jerryskids

Yes, < 60 years ago, only the last 20%+ of our existence. Not our "long history"; I've been alive for almost all of that window. Do you have a point?

My issue was with your claim of a "long history of supporting immigration." I hardly think a policy in place for the last 20% of our existence qualifies as a "long history."

White protestant immigrants dummy

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/trump-campaign-wants-presidential-debates-to-start-earlier-5627077?utm_source=RTNews&amp;src_src=RTNews&amp;utm_campaign=rtbreaking-2024-04-11-5&amp;src_cmp=rtbreaking-2024-04-11-5&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;est=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa%2Bc5ZwpCztPd4LIuuWhYArg0yEwD%2BTwvt3acngPVaRuLrk%2FaLA%3D%3D Trump's campaign wisely realizes that Biden is in no cognitive position to do anything resembling an actual open debate, so they are pushing the issue. Biden will surely pull some version of "I don't debate bad orange men" because of said cognitive failings. Should be interesting to see how this plays out.

So, if you listened to that podcast, why did you lie about our "long history of supporting immigration"? Unless you meant for white protestants from Britain and Germany.

What if it's a tattoo celebrating their decision to take puberty blockers and permanently damage their sexual pleasure, and sexual and reproductive function?

That's how Democrats treat black people in large cities: take as much tax money as you want, just keep them the hell out of my neighborhood and in their neighborhood.

There absolutely is a climate cult. I'm not saying everyone who believes in climate change is in it; heck, I think we have been pretty crappy stewards of this earth. Then again, I believe in natural gas as a stopgap as we up our nuclear energy game, but then again I want to actually address the issue. You see Tim, people need a religion, some higher purpose to believe in. As belief in God wanes, many of those folks are flocking to Gaia and the climate. This is a very interesting read. In parts of northern Europe, this new faith is now the mainstream. “Denmark and Sweden float along like small, content, durable dinghies of secular life, where most people are nonreligious and don’t worship Jesus or Vishnu, don’t revere sacred texts, don’t pray, and don’t give much credence to the essential dogmas of the world’s great faiths,” observes Phil Zuckerman in his 2008 book Society without God. Instead, he writes, these places have become “clean and green.” This new faith has very concrete policy implications; the countries where it has the most purchase tend also to have instituted policies that climate activists endorse. To better understand the future of climate policy, we must understand where “ecotheology” has come from and where it is likely to lead. From Theology to Ecotheology The German zoologist Ernst Haeckel coined the word “ecology” in the nineteenth century to describe the study of “all those complex mutual relationships” in nature that “Darwin has shown are the conditions of the struggle for existence.” Of course, mankind has been closely studying nature since the dawn of time. Stone Age religion aided mankind’s first ecological investigation of natural reality, serving as an essential guide for understanding and ordering the environment; it was through story and myth that prehistoric man interpreted the natural world and made sense of it. Survival required knowing how to relate to food species like bison and fish, dangerous predators like bears, and powerful geological forces like volcanoes — and the rise of agriculture required expertise in the seasonal cycles upon which the sustenance of civilization depends. Our uniquely Western approach to the natural world was shaped fundamentally by Athens and Jerusalem. The ancient Greeks began a systematic philosophical observation of flora and fauna; from their work grew the long study of natural history. Meanwhile, the Judeo-Christian teachings about the natural world begin with the beginning: there is but one God, which means that there is a knowable order to nature; He created man in His image, which gives man an elevated place in that order; and He gave man mastery over the natural world: In his seminal essay “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,” published in Science magazine in 1967, historian Lynn Townsend White, Jr. argues that those Biblical precepts made Christianity, “especially in its Western form,” the “most anthropocentric religion the world has seen.” In stark contrast to pagan animism, Christianity posited “a dualism of man and nature” and “insisted that it is God’s will that man exploit nature for his proper ends.” Whereas older pagan creeds gave a cyclical account of time, Christianity presumed a teleological direction to history, and with it the possibility of progress. This belief in progress was inherent in modern science, which, wedded to technology, made possible the Industrial Revolution. Thus was the power to control nature achieved by a civilization that had inherited the license to exploit it. To White, this was not a positive historical development. Writing just a few years after the publication of Rachel Carson’s eco-blockbuster Silent Spring, White shared in the concern over techno-industrial culture’s destruction of nature. Whatever benefit scientific and technological innovation had brought mankind was eclipsed by the “out of control” extraction and processing powers of industrial life and the mechanical degradation of the earth. Christianity, writes White, “bears a huge burden of guilt” for the destruction of the environment. White believed that science and technology could not solve the ecological problems they had created; our anthropocentric Christian heritage is too deeply ingrained. “Despite Copernicus, all the cosmos rotates around our little globe. Despite Darwin, we are not, in our hearts, part of the natural process. We are superior to nature, contemptuous of it, willing to use it for our slightest whim.” But White was not entirely without hope. Even though “no new set of basic values” will “displace those of Christianity,” perhaps Christianity itself can be reconceived. “Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious.” And so White suggests as a model Saint Francis, “the greatest spiritual revolutionary in Western history.” Francis should have been burned as a heretic, White writes, for trying “to substitute the idea of the equality of all creatures, including man, for the idea of man’s limitless rule of creation.” Even though Francis failed to turn Christianity toward his vision of radical humility, White argued that something similar to that vision is necessary to save the world in our time. White’s essay caused a splash, to say the least, becoming the basis for countless conferences, symposia, and debates. One of the most serious critiques of White’s thesis appears in theologian Richard John Neuhaus’s 1971 book In Defense of People, a broad indictment of the rise of the mellifluous “theology of ecology.” Neuhaus argues that our framework of human rights is built upon the Christian understanding of man’s relationship to nature. Overturning the latter, as White hoped would happen, will bring the former crashing down. And Neuhaus makes the case that White misunderstands his own nominee for an ecological patron saint: Other Christian writers joined Neuhaus in condemning the eco-movement’s attempt to subvert or supplant their religion. “We too want to clean up pollution in nature,” Christianity Today demurred, “but not by polluting men’s souls with a revived paganism.” The Jesuit magazine America called environmentalism “an American heresy.” The theologian Thomas Sieger Derr lamented “an expressed preference for the preservation of nonhuman nature against human needs wherever it is necessary to choose.” (Stephen R. Fox recounts these responses in his 1981 book John Muir and His Legacy: The American Conservation Movement.) ... https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/environmentalism-as-religion There is more in the link; I won't paste the entire thing.

