Impossible To Simultaneously Be A Democrat And A Christian. The Democratic Party Is Anti-Christian

Dee

@Grafix

Stop it you clot last week you hailed crook and conman Ron Wyatt  as your hero for the young Earth creationist cause a man even sane Christian called  a , crook and an uneducated oaf

Your latest appeal to authority has you fawning up to James Tour a good chemist but someone who knows f—k all about Evolution as he admits himself , also he nails his colours firmly to the mast of the increasingly nutty Design Institutes mast which is a haven for nuts and assorted loonies not surprisingly who are mostly American , the institute is a politically driven place that’s anti science and wants to push young Earth creationists nonsense in American places of learning .....

If Mr Tour was an evolutionary biologist and not a chemist, then commenting upon evolution would perhaps be an appropriate thing for him to do, but for him to comment upon something that is not actually his area of expertise makes this a rather obvious fallacious argument from authority.

Here is Mr Godidit in his own words ......

“I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you,” he says in the video. “Is it okay for me to say, ‘I don’t understand this’? Is that all right? I know that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don’t understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.”

Grafix

@Dee - LOL!  Could an argument get any more desperate?  You claim ...

James Tour,  he is indeed a respected chemist , on Evolutionary matters not so , he also nails his colours firmly to the mast of the notorious organization of assorted quacks and loonies that make up The Discovery Institute . 

LOL!  Dr. James Tour is the scientist who, wait for it ...  D I S P R O V E D .... the Theory of Evolution.  That's his primary claim to fame.  LOL!, but here you are claiming he is not qualified "on Evolutionary matters".  LOL!  Sigh.  Just watch the bleedin' video, Dee.  It will save you making a bigger fool of yourself than you already have.

He doesn't "pin his colours to any mast"  to any Institution and makes that also very clear at the beginning.  He is "independent" of all of them and not shy about calling any of them out.  He scoffs at most and derides even the top peer-reviewed Journals.  You really are not in the loop and just don't get it.  You never do, the reason I rarely bother responding to your posts.  You can keep shooting the man who proved them all wrong, the man they showered with credentials before he did so. Now the horse has bolted and they are powerless to stop it, the man they know is right and can't touch.

All you are doing is loudly and foolishly proclaiming, Hey, everyone, I know better than the entire scientific community.  I am the the oracle of science and the entire science world, (whose altar you have always worshipped at), are suddenly a bunch of fools, according to you.  So who now looks the fool?  

Maybe you should take a laxative and pop that self-appointed oracle out the other end.  Contra factum non argumentum est - Against a fact there is no argument.

 

Dee

@Grafix

**** LOL!  Dr. James Tour is the scientist who, wait for it ...  D I S P R O V E D .... the Theory of Evolution

A man who claims he knows nothing about Evolution....wait for it ....drum roll ......Disproved Evolution Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha 

Yet no peer reviewed papers or Nobel prize ? Wait ! That’s because it’s all part of a commie plot no doubt?

Grafix

LOL!  He doesn't claim he knows nothing about Evolution.  He claimed he could not understand the "science" of Evolution because it was not REAL, because it is not science, therefore it made no sense to him. He says it is garbage.  There are videos of him asking his colleagues, "Do you understand the Theory of Evolution"  and on video we see them just smile, or look away or change the subject.  As he said, they KNEW it was a bunch of croc.  You would twist a pear into pretzel if you were paid to, Dee.  You are hopelessly misled, hopelessly indoctrinated and hopelessly lost and out of your depth.

DNA itself disproves the Theory of Evolution.   LOL!  He disproved TOE by showing that the minutiae of molecules depends on the whole and the whole depends on the minutiae, so therefore gradual change is impossible, because the cell dies as soon as it alters its properties which are necessary for it to remain compatible with the very system it relies on which system ALSO relies on it.  He proved therefore that for cells to completely adopt a new identity and create a completely new species is impossible.  He also showed that EVERY cell in each individual has EXACTLY the same DNA. Each species DNA is unique and for Darwin's proposition to work, you would need to have cells changing their identity, changing their DNA.  That's also not possible in any living creature, because every cell in every living creature, within its own individual self, has the exact same DNA and it is unique.
.

Grafix

@Dee - Dr. Tour has won a Nobel Prize jointly with others.  All you have shown you are capable of is bashing the messengers and authors and incapable of debating the science.  Argue the science or shut it.  Not interested in your drivel.  Now bugger off.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Grafix said:

@Happy_Killbot - You wrote ...

Ok, so then Scientologists, Jehovah witness, Mormons, and Westboro Baptists are not protected by the first amendment because they are all cults... Oh wait they totally are, sorry your view is wrong one more time.

WOW!  I'm sure the Jehovah Witnesses, the Mormons and the Westboro Baptists would love to learn they are not a religious sect, but are cults and worship no God.  What a silly weebles you are.  Just look at their namesakes.  Jehovah means "Jesus".  Baptist pertains to John The Baptist, of Christian historical fame.  He baptized Christ.  The Mormons also worship the Christian God, but Hey, don't let these facts stand in the way of your false narrative.

As for scientology, I know too little about it to comment.  Nevertheless, if it fits into worshipping an established deity then it is a religion and its members would be protected by the First Amendment.  If it doesn't fit that description, then No, they would not be classed as a religion and very likely not be protected by The First Amendment, just as Satanic cults are not, because they don't worship any established deity.

So you think that what differentiates a cult from a religion is having a god or not? LOL!

Everyone knows that what makes a cult is how it treats it's members, not what they believe!

Go read this post about Rickey, that list is one of several used to determine if a group is a cult.
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/4676/be-aware-of-the-cults-that-frequent-these-forums

For the record, Scientologists do not have a god, they mostly avoid the question, and they do receive first amendment protection, as well as the overwhelming majority of all cults!
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/are-cults-legal-35055

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix BTW, Here is a video debunking Dr. James Tour on evolutionary matters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfSE8J_bj1Q

Dee

@Grafix

A man who claims he knows nothing about Evolution....wait for it ....drum roll ......Disproved Evolution Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha 

Yet no peer reviewed papers or Nobel prize ? Wait ! That’s because it’s all part of a commie plot no doubt?

