ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Posts: 2397
Nov 20 14 9:14 PM
Interact
Posts: 16876
Nov 20 14 9:42 PM
Posts: 895
Nov 20 14 10:08 PM
An intellectually honest liberal
Nov 20 14 10:24 PM
Posts: 8416
Nov 21 14 9:12 AM
Nov 21 14 2:56 PM
Nov 21 14 8:16 PM
Nov 22 14 9:03 AM
Previous presidents who used their executive authority to shield undocumented immigrants confronted little of the fury that Mr. Obama now faces, in part because their actions affected fewer people and the issue was not as polarizing at the time.
“Back in the 1980s, immigration was controversial, but there was a bipartisan consensus that we had to reform immigration laws,” said Stephen W. Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell University.
In 1986, Mr. Reagan signed the so-called amnesty bill passed by Congress that granted legal status to three million undocumented immigrants, and then acted on his own the following year to expand it to about 100,000 more. That action extended the amnesty to immigrants who had left the country and then used fraudulent documents to be readmitted, and shielded from deportation minor children whose parents qualified.
Mr. Bush moved in 1990 to allow 1.5 million undocumented spouses and children of immigrants who were in the process of becoming legal permanent residents to stay in the country and obtain work permits. At the time, that amounted to about 40 percent of the immigrants living without documentation in the United States. Mr. Obama’s order would affect about 45 percent of the undocumented immigrants.
Nov 22 14 11:10 AM
Nov 22 14 11:59 AM
Nov 22 14 4:35 PM
VXerick wrote:I have many objections to how this is being handled but first and foremost is the unmitigated gall of said President to one of the main features of said order. The illegal alien must verify his/her residency in the US for the past 5 years. Using the verification from other illegals who claim to know the person applying is acceptable. What kind of hokum is that? Who is so gullible to believe no one is going to lie for a fellow illegal and then accept tit for tat? I guess we're all being grubered for our lack of intelligence to be expected to believe the lies and the liars, whoever they are. Yeah, maybe they're right.
Nov 23 14 9:16 PM
Nov 23 14 11:16 PM
Nov 24 14 12:13 AM
charvakan wrote:Biblical references can be quite useful, especially with believers. I use them myself. As I said, I am disgusted with the pandering, but consider it par for the course. What did bother me about Bush was his referring to a "higher power" that guided his actions as President. I assume he didn't mean Cheney, which would have been scary enough, but his imaginary friend God. As Tomas Szasz said, when you talk to God, it's called praying, but when God talks to you, that's schizophrenia.
Nov 24 14 4:09 PM
Nov 24 14 4:25 PM
iowan15 wrote:"Hardly a threat"?Well, odd then that a significant portion of your party is scared to death of the religious right (but, not surprisingly, by the religious left) and went ballistic any time W uttered the name 'Jesus' or mentioned that he prayed regularly, seeking guidance from God. Glad too hear that never once bothered you.And if you're now giving tacit approval of the POTUS, in his official capacity, endorsing the Old Testament scriptures, cool! later. iowan15
Nov 25 14 3:56 PM
char: “The end of language is communication. I thought you knew that, Iowan. Using Biblical references in this society is eminently justified whatever one's political orientation if you want to get a point across. When the point is just "I'm a Christian like you" it's merely pandering. You seem determined to make more of these things than is warranted. I thought I was the one who was supposed to get upset on this subject, but apparently it's you.”
I'm not the slightest bit 'upset'. Pointing out your principle-less 'principle' is actually kind of invigorating.
char: “Let me explain to you the difference between what Obama said and what Bush said. The Exodus line reminded the Hebrews that they were once immigrants (foreigners), so they should not mistreat others who are in the same position they were once. That's a sentiment that can stand on its own, but the Biblical reference reinforces it with some people.”
Maybe the sentiment can stand on its own. But we’ll never know since Obama decided the sentiment couldn’t stand on its own and needed the invocation of the Bible (something he, as a self-proclaimed Christian, presumably believes is in some sense divinely inspired). If the purpose of Obama’s invocation was merely to ‘reinforce’ a sentiment that, according to you, needed no reinforcement, then he was deliberately MISUSING what he presumably believes to be, in some sense, divinely inspired for purposes of political expediency, not communication.
