Not having watched the video (and therefore not knowing what it says) all I can say is that I support strong borders. I do not want people illegally entering our country or living here illegally. That does not mean we need a wall. Not that building a wall the spans the entire border is even possible (given private property rights issues, environmental issues, cost and maintenance issues, effectiveness issues, etc). If what you're saying there is no "mending fences with the Left" because the Left won't go along with your idiotic wall... then you are correct.
If you want frustrated citizens continuing to shoot Mexicans in El Paso Malls, by all means, continue to call their calls for walls "stupid". Because they have the impression (correct) that you leaders are for nothing short of open borders.
There will NEVER be a wall as described by Dotard during his campaign. Given the reasons I stated in my initial comment. That DOES make such calls incredibly stupid. The impression that Democrats are for "open borders" is INCORRECT. Dotard lies about this and that also fuels the delusions of crazy people that leads to violence.
If someone owns land along the border and says NO when the government asks if they want a free wall... how can the wall be built there? As far as I know there are ZERO eminent domain cases moving through the courts. CLEARLY you will be content with an imaginary wall. The day will come when Dotard says the wall is "complete". And, even though zero new miles (or very few new miles) will have been built - you will believe him. The gullibility of Orange Turd cultists is ASTOUNDING!
FYI, If someone is frustrated there are other options then to murder your fellow human beings. Hate-filled people murder. NOT "frustrated" people.
I agree that there can be some ambiguity as to the final "continuity" of the wall. But what is foolish is to create the impression that it shouldn't and won't be built.
And the USA didn't fight the Japs and the Huns in WWII because we "race-hated" them.
It shouldn't and won't be built. We aren't at war with Mexico (or any other South American country). Even if you think we should be. Because we're being "invaded". BTW, the military does encourage the troops to race hate the enemy. It makes it easier for soldiers to kill.
Then you can count on many, many, many more mass shootings because the Left can't stomach spending a few billion on something half the country is screaming for..
Half the country is not screaming for the government to waste billions on an ineffective wall. The solution include gun control laws, getting tough on White Nationalist Domestic terrorism and getting rid of Grand Wizard tRump (the inciter-in-chief).
BTW, the United States had a hand in creating the violence Central Americans are fleeing. We need to work with Central American governments (aid and assistance) to try and fix the problems that result in people being forced to flee. Treating victims fleeing violence or economic hardship (which we helped create) as "invaders" WILL NOT fix the problem. A wall won't fix the problem.
If you got rid of Trump and the 10,000 white nationalists left in America, you'd still have millions of illegals crossing the border and over 300 million firearms in circulation. Do you really think that passing laws stopping the legal purchases of firearms will fix ANYTHING?
If "we" are the problem causing mass migration, how have you addressed ANY of it with getting rid of Trump, white nationalists, and adding some stupid gun-sale laws? You haven't addressed sh*t.
That's what I said. Reversing course, given that we're currently going in the wrong direction, would be a good start. More gun control is part of the solution, not the entire solution. Nobody is proposing a law to stop the purchase of firearms, full stop. Only certain kinds of firearms. The kind your White Nationalist terrorist brethren use.
If you want to reduce "gun" violence, you're better off trying to reduce the causes of violence in general. And you do THAT by creating opportunities for social advancement and establishing systems of justice for those who get criminally wronged.
But I controlled myself, and when he asked me if I knew the cure of the headache, I answered, but with an effort, that I did know.
And what is it? he said.
I replied that it was a kind of leaf, which required to be accompanied by a charm, and if a person would repeat the charm at the same time that he used the cure, he would be made whole; but that without the charm the leaf would be of no avail.
Then I will write out the charm from your dictation, he said.
With my consent? I said, or without my consent?
With your consent, Socrates, he said, laughing.
Very good, I said; and are you quite sure that you know my name?
I ought to know you, he replied, for there is a great deal said about you among my companions; and I remember when I was a child seeing you in company with my cousin Critias.