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot + @Dee - 

@Dee - Yet she persists with this ....

A man who claims he knows nothing about Evolution....wait for it ....drum roll ......Disproved Evolution Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha 

@Dee - What part of this response below, don't you understand, (already made in reply to your repetitious nonsense above) .... 

Grafix said:

LOL!  He doesn't claim he knows nothing about Evolution.  He claimed he could not understand the "science" of Evolution because it was not REAL, because it is not science, therefore it made no sense to him.  He says it is garbage.  There are videos of him asking his colleagues, "Do you understand the Theory of Evolution?"  and on video we see them just smile, or look away or change the subject.  As he said, they KNEW it was a bunch of croc.

Then we get from @Dee ; ....[Including @Happy_Killbot ; in this response]

Yet no peer reviewed papers or Nobel prize ? Wait ! That’s because it’s all part of a commie plot no doubt?

Dee, it is just too dippy daft to try to debunk Dr. Tour's credentials.  There is no other scientist who comes close in their own speciality..  He's listed in the top 0.004% out of ...  S E V E N   M I L L I O N   S C I E N T I S T S .... who've published peer-reviewed papers.  So obviously he has published peer-reviewed papers, over 700 in fact. That rating is higher than the top one percentile. You can't go any higher.  LOL!  I do however, concede a serious error of knowledge.  You are right.  He has not received a Nobel Prize either singularly or jointly.  I confused him with someone else.  That just speaks to modernist trashing of the Award. They give it to liars now.

@Happy_Killbot ; -  You write ...

So you think that what differentiates a cult from a religion is having a god or not? LOL!
Everyone knows that what makes a cult is how it treats it's members, not what they believe!
Go read this post about Rickey, that list is one of several used to determine if a group is a cult.
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/4676/be-aware-of-the-cults-that-frequent-these-forums
For the record, Scientologists do not have a god, they mostly avoid the question, and they do receive first amendment protection, as well as the overwhelming majority of all cults!

Looked at Rickey's page.  It doesn't define what a cult is, actually.  A post lists cultish activities, mechanisms and behaviour, but those are not a definition because not all adopt the same mechanisms, behaviours or practices, so what is the overall definition for all?   The text below gives a definition for cults of Christianity, excluding all others, of which there are too many.  It's the most relevant to this discussion.

"A cult of Christianity is a group of people, which claiming to be Christian, embraces a particular doctrinal system taught by an individual leader, group of leaders, or organization, which (system) denies (either explicitly or implicitly) one or more of the central doctrines of the Christian faith as taught in the sixty-six books of the Bible."

So, @Happy_Killbot , it speaks to being a derivative from that which is "established", as I said, although I also thought a cult did not worship any God, because many don't usually.  In that I was wrong and you are right.  The Mormons thus do fit into the definition.  It's nice to be corrected when it adds to one's accuracy of knowledge.  The text points out the context for its definition, as already quoted above ....

 

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Good Job! You have finally recognized that you may not be the expert on something.

The thing with cults is, there is no set in stone definition, every cult is unique the same way every political ideology is unique, and some political ideologies could technically be considered cults themselves. It has everything to do with how the members are treated by the leader than anything else.

Scientologists famously exploit the F*** out of their members, making them essentially pay all of their money to the church, and even labor for it. The whole thing is obviously a scam disguised as a legitimate set of beliefs. The Scientologist literally believe that an alien lord dumped a bunch of his own population into volcanoes millions of years ago, and then collected them and brainwashed them to make them depressed so as to keep them all down, but they won't tell you this until you have paid thousands of dollars to the church.

The show south park did an episode that exposes it all, instead of their normal satire. (4 videos about 2 minute total)

part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4EfhH_w48w

part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQZNzw4HSOM

part 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo97LdIHj74

part 4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8AebuvFZW0

Now the critical question is, what other things do you not know?

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - LOL!  There are a pile of subjects I could not write two cohesive sentences on.  This area just happens to be a bit of a deep "specialty" for me, but that doesn't make me proficient in all others by any means.  You wrote ...

The thing with cults is, there is no set in stone definition, every cult is unique the same way every political ideology is unique, and some political ideologies could technically be considered cults themselves. It has everything to do with how the members are treated by the leader than anything else.

Sorta right, but not quite.  Yes every cult is unique as are certain political ideologies, but nevertheless we can still identify a politic and a cult.  So how do we identify a cult?  What's the common factor we look for to define it as a cult, that we may even begin to call it a cult? The appearance of common  characteristics.  Although the definition I provided only relates specifically to cults of Christianity, it nevertheless actually does provide the definition for a cult, i.e., a group which splinters away from, [derived from] an established central core  of that which it has splintered from and thereby alienates itself from that established common core.  You can't define cults by behaviour, oppression, treatment of members, etc. because not all cults do that the same way. Many have no ominous or oppressive culture, for example Mormons are a cult, as you pointed out, but don't fit into that.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix I'm going to have to disagree about the Mormons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_abuse_cases

Mormons are definitely not as bad as say, the Heaven's gate alien suicide cult, but never the less they score highly in terms of cultist behavior. You saw my post about the BITE model right? That is one that can be used to identify a cult, they don't have to check all the boxes, but the more they do the worse.

piloteer

@Grafix

Very nice argumentation?!?!? Is there any beginning to your knowledge? I'm sorry if I can make an argument which demonstrates that your book does not fortify your assertions with its text. I told you that if you needed help arguing your case, I'd be willing to help you because that drunken parrot could do a better job than you.

