Every day is a new circus.

[The Barbarian]

And, in case you thought it couldn't get more embarrassing, there's this:


Trump Campaign Passes Off Stock Image Models as Supporters in Facebook Ads
A series of Facebook video ads for President Trump’s re-election campaign portrayed stock image models as supporters of the president, the Associated Press reports. “I could not ask for a better president,” a blonde woman called “Tracey from Florida” says in one. In another video a man labeled as “AJ from Texas” stares into the camera as a voice says: “Although I am a lifelong Democrat, I sincerely believe that a nation must secure its borders.” Another ad features a bearded stock model at a coffee shop titled “Thomas from Washington” with a voice-over saying the president and his family are “in our prayers for strength and wisdom from God almighty.” The ad's stock origins were first reported by Judd Legum for his website Popular Information. The videos include tiny disclaimers that say “actor portrayal,” but it was not immediately clear why a campaign that has been able to fill arenas with supporters would rely on stock footage.

The Trump Make America Great Again Committee is reportedly behind the ads. The committee has spent by far the most money on political Facebook advertising of any 2020 campaign, shelling out over $2.7 million on 27,735 ads in the last 90 days, according to the social network’s database of campaign ad spending.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump...ciCioJRwocjDtbdM430BM8NQBhhmrC1nMXDQeivdMPX2k

I guess they went looking for some Trump supporters who would make good impression, and after a bit, decided to use fakes.

 

[ok doser]

Only retards get their political information from social media


How embarrassing that must be for you

 

[Lon]

Oh, is that what you think I'm doing? That's a shame.

:think: Not sure who posted that one....

 

[Lon]

It's all about emotion lon

Logic and reason don't matter

Remember nick sandmann?

Maybe it was a different room :idunno:

 

[annabenedetti]

What a Pediatrician Saw Inside a Border Patrol Warehouse

MCALLEN, Texas—Inside the Border Patrol warehouse on Ursula Avenue, Dolly Lucio Sevier saw a baby who’d been fed from the same unwashed bottle for days; children showing signs of malnutrition and dehydration; and several kids who, in her medical opinion, were exhibiting clear evidence of psychological trauma.
More than 1,000 migrant children sat in the detention facility here, and Sevier, a local pediatrician, had been examining as many as she could, one at a time. But she wasn’t permitted to enter the area where they were being held, many of them in cages, and find the sickest kids to examine. Instead, in a nearby room, she manually reviewed a 50-page printout of that day’s detainees, and highlighted the names of children with a 2019 birth date—the babies—before moving on to the toddlers.
. . . .

Sevier set up a makeshift clinic—stethoscope, thermometer, blood-pressure cuffs—in a room, lined with computer stations, that agents use for paperwork. Each of the agent stations had its own bottle of hand sanitizer and disinfectant wipes. But when Sevier asked the 38 children she examined that day about sanitation, they all said they weren't allowed to wash their hands or brush their teeth. This was “tantamount to intentionally causing the spread of disease,” she later wrote in a medical declaration about the visit, the document that the lawyers filed in federal court and also shared with me. (Asked for comment on this story, a Customs and Border Protection official wrote in an email that the agency aims to “provide the best care possible to those in our custody, especially children.” The agency’s “short-term holding facilities were not designed to hold vulnerable populations,” the official added, “ and we urgently need additional humanitarian funding to manage this crisis.”)

As agents brought in the children she requested, Sevier said, the smell of sweat and soiled clothing filled the room. They had not been allowed to bathe or change since crossing the Rio Grande and turning themselves over to officials. Sevier found that about two-thirds of the kids she examined had symptoms of respiratory infection. The guards wore surgical masks, but the detainees breathed the air unfiltered. As the children filed in, Sevier said she found evidence of sleep deprivation, dehydration, and malnutrition too.

These aren’t even the sickest children in the government’s care—those kids are quarantined at a different station, in Weslaco, Texas. When the team of lawyers visited Ursula without Sevier, “every single kid was sick,” Goodwin told me. When they returned three days later with the doctor, Goodwin asked to see four kids whom another attorney had previously flagged to the guards as especially sick. But they were already gone. The guards told Goodwin that their illnesses were severe enough that they had been admitted to the intensive-care unit at a local hospital.

The source of illness in a facility like Ursula is largely the facility itself, though the idea that immigrants carry infectious diseases is a durable conspiracy theory that even the American president has perpetuated. It is the filth, sleep deprivation, cold, and “toxic stress” of these human warehouses that diminish the body’s capacity to fight illness, Julie Linton, a co-chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Immigrant Health Special Interest Group, told me. Linton, a South Carolina–based pediatrician, visited Ursula last June and later testified before Congress to urge better access for health-care providers to children in detention. . . .​

 

[Lon]

What a Pediatrician Saw Inside a Border Patrol Warehouse

MCALLEN, Texas—Inside the Border Patrol warehouse on Ursula Avenue, Dolly Lucio Sevier saw a baby who’d been fed from the same unwashed bottle for days; children showing signs of malnutrition and dehydration; and several kids who, in her medical opinion, were exhibiting clear evidence of psychological trauma.
More than 1,000 migrant children sat in the detention facility here, and Sevier, a local pediatrician, had been examining as many as she could, one at a time. But she wasn’t permitted to enter the area where they were being held, many of them in cages, and find the sickest kids to examine. Instead, in a nearby room, she manually reviewed a 50-page printout of that day’s detainees, and highlighted the names of children with a 2019 birth date—the babies—before moving on to the toddlers.
. . . .