I am glad to find that you remember me, I said; for I shall now be more at home with you and shall be better able to explain the nature of the charm, about which I felt a difficulty before. For the charm will do more, Charmides, than only cure the headache. I dare say that you have heard eminent physicians say to a patient who comes to them with bad eyes, that they cannot cure his eyes by themselves, but that if his eyes are to be cured, his head must be treated; and then again they say that to think of curing the head alone, and not the rest of the body also, is the height of folly. And arguing in this way they apply their methods to the whole body, and try to treat and heal the whole and the part together. Did you ever observe that this is what they say?
Yes, he said.
And they are right, and you would agree with them?
cont. His approving answers reassured me, and I began by degrees to regain confidence, and the vital heat returned. Such, Charmides, I said, is the nature of the charm, which I learned when serving with the army from one of the physicians of the Thracian king Zamolxis, who are said to be so skilful that they can even give immortality. This Thracian told me that in these notions of theirs, which I was just now mentioning, the Greek physicians are quite right as far as they go; but Zamolxis, he added, our king, who is also a god, says further, 'that as you ought not to attempt to cure the eyes without the head, or the head without the body, so neither ought you to attempt to cure the body without the soul; and this,' he said, 'is the reason why the cure of many diseases is unknown to the physicians of Hellas, because they are ignorant of the whole, which ought to be studied also; for the part can never be well unless the whole is well.' For all good and evil, whether in the body or in human nature, originates, as he declared, in the soul, and overflows from thence, as if from the head into the eyes. And therefore if the head and body are to be well, you must begin by curing the soul; that is the first thing. And the cure, my dear youth, has to be effected by the use of certain charms, and these charms are fair words; and by them temperance is implanted in the soul, and where temperance is, there health is speedily imparted, not only to the head, but to the whole body. And he who taught me the cure and the charm at the same time added a special direction: 'Let no one,' he said, 'persuade you to cure the head, until he has first given you his soul to be cured by the charm. For this,' he said, 'is the great error of our day in the treatment of the human body, that physicians separate the soul from the body.' And he added with emphasis, at the same time making me swear to his words, 'Let no one, however rich, or noble, or fair, persuade you to give him the cure, without the charm.' Now I have sworn, and I must keep my oath, and therefore if you will allow me to apply the Thracian charm first to your soul, as the stranger directed, I will afterwards proceed to apply the cure to your head. But if not, I do not know what I am to do with you, my dear Charmides.
Critias, when he heard this, said: The headache will be an unexpected gain to my young relation, if the pain in his head compels him to improve his mind: and I can tell you, Socrates, that Charmides is not only pre-eminent in beauty among his equals, but also in that quality which is given by the charm; and this, as you say, is temperance?
Radical Muslim terrorists feel they were wronged too. Are you in favor of trying to address their concerns as well? In any case, republicanism is all about decreasing opportunities for social advancement and keeping the underclass down (in part) by denying them justice. How much justice you get depends on how much justice you can afford.
Was Cosimo d'Medici's goal to keep the underclass down? How about Lorenzo the Great? Their Florentine Republic focused on using the banking system to increase opportunities for working men. Just like the USA before it was destroyed by racialist credit scoring.
[11] So, after all, there was not one kind of Strife alone, but all over the earth there are two. As for the one, a man would praise her when he came to understand her; but the other is blameworthy: and they are wholly different in nature. For one fosters evil war and battle, being cruel: her no man loves; but perforce, through the will of the deathless gods, men pay harsh Strife her honour due. But the other is the elder daughter of dark Night, and the son of Cronos who sits above and dwells in the aether, set her in the roots of the earth: and she is far kinder to men. She stirs up even the shiftless to toil; for a man grows eager to work when he considers his neighbour, a rich man who hastens to plough and plant and put his house in good order; and neighbour vies with is neighbour as he hurries after wealth. This Strife is wholesome for men. And potter is angry with potter, and craftsman with craftsman, and beggar is jealous of beggar, and minstrel of minstrel.
