I have assumed destruction is in a political sense qaz…
Man, I’m enjoying this!! 
1 Like
OH NO! Not just Denmark??? Et. tu, Canada?
Geez seems like we all live in glass houses, don’t it?
Canada Has Its Own Ways of Keeping Out Unwanted Immigrants
The country’s methods of controlling immigration are simply less in-your-face than America’s.
NONONO! Not Australia too!!
Now, amid a global backlash against immigration that has upended politics in the United States, Britain and much of Europe, even Australia is reversing course, turning away from a policy of welcoming skilled foreigners that helped fuel decades of economic growth — and transformed a nation once closed to nonwhite immigrants into a multicultural society.
Take care of your own prejudices before dumping on America, ya’ll.
Yep and to our SHAME… but this is the what our conservative cooks in government have delivered, peddling fear and division that keeps them in power… SHAME!!
2 Likes
My perception is that many friends who profoundly appreciate Trump’s emphasis feel beleaguered and so identity with him, that just others’ critiques of his approach, or even our failure to join in praising him, can feel personally painful, or as if we want to destroy them. Yet they genuinely perceive that their own political outlook is fair and balanced.
Perhaps you are right, Bob.
I have sincerely said, and often, that I was willing to wait and see what the man would DO; I have watched for 3 years and I’m impressed. The emphasis here, though, has not been on what he is doing or has done - you are completely correct in that assessment.
We’re back to the thing about focus - you and yours seem pathologically and willfully to intentionally ignore his accomplishments and yet to think YOU are the fair and balanced ones? How you can justify that and also claim to be so enlightened is beyond me.
It seems as if Saul Alinsky’s dictum - “never say anything good about your opponent” has been gathered into your bosoms, with gusto.
Help me to understand your extreme willingness to focus on identity rather than substance.
Is there any other human being you would treat this shamefully?
New Living Out Loud Translation of:
Bob’s First Letter to the Crustaceans, Chapter 1, letter to Qaz.
Grace and peace etc.
V.1 Qaz, it has been revealed unto me that though Dave, who really really loves Trump,
really, really idolizes and venerates Trump (cursed be his filthy name):
2. though Dave insists that he has pointed to actual “accomplishments” of Trump, that are supposedly ‘good for the country’ (as if!!, right?) -
3. (Psst - let’s use the term “Trump’s emphasis” instead of Trump’s “accomplishments”, K? I like that because it skirts the issue)
4. He points to what HE calls a ‘factual’ and ‘in reality’ compendium of deeds, (which list of ‘good things’ we won’t read anyway but still feel free to criticize) (the joy of being liberal, wink wink))
5. And - here we get to the meat of the issue - he identifies hip and thigh with the man to the point that our recalcitrant refusal to let one iota of ‘praise’ escape our hallowed and enlightened lips, somehow causes Dave actual psychological anguish to his childish and unreflective feelings that he interprets, in his befogged mind, as us attacking him personally. Poor fellow.
6. And yet - though he seriously thinks that putting forth historically accurate and verifiable evidence of Trump keeping his promises to make America great again (when has it ever been great) is somehow justified, still has the gall to think he is being fair. Can you believe that???
We know better, brother,
Amen.
If they don’t want to, why make them? They would wimp out at the moment they are needed. Those that do step up in consideration of the danger to themselves and their students, and learn responsible skills with weapons, let them be trained. MANY are doing it on their own dime (the article I posted) because of the short-sightedness of school leadership, who are too busy teaching little kids that America sucks and needs totalitarian ‘leaders’.
No teacher thinks it could happen to them. Had they been armed, teachers at Columbine and Sandy Hook would have saved many children. Would that be a bad thing?
I totally agree. But the world is not as it should be. Whether you have a dislike for guns or not, the FACTS remain that those shootings and others would have been mostly contained, and many children ALIVE today if teachers had been armed; while we are off debating on a theory about a better way.
Again, I don’t see the point of the attempting to ban guns to address this.