You've yet to establish that you are any kind of a proper authority on who is or isn't anti-Christian. Without that, you literally have no foundation for your argument. This coupled with the fact that you have freely admitted that you "merely said [you] can only suspect what God's attitude towards those who break His laws might be, at the same time making it clear  that we can judge no man, including the Democrats spiritually." If you cannot make any kind of a credible assessment of the spirituality of Democrats, whether as individuals or as a political apparatus, how can it be considered a legitimate claim that Democrats are "anti-Christians"? 

First you would need to demonstrate that God does consider Democratic stances to be sinful at all for you to claim they are anti-Christian. We both agree that the Bible says that God does not consider any specific sin to be more abhorrent than any other specific sin. When it comes to funding for planned parenthood, how could that be more abhorrent of a sin than funding for the weapons needed for the business of war which another American political party calls for? How can funding for planned parenthood be any more abhorrent in Gods eyes than masturbation if "a sin is a sin is a sin"? We are ALL guilty of ALL sins, and according to your book, God does not consider any specific sin to be more abhorrent than any other specific sin, so you have no moral or legal ground to stand on when it comes to "Gods law"!!!   

I'm sorry if you thought this would be a simple political debate regarding the political stances of the American Democratic party. To make a claim from the standpoint of a supposed Christian on the genuineness of the Christianity of other people, you first need to have verifiable evidence in the Bible to reinforce your assertions, and that simply does not exist. Anybody who believes Jesus Christ is their Lord and savior, whether Democrat or not, has a personal relationship with God and the stances of the Democratic party cannot change that. Still a FAILLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

Grafix

@piloteer - You could've brought the post you are referencing over to this page. A simple courtesy.  Had to trawl back and find it - a long way back.  In my "book" as you describe my previous post, I wrote 16 lines of text in reply to your "book" of 21 lines of text.  Who wrote a book?  Again?  You write ...

 I'm sorry if I can make an argument which demonstrates that your book does not fortify your assertions with its text. I told you that if you needed help arguing your case, I'd be willing to help you because that drunken parrot could do a better job than you.

Let me get this straight.  This statement of yours above makes you an authority?  Is that what you are trying to convey here?  .... because in your next quoted statement below, you claim that unless I am an authority on the subject I literally have no foundation  for my argument.  Right, got it. A nobody on the internet who claims to be an authority is  one, just because he says so? ... and therefore, for no other reason than that, he is right and I am wrong and that's the end of the debate.  I'm surprised you can fit your balls into your trousers. You haven't even debated the topic yet.  All of your posts have been off-topic.  LOL! Then you write ...

You've yet to establish that you are any kind of a proper authority on who is or isn't anti-Christian. Without that, you literally have no foundation for your argument. 

Unlike you I haven't claimed to be an authority  on anything  which your very next sentence demonstrated.   I simply refer to the authority of scholars, records, political history, Party history, candidate funding, policy, etc. as evidence and repeat those facts.  The authority of any argument is in evidence-based facts.  I then draw a conclusion - never claimed it as authoritative - merely appealing to common sense.  So shoot me.  I've stated in my OP the conclusion which I have drawn and how I arrived at it - drawn from the authority of the facts and not from any authority of my own. Funny how no-one wants to debate it, though.  Yet that is the core of the debate, which you and everyone else is dancing around. Below is the para from the OP demonstrating how I arrived at the conclusion that the Democratic Party is anti-Christian.

"Witness the political Agenda of opening our borders to nations which teach that we are infidels to be slaughtered for our Christian beliefs.  Look then carefully at who argues justifications for violating our Constitution and who it is who maligns, vilifies and ridicules Christians.  Look then at who brutally slaughters Christians, daily.  Look at who defends their cousins, even when illegally on our soil.  Tell me then that the Democratic Party doesn't indirectly support our slaughter, with its border policies, its sanctuary cities, its driver licence I.D.'s enabling voting by these same illegal immigrants from these same nations, trading our pro-Christian, pro-American votes for votes from cultures responsible for our slaughter abroad and that there is no anti-Christian Agenda here."

NEXT.  Your trousers are now positively bursting at the seams, telling me how to frame my own OP.  No thanks, mate.  I prefer my own view of it and not that of an Internet troll who cannot even stay on-topic. You wrote ....

I'm sorry if you thought this would be a simple political debate regarding the political stances of the American Democratic party. To make a claim from the standpoint of a supposed Christian on the genuineness of the Christianity of other people, you first need to have verifiable evidence in the Bible to reinforce your assertions, and that simply does not exist. Anybody who believes Jesus Christ is their Lord and savior, whether Democrat or not, has a personal relationship with God and the stances of the Democratic party cannot change that. Still a FAILLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

piloteer

@Grafix

If you can't demonstrate that the bible does not even come close to suggesting that American Democrats and the party at large are "anti-Christian", then your entire debate is fallacious. Whatever "scholars" or "historical" references you speak of that puts the proof of the "anti-Christian" agendas of the Democratic party on full display for all to see, you just have to trawl back through the pages to fetch them for us because I haven't seen any here. That train wreck of a paragraph that you referenced as your "proof" is just the incoherent mumblings of an apparent victim of a brain injury. Perhaps from being dropped on their head as a baby. Repeatedly!

I am certainly a more reliable source for verifiable evidence regarding bible scripture than you. You claimed that a specific faction of society is "anti-Christian". I used the most reliable source of Christian teaching to refute that. You cannot overcome my refutation. That means you are a   FAILURE!!!!! 

Grafix

@piloteer - It has nothing to do with what is specifically in the Biblical texts, because it is not a matter of a theological argument.  It is a political one in that a political Party is targeting a demographic of society.  There is no need to discuss that demographic's belief system at all, just merely observe the fact that the Democratic Party is sympathetic towards, supportive of and funding the quintessential and historical enemy of the demographic of Christians. 

It is not even a matter for scholars of the Biblical texts or any scholars.  It is a matter of observing political policy.  Why can't you see this?  That's why your claimed refutation is off-topic and refutes zero.