It has everything to do with Biden's policies, or the perception of them in Latin America. Your own references state that most of the migration is internal; this external flood is new. Anyway, back to your references, thanks. The first is a fluff piece by a Climate Cult committee. The second one is interesting; it links to a more scientific report which correlates migration to natural disasters. It doesn't actually describe the disasters (on my quick scan anyway, could have missed id), but taking it at face value, there appears to be a correlation between such disasters and migration. Which is not surprising. You and the report authors, being in the Climate Cult, blame all adverse weather events on your devil, and I won't convince you otherwise, so I'll leave you to it and let you believe that climate change is the reason millions of people are flooding our border.

Ruh roh. Everyone who has been saying that Israel is a meanie to Hamas terrorists hasn't seen Israel face an existential crisis. This could get ugly quickly.

True, I didn't want to dilute my message. I tried to communicate that I really don't believe that is the motivation. I understand at a certain level that there are people who think it is a good idea to just let everyone in, but I can't wrap my arms around the justification.

Sorry, you aren't a serious poster. The main driving force for migration from Latin America to here is that Joe Biden put a big "Come in, we're Open!" sign on the door. Climate change is a catch-all devil that climate cultists use to blame everything on. But I'll humor you for a post or two: please provide a specific climate phenomenon going on in Latin America that can be directly attributed to climate change and is driving the migration. Pro tip: not el nino or la nina.

Hogwash. We have a long history of supporting controlled immigration of white protestants from Britain and Germany. In the early 1900s we started letting in Poles, Italians (both Catholics) and Jews, and people didn't like it so they change the rules. Listen to that podcast I recommended if you want to learn the history.

I heard someone yesterday say that Biden is allowing illegal immigrants to flood the border as an attempt to lower wages and as such help lower inflation. I'd like to think that isn't true, as it would be quite... Machiavellian? But I'll admit, the seeming willingness to let them in and let them stay has always been a headscratcher to me, as I just didn't understand the reasoning. This at least would be a reason.

$100 says if anyone backs out, it's Biden.

If Biden hasn't lost it, he should happily kick Trump's ass in the debates. I look forward to them.

Terrible whataboutism. Do your tax dollars fund Hannity?

Yeah, I came in to post that I understand that DJ gets to snort coke off of Paulina's ass, but if you are going to bother to show up, for gawd's sake show some focking pride and self respect.

This reads like a squistion post: they nominally do some other stuff, so it isn't the ONLY thing! FTW$#@! So, what was your thought on the FP article? Surprising, not so much?

I was thinking the same.

I came here to post that. @Pimpadeauxwon't listen/read it though. He's too emotionally invested in the falsehood that media outlets like NPR are objective and not Leftist echo chambers. I don't like my tax dollars funding it. ETA: I'll also tag @The Real timschochet. He hasn't posted here yet, but he tends to believe what I just said about Rusty.

I was a successful salesperson in part because I am an astute observer of people. I have been saying that Biden is in cognitive decline since before the 2020 election. Perhaps I err in presuming others can see what is so obvious to me. Carry on accusing me of being a Fox News sycophant.

Biden might welcome taking Pony Boy Trump behind the woodshed. His handlers, however, know that Biden is a zombie with no cognitive ability whatsoever to handle anything but a totally scripted event like the SOTU, with appropriate medication. There is no way they let Biden into an open debate with Trump, or even with a blade of grass. I sure hope the part of America voting for him knows they are voting for a houseplant and doing so only to stop the mean orange man. If there are a lot of people like you who think Biden is mentally nimble, our country is in bad shape.

So, your dig on Trump is that he supports the will of his constituents? Oooh, burn@!#$