Sevier set up a makeshift clinic—stethoscope, thermometer, blood-pressure cuffs—in a room, lined with computer stations, that agents use for paperwork. Each of the agent stations had its own bottle of hand sanitizer and disinfectant wipes. But when Sevier asked the 38 children she examined that day about sanitation, they all said they weren't allowed to wash their hands or brush their teeth. This was “tantamount to intentionally causing the spread of disease,” she later wrote in a medical declaration about the visit, the document that the lawyers filed in federal court and also shared with me. (Asked for comment on this story, a Customs and Border Protection official wrote in an email that the agency aims to “provide the best care possible to those in our custody, especially children.” The agency’s “short-term holding facilities were not designed to hold vulnerable populations,” the official added, “ and we urgently need additional humanitarian funding to manage this crisis.”)

As agents brought in the children she requested, Sevier said, the smell of sweat and soiled clothing filled the room. They had not been allowed to bathe or change since crossing the Rio Grande and turning themselves over to officials. Sevier found that about two-thirds of the kids she examined had symptoms of respiratory infection. The guards wore surgical masks, but the detainees breathed the air unfiltered. As the children filed in, Sevier said she found evidence of sleep deprivation, dehydration, and malnutrition too.

These aren’t even the sickest children in the government’s care—those kids are quarantined at a different station, in Weslaco, Texas. When the team of lawyers visited Ursula without Sevier, “every single kid was sick,” Goodwin told me. When they returned three days later with the doctor, Goodwin asked to see four kids whom another attorney had previously flagged to the guards as especially sick. But they were already gone. The guards told Goodwin that their illnesses were severe enough that they had been admitted to the intensive-care unit at a local hospital.

The source of illness in a facility like Ursula is largely the facility itself, though the idea that immigrants carry infectious diseases is a durable conspiracy theory that even the American president has perpetuated. It is the filth, sleep deprivation, cold, and “toxic stress” of these human warehouses that diminish the body’s capacity to fight illness, Julie Linton, a co-chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Immigrant Health Special Interest Group, told me. Linton, a South Carolina–based pediatrician, visited Ursula last June and later testified before Congress to urge better access for health-care providers to children in detention. . . .​

Getting to the bottom of these is troubling. It is unconscionable to me, that anyone would use people for lies in politics.
Here is another from the opposite side. Should we save money to fly down and see for ourselves (not that we could get in), or use that money to some charity (Red Cross)? :idunno: I feel impotent on this one

Btw, this topic would serve better in another thread. I think it needs a lot more positive attention. Is there a border thread already?

 

[annabenedetti]

Getting to the bottom of these is troubling. It is unconscionable to me, that anyone would use people for lies in politics.

What do you mean?

Here is another from the opposite side.

Michael Savage? No thanks.

Should we save money to fly down and see for ourselves (not that we could get in), or use that money to some charity (Red Cross)? :idunno: I feel impotent on this one

Get out there and vote Trump out of office, Lon. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Btw, this topic would serve better in another thread. I think it needs a lot more positive attention. Is there a border thread already?

I started a thread. It got the usual response, so I'm going to just keep posting information here in this thread. This is where I want it.

I don't care if I'm the only one who's still here and willing to say this stuff, I'm going to keep saying it like I've been saying it for the past three years. You think this is about "hating Trump," others think it's sour grapes, but it's much bigger than that. It's about the ongoing demolition, and I'm going to be a witness to it.

 

[Town Heretic]

Possibly your prior post?

Anything is possible, though much that is isn't probable and the proof is almost always in the pudding.

Well, it was more surprise seeing you in it participating

I suspect that's because you're usually more likely to find me trying to talk people out of the sort of hard take opposition that can't end in a workable compromise, politically speaking. But I've reached a point with this president when I can no longer find the willingness to make the attempt. I think he's a corrupt man, who has surrounded himself with largely corrupt individuals who've set about to destroy a lot of good work because they profit by the destruction.

more than being surprised any other member of TOL would want to start it.

I think it's healthy to have at least one critical thread among the fawning majority of posts and threads where the president is concerned.

Btw, it seems you said 'disagree' then continued to agree with what I believe is the problem: We need to be less of this, as Christians. It makes 'us' look poor for it. I certainly didn't do it during Obama's Presidency. I prayed a lot.

I thought Obama could have done a lot more good than he did, but why anyone would try to lump him with this presidential obscenity I can't fathom.

I pet a cheetah.

Not in the wild you didn't.

We've had some fairly basal presidents with mistresses, to date, all democrat but this one.

Not quite. Eisenhower/Kay Summersby, Harding and Nan Britton, Grover Cleveland sired a son apart from his wife (knowledge of which gave rise to, 'Ma, Ma, where's my Pa? He's in the White House!' as a rhetorical barb. I imagine there are more presidents who stepped out on their spouses than were faithful, given that any man who runs for that office, who honestly believes himself fit to lead millions, is probably an alpha male on steroids.

Was Roosevelt a terrible president? J.F.K.? Clinton?

:think: No, yes, and no, in order. But I don't oppose the president simply because he's a philanderer.

I don't support Trump, but I do support many godly individuals who do, even when they are wrong.

That's a peculiar statement, to my mind. I'd say that a mistake won't cost my regard if it's acknowledged and owned by the individual. And if they don't appear to understand the error it invites a measure of sympathy from me, but outside that I don't really "support" other men. I agree with and disagree with them, depending. I may vote for someone I differ with if, on the whole I agree more often than disagree, or I find them ethical and considerate in our differences.