We don't need to quote anything from the Biblical text, or even understand that text, to make this empirical observation, because it is political.  I even state that in the OP, that it is not a religious but a political OP, the reason it is listed under the Politics section.

piloteer

@Grafix

I understand that you just made this discussion to spew your rhetoric to demonstrate that you are missing a chromosome. I have made it my duty to point out that you have no political, moral, or legal basis to claim, or any valid source as a reference to demonstrate that the Democratic party is somehow an enemy of Christianity.      

Grafix

 @piloteer - You may claim this .... 

I understand that you just made this discussion to spew your rhetoric to demonstrate that you are missing a chromosome. I have made it my duty to point out that you have no political, moral, or legal basis to claim, or any valid source as a reference to demonstrate that the Democratic party is somehow an enemy of Christianity.      

A hollow claim hardly makes it so, nor does unbridled narcissism.  Neither are a rebuttal, either.  Empirical evidence - evidence of Democratic Party policy, disagrees with you ....

"Witness the political Agenda of opening our borders to nations which teach that we are infidels to be slaughtered for our Christian beliefs.  Look then carefully at who argues justifications for violating our Constitution and who it is who maligns, vilifies and ridicules Christians.  Look then at who brutally slaughters Christians, daily.  Look at who defends their cousins, even when illegally on our soil.  Tell me then that the Democratic Party doesn't indirectly support our slaughter, with its border policies, its sanctuary cities, its driver licence I.D.'s enabling voting by these same illegal immigrants from these same nations, trading our pro-Christian, pro-American votes for votes from cultures responsible for our slaughter abroad and that there is no anti-Christian Agenda here."

Let's look at some other Policies from this dereliction, which claims to be a political Party, and to be representative of We The People - Policies which corroborate those already noted above. Scroll down ...



1.  Police in Democrat-controlled States are prohibited from asking an immigrant, either under arrest or being interviewed, whether he/she is a registered American citizen or a registered legal immigrant.

2.  New York City's Democrat-controlled Municipalities destroyed more than 900,000 records  of Applications for IDNYC cards, which were granted to illegal immigrants, records which assist Immigration & Customs Enforcement, (ICE), to identify illegal immigrants for deportation.  A Democrat Judge allowed the process and it is now being appealed by Republican Senators.

3.  San Francisco’s Municipal Identification program of immigrants, created in 2009, immediately destroys  all materials and records after I.D.s have been granted to applicants.  In both cases - New York and San Francisco - the officials do not report to ICE or to the Police these illegal immigrants, instead they issue I.D. cards to them, enabling them to vote and to obtain free healthcare, free education and welfare.  
 
4. Democrat-controlled Sanctuary City States have passed laws which restrict State Agencies, including law enforcement, from co-operating with ICE in its obligation to carry out Immigration enforcement Law, as we taxpayers pay ICE to do.  These lawless States' very own laws are now flouting longstanding  Immigration Law, but do Democrats care?  Nope and nor do their voters.  Completely clueless.

5.  Although The Illegal Immigration Reform & Immigrant Responsibility Act established Local Government is not mandated to provide records to ICE and law enforcement, it cannot block ICE’s access to its records, nor prevent individual employees from co-operating with Federal Immigration Authorities.  Two subsequent court decisions upheld this position, now providing legal grounds for federal money to be withheld from recalcitrant Sanctuary Cities.  So what did these Democrat-controlled Cities do?  Destroy all records instead, upstart Totalitarian autocrats, reducing our law and order to that of Third World Banana Republic turd-holes.

6. In 2014 California's Democrat Gov., Jerry Brown, signed a Bill amending the State Statute for maximum sentencing of misdemeanor crimes, reducing it by one day from 365 to 364 days in jail. This was deliberately done to circumvent current Federal Law which provides for the deportation of illegal or legal immigrants in this country, who have received sentences of 365 days or more - the Left West Coast which everyone has left.

7. In 2017 statistics released by The U.S. DOJ and Homeland Security, revealed that U.S. taxpayers were paying nearly $19 million a day to house an estimated 300,000 to 450,000 convicted criminal immigrants, residing in local jails, State and Federal prisons across the country, who would ultimately become eligible for deportation. These statistics involved both legal and illegal immigrants.

So the next time you hear a pro-Open Borders Democrat or a Liberal pro illegal immigrant surrogate and advocate virtue signal that the "benefits" of illegal immigration outweigh the negatives, ask yourself why we American citizens are compelled to bear the increasing costs of violence, victimization and burdensome taxes in subsidizing illegal immigrant criminals?  Democratic Party Policy is why.
.

piloteer

@Grafix

Uh huh. Got it. Now all you need to do is verify your claim that people who campaign for, or vote for Democrats are somehow "anti-Christian". In this case, you might want to try and narrow your focus to passages that attest to Gods seething disapproval to all things global, and his acceptance for a strict Christian doctrine of nationalism. I can save you a little time by telling you before hand that you will not find those things. Therefore it would be very easy for me to argue that you are incorrect that Democrats are "anti-Christian" because of their stances on illegal immigration. The first step I would take in refuting your claim is to point out the blatantly fu€king obvious fact that you have not cited a single thing from any accredited literature that can be considered Christian teachings. Simply showing us how various Democratic leaning states do not enforce federal immigration laws does not show anything that even approaches the suggestion that Democrats are "anti-Christian".      

There are several passages in the bible that do suggest that God may hold your view in contempt. It may not be sinful to argue for tighter border control, but it could be viewed as rejecting the doctrine of "loving thy neighbor". As far as I'm concerned though, that's something you'll need to work out between you and your God. It can also be argued that God considers the kingdom of heaven to be the only true kingdom, and all other man made systems of government fall short of God's grace. If that is true, not only would it mean that Democrats cannot be considered "anti-Christian" because of their open border stance, it could be argued that God would approve of that stance. I won't go as far as to make that claim, but it is a possibility. It is also said that God has given us our own free will to decide how to govern ourselves. If that is true, it could be argued that God will not interfere with human political structures. That is another claim that I do not fully endorse either, but an argument is there to be made.     

How is it "anti-Christian" to have an "open border" stance on immigration?   

