A
Annie
Guest
This is very strange. Laura Ingraham has both converted to Catholicism and adopted a child from Guatemala. Hopefully.she is just not making herself clear.
- Status
D
dvdjs
Guest
Americans would like Americans to stay American.
That includes immigration at current or higher levels of the world’s tired, poor, and huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
Last edited:
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
You don’t know what the libertarian party supports but you are sure you are against what they support. I see you have this free market thing well thought out.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It is not her personal life that is being questioned, but her public statement of policy. As to how she reconciles any differences between those two things, that is up to her and is none of our business.
A
abucs
Guest
There are obviously limits to that. To not recognize those limits is the seeds of self destruction.
A
abucs
Guest
There is only a contradiction if you buy into the politically correct notion of racism. You can care for people of different races and in fact dedicate your whole life to bringing up a child and understand and articulate the dangers of an out of control immigration program. To politically correct this is heresy known as racism. To everyone else its just normal and they get on with being good people and wonder just how stupid the politically correct and going to go.
F
Feanor2
Guest
By self destruction do you mean- not enough white people?
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Her comments have been cheery picked and taken out of context.Big surprise!
A
abucs
Guest
No, some people confuse their religion for the politically correct religion of the state. This simply weakens Christianity which is why it is declining in politically correct lands.
1935 The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it:
This sounds like a sop to political correctness. How can the church only have male priests when it is following such cum-bay-ya rubbish. How can anyone support having Male and Female toilets on this generalized ill thought out teaching. How can one argue for a cut off for age voting rights, or even citizenship voting rights, for having a driving license dependent on age etc. All of these are cultural and social conditions that discriminate in fundamental rights in the grounds specified.
This is a Pandora’s box for the politically correct activists to whisk their new religion through in the same way they attached abortion to ‘womens health rights’ which was an already existing and recognized category at the United nations. The same way the church is losing the ‘gays rights’ issue across the world because it is slotted into the new religion of discrimination. The same way Obama was mandating schools allow kids to use the toilet of their choice and certain sporting groups allow men to compete as women if they just feel they are women.
The Trojan horse cited above is very ill thought out and as I say sounds like a sop to a religion that is eating presently eating Catholicism alive.
To return to race. I am currently in Brunei. Such rubbish does not fly here. They have very strict immigration controls, as do just about everyone else apart from the politically correct West. The people are beautiful people. They live happy and meaningful lives within their own protected culture. The malls shut down for 2 hours on Friday so that everyone could attend Friday prayers. People are gentle and very respectful and helpful to strangers.
That is the world to aim for. This is a normal sane world.
This is the world that the politically correct madness takes away which substituting in a false set of morals.
Political correctness is a great evil in my book and cannot stand in the long run. Cultural madness can never stand for too long without collapsing. If the church wants to recover in the West it would do very well to recognize that madness and distance itself from it.
Last edited:
A
abucs
Guest
Well this is the politically correct mindset to try and force the conversation into a protected politically correct category.
Self destruction obviously refers to the cultural identity and being of a people. Race can be part of that.
Because culture is somewhat analogous to race in most of the world then this could be part of that. If you put 10 million Nigerians and 15 million Chinese into the Philippines then yes on the surface the races would change. Of course there would be much more destruction in the areas of culture regarding a set of values and ways of being that has become integral to the Philipino. The Philipino cultural expression instead of being relaxed and comfortable and strong would be under pressure and there would be a breaking point where Philipino culture breaks down and most people turn away from what it has meant to be Philipino.
As an avid traveler who loves the local cultures of many people this is a crime masquerading as a set of ethics. It is thoroughly evil.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It is not my intention to defend the Catholic faith to you. Greater minds than mine have done that quite thoroughly. I stated that the Catholic faith considers racism a sin, supporting it with the Catechism and you have not even challenged that point. Your beef is with the Church, not with me.LeafByNiggle:
No, some people confuse their religion for the politically correct religion of the state. This simply weakens Christianity which is why it is declining in politically correct lands.
1935 The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it:
This sounds like a sop to political correctness. How can the church only have male priests when it is following such cum-bay-ya rubbish. …
Last edited:
A
abucs
Guest
and I have stated that the concept of ‘racism’ when ill defined and used as a weapon is dangerous.
It is both in the cases in which it is being used here.
Racism is Hitler throwing Jewish bodies in ovens. (extreme case)
Racism is favouring certain races for university entrance (such as the United states or to my neighbourng Malaysia) (milder cases).
Racism is definitely not refusing to be silent when a political elite and politically correct religion want to drastically change the make up of your home country.
To the politically correct this is racism, but then their religion is nuts and as stated the church should have the b@lls to stand up to that madness, not be co-opted by it.
My beef is with anyone who would try to force that madness on me and mine.
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
It is not obvious at all. The immigrant experience is a common element of the history of all Americans. And apart from Native Americans, it is a relatively recent - subsequent ot the founding of the country - part of family history for most Americans. And that salient feature of America has not been a seed of self-destruction.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Leaving aside the inflamed rhetoric of “political elite and politically correct religion” and “drastically”, if the issue is racial demography, that is indeed racist - far more so that the mild cases that you mention tand would have difficulty in advancing cogent argument that the policies are racist at all.
A
abucs
Guest
Well of course there are limits. In a couple of weeks I will be in Bangladesh which is pushing 200 million people. It used to be known as East Pakistan. What is now Pakistan also has a population of 200 million people. The United States could not take all 400 million of these people without destroying the United States as it is now with regards to culture, economic prosperity, cultural ethics, social services etc.
That is obvious.
and if you don’t think so then add 1 billion Chinese, and then 1 billion Indians, and then 1 billion Africans.
Of course there are limits.
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
It appears that you are really talking about limits on the rate of immigration. I would agree to that. But I don’t see obvious limits on the the total number of immigrants. Virtually every (non-NA) American has a post-revolutionary war immigrant in their ancestry. It is working out well.
A
abucs
Guest
So we agree there are limits. My point was that there are limits before a country starts to destruct.
When we have that in mind then one can start to assess if the rate of immigration is too much.
This is when the politically correct madness appears to start screaming ‘racism’.
It is an ill thought out set of ethics that tries to control people and suppress the sensible opposition that has legitimate concerns.
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
I listened to the whole monologue. I am not sure what you think she was driving at, that this quote misses a broader context. White nationalists including David Duke praised the monologue. So much so that she disavowed them on her show the following night. But she did not disavow her remarks; she merely said that she didn’t mean what the racists thought she meant.
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
I agree that there are obvious limits on immigration rates.
That is one of the reasons that I oppose the Trump position on rapid repatriation of TPS.
Sure. But honest assessment precludes the use of the the word drastic to describe immigration rates of 0.3%. It also precludes discussion of a sudden 25% change in the Phillipines, or the sudden influx of 100% to 300% more people in the US.
Last edited:
A
abucs
Guest
The National Socialism of Hitler started with the identity politics of victimology where Hitler appealed to the German worker that they were being exploited by the Jewish population. He theorized a more equal distribution of income by allowing the state to take wealth off the Jewish people in the name of social justice.
That is the real evil. People are capable of doing unspeakable things if they are led to believe they are the victim and somebody else needs to be punished in the name of social justice.
If you think Trumps America is Hitler’s National Socialism then I am afraid you have been brainwashed.
- Status