I find extremism never fully expresses who I am and so I avoid the political pendulum of extremes. I'm not sure if my attempt at a moderate stance and view is appreciated, but it is my aim here.

I'm a moderate, but the way I see it is more that on the whole I'm neither reasonably placed in the conservative or liberal camps. I have very conservative notions and points of admiration, and a number of liberal approaches as well. And I don't dismiss either camp out of hand. I'm interested in different opinions and recognize the value of compromise that doesn't violate principle. That sort of thing.

With a 'horsewhip?'

It remains a metaphor, though the one Jesus used on the money changers wasn't.

Metaphor: [FONT=&quot]a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money)[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]broadly : figurative language Merriam-Webster[/FONT]

Perhaps a rabbit trail, but what would you do with the masses? What 'can' we do that would/could work?

Process the claims for those who are claiming persecution. Send those simply trying to skirt the law back, but in the meantime treat all of them decently, as the law requires.

I don't believe a metaphorical horsewhipping is 'righteous' indignation against Dobson.

What you believe is your business. Stating what I mean is mine. If you can't credit me with knowing my own mind there's really no point in your quoting me though.

Your metaphor is not a simile.

Or a bicycle.

You can't take exception, I don't believe here. I guess you can, but I don't think you can logistically.

Make the case. I don't see how you can, but I'm always open to it.

The one elicits the other. The separation just isn't there. It is like calling someone a donkey, without intending for a literal donkey to be the comparison.

No, it's like using an image/association to make a point that isn't literal. So it isn't actually as hot as hell and you aren't deaf as a post, though in both cases a case is made. Which is precisely what I did.

To me? Seems slanted. He talked of interacting with the children meaningfully and against the description. To me, clearly he wasn't talking about them.

To me they were his words, chosen by him. And I quoted him verbatim.

Do you doubt he saw sick people on this visit?

No. Do you have any reason to suspect most of the people he's speaking about were sick?

Do you doubt he saw criminals?

No. Outside of being detained for entering the country illegally, do you have any reason to believe that most were criminals?

Do you doubt that some of them couldn't read or write?

No. Do you have any reason to suspect that most of them couldn't?

I'm not quite understanding your angst.

Then all you need to do is read my complaint on the point of using all three of those descriptions, without qualification, as if the summed rule, coupled with an additional appeal to fear (see: flood) and the implications relating to our pocketbook. It's ample reason.

I know you are trying to express it, but I'm not seeing his report the same way you are. Can it be that you are reading it with emotion already well-in-place?

Or perhaps you come to it with a regard for Dobson that has you at the disadvantage. I had no particular opinion about him before I read his words on the topic.

I see that. Remember James and John were sons of thunder. They didn't want to horsewhip, but call down fire. Luke 9:54,55

So my excoriation, entirely comprised of words, seems a bit mild, comparatively.

We get tunnel vision. MANY conservatives were just as/if not more outraged at Obama's presidency tenure.

Many conservatives will be angry with any Democrat long before they do anything at all...assuming they get around to doing something later, which Congressionally speaking is a crapshoot. Mostly it's ideological and self-serving. My complaints aren't because I don't give a boiled fig for either party, both being riddled with hypocrisy, skin thin principle, and observable compulsion to possess power for the sake of power.

Makes my attempt a bit down-letting I had not read this into his letter

I didn't read it in either. I simply read it and then set out how he went about achieving an obvious aim, if your bias filter didn't blind you to it, as can happen when someone we admire does something contrary to what we believe about him. A lot of people still don't think OJ killed anyone and some, I imagine, don't believe Cosby raped a soul, or that the president...well, no. With the president it appears to be more that they don't care.

 

[Lon]

What do you mean?

I'm not sure someone is lying, but the information is conflicting. I'd tend to believe border patrol, simply because it is many people. We've seen corruption at times, but I'd hope the exception rather than the rule. With your link, the border patrol said she wasn't correct. Where does one go from there, when there is so much misinformation?

Michael Savage? No thanks.

Simply saying he visited the facility and found it better than acceptable? :idunno: Does he lie a lot or something?

Get out there and vote Trump out of office, Lon. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

For what specifically? What is the impeachable offense? Do we fall for every rumor? Do we bandwagon simply because we don't like the guy? I didn't vote for him. Pence would likely do better but he has to actually break the law, not just because you or another, or I don't like him. I didn't like Obama for this country either. I cringed often with what he'd done. I cringed under Bush and Clinton too.

I started a thread. It got the usual response, so I'm going to just keep posting information here in this thread. This is where I want it.

Thank you, important thread. I'll look.

I don't care if I'm the only one who's still here and willing to say this stuff, I'm going to keep saying it like I've been saying it for the past three years. You think this is about "hating Trump," others think it's sour grapes, but it's much bigger than that. It's about the ongoing demolition, and I'm going to be a witness to it.

Well, I appreciate the 'watchman on the wall' so no harm there, but the comparison to Nazi Germany and Trump isn't reasonable. There is no comparison to the Third Reich that'd sticks in my mind. It is sensationalism. :e4e:

 

[Lon]

Anything is possible, though much that is isn't probable and the proof is almost always in the pudding.

I suspect that's because you're usually more likely to find me trying to talk people out of the sort of hard take opposition that can't end in a workable compromise, politically speaking. But I've reached a point with this president when I can no longer find the willingness to make the attempt. I think he's a corrupt man, who has surrounded himself with largely corrupt individuals who've set about to destroy a lot of good work because they profit by the destruction.