Grafix

@piloteer -  I don't need to do anything your heavily duped Liberal mentality thinks I need to, at all.  I only need to do that which I have already done and which you very obviously have no defense nor refutation against.

All that needs to now happen is for the public to understand what these Policies of the Democratic Demon Party mean.  They mean exactly what my topic heading says they mean, that the Democratic Party is anti-Christian and therefore those who vote for it are voting for anti-Christian politics.  End of story. 

This is what the Founding Fathers had to say about immigration ...



I've already answered your last sentence in my OP, now quoted to you twice.  Save your Bible bashing and every other bashing, mate, and take a walk.  You are still off-topic.

Grafix

Although the Founders encouraged immigration, they were very clear about how immigration policy should first and foremost serve the national interest, rather than serve the interests of a certain political Party, which is what we are seeing today.  Immigration serves the Democratic Demon Party and no-one else, certainly not We the People, due to the very selective nations to which its Policies opened our borders. The specifics of exactly that were equally problematic for the Founding Fathers back then as they are today, for all the same reasons. In fact, many of the arguments made by Congressmen in 1790 sound eerily familiar to those being argued today:  Below are extracts from some of the debate from the Congressional Record back in 1790 ...

  

Note the text of the Bill being debated refers only to “free” and “white” immigrants. I wish I could tell you that the various House Representatives clamored against this Clause in the Bill, but not a single one did.  What this debate does tell us, however, is that these concerns about crime, reciprocity, loyalty, assimilation, politics, civil unrest, all predate current immigration trends. If we look at a map of America in 1790 Mexico did not exist.  The Portuguese had not sailed there, let alone settled there.  So that tells us it was not even about race, but rather was about the Founders' values on immigration being the same as that of Conservative America today.  It tells us that the Policies of the current day Democratic Party, do not align with American values and most certainly, given the choice of nations to which it has thrown open our borders, are decidedly anti-Christian.

piloteer

@Grafix

You certainly may claim what you would like, but the evidence is clear. The bible does not fortify your assertion in any way. Your supposed quote from Jefferson Airplane does not constitute as a valid citation for what could be considered Christian doctrine. If you cannot demonstrate that being a Democrat is a sin, or that it breaks their personal connection with God, then your little plane won't get off the ground. If you have evidence from the bible that can help you make your case, feel free to showcase it for all of us to see. I will exercise my right to bash on whatever I feel fit though!!!  

MayCaesar

@Grafix

The Founding Fathers did not believe immigration policies should have existed at all, and they did not. Up until early 20th century there were absolutely no legal restrictions as to who can enter the US, who can stay in it, etc. Now, there were some practical restrictions, such as Texas rangers shooting down Mexican arrivals - but that was all outside the law, and the Fathers never endorsed it.

What the Founding Fathers did object to is automatic naturalization of arrivals, which is a different thing entirely. "Naturalization" refers to the process of obtaining citizenship; since they wanted people to come here for opportunity, rather than free stuff, and also since they did not want people who have not invested enough in the US to be able to affect public office appointments here, they wanted the process to take time and to have some hard requirements.

Democrats have a lot of horrible positions, but their overall immigration stance is not one of them, although the support for governmental assistance programs towards immigrants specifically is worrying. As an immigrant myself, the last thing I would like is to receive special assistance from the government at the taxpayers' expense just because I am an immigrant. What I want instead is for the government to leave me alone and let me pursue my dreams; for now it places heavy restrictions on sources of income I can have, for example, and replacing the sources of income I would have if I were only allowed more room for action with governmental support is not my idea of pursuing my dreams.

Grafix

@piloteer ; -  You wrote ...

You certainly may claim what you would like, but the evidence is clear. The bible does not fortify your assertion in any way. Your supposed quote from Jefferson Airplane does not constitute as a valid citation for what could be considered Christian doctrine. If you cannot demonstrate that being a Democrat is a sin, or that it breaks their personal connection with God, then your little plane won't get off the ground. If you have evidence from the bible that can help you make your case, feel free to showcase it for all of us to see. I will exercise my right to bash on whatever I feel fit though!!!  

Still harping on your off-topic line which the topic title and text do not even address?  Why do you cling so hard to irrelevance?  Where do I state, let alone even make the assumption ... (quoting you) ..

"... that being a Democrat is a sin, or that it breaks their personal connection with God..."

I don't, so dry up and learn to stay on topic.  You are desperately attempting to make an argument where none is stated, because you don't have one, because you cannot rebut the topic.  So weak.

Grafix

@MayCaesar - You wrote ....

The Founding Fathers did not believe immigration policies should have existed at all, and they did not. Up until early 20th century there were absolutely no legal restrictions as to who can enter the US, who can stay in it, etc. Now, there were some practical restrictions, such as Texas rangers shooting down Mexican arrivals - but that was all outside the law, and the Fathers never endorsed it.

LOL!  After showing you extracts from the Congressional record of a hot debate on immigration, you now claim the Founders did not believe there should be any immigration Policy at all??  If that were the case, then there'd  have been zero to debate or argue about.  Aware the birth-rate of the existing population could never develop a bustling economy quickly enough, they hotly pursued a policy of immigration to source the necessary tradesmen, craftsmen and and professionals from, in order to support growth and an acceptable standard of living.  They needed plumbers, carpenters, stonemasons, timber jacks, ship masters, harbor masters, steel mongers, ironmongers, farriers, washerwomen, cooks, kitchen hands, sailors, cattlemen, horse-breakers, coach builders, potters, sail makers, boilermakers, furnace workers, char men, farmers, agricultural workers, laborers, teachers, civil engineers, draughtsmen, surveyors, signalmen, railway fetlers, glass makers, weavers, spinners, doctors, nurses, surgeons, chemists, retailers, sewage engineers, shipwrights, etc.

You then wrote ...

