took atomic bombs to conquer Japan in unique circumstances. No troops on the ground makes them a general but maybe not an ad hoc mistake. (The B-52 offensive against North Vietnam was more to get the South Vietnamese to go along with proposed peace accords than the North Vietnamese.) Obama screwed up big time last year with his bullshit air strikes. The Kurds are doing much better.

That's about all I can say.

--Brant

[moralist]

Did I mention I am always happy to explain simple things to you, Greg?

We each speak different languages, William...

You speak Bureaucratize. It's the language of useless government educated do nothings. I speak American Capitalist, the language of the doers. This explains why we each have different views.

what did you think about the refugee resettlement system?

(shrug...) I have nothing to do with setting that public policy. I have nothing to do with creating the bloated liberal government bureaucracy that implemented it. I chose to live in a place that will never become the dumping ground for that public policy....

...and I had already posted words which clearly described my view of the refugee resettlement system. You just couldn't comprehend them because they're not in your mother tongue Bureaucratize.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

--Abraham Lincoln

Greg

Greg

[jts]

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

--Abraham Lincoln

Greg

Then why is the USA fighting countries thousands of miles away to protect freedom?

There is a saying: In war, the first casualty is truth.

[moralist]

Then why is the USA fighting countries thousands of miles away to protect freedom?

Fight evil people there or fight evil people here... the choice is yours.

Greg

[Selene]

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

--Abraham Lincoln

Greg

Then why is the USA fighting countries thousands of miles away to protect freedom?

There is a saying: In war, the first casualty is truth.

And there is a saying War is Hell...

"War is the only game in which it doesn't pay to have the home-court advantage."

Dick Motta

Hey look at this saying...

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without."

Dwight D. Eisenhower

"In war, truth is the first casualty."

Aeschylus

So now what?

[moralist]

So now what?

Begin with ourselves first.

For what we are effects everything around us within our personal sphere of influence. This is what creates our world.

Build a better world? Build a better person first...

...and the world around you graciously acquiesces.

Greg

[jts]

Then why is the USA fighting countries thousands of miles away to protect freedom?

Fight evil people there or fight evil people here... the choice is yours.

Greg

First you say the threat to freedom is from inside and not from outside. Then you say it is from outside.

[moralist]

Then why is the USA fighting countries thousands of miles away to protect freedom?

Fight evil people there or fight evil people here... the choice is yours.

Greg

First you say the threat to freedom is from inside and not from outside. Then you say it is from outside.

It's both... but there's a hierarchy.

If you don't fight what's inside first... you can't fight what's outside. Lincoln understood well this moral principle. It will naturally elude secularists because it requires a religious point of view to understand... and Lincoln was religious.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Then why is the USA fighting countries thousands of miles away to protect freedom?

Fight evil people there or fight evil people here... the choice is yours.

Greg

First you say the threat to freedom is from inside and not from outside. Then you say it is from outside.

It's both... but there's a hierarchy.

If you don't fight what's inside first... you can't fight what's outside. Lincoln understood well this moral principle. It will naturally elude secularists because it requires a religious point of view to understand... and Lincoln was religious.

Greg

Interesting how you like to cherry-pick quote one of our worst Presidents, in terms of damage done--a man who sanctioned an unnecessary war that killed 700,000 soldiers or 5% of the population and firmly established the dominance of the federal system over the states and laid the foundation for US imperialism and foreign interventionism the same way the war with Mexico helped lay the groundwork for the "Civil War" itself. That's how and why the US got its moral hubris, kicking Confederate ass in the name of ending slavery when just saving the Union didn't generate enough oomph amidst the massive bloodletting, so Spain then was little problem and so too World War One and all the unnecessary conflicts of the last century, except that one kept leading to the next.

--Brant

and the beat goes on

[moralist]

Greg

Interesting how you like to cherry-pick quote one of our worst Presidents, in terms of damage done--a man who sanctioned an unnecessary war that killed 700,000 soldiers or 5% of the population and firmly established the dominance of the federal system over the states and laid the foundation for US imperialism and foreign interventionism the same way the war with Mexico helped lay the groundwork for the "Civil War" itself. That's how and why the US got its moral hubris, kicking Confederate ass in the name of ending slavery when just saving the Union didn't generate enough oomph amidst the massive bloodletting, so Spain then was little problem and so too World War One and all the unnecessary conflicts of the last century, except that one kept leading to the next.

--Brant

and the beat goes on

What you're saying makes sense only as long as you ignore morality...

In your amoral view America would have been better off as two nations... a Union non slave holding nation, and a Confederate slave holding nation.

In my view America was better morally as "one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and justice for all"

We each have two views on this.

In your secular amoral view, the US government is created top down and imposed on people. For that to be true there first needs to be a causal disconnect between actions and their consequences to allow the government to become an evil entity all by itself and to oppress a nation of good people. In your view, America is not exceptional, but just another nation like all the other secular-socialist-welfare-state/dictatorial crap holes.

While in my religious moral view, the US government is created bottom up by how people live their own lives. In my view, the US government is rotten only because of a causal connection between our actions and their consequences. In my view, the US government is only rotten because a critical mass of people are rotten. In my view, the US government accurately represents the values of the political majority who created it in their own image. In my view, the US government is an instrument of moral judgment treating each individual as they deserve to be treated by how they are living their own lives. In my view, the US government answers to exactly the same higher moral law everyone else does.

In my view, the US government does not grant or withhold rights, because it is not the source of them. In my view, people need to earn the right to enjoy those God given rights by how they live.

And if they don't deserve them by how they live... they damn sure will NEVER enjoy them!

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

You just made a hash of what I believe and advocate by pretending you know things I haven't even elaborated on. This makes sense, for your own views are a hash. First you embrace top-downism here, then you reject it. I'm the guy, BTW, who introduced this "top down" stuff to OL in arguing against it. You yourself even embrace secularism or reject it as it fits you. The embrace is always implicit but hard on and the de-brace always explicit but fluff.

--Brant

"As long as it matches up to objective reality " is purely secular--you throw in "God" whenever He/It makes good seasoning and always willing to default your God material to "objective reality," for essentially you are a pantheist, just like me, for you never writhe about in blatant faith, thank God!--just sometimes blatant secular irrationality--all questions of science are secular as are all questions of faith too, for it's with secularism we examine faith, the actual conclusions not mattering respecting this basic and secular categorization of rational or irrational or best use of the cognitive mind not to try to know an unknowable, fanciful "God," but reality itself--or, the mind itself is a secular instrument even if we use it to lead us and/or others astray, even innocently with wrong notions

[moralist]

You just made a hash of what I believe...

You believe Lincoln was an evil man.

I believe Lincoln was a good man.

Everything else naturally flows from this point of divergence.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

You just made a hash of what I believe...

You believe Lincoln was an evil man.

I believe Lincoln was a good man.

Everything else naturally flows from this point of divergence.

Greg

You're doing it again. More hash. "Evil" is what you'd have called Lincoln if you had agreed with my evaluation. But that's not what I'd call him based on that. Nor did I.

--Brant