[25] Perses, lay up these things in your heart, and do not let that Strife who delights in mischief hold your heart back from work, while you peep and peer and listen to the wrangles of the court-house. Little concern has he with quarrels and courts who has not a year's victuals laid up betimes, even that which the earth bears, Demeter's grain. When you have got plenty of that, you can raise disputes and strive to get another's goods. But you shall have no second chance to deal so again: nay, let us settle our dispute here with true judgement divided our inheritance, but you seized the greater share and carried it off, greatly swelling the glory of our bribe-swallowing lords who love to judge such a cause as this. Fools! They know not how much more the half is than the whole, nor what great advantage there is in mallow and asphodel [poor man's fare].
Re: "Just like the USA before it was destroyed by racialist credit scoring".
That is racist nonsense. There is no such thing as "racialist credit scoring".
Quote: The Federal Housing Administration's role... was to insure properties and buyers that met certain qualifications. With reduced risk, banks would offer lower interest rates, making ownership more affordable to working-class families. As a result, private banks would rarely provide financing for projects uninsured by the FHA.
One of the requirements of FHA insurance, however, was that the purchasers were not African-American, even if they were creditworthy, or that a white purchaser was not moving into an African-American neighborhood. This was the infamous "redlining" of neighborhoods, whereby regions dominated by African-Americans were deemed uninsurable by the federal government. [end quote]
Anti-redlining law eliminates discrimination. The person trying to take out a loan still has to be verified creditworthy.
The FHA and Obama's goal was to end redlining. Not approving a housing loan because an applicant wants a loan for a home in a "Black neighborhood". It is (and was) still the financial institution's obligation to do their due diligence.
As few as 19 of those 186 clients still own homes with clean credit ratings, following a decade in which Obama and other progressives pushed banks to provide mortgages to poor African Americans.
Reasons for bank loan rejections: 10% was redlining, 90% was due diligence.
27 comments:
Not having watched the video (and therefore not knowing what it says) all I can say is that I support strong borders. I do not want people illegally entering our country or living here illegally. That does not mean we need a wall. Not that building a wall the spans the entire border is even possible (given private property rights issues, environmental issues, cost and maintenance issues, effectiveness issues, etc). If what you're saying there is no "mending fences with the Left" because the Left won't go along with your idiotic wall... then you are correct.
If you want frustrated citizens continuing to shoot Mexicans in El Paso Malls, by all means, continue to call their calls for walls "stupid". Because they have the impression (correct) that you leaders are for nothing short of open borders.
There will NEVER be a wall as described by Dotard during his campaign. Given the reasons I stated in my initial comment. That DOES make such calls incredibly stupid. The impression that Democrats are for "open borders" is INCORRECT. Dotard lies about this and that also fuels the delusions of crazy people that leads to violence.
If someone owns land along the border and says NO when the government asks if they want a free wall... how can the wall be built there? As far as I know there are ZERO eminent domain cases moving through the courts. CLEARLY you will be content with an imaginary wall. The day will come when Dotard says the wall is "complete". And, even though zero new miles (or very few new miles) will have been built - you will believe him. The gullibility of Orange Turd cultists is ASTOUNDING!
FYI, If someone is frustrated there are other options then to murder your fellow human beings. Hate-filled people murder. NOT "frustrated" people.
I agree that there can be some ambiguity as to the final "continuity" of the wall. But what is foolish is to create the impression that it shouldn't and won't be built.
And the USA didn't fight the Japs and the Huns in WWII because we "race-hated" them.
It shouldn't and won't be built. We aren't at war with Mexico (or any other South American country). Even if you think we should be. Because we're being "invaded". BTW, the military does encourage the troops to race hate the enemy. It makes it easier for soldiers to kill.
Then you can count on many, many, many more mass shootings because the Left can't stomach spending a few billion on something half the country is screaming for..
“this attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.”
I, for one, believe him.
Half the country is not screaming for the government to waste billions on an ineffective wall. The solution include gun control laws, getting tough on White Nationalist Domestic terrorism and getting rid of Grand Wizard tRump (the inciter-in-chief).
BTW, the United States had a hand in creating the violence Central Americans are fleeing. We need to work with Central American governments (aid and assistance) to try and fix the problems that result in people being forced to flee. Treating victims fleeing violence or economic hardship (which we helped create) as "invaders" WILL NOT fix the problem. A wall won't fix the problem.
