Here's another example for you: insisting that Terri Shiavo must be starved to death then turning around and insisting clemency for murderer/Crips founder Tookie Williams because he wrote some children's books after the fact.

Or how about the woman who was mauled by the mountain lion and then some animal rights freaks started raising money for the cubs of the mountain lion. Not the children of the woman who was mauled to death.

Anywayz. Sorry, I could think of liberal inconsistencies all day long. Good post! You always think of good titles, too...I need to work on that!

 

Here's a thought about illegal immigration:

Nearly 100% of these illegal immigrants are strongly Christian. They support traditional families. They get married more than Americans, earlier than Americans. They get divorced less, and they have more kids. They tend to oppose gay marriage. They work hard too, and they wave around American flags instead of burning them.

So why are some conservatives so opposed to giving these illegal immigrants a way to become legal immigrants? These seem like exactly the kind of people conservatives would want to have in our country.

 

Noah, this is the fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals: we do not care if the whole world was liberal, we would still be conservative. Being a conservative is not a game of "winning" or having more people but the fundamental belief that there are moral absolutes, laws, and beliefs that are true. D.M. Rose contra mundi!

Illegal immigrants can be the most wonderful people in the world and it doesn't change the fact that they broke the law. We do not make exceptions- you are who you are.

 

"Gross generalization" I would say so.

If you're looking for "glaring errors", don't forget to mention how conservatives define "pro-life". It seems that life begins at conception and ends at birth, since they support the death-penalty and the Afghanistan, Iraq, (and Iran?) wars.

We need to call up those pranksters at The Simple Way and tell them that they shouldn't have handed out food to the hunger of Philadelphia, since it was technically illegal (http://www.thesimpleway.org/).

I have some criticisms of liberal Christianity as well, but from all I can see, the liberals are overwhelming majority of Christians in the darkest, dankest places of our empire and around the world. I'll take an entrenched liberal over a comfortable conservative any day...

 

D.M. -

Sure, illegal immigrants broke the law. But we can change the law if we want - it's our country. If Presidents can give pardons, we can give illegals amnesty.

The law is there to serve the people, not the other way around. This isn't China.

We can (and should) limit the flow of illegals into this country, but we'll never be able to kick out large numbers of the ones who are already here. So we have the choice between accepting them into our society and assimilating them, or turning them into a violent, alienated, permanent underclass who resents the majority.

The latter would be a stupid choice. I'm not willing to make a stupid choice just because "it's the law."

 

"Why didn't we go pick them up and ship them right back to where they came from- then bill all their countries for the expense."

Because it's impossible.

Because their counties couldn't pay the bill to begin with.

I think our economy is more dependent on these "illegals aliens" than many think. But I'm not a sociologist or an economist. Ship them all out, and I'm guessing our wages don't go up, but quite the opposite.

Border control in important. But I think stiffening penalties and refusing entry is the easy way out. It's much harder to ask why they want to come here in the first place and then invest in their countries to make them better so they will want to stay.

But the money we should have spent doing things like that is being used to build another high tech weapon (while we tell other countries that they shouldn't build such toys)

 

Which brings me to another question. What about world sactions? Are they considered "laws?" If so, we've broken quite a few and don't even flinch at any U.N. law abiding memorandums.

We here in the U.S. think we can define what is "illegal" for everyone else, but will not let anyone have a say in our own affairs. We are quickly becoming nothing more than an international bully.

 

Just 4 generations ago there were NO laws restricting immigration. Just show up and feed yourself. It worked.

The average immigrant receives $1404 in welfare in their first 5 years - less than the $2279 average for US citizens. Illegals largely stay away from government services: 5% use free medical, 4% unemployment insurance, 1% food stamps, 1% welfare, 4% child schooling, mostly due to fear of deportation. Almost none get soc. security, but 77% pay the S.S. taxes, and 73% pay federal taxes.

History shows us that immigration is a sign of a bustling economy - people would rather be in the new country than their old. The only years since 1900 (or earlier) in which legal immigration dropped below 100K / year was 1931-1946 (hint: Great Depression and WWII). The past 15 years has seen the most legal immigration since pre-WWI, filling critical roles in the economy and further diversifying our already varied immigrant nation. Capitalists argue for the free-flow of goods, services, and investments. If labor is a key economic input, then a restricted border is essentially a trade-restriction.

