Elizabeth Warren's Pregnant Pause

[Cow Poke]

You, too, CP.

Just on the side, I don't find it friendly to take the first sentence of a long explanatory post and send over a snipey comment.

I don't get wrankled about such things, Sam.

I understand it's getting "hot" here with the back and forth but I gave you a reasoned, evidenced explanation for my view. If the discussion isn't meant to continue, we can leave it at "Have a great day".

And weekend. Have a great weekend,

--Sam

I just didn't feel like arguing, Sam - I don't believe you will ever change your mind once you've made it up, so it's a waste of both of our time to keep at it.

And, I don't know if you noticed or not, but I have been WAY more cordial to JimL, was TRYING to be polite and respectful to Ox.

[oxmixmudd]

I don't understand why you have to get like this, Jim --- I haven't been the least bit confrontational or disagreeable with you.
I didn't know what you referring to, so I did what I thought was the decent thing -- I ASKED.

I thought maybe you thought *I* had said something that indicated a "hostile, abusive response to those issues" - your words.

This is not the first time you've responded like this to me, and there's no call for it at all.

Yikes. Even when we try it goes wrong.

Look, in the interests of clarity I probably should have said,

But a hostile, abusive response to those issues as we are seeing from the white house is just wrong.

But it never occurred to me that you would consider youself having given a response to 'those issues' in terms of trying to fix the problems you described.

Like wise, you probably should have said:

What hostile responses of mine are you talking about

Had each of us done that, there would not have been misunderstanding one of the other.

CP - there is such a culture of hostility and sarcasm here things are bound to go wrong. There is no way around it unless that changes, or unless we establish ourselves as people that simply do not EVER participate in that on these pages.

I will apologize for not asking what you were getting at one post earlier than I did - which was the first time it occurred to me you might not be being sarcastic or callous. But for there to ever be communication the sarcasm, the snide nasty comments have to stop. Because the way it is now, there is no way to be able to extend the benefit of the doubt when something said appears to be nasty, snide, sarcastic.

I'm frustrated this little sidebar went sideways too. I don't like it. I don't want it. At the same time, there is so much hostility as a general rule here that I am not capable of always reacting calmly, taking the time to make absolutely sure the fellow was not being as snide or nasty as they appeared to be.


Shall we try again?


Jim

[Sam]

Perhaps fear is your wheelhouse, Sam.

Have a great day.

You, too, CP.

Just on the side, I don't find it friendly to take the first sentence of a long explanatory post and send over a snipey comment. I understand it's getting "hot" here with the back and forth but I gave you a reasoned, evidenced explanation for my view. If the discussion isn't meant to continue, we can leave it at "Have a great day".

And weekend. Have a great weekend,

--Sam

[Charles]

You TOTALLY got this wrong, Jim. I was treating you with respect, I asked a simple question. While I thought this was more "Trump's a horrible man", I thought maybe you were saying that I had done something to make you think it was me who was...

Like I said - I thought maybe you thought *I* had said something that indicated a "hostile, abusive response to those issues" - your words.

For you to tell me that, because I asked a simple question, I'm not "interested in honest discussion of the issue", you are calling me a liar, "friend".

No wonder you go on these "there are no friend" depression rants. When somebody DOES try to have a discussion with you as a friend, you kick them in the teeth.

I can't help but note that, once again, the essence of the discussion got lost. It is rather hard for me to see how you could miss Ox's point. Anyway to me the central and still unanswered point that Ox made was this:

[...]you know what the effect of these policies has been in terms of forced separations of families, sometimes the complete loss of records or information about how to reunite children with their parents. You know about people who are under threat of death but the excessive and poorly thought out policies of this administration actually block them from seeking asylum. And you know about the attempt to get rid of medical visas where children here for life sustaining medical treatment were told they had to leave in spite of the fact they'd likely die.

Points along those lines have been made several times in this post and elsewhere on tweb and remain unanswered. A lot of noise is created about anything but the most important parts. We are long past the number of times you can credibly fail to adress the points made.

[Cow Poke]

My read is that for many -- even most -- people, it's about fear.

Perhaps fear is your wheelhouse, Sam.

Have a great day.

[Cow Poke]

No, because you know what the effect of these policies has been in terms of forced separations of families, sometimes the complete loss of records or information about how to reunite children with their parents. You know about people who are under threat of death but the excessive and poorly thought out policies of this administration actually block them from seeking asylum. And you know about the attempt to get rid of medical visas where children here for life sustaining medical treatment were told they had to leave in spite of the fact they'd likely die.

You know about all that, yet you play the game of 'what hostile response'

Hence you are not interested in honest discussion of the issues.

Jim

You TOTALLY got this wrong, Jim. I was treating you with respect, I asked a simple question. While I thought this was more "Trump's a horrible man", I thought maybe you were saying that I had done something to make you think it was me who was...

Like I said - I thought maybe you thought *I* had said something that indicated a "hostile, abusive response to those issues" - your words.

For you to tell me that, because I asked a simple question, I'm not "interested in honest discussion of the issue", you are calling me a liar, "friend".

No wonder you go on these "there are no friend" depression rants. When somebody DOES try to have a discussion with you as a friend, you kick them in the teeth.

[lilpixieofterror]

I think that we probably are not going to agree here.

Jim

Of course not because you’re bearing a false witness and refusing to accept correction.

[lilpixieofterror]

I believe you've spent a number of posts now chastising Jim for misconstruing you -- you'll not find a single post of mine where I've attributed the attitude of people here defending or disregarding these anti-immigration (anti-legal immigration, to clarify for Rogue's benefit) as hate-filled. In my personal opinion, the underlying motive is more often fear.