If you got rid of Trump and the 10,000 white nationalists left in America, you'd still have millions of illegals crossing the border and over 300 million firearms in circulation. Do you really think that passing laws stopping the legal purchases of firearms will fix ANYTHING?
If "we" are the problem causing mass migration, how have you addressed ANY of it with getting rid of Trump, white nationalists, and adding some stupid gun-sale laws? You haven't addressed sh*t.
That's what I said. Reversing course, given that we're currently going in the wrong direction, would be a good start. More gun control is part of the solution, not the entire solution. Nobody is proposing a law to stop the purchase of firearms, full stop. Only certain kinds of firearms. The kind your White Nationalist terrorist brethren use.
Does the Portland police not have tactical assault weapons? Berkeley? Chicago? New York City? Put citizens on a par with your government agencies.
Ban assault weapons in your cities first. Then tell us how that works out for you.
How did it work out for London?
If you want to reduce "gun" violence, you're better off trying to reduce the causes of violence in general. And you do THAT by creating opportunities for social advancement and establishing systems of justice for those who get criminally wronged.
A Thargalia against technology isn't the answer. You need to heal your citizen's souls.
Plato, "Charmides"
But I controlled myself, and when he asked me if I knew the cure of the headache, I answered, but with an effort, that I did know.
And what is it? he said.
I replied that it was a kind of leaf, which required to be accompanied by a charm, and if a person would repeat the charm at the same time that he used the cure, he would be made whole; but that without the charm the leaf would be of no avail.
Then I will write out the charm from your dictation, he said.
With my consent? I said, or without my consent?
With your consent, Socrates, he said, laughing.
Very good, I said; and are you quite sure that you know my name?
I ought to know you, he replied, for there is a great deal said about you among my companions; and I remember when I was a child seeing you in company with my cousin Critias.
I am glad to find that you remember me, I said; for I shall now be more at home with you and shall be better able to explain the nature of the charm, about which I felt a difficulty before. For the charm will do more, Charmides, than only cure the headache. I dare say that you have heard eminent physicians say to a patient who comes to them with bad eyes, that they cannot cure his eyes by themselves, but that if his eyes are to be cured, his head must be treated; and then again they say that to think of curing the head alone, and not the rest of the body also, is the height of folly. And arguing in this way they apply their methods to the whole body, and try to treat and heal the whole and the part together. Did you ever observe that this is what they say?
Yes, he said.
And they are right, and you would agree with them?
Yes, he said, certainly I should.
cont. His approving answers reassured me, and I began by degrees to regain confidence, and the vital heat returned. Such, Charmides, I said, is the nature of the charm, which I learned when serving with the army from one of the physicians of the Thracian king Zamolxis, who are said to be so skilful that they can even give immortality. This Thracian told me that in these notions of theirs, which I was just now mentioning, the Greek physicians are quite right as far as they go; but Zamolxis, he added, our king, who is also a god, says further, 'that as you ought not to attempt to cure the eyes without the head, or the head without the body, so neither ought you to attempt to cure the body without the soul; and this,' he said, 'is the reason why the cure of many diseases is unknown to the physicians of Hellas, because they are ignorant of the whole, which ought to be studied also; for the part can never be well unless the whole is well.' For all good and evil, whether in the body or in human nature, originates, as he declared, in the soul, and overflows from thence, as if from the head into the eyes. And therefore if the head and body are to be well, you must begin by curing the soul; that is the first thing. And the cure, my dear youth, has to be effected by the use of certain charms, and these charms are fair words; and by them temperance is implanted in the soul, and where temperance is, there health is speedily imparted, not only to the head, but to the whole body. And he who taught me the cure and the charm at the same time added a special direction: 'Let no one,' he said, 'persuade you to cure the head, until he has first given you his soul to be cured by the charm. For this,' he said, 'is the great error of our day in the treatment of the human body, that physicians separate the soul from the body.' And he added with emphasis, at the same time making me swear to his words, 'Let no one, however rich, or noble, or fair, persuade you to give him the cure, without the charm.' Now I have sworn, and I must keep my oath, and therefore if you will allow me to apply the Thracian charm first to your soul, as the stranger directed, I will afterwards proceed to apply the cure to your head. But if not, I do not know what I am to do with you, my dear Charmides.