It seems to me that quite clearly Obama marshaled the Exodus passage to justify his decision, not make his decision clearer to those who, in addition to himself, regard the Bible as in some sense divinely inspired.
char: “ This is the Bush statement I referred to:
“Did Mr. Bush ask his father for any advice? "I asked the president about this. And President Bush said, 'Well, no,' and then he got defensive about it," says Woodward. "Then he said something that really struck me. He said of his father, 'He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength.' And then he said, 'There's a higher Father that I appeal to.'" Beyond not asking his father about going to war, Woodward was startled to learn that the president did not ask key cabinet members either.”char: So, either Bush is offhandedly saying "Don't blame me, blame God," or he really believed that the correct course of action in Iraq was revealed to him divinely. This does not seem healthy to me in any sphere, but especially when the lives of so many hang on the decision. The result of his decisionmaking process does not reflect well on that higher Father.
In invoking the Old Testament as justification for his policy decision, Obama likewise appealed to what Christians regard as divinely inspired, or more to the point, God’s word.
It’s not clear to me why hearing from God through prayer should be any more dangerous than hearing from God through the written word.
Further, the passage cited by Obama comes from a larger portion of Exodus, which begins in Exodus 20:22 with these words, “And the Lord said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the people of Israel: ‘You have seen for yourselves that I have talked with you from heaven.”
So, you’re terrified that Bush makes (and justifies) decisions based on what he thinks God told him, but not the slightest bit bothered (and in fact, defend to the hilt) that Obama makes and justifies his decision based on what he thinks God told Moses from heaven. Which is the more mentally disconcerting: that a person thinks she has a direct pipeline to God and on that basis, in part, makes decisions or that a person appeals to the teachings of another person who she believes has a direct pipeline to the Almighty and on that basis, in part, makes his decisions?
char: “So, the difference here is that Obama made a decision for earthly reasons, some noble and some merely expedient, and justified them on policy and moral grounds, throwing in a line from Exodus in the process.”
Maybe. If you’re right about this, then you wouldn’t be the first person to suggest that Obama’s “faith” is feigned for political expediency only.
For this reason (and others), Obama gets a pass for his disingenuous and wholly unnecessary invocation of the Bible. Again, this confirms my earlier observation: For you, the end justifies the means.
char: “Bush made a decision based on what he thought God told him, and justified it with a bunch of convenient lies supplied by Uncle Dick. Perhaps you'll say you still can't see a difference, but I know you're not that dumb.”
Sure, on one level, there is a difference. Unlike Bush, Obama seems to have relied on his own lies as a basis for his decision, quite independent of others. After all, he’s a better speechwriter, policy director, campaign manager, . . . . . than those who hold those positions in his administration. Can we get our money back for these unnecessary federal employees?
char: “I'm not a Szasz fan; I just like the quote. Voices in our heads are not usually thought of as a good thing. Seriously, anyone who thinks Allah/Jehovah or Vishnu is speaking to him is deluded and bears watching. He might fly a plane into a building or start a war.”
How much less deluded is the person (Obama) who thinks that a divine being (Jehovah) spoke to another guy (Moses) and, in part, justifies his (Obama’s) decisions on what a divine being (Jehovah) told HIM (Moses)?
For the record, those who flew planes into a building in September 2001, were convinced that a divine being (Allah) spoke to another guy (Mohammed) and who, in part, justified their decision on what a divine being (Allah) told HIM (Mohammed)?
Whether one believes he has a direct pipeline to God as a basis of his decisions or one invokes the teachings of one who claimed to have a direct pipeline to God as the basis for his decisions, wouldn’t both be equally dangerous from your point of view? If not, why not? If so, why is your interpretation of and reaction to the former so different from the latter?
As best as I can tell, there are only two differences: 1) Bush is a Republican and Obama is a Democrat and/or 2) you are convinced that Bush’s faith was (however misguided) genuine (that is, he really believed it) and Obama’s is only pretend.
If that’s the case, then you don’t really have any principled stand against the invocation of the Bible into politics. You condemn Bush for it and give Obama a pass.