Democrats have a lot of horrible positions, but their overall immigration stance is not one of them

I appreciate that you are an immigrant and it's really great to know you profess a desire to be independent.  That's exactly the kind of excellent attitude that is sought after in those who seek to make their fortune in our nation, rather than using and abusing our immigration policies to escape their own hell-holes back home and think they can then come here and sit on their fat lards while we pay to feed them, clothe them, educate their kids, give them free health care and even pay for their crimes 1, 000 times over in terms of board, keep and court processes while they sit in a jail cell.  It is just not on, yet this is the Democratic Party's dippy daft immigration policy.  It is too open and attracts bad types, particularly illegals, who have no intention of working, but only to fill up Sanctuary Cities away from the reach of ICE able to live here illegally as bludgers.  Then they breed a whole swag of snotty-nosed brats who all grow up with the same attitude only to become criminals and full of resentment, because their parents gave them no guidance on how to be anything else. 

More frequently than not, it is not the first generation of immigrants which proves to be a problem.  Statistics show that it is the second generation, the illegals' kids who turn to crime, drugs and anti-American sentiment.  The Founding Fathers understood the reasons for that only too well, frequently iterating over and over that liberty comes with great responsibilities.  It does.  If you give liberty and freedom to the wrong people, they will always abuse it and that is what has made America the near-like shitte-hole that it is quickly becoming.  If we don't start carefully vetting the calibre of immigrant we allow in, our great nation will be turned into a Third World Banana Republic, no different from what the illegals ran from and they all to blame.  Our Founding Fathers said EXACTLY THAT in different words.  It's not racism, its conduct-ism - problematic behavioural patterns.
.

MayCaesar

@Grafix

Those extracts refer to the naturalization procedure and welfare eligibility, not to the ability to cross the border and stay legally in the US. There is indeed zero to debate here about; alas people sometimes choose to misinterpret the facts, and so the debate ensues.

I do not really see myself as an immigrant in terms of how I generally feel, and I wish the term was obsolete. There should not be "immigrants"; people should just roam around and pursue their dreams worldwide. Right now I am in the US; 5 years from now I could be, say, on Taiwan. Moving from one country to another is not a big deal, and should not be seen as one, in my opinion.

Well, different immigrants are different. I know a millionaire family of immigrants in Australia, and they teach their daughter to be very independent; despite the multimillion household income, she had to work at Starbucks to be able to buy her first car. I do not know the exact situation in the US in this regard; I would guess, based on the anecdotal evidence I have, that approximately half the immigrants teach their kids to be self-sufficient, and another half spoil them. But I could be wrong.

For that matter, there are many non-immigrant American families that do not value self-sufficiency. This is not really an immigration problem; this is a humanity problem. You could restrict immigration and get fewer welfare leeches from overseas, but are you also going to deport the domestic welfare leeches? Some consistency here would be welcome, and I do not see this consistency in most participants of this debate nowadays.

kenpage

@Happy_Killbot Very well said. Notice his response to me is a hysterical rant. His world view is driven by his gut and some sort of existential anger that the civilized world has moved forward without him. In his world, even direct statements of obvious truths amount to arrogance, hubris. He can't see the astounding arrogance of his own position. Anyone who claims to know the truth, as so many Christians do, is exhibiting the height of arrogance. As you say, his mind can't be penetrated. The debunking above by Dee will make no difference to him.  In making rational factual arguments, he is helpless. His only choice is ad hominem attack and fallacious sources. That's what religion can do to you. And thus, again, his question is insincere. He isn't interested in any debate. His question is only an excuse to preach to us. 

His arrogance even causes him to take my comment as wholly a response to his question, the specifics of which I don't even address. He doesn't understand the comment is mostly an appeal to the rational world, the majority, and to DebatIsland to categorize this question properly, as nonsensical and to move on to a worthy discussion. 

Happy_Killbot

@kenpage No kidding. I knew this character was trouble from the first sentence he wrote. It is apparent that he has bought into all the conspiracy hype and clearly has some sort of inferiority complex that prevents him from looking at things rationally. If he made even just the slightest effort to open himself up to any kind of reasonable discourse, it would most likely blow up in his face, because his world view is based on something that is worse than wrong, it is based on malicious fallacy.

If he changes the wording of his entire argument you could make an argument here, but doing so would expose the extreme bias in his own stance.

The argument would be that the DNC doesn't pander to Evangelicals, and thus their political stances will not be in line with the desires of Evangelical Christians, while the GOP does and this makes them a better choice in many aspects for Evangelicals.

Even making this argument he would have to base this on the supposition that religious activities should have some representation in governance, which could be argued against by pointing out that the first amendment was created specifically to separate church and state, and thus any such intertwining of government and religion would be unconstitutional if it benefits or endorses that religious activity in any way.

Grafix

@MayCaesar
May, with all due respect, that is just a straight up and down denial of what is in the texts.  Take a good look.  They were speaking of the "class of people" which is desirable for an "emigrant", discussing what flows into America from "British jails" also mention of British convicts and the "alien" coming from Great Britain.  Does that sound like they were not concerned with who  emigrated?  Of course they were and is what the debate was about.  Sure it crosses to naturalization a little, but the Bill being debated was the "Immigration Bill" and not a "Naturalization Bill".  You then say ...

I do not really see myself as an immigrant in terms of how I generally feel, and I wish the term was obsolete. 

Not that I am unsympathetic to that sentiment nor that I can muster no empathy for your sentiments, I can.  However, you need not worry if you always keep in mind a profound fact.  People see us as we see ourselves.  If you don't see yourself as an immigrant nor feel alienated because of your ethnicity, then people won't see you as an immigrant nor as a foreigner to be alienated.  It is the perfect approach and your earlier voiced reference to who you are and this above are exactly what makes excellent immigrants who literally become "American" in terms of love for the nation and able to give thanks for the opportunity to live here.  Well done.  You are most certainly not the problem.  Nevertheless, we need nouns to identify everything, so if we removed the word "immigrant", we would have to replace it with another.  You also wrote ...