I didn't vote for him, but if we are going to impeach him, I need a lot more than his vocabulary is on a 6th grade level, or he removed Obamacare and defunded meals on wheels. What are we going to impeach him for?

I think it's healthy to have at least one critical thread among the fawning majority of posts and threads where the president is concerned.

I thought Obama could have done a lot more good than he did, but why anyone would try to lump him with this presidential obscenity I can't fathom.

Leaving a pastor in prison and saying it was his own fault isn't obscene? Giving men access to women's bathrooms? Changing the meaning and sanctity of the word 'marriage' into something else?

Not in the wild you didn't.

Well, I'd done some of my growing up on a farm so there were a lot of wild encounters. I live next to a large park reserve so we have a lot of wild animals here. Petting them? :nono:

Not quite. Eisenhower/Kay Summersby, Harding and Nan Britton, Grover Cleveland sired a son apart from his wife (knowledge of which gave rise to, 'Ma, Ma, where's my Pa? He's in the White House!' as a rhetorical barb. I imagine there are more presidents who stepped out on their spouses than were faithful, given that any man who runs for that office, who honestly believes himself fit to lead millions, is probably an alpha male on steroids.

Eisenhower surprises me. Had no idea. :noway: I realize it goes all the way down to Jefferson. I had the 20th century in mind (again, Ike I didn't know about).

]:think: No, yes, and no, in order. But I don't oppose the president simply because he's a philanderer.

I appreciate this, Carter is a good man, terrible president.

That's a peculiar statement, to my mind. I'd say that a mistake won't cost my regard if it's acknowledged and owned by the individual. And if they don't appear to understand the error it invites a measure of sympathy from me, but outside that I don't really "support" other men. I agree with and disagree with them, depending. I may vote for someone I differ with if, on the whole I agree more often than disagree, or I find them ethical and considerate in our differences.

Agree, but I think you get it by your evaluation here.

I'm a moderate, but the way I see it is more that on the whole I'm neither reasonably placed in the conservative or liberal camps. I have very conservative notions and points of admiration, and a number of liberal approaches as well. And I don't dismiss either camp out of hand. I'm interested in different opinions and recognize the value of compromise that doesn't violate principle. That sort of thing.

We hold this in common but I'm not sure we'd be able to make a new party but two, between us. :e4e:

It remains a metaphor, though the one Jesus used on the money changers wasn't.

Metaphor: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money)broadly : figurative language Merriam-Webster

But 'horsewhipped' has a more direct association. It is evocative and I think it means what it means. You are/were so mad at Dobson that 'horsewhipped' was the extent of your anger. There are few metaphor comparisons without a whip. I just wanted you to realize how mad you were expressing yourself regarding Dr. Dobson. It is here in print and we are read by a good few. A shorter address from me might have been better: "Its harsh, he doesn't deserve to be horsewhipped."

Process the claims for those who are claiming persecution. Send those simply trying to skirt the law back, but in the meantime treat all of them decently, as the law requires.

Are you thinking of vetting those who are genuine? We have quite a few implants in Tacoma, WA. I'm not opposed to any good citizens.

What you believe is your business. Stating what I mean is mine. If you can't credit me with knowing my own mind there's really no point in your quoting me though.

It is rather addressing the severity of the metaphor. I think you are a bit over-angered and over-zealous with the proclamation. It doesn't have to do with mind-reading. There is some knowledge I have of you through these TOL years. I took exception to horsewhipping James Dobson. I just think it could have been left off the table. It isn't that Dobson doesn't make mistakes nor that I've never disagreed with him. I simply believe we should be more gracious in house. Rick Warren has come under a lot of scrutiny. I share some of the concerns, but his efforts led my father to faith and so I'm more appreciative. Dobson too, has done a lot of good in his impact upon my Christian life.

Or perhaps you come to it with a regard for Dobson that has you at the disadvantage. I had no particular opinion about him before I read his words on the topic.

It isn't a disadvantage. Love "believes all things, hopes all things, hardly notices when another does it wrong..." ...

So my excoriation, entirely comprised of words, seems a bit mild, comparatively.

... a bit different.

Many conservatives will be angry with any Democrat long before they do anything at all...assuming they get around to doing something later, which Congressionally speaking is a crapshoot. Mostly it's ideological and self-serving. My complaints aren't because I don't give a boiled fig for either party, both being riddled with hypocrisy, skin thin principle, and observable compulsion to possess power for the sake of power.

Hard to tell. It 'seems' like you liked and applauded all things Obama, and don't all things Trump.
I didn't want to impeach Obama nor now Trump. I simply don't believe we've been served well by any president for a long time.

I didn't read it in either. I simply read it and then set out how he went about achieving an obvious aim, if your bias filter didn't blind you to it, as can happen when someone we admire does something contrary to what we believe about him. A lot of people still don't think OJ killed anyone and some, I imagine, don't believe Cosby raped a soul, or that the president...well, no. With the president it appears to be more that they don't care.

Let's see:

Please believe me when I tell you that the media and leftist politicians have not been truthful about what is going on there. It is a human tragedy.


Among them are large numbers of children, many of whom are unaccompanied by a caring adult. Last year, 382,000 aliens were apprehended for illegally crossing into this country and almost 100,000 of them were minors.


Tears flooded my eyes as I stood before them.


There are few provisions made to accommodate the children.


My heart aches for these poor people.

