Conservatives fighting back

[Charles]

It essentially means they got caught fabricating evidence to support a contention but now we shouldn't worry about the evidence and concentrate instead on the allegation.

The evidence? Are you or anyone else denying that more than 2000 children were separeted from their parents? I have not seen anyone denying that the picture is fabricated. You use quite many cartoons and illustrations yourself to illustrate your points and I would not suppose you think your points are weakened by the fact that they are fabricated. If it wasn't that you are so afraid of the point this picture so obviously points to, you would see it right away....

[rogue06]

The evidence? Are you or anyone else denying that more than 2000 children were separeted from their parents? I have not seen anyone denying that the picture is fabricated. You use quite many cartoons and illustrations yourself to illustrate your points and I would not suppose you think your points are weakened by the fact that they are fabricated. If it wasn't that you are so afraid of the point this picture so obviously points to, you would see it right away....

Where did you get your numbers?

[carpedm9587]

It essentially means they got caught fabricating evidence to support a contention but now we shouldn't worry about the evidence and concentrate instead on the allegation.

OK - so now I'm a bit confused. A common defense of Trump's lies from the right is "he speaks figuratively, not literally."

Now the Times takes the image of a young girl that was circulating and associated with the child-separation issue (though it actually was not), clearly photoshops out the image to create a clearly fabricated cover to position Trump in front of a child to underscore the way these young people have been treated entering the country. I find no place where anyone makes any verbal claim about this young girl. It's just a picture of a child. Maybe I missed it?

And now the right is up in arms because the picture turns out to be old and the family not part of the current situation, or even part of the general problem?

I think the point of the picture was "young immigrant" and "Trump" and the current issue. So why did the "figurative not literal" theme suddenly disappear...?


(BTW, I also think the current left obsession with the jacket Melania wore to get on her flight to visit the centers ridiculous. Yeah, maybe it wasn't a great political move on her part, but she clearly knew better than to wear it when she got off the transport and into the actual centers. Sometimes, people pick on nits for no purpose except to try to make "their side" look better.)

[Charles]

Where did you get your numbers?

The fact that you even ask for it is rather interesting. It seems, once again, you want to focus on something else than the actual issues. Are you trying to deny facts?

More than 2,300 children were separated from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border between May 5 and June 9, DHS officials said Tuesday. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/19/few-...m-parents.html

At least 2,000 children have been separated from the adults they were traveling with across the U.S. border, the Department of Homeland Security said Friday. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/p...der/706265002/

[Mountain Man]

It essentially means they got caught fabricating evidence to support a contention but now we shouldn't worry about the evidence and concentrate instead on the allegation.

Yep... facts don't matter, only the seriousness of the allegation.

[Mountain Man]

...it is far easier to turn your blind eye to the reality...

I'll have to take your word for it, because I haven't turned a blind eye to anything.

[Charles]

I'll have to take your word for it, because I haven't turned a blind eye to anything.

The tremendeous psychological suffering of the children is something you have managed to turn you blind eye to quite a huge number of times. And it is very interesting to observe it, since it so obviously contradicts Christian values, the idea of being unto others..., family values, welcomming the stranger and all the others. But I suppose in your world there is some context in which all of that means nothing and of course to you the LAW (no mentioning that it could be changed) is more important.

[Charles]

Yep... facts don't matter, only the seriousness of the allegation.

I love to note the fact that you provide no facts to support the seriousness of your own allegation.

[carpedm9587]

The tremendeous psychological suffering of the children is something you have managed to turn you blind eye to quite a huge number of times. And it is very interesting to observe it, since it so obviously contradicts Christian values, the idea of being unto others..., family values, welcomming the stranger and all the others. But I suppose in your world there is some context in which all of that means nothing and of course to you the LAW (no mentioning that it could be changed) is more important.

I do have to say, at this point, this 70s-era notion that the Republican Party is the party of "family values" is pretty much dead. I think if it were to be seriously put forward again, it would be laughed out of the political arena. It goes up there with Fox's "fair and balanced" (which I understand they have finally retired?)

[demi-conservative]

Lib, just accept facts. Kids torn away from parents everyday, also everywhere, cos parents must go to jail. Not hard at all, no need to

Charles, if no honesty in you to admit this, get out of thread. Same for carped. Go do fake righteousness stance of yours in other thread.

[Mountain Man]

The tremendeous psychological suffering of the children is something you have managed to turn you blind eye to quite a huge number of times. And it is very interesting to observe it, since it so obviously contradicts Christian values, the idea of being unto others..., family values, welcomming the stranger and all the others. But I suppose in your world there is some context in which all of that means nothing and of course to you the LAW (no mentioning that it could be changed) is more important.

I haven't turned a blind eye to it; it's an unfortunate consequence of the parents breaking the law. Are we just supposed to ignore that? And the hardship inflicted on these children as their parents drug them across the desert? But you don't give a damn about any of that. All you care about is "getting" Trump. I can't imagine what it's like to see the world through such a narrow-minded perspective.

[Mountain Man]

I do have to say, at this point, this 70s-era notion that the Republican Party is the party of "family values" is pretty much dead. I think if it were to be seriously put forward again, it would be laughed out of the political arena. It goes up there with Fox's "fair and balanced" (which I understand they have finally retired?)

Does "family values" include endangering your own children with a perilous desert crossing, and getting yourself arrested by breaking the law so that you are no longer able to care for them? What are we supposed to do in response? Just let them waltz into our country without consequence? Is that what "family values" means to liberals? How long before you start clamoring for drug dealers and other criminals to be set free because of the "psychological harm" separation causes to their children?

[Charles]

I haven't turned a blind eye to it; it's an unfortunate consequence of the parents breaking the law. Are we just supposed to ignore that? And the hardship inflicted on these children as their parents drug them across the desert? But you don't give a damn about any of that. All you care about is "getting" Trump. I can't imagine what it's like to see the world through such a narrow-minded perspective.

I think the narrow mind is your own. You cannot imagine anyone could care about children put through tremendeous psychological pain. It must be about Trump, somehow. If these are the patterns you are really thinking in, it is very, very narrow. And it seems you now want to blame in general parents fleeing desperate situations, because there may be some who could and should have stayed home. Narrow minded as well.

As I have recently quoted Christianity is more concerned with justice than order. No Bible quote could justify the unjust actions taken by American authorities towards these children. Nothing can. Anyone who thinks the law trumps justice, decency, humanity and in this case also Christianity should learn to ask a few questions about what justifies the law.

[Charles]

Does "family values" include endangering your own children with a perilous desert crossing, and getting yourself arrested by breaking the law so that you are no longer able to care for them? What are we supposed to do in response?

Since the children are innocent and since family values among other things are supposed to support childrens' need for their parents, separating children from their parents is contrary to family values. You make it seem as if separation is somehow necessary. I have no idea how a father even manages to think along those lines. But it seems you cannot see past unjustifiable laws and policies. Somehow they are the most important.

[demi-conservative]

No honesty, Charles??? Out!