... there are many non-immigrant American families that do not value self-sufficiency. This is not really an immigration problem; this is a humanity problem. 

I agree with that too, which is most unfortunate for our society, but that in no way justifies further adding to and compounding the problem via poor vetting of the immigrants we should allow in.  It is not an argument, but a bleat.  Two wrongs never made a right.  The other issue which has been identified with unvetted border crossings is the issue of trafficking, whether it be illicit drug traffickers entering, or unaccompanied children who are being sex-trafficked or illegal arms traffickers. Trump explicitly made the point throughout his campaign that the primary reason for an efficient border barrier and security was to stop the trafficking by preventing the traffickers from coming in, not to stop immigration itself.  I can't see how anyone can argue with that, but the Democrat Party does.  Totally clueless OR paid to be  clueless.  It is clearly the latter.  Only a decade ago, both parties had for over 200 years always concurred on border policy.  What changed?  The Democrat Party's donor class, now the most wealthy, most powerful and most influential power-brokers in the world - the Central Banking cartels &c.

.

Grafix

@kenpage -  You wrote to @Happy_Killbot

kenpage 12:05AM 
@Happy_Killbot ;Very well said. Notice his response to me is a hysterical rant. His world view is driven by his gut and some sort of existential anger that the civilized world has moved forward without him. In his world, even direct statements of obvious truths amount to arrogance, hubris. He can't see the astounding arrogance of his own position. Anyone who claims to know the truth, as so many Christians do, is exhibiting the height of arrogance. As you say, his mind can't be penetrated. The debunking above by Dee will make no difference to him.  In making rational factual arguments, he is helpless. His only choice is ad hominem attack and fallacious sources. That's what religion can do to you. And thus, again, his question is insincere. He isn't interested in any debate. His question is only an excuse to preach to us. 

I'm right here in the room. If you have a problem with my style of debate, then address it directly to me so that I may defend myself, instead of promulgating to others abject fabrications, making fake accusations, claiming ad hominem by me, which you cannot substantiate at all.   How cowardly can one get?  And you whine about ad hominem being slung at you, in two paragraphs brimming over with your very own as hominem. LOL!

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot ; -  You replied back to the aggrieved Mr. Page with ...

@kenpage No kidding. I knew this character was trouble from the first sentence he wrote. It is apparent that he has bought into all the conspiracy hype and clearly has some sort of inferiority complex that prevents him from looking at things rationally. If he made even just the slightest effort to open himself up to any kind of reasonable discourse, it would most likely blow up in his face, because his world view is based on something that is worse than wrong, it is based on malicious fallacy.

If you see anyone who holds an opinion different from your own as "trouble" then I guess you will never be free of trouble.  Your problem , not mine.  If my arguments buy into "conspiracy hype" then they should be easy to dismantle and throw over, yet I see you are unwilling to even address your arguments directly to me, but instead only to whine about them to others.  Come on then, prove my arguments are merely "conspiracy hype" to my face and even if you cannot prove that, at least no one may call you a coward for being prepared only to whine to others about me.  Then you follow on with ...

The argument would be that the DNC doesn't pander to Evangelicals, and thus their political stances will not be in line with the desires of Evangelical Christians, while the GOP does and this makes them a better choice in many aspects for Evangelicals.
Even making this argument he would have to base this on the supposition that religious activities should have some representation in governance, which could be argued against by pointing out that the first amendment was created specifically to separate church and state, and thus any such intertwining of government and religion would be unconstitutional if it benefits or endorses that religious activity in any way.

OK, address that argument to me directly.  Why don't you?  Why haven't you?  As I'm here in the room, I now throw it back at you, now defend your claim.  What do Evangelicals have to do with nations which school their children in their Madrasas in Jihad?  Jihad is education and training in the "rewards" for identifying and killing infidels, i.e., any "non-believers" in the Islamic faith.  That's us.  You and me.  I fail to see what the DNC considers is welcoming, desirable and worthy in that attitude for selecting immigrant types or why this culture is encouraged or welcomed, let alone their illegals, nor why we need even contemplate illegals as worthy of immigration at all. 

Clearly illegals have already demonstrated they're dishonest. not to be trusted, that they're willing to break the law and disrespect it.  That's who is "trouble"  Why import "trouble"?  It's a very dumb and foolhardy immigration policy that the Democrat Party pushes.  What have Evangelicals got to do with those who break our law?  You are making an argument where there is none.  Evangelicals have nothing to do with this.  So No, I absolutely do not need to make any argument at all about religion needing to be involved in government.  It seems to me the DNC is deliberately targeting a specific religion, though, to destroy our culture by courting our enemies.
.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Oh, hey buddy!

So when are we doing that debate on if religious and supernatural experiences are delusions?

I'm not going to be available until the weekend, we will have to decide on a time then.

Oh and by the way, I did address this argument to you directly on the previous page, and it is in bold and title letters, sandwiched between graphs, you really can't miss it unless you make a deliberate attempt to do so.

That being said, reading your subsequent rant I honestly am not sure you even know what your own argument is anymore.

MayCaesar

Grafix said:

@MayCaesar
May, with all due respect, that is just a straight up and down denial of what is in the texts.  Take a good look.  They were speaking of the "class of people" which is desirable for an "emigrant", discussing what flows into America from "British jails" also mention of British convicts and the "alien" coming from Great Britain.  Does that sound like they were not concerned with who  emigrated?  Of course they were and is what the debate was about.  Sure it crosses to naturalization a little, but the Bill being debated was the "Immigration Bill" and not a "Naturalization Bill".  You then say ...

I do not really see myself as an immigrant in terms of how I generally feel, and I wish the term was obsolete. 