Add economics, history, culture, and the Biblical bent toward justice and well-treatment of the alien, I'll stand here.

(Stats are from the capitalist-friendly American Institute for Economic Research, Vol. LXXIII, No. 9, May 8, 2006, "Coming to America: The Benefits of Open Immigration")

 

A:Thada is exactly right.

Immigrants are this country's strength. Of all the countries in the whole world, we're the best at assimilating immigrants and integrating them into the workforce. In the end, this is what's going to keep America strong long after France, China, Japan, Korea, Russia, Germany, and all the others have gone into decline.

Unless we listen to people who say "kick the illegals out because they broke a rule"...

Our country should be run by leaders who can see what's good for the country, instead of puffed-up junior high school assistant principals who are obsessed with authority and rules.

The fact is, immigration is good for the United States. And the United States should do what's good for the United States, even if that means changing its own rules.

 

Wow!! Look at the anger you spark, mon frere! And who is this guy Theda saying he thinks liberal Christians have less problems than "comfortable conservatives" than "entrenched liberals?" Interesting because the "liberal Christians" I know are not entrenched in anything except possibly thinking they are smarter than everyone.

You insult the death penalty and say that those who impose it might as well be killing babies. That really makes sense. I mean, let's not have severe punishment for criminals; in fact, let's just give them positive reinforcement and "turn the other cheek." I am sure that anarchy would not result and I am also sure that all of the criminals, once exposed to those lovey-dovey Christians, won't harm anybody any longer. Please, show me a society where this type of thinking has deterred crime. If you are honestly admitting that you would NEVER kill anyone, then I don't know if you have the heart of the Lord. If you are in third-world country, where you claim to have visited Mr. Theda, and there is soldier there holding a gun to a child's head, what do you do? Better yet, what do you do if you are armed? Now, I'm sure your automatic response is, "I wouldn't kill the soldier because he is not saved and I am, therefore, I should give up my life instead." Well, what if that child you could save in this world isn't saved in the spiritual world? Now, you probably will go off on some tirade about that not being a plausible situation. Well, goody. But there are people that murder others and, once they are let out of prison, they do it again. What deterrent do you have? What improvements do you suggest? If it is not our place to judge, then why do you judge if someone who has committed such horrendous crimes should live or die.

Also, if God is a just god, then why would you worry about killing someone if they killed another person? God knows your motives so why are you so unwilling to act? Now, its not like anyone in the Old Testament killed people at God's command. And it's not like faith is, quoting Paul, fulfilling the old law more perfectly. So, please, cut, splice, and manipulate which parts of the Old Testament we should and should not practice all you want. But, let's not call God a just God anymore. In fact, I'll pull off some liberalistic manipulation, questioning, and translation just so you can see where I am coming from. Let's call God... uh, let's see... Ambiguous God!! Yes, that's it!! The word "Big" being in reference to his size because he sure is BIG with a capital B! Oh, and the word prefacing big is "Am" because God is the "Great I am." So, that is from where Ambiguous God stems. Now, you all may ask where the "uous" in the term originated. It was originally from the French word "vous" meaning "you" in plural form. But, I tell you, the original Hebrew was destroyed during the later translations to English and finally modern day texts so they word was manipulated into "uous." Therfore, Ambiguous God, the mighty defender of liberalistic texts, can be broken down into the "Great I am" is really stinkin' "Big" for all of "you." Well, dang, I guess I can put myself in a liberal's shoes and boy are they cushy; so cushy I'm sinking!!

But, let's not forget the propensity of liberal Christians to manipulate scripture. They sure do like to uphold and uplift adulterous people, gluttons, homosexuals, and other people who continue to sin WILLINGLY after being saved into positions of higher power in the church. But, whatever; another day, another time, I have to go here.

I would just like to say that I enjoy Monsieur Theda very much. He is an extremely good student that has a heart for missions although I truly am sad if he thinks only liberal Christians are the ones that can be entrenched in the field. Good day and take what I said with a nice glass of Dr. Pepper (my favorite).