Since both of us are selecting our favorite quotes, which of these would you want to horse-whip him for? :think:

If I guessed correctly: "None." If so, then a horse-whip missed all the good things he said, by the same token, and then it truly is 'selective' reading on both of our parts. For my defense, whatever he says further is not whip-worthy

It is a well-known fact that President Obama’s administration established many of these unworkable policies

Should we horse-whip him figuratively now? :think:

The situation I have described is the reason President Donald Trump’s border wall is so urgently needed. He seems to be the only leader in America who comprehends this tragedy and is willing to address it. Those who oppose him do everything they can to impede his effort.

This one? Was this the horse-whippable offense?

I came away with an array of intense emotions. First, I was profoundly grieved over the misery of thousands of people.

How about this one? Now we get to the last paragraph of the entire letter:

Many of them have no marketable skills. They are illiterate and unhealthy. Some are violent criminals. Their numbers will soon overwhelm the culture as we have known it, and it could bankrupt the nation.

(He never said "all of them.") Is he correct? Yes. He isn't saying not to vet them, only that the numbers are more than he believes we can handle.
Whether he is correct or not, this is horse-whip worthy?

You aren't the first to express indignation over Dobson's letter, but to me, with quotes here in mind, it 'looks' less than reasonable indignation and certainly must jump to conclusions, imho, to do so.

 

[Town Heretic]

I didn't vote for him, but if we are going to impeach him, I need a lot more than his vocabulary is on a 6th grade level, or he removed Obamacare and defunded meals on wheels. What are we going to impeach him for?

Again, impeachment wasn't a thing I put on the table, but here's a NY Times article on point.

Leaving a pastor in prison and saying it was his own fault isn't obscene?

You have a link to that?

Giving men access to women's bathrooms?

How did he do that?

Changing the meaning and sanctity of the word 'marriage' into something else?

How did he do that?

But 'horsewhipped' has a more direct association. I think it means what it means.

Everything does. And a lot of the time that meaning is contextual. Sometimes the context clues are subtle, "Bless your heart," to someone who needs a time out. Sometimes they're handed to you, "metaphorically speaking." You don't rationally get to ignore the context spelled out for you because it interferes with your point.

You are/were so mad at Dobson that 'horsewhipped' was the extent of your anger.

This feels like hair splitting. Rather, I was offended enough by a pastor writing what he did for the purpose I noted that a metaphorical horsewhipping seemed appropriate, as responses went. I'm fine with being passionate, as I've said, provided the passion is led by reason. So you can be angered by racism, but respond to it rationally. Most important issues carry our emotions with them.

Are you thinking of vetting those who are genuine?

I believe the law requires it, and conscience should as well. And, again, in the meantime we should take every effort to treat them humanely. We have children in cages. Jesus wept, Lon. Children in cages. In our country. And that makes me angry too.

It is rather addressing the severity of the metaphor.

Seemed apt to me then and it still does. And it was, again, a lot kinder than Jesus was to some religious leaders.

I think you are a bit over-angered and over-zealous with the proclamation.

I think it's self-evidently very important to you that you see me that way. Because if I'm that then Dobson needn't be seen in a light you don't want to see him by. He's important to you. I get that.

It doesn't have to do with mind-reading.

Let's hope not, because you'd be awful at it if this was example one on the exam.

There is some knowledge I have of you through these TOL years.

Lots of people who would differ with you would probably say the same. We all bring our lens to the viewing of the body.

I took exception to horsewhipping James Dobson. I just think it could have been left off the table.

I think the first part isn't a point of confusion for anyone who's been following along. And I could have left considering the article at all off the table, but you set it in my path. The rest was my response, which seemed and seems to me on point and completely appropriate.

It isn't that Dobson doesn't make mistakes nor that I've never disagreed with him.

What did you differ with him on that mattered before I read this article? What's the last thing of importance that comes to mind?

I simply believe we should be more gracious in house.

I don't know what you mean by gracious in this context. I didn't call for any action against him, didn't use profanity, question his salvation, etc. I said he deserved a metaphorical horse whipping for his aid and comfort to bigots in relation to the people he mostly characterized as poorly as possible while playing to the fears of his audience.

I remain convicted on the point.

Rick Warren has come under a lot of scrutiny.

The Purpose Filled Life guy? I never read the book. Seemed to help some people. I've heard him here or there. Haven't heard that he's trying to fleece the faithful, or been caught up in any scandal.

I share some of the concerns, but his efforts led my father to faith and so I'm more appreciative.

Happy to hear it. Good on him then.

Dobson too, has done a lot of good in his impact upon my Christian life.

And I'm glad for that as well, but I'd say it's a bias that has to have a strong impact on your approach. I can't say I had an opinion about him, pro or con, before the article. I knew of him, but had no particular impression...was he or is he a part of the Focus on the Family show?

It isn't a disadvantage. Love "believes all things, hopes all things, hardly notices when another does it wrong..." ...

Context is always important. By way of, love doesn't believe Hitler didn't really mean it.

Hard to tell. It 'seems' like you liked and applauded all things Obama, and don't all things Trump.

Then your bias is worse than you imagine and I can't help you, because inside this conversation alone I noted numbering things I agreed with Trump on prior, and I've been clear prior on a number of occasions that Obama lost my support in the second election.

I didn't want to impeach Obama nor now Trump.

You had, so far as I can tell, no reason to impeach Obama. There may be quite a few reasons to consider it with our current president.

I simply don't believe we've been served well by any president for a long time.

That one is too broad for me to take on.

Since both of us are selecting our favorite quotes

No, I took on the focus, the point of his article, evidenced in how he trained his critical eye and summed his part, what he left the reader with, largely, to which you only really add the bits where, prior to doing that he made sure he looked as good as he could have, that we saw him pluck his own heartstrings before calling these people a flood of sick, illiterate criminals flowing against our shores and pocketbooks. Before he said we were a good people who maybe couldn't afford to be this time.

which of these would you want to horse-whip him for?