Critias, when he heard this, said: The headache will be an unexpected gain to my young relation, if the pain in his head compels him to improve his mind: and I can tell you, Socrates, that Charmides is not only pre-eminent in beauty among his equals, but also in that quality which is given by the charm; and this, as you say, is temperance?
Yes, I said.
Your social cures will be useless w/o the proper accompanying charms.
Radical Muslim terrorists feel they were wronged too. Are you in favor of trying to address their concerns as well? In any case, republicanism is all about decreasing opportunities for social advancement and keeping the underclass down (in part) by denying them justice. How much justice you get depends on how much justice you can afford.
Muslim terrorist citizens? Who knew?
Was Cosimo d'Medici's goal to keep the underclass down? How about Lorenzo the Great? Their Florentine Republic focused on using the banking system to increase opportunities for working men. Just like the USA before it was destroyed by racialist credit scoring.
Hesiod, "Works and Days"
[11] So, after all, there was not one kind of Strife alone, but all over the earth there are two. As for the one, a man would praise her when he came to understand her; but the other is blameworthy: and they are wholly different in nature. For one fosters evil war and battle, being cruel: her no man loves; but perforce, through the will of the deathless gods, men pay harsh Strife her honour due. But the other is the elder daughter of dark Night, and the son of Cronos who sits above and dwells in the aether, set her in the roots of the earth: and she is far kinder to men. She stirs up even the shiftless to toil; for a man grows eager to work when he considers his neighbour, a rich man who hastens to plough and plant and put his house in good order; and neighbour vies with is neighbour as he hurries after wealth. This Strife is wholesome for men. And potter is angry with potter, and craftsman with craftsman, and beggar is jealous of beggar, and minstrel of minstrel.
[25] Perses, lay up these things in your heart, and do not let that Strife who delights in mischief hold your heart back from work, while you peep and peer and listen to the wrangles of the court-house. Little concern has he with quarrels and courts who has not a year's victuals laid up betimes, even that which the earth bears, Demeter's grain. When you have got plenty of that, you can raise disputes and strive to get another's goods. But you shall have no second chance to deal so again: nay, let us settle our dispute here with true judgement divided our inheritance, but you seized the greater share and carried it off, greatly swelling the glory of our bribe-swallowing lords who love to judge such a cause as this. Fools! They know not how much more the half is than the whole, nor what great advantage there is in mallow and asphodel [poor man's fare].
Re: "Just like the USA before it was destroyed by racialist credit scoring".
That is racist nonsense. There is no such thing as "racialist credit scoring".
Quote: The Federal Housing Administration's role... was to insure properties and buyers that met certain qualifications. With reduced risk, banks would offer lower interest rates, making ownership more affordable to working-class families. As a result, private banks would rarely provide financing for projects uninsured by the FHA.
One of the requirements of FHA insurance, however, was that the purchasers were not African-American, even if they were creditworthy, or that a white purchaser was not moving into an African-American neighborhood. This was the infamous "redlining" of neighborhoods, whereby regions dominated by African-Americans were deemed uninsurable by the federal government. [end quote]
Anti-redlining law eliminates discrimination. The person trying to take out a loan still has to be verified creditworthy.
… so THAT's what Barrack Obama's only private lawsuit was about.... who knew?
FHA's goal is to have half their applicants lose their homes... wow!
The FHA and Obama's goal was to end redlining. Not approving a housing loan because an applicant wants a loan for a home in a "Black neighborhood". It is (and was) still the financial institution's obligation to do their due diligence.
...Apparently they had, since over half of Obama's plaintiff's in his lawsuit eventually defaulted.
As few as 19 of those 186 clients still own homes with clean credit ratings, following a decade in which Obama and other progressives pushed banks to provide mortgages to poor African Americans.
Reasons for bank loan rejections: 10% was redlining, 90% was due diligence.
Large Banks won't even touch FHA mortgage financing any more, thanks to Obama & co.
Post a Comment