We have a fundamental difference here. We both want to see less needless death, whether it be by abortion (60,000,000), traffic fatality, workplace violence, suicide. But we must be realistic, not totalitarian imo.
Good question. Not sure.
This is false. As I’ve said, on my FB page I repeatedly post praises of Trump’s many accomplishments, (recently his wise and peaceful handling of provocations by Iran and North Korea)
and I’ve listed some for you here. You totally ignore those. But you post numerous pure praises here and consistently condemn all who offer in response any critique of any policy of his.
Have you similarly shown balance in listing where you critique his actions,
or praise others with alternative approaches?
You repeatedly assert that I’m a pathological leftist, etc and now that my critiques don’t focus on any “substance.” Can you clarify what kind of issues I could critique that would involve “substance”?
I’m sorry I don’t do FB, I would not have guessed that you have shown such a fair and balanced approach.
Because I have such a great heart as well as supra-Solomonic wisdom, I grant you, at least, a pass on the ‘pathological’ epithet. Though your accusation against me as in 1 Crustaceans above, was way off the money. So be it.
I did that post as I have others, to flush out comments like the one you just posted - did anyone here realize until now that you had a FB page that “repeatedly” praised Trump for some wise actions? I think not. Why is your FB page different in this respect?
And no matter what is said - Trump is roundly hated unjustly by the left, and the criticism started on this forum before the man even took office. I will not back down from those who will not take a balanced approach. If they can’t do that, then I have no use for what they consider ‘substantive’ - whatever that means - criticisms.
I have never hid the fact that Trump is fallible and makes mistakes. I have said that, yes, repeatedly.
And if I have to provoke in order to encourage folks to do this, I will.
I may be forever disappointed, sure.
They did if they’ve read my previous responses to you stating precisely that, and those here pointing out things I admire about Trump. But I’m still unaware of what substantive “mistakes” by Trump that you claim you have posted in reciprocal balance.
The reason I don’t post my broader political views on this site is that I consider it’s main function to be a place for evangelicals to wrestle with the case for universalism. But in the past year it appears that more energy is exercised on advocating one’s politics. And you are the dominant figure who has begun many of these threads and posted the most lengthy multipoint articles lauding Mr. Trump and condemning those who hold more critical political views.
Since I as more liberal don’t think being a Christian leads on balance to necessarily supporting many of Trump’s policies, tactics and character, I respond to your many accusations to defend my own views of greater diversity among EU folk.
So for you to consistently launch praise of Trump and ad hominem defamations of those who disagree with his actions, and then demand that in response those who find him largely problematic must show balance by joining in your repeated praise of him seems one-sided and unrealistic about the way that human beings generally respond to aggressively stated bottom lines that they largely reject.
2 Likes
This political piece has observations from two faculty of my alma mater, Fuller Seminary:
Thanks Bob. I understand. Though I don’t do Facebook, so others will have to see where you are on social media.
Motus Mentis
Molon Labe, Mate
July 9, 2019 – 1:45 pm
In response to a recent shooting spree, New Zealand decided it would disarm its citizens. The citizens, however, like their fellow Antipodeans in Australia following a similar attempt at confiscation some years ago, have generally refused to comply. Good for them.
Good for them. All that such policies accomplish is to make criminals of decent citizens, put them at a defensive disadvantage against violent offenders, remove an essential bulwark against government tyranny, and to incentivize a new black market.
Thomas Jefferson, in his Commonplace Book , quoted the Italian criminologist Cesare Beccaria on laws restricting the carrying of arms:
They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
Learn more about the stiff-necked Kiwis here.
^^FAKE NEWS^^ 
Aussie and Kiwi citizens weren’t ‘armed’ in the first place! All that changed was the banning and removal of semi-automatic assault rifles / weaponry — NOT something generally considered necessary for game hunting, rural farm or recreational firing-range use, period. There are plenty of other firearms in use and typically in those settings mentioned and NOT generally carried around has concealed weapons.
1 Like
Wow. Here’s the whole “fake” article: 700 weapons turned in so far.