I already did it in exactly the way I intended, metaphorically, and set out every word that led to the decision. None of them were favorites of mine.

(He never said "all of them.")

He didn't have to. If they weren't the rule he's a horrible writer who completely missed the opportunity to establish that most or many more of them were something else, people we should have compassion for and do something about. Instead he told us how only Trump understands it...good grief.

I set out the whole of that and what he did in my initial complaint. I invite anyone to read it. (LINK to initial post and quotes)

 

[Lon]

Again, impeachment wasn't a thing I put on the table, but here's a NY Times article on point.


You have a link to that?

Can't find his comments at the moment, but see Pastor refused release by Obama, Obama Admin illegally ignores lawsuit on behalf of suffering Christians, Obama asks Christians worried about suffering Christians and martyrs to get 'off high horse', and Obama idle as Christians are killed, and Christians numbering in the millions are now less than a few thousand while Obama Admin turns a blind eye

How did he do that?

Obama's Transgender Mandates It did, in fact result in criminal activity.

How did he do that?

We have already talked about this. It should have been 'civil union' not 'marriage' that judges changed.

Everything does. And a lot of the time that meaning is contextual. Sometimes the context clues are subtle, "Bless your heart," to someone who needs a time out. Sometimes they're handed to you, "metaphorically speaking." You don't rationally get to ignore the context spelled out for you because it interferes with your point.

I'd imagine it is less extreme in Alabama? Its a bit extreme for me, if not 'up here.' Even metaphorically speaking, we think in terms of at least a desire to do exactly this. It is a VERY strong sentiment and radical against a pastor.

Seemed apt to me then and it still does. And it was, again, a lot kinder than Jesus was to some religious leaders.

Ouch, No! He never horse-whipped anybody. He used a couple of cords and 'drove them out' of the courtyard (or do you mean your statement? I might have to agree, but I still think it exceptionally harsh after giving all the quotes in question).

This feels like hair splitting. Rather, I was offended enough by a pastor writing what he did for the purpose I noted that a metaphorical horsewhipping seemed appropriate, as responses went. I'm fine with being passionate, as I've said, provided the passion is led by reason. So you can be angered by racism, but respond to it rationally. Most important issues carry our emotions with them.

Supra (just above).

I believe the law requires it, and conscience should as well. And, again, in the meantime we should take every effort to treat them humanely. We have children in cages. Jesus wept, Lon. Children in cages. In our country. And that makes me angry too.

Or separated from their parents. I too agree. I really really really wish the Red Cross or anybody compassionate could take them. Under guard? Sure, but what do you do when you are trying to avoid infection of an entire populace? I hate this.
I wish anybody had an answer I could pour money into, or vote for, or volunteer for....

I think it's self-evidently very important to you that you see me that way. Because if I'm that then Dobson needn't be seen in a light you don't want to see him by. He's important to you. I get that.

I'm not sure you do. It is about horse-whipping any of God's servants. I don't agree with everything Franklin Graham stands for. If you said "horsewhip Billy Graham" I'd be outraged. No, I'm talking about what I read. Dobson has had a positive impact, but this is about 'horse-whipping' a public pastor. I'd suggest, perhaps, Jim and Tammy Faye would need a proverbial horse-whipping (which they received for their crimes), but that's a clear metaphor. You are advocating a horsewhipping for something I yet think you are reading 'into' Dobson's letter. I read it for the third time and quoted it and your requote, in context. Again, none of it 'horsewhip' worthy.

Let's hope not, because you'd be awful at it if this was example one on the exam.

Since I didn't? Moot. It is an incorrect assessment.

Lots of people who would differ with you would probably say the same. We all bring our lens to the viewing of the body.

It is simply my assertion. I believe I'm capable.

I think the first part isn't a point of confusion for anyone who's been following along. And I could have left considering the article at all off the table, but you set it in my path. The rest was my response, which seemed and seems to me on point and completely appropriate.

It is a hard challenge, but I'd suggest, if you are willing, come back to this in two years. I think you'll see it more like I do, today.

What did you differ with him on that mattered before I read this article? What's the last thing of importance that comes to mind?

I was somewhat opposed to him going to see Ted Bundy, more-so him publishing anything of that meeting. There were other men available without doing anything highly publicized 'for' the man if he wanted to repent. There are others, but you asked for the first that came to mind.

I don't know what you mean by gracious in this context. I didn't call for any action against him, didn't use profanity, question his salvation, etc. I said he deserved a metaphorical horse whipping for his aid and comfort to bigots in relation to the people he mostly characterized as poorly as possible while playing to the fears of his audience.

I remain convicted on the point.


The Purpose Filled Life guy? I never read the book. Seemed to help some people. I've heard him here or there. Haven't heard that he's trying to fleece the faithful, or been caught up in any scandal.


Happy to hear it. Good on him then.


And I'm glad for that as well, but I'd say it's a bias that has to have a strong impact on your approach. I can't say I had an opinion about him, pro or con, before the article. I knew of him, but had no particular impression...was he or is he a part of the Focus on the Family show?

Yes.

Context is always important. By way of, love doesn't believe Hitler didn't really mean it.

You are comparing Dobson to Hitler? :noway: Please take the challenge: Read this again in two years.

Then your bias is worse than you imagine and I can't help you, because inside this conversation alone I noted numbering things I agreed with Trump on prior, and I've been clear prior on a number of occasions that Obama lost my support in the second election.