But that's all inconsequential. The fact remains that these policies are cruel, unnecessary for American prosperity or security, and deeply antithetical to the Gospel. Your efforts here have been to obscure that by throwing chaff, and pretending to litigate issues you have no real interest in considering.

And that falls below the standard, regardless of who else does or does not meet it.

--Sam

You’ve gone from, “My opponents are evil psychopaths, that want brown people to die.” To, “My opponents are afraid of brown people.” Guess this is closest admission we’ll get to you might not be 100% correct. That’s quite an admission, so congrats!

In reality land, my points are backed by the evidence. There really are people that are not fleeing violence of their homeland, but using the situation to get in anyway. There really are criminal elements using the situation to sneak in drugs and traffic in humans. The government programs really are overwhelmed with the 1 million+ coming in every single year. You’re welcome to prove anything I said as wrong, but you won’t. You’ll just switch between calling me an evil psychopath to being fear driven. Thus why it’s pointless to even bother with you.

[oxmixmudd]

Why, because I simply asked for clarification? Come on, Jim... be reasonable.

No, because you know what the effect of these policies has been in terms of forced separations of families, sometimes the complete loss of records or information about how to reunite children with their parents. You know about people who are under threat of death but the excessive and poorly thought out policies of this administration actually block them from seeking asylum. And you know about the attempt to get rid of medical visas where children here for life sustaining medical treatment were told they had to leave in spite of the fact they'd likely die.

You know about all that, yet you play the game of 'what hostile response'

Hence you are not interested in honest discussion of the issues.

Jim

[Sam]

I really don't think it's fear in many cases, Sam, but a sense of "we are a nation of laws". About a third of our mission clients are Hispanic, and I often hear "we got here the legal way, why should anybody cut in line".

And, yeah, I realize the whole asylum seeking thing is messed up, but a whole 'nuther part of that is the fact that our local liberal Churches have actually hired legals to advise illegal aliens what to say to make a case for "I'm afraid I'll get killed if I get sent back to my country".

I think neither party wants to actually accomplish comprehensive immigration policy, because they both want it as a political football.

My read is that for many -- even most -- people, it's about fear. That's where the "great replacement" theory that many (including folks on this forum) have espoused: that immigrants are changing what America "is" and will vote to "fundamentally alter" our "culture". It's why folks on the right are obsessed with "millions of illegal aliens" voting, no matter how many times this is shown to be completely false. It's why legal immigration keeps getting lumped in with illegal immigration on virtually every discussion and why people keep defending racist immigration enforcement that uses ethnicity as a means to determine who gets stopped and asked for papers. The inclusion of shutting down refugee resettlement is the perfect case-study in this: the people who should be most vocal about providing safe harbor to people fleeing violence are often silent or downright hostile to it; they invent plenty of reasons that don't check out on the merits ... but they haven't even bothered to learn about the merits. Refugees, asylum-seekers, green card-holders -- all have been swept up in Trump's anti-immigration policies for three years now, with no significant cost from Republicans or his base -- the same people who say they're against illegal but not legal immigration.

Regarding immigration attorneys: these are already people who have passed their credible fear test. Now they have to go and make their case to an immigration judge in a foreign country with a non-native language and byzantine asylum laws. Why wouldn't we expect them to have an attorney who can advise them on making their best case? Wouldn't you want an attorney if you were facing a deportation hearing, even with "home field advantage"?

Democrats and Republicans in the Senate passed an immigration bill with strong bi-partisan support. Republicans in the House refused to bring it to a vote, knowing that it had the votes to pass and that Obama would sign it. Several reasons for that but the biggest one was that Bohener et al. got spooked when Cantor lost his safe seat to an anti-immigration primary challenger. There's exactly one party -- and, more specifically, exactly one voting bloc -- that has prevented meaningful immigration reform from passing ... and it's that same bloc of white, Evangelical conservatives mentioned above.

That ain't right, it ain't pretty, and I wish it wasn't so. But that's what we're dealing with and we have to see it clearly.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

Why, because I simply asked for clarification? Come on, Jim... be reasonable.

I don't understand why you have to get like this, Jim --- I haven't been the least bit confrontational or disagreeable with you.
I didn't know what you referring to, so I did what I thought was the decent thing -- I ASKED.

I thought maybe you thought *I* had said something that indicated a "hostile, abusive response to those issues" - your words.

This is not the first time you've responded like this to me, and there's no call for it at all.

[Cow Poke]

Ok, clearly you are not interested in an honest conversation on the issue.

Why, because I simply asked for clarification? Come on, Jim... be reasonable.

[oxmixmudd]

What hostile abusive response?

Ok, clearly you are not interested in an honest conversation on the issue.

[Cow Poke]

Your not wrong per se. But a hostile, abusive response to those issues is just wrong.

What hostile abusive response?

What you are describing is taking out our internal squabbles on poor people desperate to find a better life.

No, I'm not.

It doesn't matter who is 'right' internally, we cant fight our internal disagreements over the bodies or children of people that are poor and suffering.

So, maybe it's time both sides actually put some of their effort into actually working the problem.

[oxmixmudd]

I really don't think it's fear in many cases, Sam, but a sense of "we are a nation of laws". About a third of our mission clients are Hispanic, and I often hear "we got here the legal way, why should anybody cut in line".

And, yeah, I realize the whole asylum seeking thing is messed up, but a whole 'nuther part of that is the fact that our local liberal Churches have actually hired legals to advise illegal aliens what to say to make a case for "I'm afraid I'll get killed if I get sent back to my country".

I think neither party wants to actually accomplish comprehensive immigration policy, because they both want it as a political football.

Your not wrong per se. But a hostile, abusive response to those issues is just wrong. What you are describing is taking out our internal squabbles on poor people desperate to find a better life. It doesn't matter who is 'right' internally, we cant fight our internal disagreements over the bodies or children of people that are poor and suffering.

Jim