The end justifies the means. If invoking the Bible leads to a political decision you favor, it’s just harmless ‘communication’. If invoking the Bible leads to a political decision you oppose, then it has the real potential to lead to terrorism and/or war.
Nov 25 14 5:32 PM
Nov 26 14 12:46 AM
Nov 26 14 1:27 PM
char: “Hmm. You're trying hard to convince me you really are dumb enough not to understand the differences here, but I'm not buying it.”
And you’re trying twice as hard to rationalize your giving Obama (as always) a pass.
char: “Obama didn't make policy based on Exodus; he gave the earthly reasons for his action many times. Bush says he consulted his heavenly father about invading Iraq and ignored the prior President (his actual father) who had relevant experience about war with Iraq. His earthly reasons were mostly invented by his own Administration. We saw how that turned out.”
So, they both invoked the divine and earthly reasons. Who invented Obama’s earthly reasons? Bush’s invocation of the divine was made in private and communicated privately. Obama’s invocation of the divine was made undeniably in public.
Obama specifically stated, ‘Scripture tells us, we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger. We were strangers once, too.’ Speaking from the White House, in the course of his official duties as POTUS, Obama appealed directly to ‘Scripture’, even quoting it, as a reason for why Americans should support his policy decision.
I don’t seem to recall Bush announcing to the American people that the reason the U.S. should invade Iraq was because God told him so. Nor did he quote Scripture. He stated the, as you call them, earthly reasons (justifications) for his decision to invade.
In fact, I reviewed the transcripts of both Bush’s announcement that the U.S. had launched military action against Iraq and Obama’s announcement that the U.S. will now postpone deportations of illegal immigrants who have been here over 5 years. My previous point bears out.
In addition, your opposition to America’s invasion of Iraq wasn’t due to the way it turned out. Your opposition was already set in stone long before effects and consequences were, or even could be, known. You'd have been just as opposed if it had turned out that everything you thought was a lie was later confirmed to be true.
As I see it, this only deepens your hypocrisy. You are terrified by a private conversation Bush had about his reliance on God and ho-hum about Obama’s public invocation of the Almighty and his word!
char: “Sure, I dislike Obama, Bush, and everyone else in government pandering to the religious.”
But your dislike is only selectively displayed and applied. That's been my point all along. Hence, my (repeatedly confirmed) observation that you don’t really have any principles that guide your criticism of the religious expressions of politicians (and high school valedictorians).
char: “But even if it is silly, divisive, and off the point, they have a right to do it, don't they?”
Uh, who said they didn’t have the right to do it?
char: “Why are you up in arms here--because a Democrat did it?”
This dislocates the discussion. It has nothing to do with Bush, Obama, or any other politician invoking God, or praying, or citing Scripture. It has everything to do with your tendency to go out of your way to criticize Bush when he did it and to give Obama a pass when he does it.
char: “You're clearly the hypocrite here, and if you aren't upset, you're giving a great impression of it.”
If that’s so, you should be able to specifically explain my hypocrisy (instead of just asserting it). The only thing that could even remotely be defined as ‘upsetting’ is your repeated (although wholly predictable) justifications and rationalizations for why you treat Obama’s public invocations of his heavenly father as harmless while regarding Bush’s private invocations as portending Armageddon.
char: “For the record, I do think Carter and Bush II were genuinely Christians. Reagan was sort of religious in his Hollywood way. The rest of our recent Presidents (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Bush I, Clinton, Obama) were, in my opinion, 100% faking it, including the current one.”
No kidding? I said as much earlier and offered it as an explanation for why you give a pass to Obama (because you’re convinced his faith is a sham anyway and his hat tips to faith are disingenuous) and not to Bush (who you agree has a genuine Christian faith).
char: “It makes no difference, unless one of them does stuff that the voices in his head tell him to do. Then it's even more worrisome than the dumb stuff they usually get up to.”
Really? Curious then that you don’t find it at all worrisome that Obama invokes the words and does stuff that voices in the head of someone else to justify his own decisions. And he fully intends to follow through on the admonition of (as you see it) the voice in Moses' head.
char: “Going to Heaven trumps everything for a believer--right?”
Does that line encapsulate the sum total of your undergrad religion degree?
later. iowan15