I'm not sure 'bias' is the word you are looking for. "Mistaken assumption?" I'll own it. It is from a rather random reading on TOL over the past 10 years both under Obama and Trump topics, but I do have to own I tend to avoid the politics sections: Guilty. I'll own it and beg your pardon. It "seemed" like it prior. I will take your word for it wholesale.

You had, so far as I can tell, no reason to impeach Obama. There may be quite a few reasons to consider it with our current president.

One compiled list

No, I took on the focus, the point of his article, evidenced in how he trained his critical eye and summed his part, what he left the reader with, largely, to which you only really add the bits where, prior to doing that he made sure he looked as good as he could have, that we saw him pluck his own heartstrings before calling these people a flood of sick, illiterate criminals flowing against our shores and pocketbooks. Before he said we were a good people who maybe couldn't afford to be this time.

See, here is the difference: I saw him 'caring' about the sick, and the illiterate, and the poor within context. You really do have to read 'into" to find anything else. I spent the whole of the last post pouring over everything he said and at least attempted to look at context, both ways, even rereading your first post. Where is my horse in this race? If Dobson deserves horsewhipping, then so be it, but it is incredibly bold and I do think two years from now will genuinely change your perspective.

I already did it in exactly the way I intended, metaphorically, and set out every word that led to the decision. None of them were favorites of mine.


He didn't have to. If they weren't the rule he's a horrible writer who completely missed the opportunity to establish that most or many more of them were something else, people we should have compassion for and do something about. Instead he told us how only Trump understands it...good grief.

I set out the whole of that and what he did in my initial complaint. I invite anyone to read it. (LINK to initial post and quotes)

Hopefully, you too in two years. Time and distance will help I'm convinced (he didn't say 'only Trump understand it' either).

Horsewhipping is the bulk of our posts and I can let it go at this point, I just thought it unusually harsh. If you read your first post too, again, in two years, I'd think you are going to distance from it.

 

[annabenedetti]

Getting to the bottom of these is troubling. It is unconscionable to me, that anyone would use people for lies in politics.

I'm not sure someone is lying, but the information is conflicting. I'd tend to believe border patrol, simply because it is many people.

So... it's unconscionable that anyone would use people for lies, but you're not sure someone's lying, but if they are, it's probably not the border patrol because it is many people (even though if you're going for appeal to numbers, there are more people in cages than there are border patrol agents...)

We've seen corruption at times, but I'd hope the exception rather than the rule. With your link, the border patrol said she wasn't correct. Where does one go from there, when there is so much misinformation?

One searches for the truth, even when the truth doesn't lie with the prevailing authority, Lon.

Simply saying he visited the facility and found it better than acceptable? :idunno: Does he lie a lot or something?

He's an extremist, a conspiracy theorist and all around crackpot. He's a poor source if you're searching for the truth.

For what specifically? What is the impeachable offense? Do we fall for every rumor? Do we bandwagon simply because we don't like the guy? I didn't vote for him. Pence would likely do better but he has to actually break the law, not just because you or another, or I don't like him. I didn't like Obama for this country either. I cringed often with what he'd done. I cringed under Bush and Clinton too.

It would be nice for a change to discuss Trump without discussing Obama.

Well, I appreciate the 'watchman on the wall' so no harm there, but the comparison to Nazi Germany and Trump isn't reasonable. There is no comparison to the Third Reich that'd sticks in my mind. It is sensationalism. :e4e:

If only those on the right would spend less time obsessing over the comparison than they do looking clearly at why the comparison is being made.

 

[annabenedetti]

Horsewhipping is the bulk of our posts and I can let it go at this point, I just thought it unusually harsh. If you read your first post too, again, in two years, I'd think you are going to distance from it.

You all that time on whether TH should've used horsewhipping as a metaphor... meanwhile, people are suffering at the hands of the U.S. government.

 

[annabenedetti]

 

[Lon]

So... it's unconscionable that anyone would use people for lies, but you're not sure someone's lying, but if they are, it's probably not the border patrol because it is many people (even though if you're going for appeal to numbers, there are more people in cages than there are border patrol agents...)

I think you need to read a little better here, Anna. What I've said is that one news source puts out data from a democrat and another counteracts that. Next? That no single entity is found in Border Patrol. If there is corruption (likely not, admittedly we have government corruption, but what would that look like on the border, especially in these places?), there would certainly be a whistle-blower. Here is one, but he both corroborates and puts to rest some of these rumors. There are problems, not sure if corruption, though.
“Changing [Border Patrol Facebookers] culture is pretty difficult,” Kerlikowske said. “You can change the behavior to some extent. You can punish, suspend people. You can terminate people.”

One searches for the truth, even when the truth doesn't lie with the prevailing authority, Lon.

Who? Trump? Representative Cortez? “Just left the 1st CBP facility. I see why CBP officers were being so physically & sexually threatening towards me." There were only 3 CBP officers who made these comments on FB, but she claimed the whole 9k+ group? :nono: We just can't rely on someone like this who is given to exaggeration and wants to ban motorcycles. We should listen to the rest of the representatives (why weren't any republicans invited :think.

He's an extremist, a conspiracy theorist and all around crackpot. He's a poor source if you're searching for the truth.

Well, I take Limbaugh with a grain of salt too, but that doesn't mean we can't trust anything.

It would be nice for a change to discuss Trump without discussing Obama.

Cannot really happen, but we can discuss detainment camps without either of them. They both are to blame for this. It didn't happen just in the last 2 years. This has all been in place since Bush (sorry I had to bring in even another).

If only those on the right would spend less time obsessing over the comparison than they do looking clearly at why the comparison is being made.

I'm not 'right' particularly. I'm looking for men or women who truly love people and want to serve them more than themselves whenever I vote. Few and far between. I suppose those more egocentric have a greater limelight. Ben Carson would have put Hilary and Trump to shame. A few of the others as well.

So, for what it is worth, I tend to stop reading once I read "Hitler" or "Nazi" when I'm not reading about either. It is always over-the-top without exception and doesn't elicit what was desired. If we ever get to where we have dictators instead of 4 year term presidents, that will change. At the moment there isn't a chance and so there is no sense in even entertaining the sentiment. It becomes 'shock value' or crying wolf. Worse? It reflects upon my interest in the thread as well. I now have to take every single statement made with several large grains of salt and I have to work harder to establish what makes me skeptical. I'm sure you can appreciate that, at least. :e4e:

 

[Lon]

You all that time on whether TH should've used horsewhipping as a metaphor... meanwhile, people are suffering at the hands of the U.S. government.

How 'we' behave during a crisis is important as well.

 

[Town Heretic]

Can't find his comments at the moment, but see Pastor refused release by Obama, Obama Admin illegally ignores lawsuit on behalf of suffering Christians, Obama asks Christians worried about suffering Christians and martyrs to get 'off high horse', and Obama idle as Christians are killed, and Christians numbering in the millions are now less than a few thousand while Obama Admin turns a blind eye

Mostly op ed right wing attacks without much quoting of the president but a lot of declaration about him. I read two and gave up. Do you have anything that attempts something like an objective approach?

You might want to take a harder look at the prisoner. His wife left him citing physical and emotional cruelty by him prior to his imprisonment. While in prison he claims to have had a literal vision of Trump. He's also said part of his support for Trump was found in the Democratic Party elevating a woman to challenge for the office, which he found unBiblical. He's also called for Trump to declare us a Christian nation.

So there may be a bit more to why the last administration steered away from risking a nuclear agreement by tying it to this fellow.

Obama's Transgender Mandates It did, in fact result in criminal activity.

What, specifically?

We have already talked about this. It should have been 'civil union' not 'marriage' that judges changed.

Obama isn't a judge.

I'd imagine it is less extreme in Alabama? Its a bit extreme for me, if not 'up here.' Even metaphorically speaking, we think in terms of at least a desire to do exactly this.

Down here, when someone says you should be horsewhipped, metaphorically, we understand them to mean it's not to be taken literally.

It is a VERY strong sentiment and radical against a pastor.

Of course it's a strong sentiment. I don't know why a pastor should receive a pass or different treatment from anyone else though. If anything, he should be held to a higher standard of ethical and moral conduct.

Ouch, No! He never horse-whipped anybody.

I didn't say that he did. Now I did note that my treatment, metaphorically speaking, was much milder than the actual whipping Jesus gave the money changers when he ran them from the temple.

I'm not sure you do.

Well either he is or he isn't and I think you've given every indication that he is. But if I'm wrong and he isn't then you can certainly set that straight.

It is about horse-whipping any of God's servants.

No, it's not, because I never actually advocated that.

You are comparing Dobson to Hitler?

No, I was answering your context free version of "love believes all things." I said it doesn't believe that Hitler really didn't mean it. That is, context really does control a lot of meaning.

One compiled list

A listing that includes the birther nonsense and that, somehow, his gender stance was grounds...another is a Congressman arguing to impeach Obama for no particular reason beyond thwarting his agenda...another for his authorizing the bombing of Libya...so it's not a compiled list of impeachable offenses, but of every cockamame notion floated toward that end.

See, here is the difference: I saw him 'caring' about the sick, and the illiterate, and the poor within context. You really do have to read 'into" to find anything else.

No, you really don't. You only have to approach the article without a presumption and with an understanding of construction and rhetorical devices. It was impossible for me to miss and I didn't know the man, or owe him anything personally.

I spent the whole of the last post pouring over everything he said and at least attempted to look at context, both ways, even rereading your first post. Where is my horse in this race?

Likely in your personal fondness for Dobson, your gratitude for his impact on your life, and your mistaken notion about me in relation to party politics, apparently.

 

[annabenedetti]

How 'we' behave during a crisis is important as well.

I'm talking about we as a country violating the spirit of our Constitution.

You're using 'we' as way of telling me I'm not being properly polite and deliberate.

 

[annabenedetti]

I think you need to read a little better here, Anna. What I've said

... is what I've quoted. You're having a problem with your own words, then.

I'm not 'right' particularly.

Yes you are. You're politically to the right, Lon.

I suppose those more egocentric have a greater limelight. Ben Carson would have put Hilary and Trump to shame.

Have you ever seen the interior of Ben Carson's house? It's basically a shrine to him and his accomplishments, so his ego is alive and well, larger than most, and certainly not in danger of extinction.

And that's all I'll say in this conversation about Carson (or Obama, Clinton, or Bush), so if you're able, let's drop Carson here.

It reflects upon my interest in the thread as well. I now have to take every single statement made with several large grains of salt and I have to work harder to establish what makes me skeptical. I'm sure you can appreciate that, at least.

What I know from your posts is that your interest in the thread isn't for the children traumatized or the families separated or the intentionality of it all by the Trump administration.

You want rules of order applied to the thread as if it would make everything, if not all better, at least neat and tidy with all the uncomfortable stuff tucked away out of sight.