Not that I am unsympathetic to that sentiment nor that I can muster no empathy for your sentiments, I can.  However, you need not worry if you always keep in mind a profound fact.  People see us as we see ourselves.  If you don't see yourself as an immigrant nor feel alienated because of your ethnicity, then people won't see you as an immigrant nor as a foreigner to be alienated.  It is the perfect approach and your earlier voiced reference to who you are and this above are exactly what makes excellent immigrants who literally become "American" in terms of love for the nation and able to give thanks for the opportunity to live here.  Well done.  You are most certainly not the problem.  Nevertheless, we need nouns to identify everything, so if we removed the word "immigrant", we would have to replace it with another.  You also wrote ...

... there are many non-immigrant American families that do not value self-sufficiency. This is not really an immigration problem; this is a humanity problem. 

I agree with that too, which is most unfortunate for our society, but that in no way justifies further adding to and compounding the problem via poor vetting of the immigrants we should allow in.  It is not an argument, but a bleat.  Two wrongs never made a right.  The other issue which has been identified with unvetted border crossings is the issue of trafficking, whether it be illicit drug traffickers entering, or unaccompanied children who are being sex-trafficked or illegal arms traffickers. Trump explicitly made the point throughout his campaign that the primary reason for an efficient border barrier and security was to stop the trafficking by preventing the traffickers from coming in, not to stop immigration itself.  I can't see how anyone can argue with that, but the Democrat Party does.  Totally clueless OR paid to be  clueless.  It is clearly the latter.  Only a decade ago, both parties had for over 200 years always concurred on border policy.  What changed?  The Democrat Party's donor class, now the most wealthy, most powerful and most influential power-brokers in the world - the Central Banking cartels &c.

What matters is not what they were calling the bill or the people, but what the content is - and the content has nothing to do with limiting who can cross the border and stay on the US territory.

I do not worry and feel great. However, a lot of immigrants do not know how to do that, and a lot of non-immigrants constantly talk about issues that immigrants bring. That has a lot of negative effects, mainly separation of people from each other. For me there is no difference between talking to an American and, say, to a Japanese: they are both homo-sapiens. Yet, most people will treat a Japanese person very differently from their own countrymen. I see it as extremely limiting.

Well, first, it does not compound the problem: the absolute size of the population grows, but the relative fraction of the welfare consumers does not (it actually drops slightly, considering how hard it is for immigrants to get any assistance from the government), and since the immigrants just as well pay taxes and do everything else, the problem does not really grow.
If you really want to address the problem, then abolish the welfare programs. Trying to mitigate the harm from bad programs by introducing another bad program (harsh border control) is not going to work well.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You wrote ...

Oh, hey buddy!
So when are we doing that debate on if religious and supernatural experiences are delusions?  I'm not going to be available until the weekend, we will have to decide on a time then.

Oh and by the way, I did address this argument to you directly on the previous page, and it is in bold and title letters, sandwiched between graphs, you really can't miss it unless you make a deliberate attempt to do so. That being said, reading your subsequent rant I honestly am not sure you even know what your own argument is anymore.

Well, my reply to you under the topic where I issued that challenge to you, remains unreplied to by you.  I have been waiting for your reply. I think it's better to go back there to finish the arrangements for that debate, otherwise we will be all over the shop not knowing where to find the terms we finally agree to.  If you answer my post under that topic we can progress that to a formal debate, or whatever we agree on.

.You made the argument that the DNC doesn't pander to Evangelicals, therefore its the better choice other than when you mentioned it to @kenpage?  You did?  Where?  I just checked.  Nothing on that between your graphs.  If that is all the DNC did, then Christians would have no disillusions with it, but they do and are leaving it in droves via #Walkaway, because it is actively pursuing Policies which are an affront to Christian moral codes.  
.

Grafix

@MayCaesar - You wrote ...

What matters is not what they were calling the bill or the people, but what the content is - and the content has nothing to do with limiting who can cross the border and stay on the US territory.

The content is highly indicative.  Is about the type of character eligible for entry into the U.S.  To deny that is just bunkum.  It's in the text of the Founders' speeches, already on the page and further, the fact that they were discussing an Immigration Bill is  highly relevant, because their remarks were made in that specific context.  It also disproves your claim that they did not want any Bill on Immigration.  They did, otherwise they would not have put such a Bill on the table.  Then you wrote ....

Well, first, it does not compound the problem: the absolute size of the population grows, but the relative fraction of the welfare consumers does not (it actually drops slightly, considering how hard it is for immigrants to get any assistance from the government), and since the immigrants just as well pay taxes and do everything else, the problem does not really grow.

By your indiscriminate use of "it", I presume you are talking about the problem of illegal immigration..  Inadequate border security without an impenetrable barrier allows the entry of illegal immigrants and the subsequent entry of undesirable criminals fleeing from the law in their own nation, including established traffickers who enter with the intent of trafficking.  Put that together with poor vetting of those who claim to be refugees, but who are nothing more than "economic migrants", seeking a better economy for work and taking jobs from Americans, because the illegals are paid at a lower rate, via cash under the table.  All of these issues DO  compound the problem of undesirable immigrants, and result in an escalation in crime, destroying our once peaceful neighbourhoods.  As an immigrant, you probably are unaware that millions of Americans are not too young to remember when it was safe to walk on our streets, safe to leave our houses unlocked and even safe to leave our vehicles unlocked.  The wrong type of Immigration has changed that.

That's tosh about the cost being confined merely to welfare.  The cost is not confined to the increase in welfare.  The cost is spread across $25 billion a year going out of our economy in Remittances alone.  Add to that the cost of court processes + the cost of incarcerations, already stated at $90 million per day for both illegal and legal immigrants awaiting deportation. Add to that the cost of detention centres. Add to that the cost of extra law enforcement on the streets.  Add to that the cost of the damage they do in the destruction of property.  Add the fall-out from drug trafficking and addiction and child-sex trafficking + the medical costs of treating those affected. Add the extra cost in welfare for Americans, whose jobs illegals steal from us with their cheaper labor etc. Overall, the cost goes into billions, upon billions and has been estimated in the hundreds of billions per year.  The cost of constructing an impenetrable border barrier will pay for itself within the first year or two.  That's the whole point of building it and what do the Democrats do?  Everything to obstruct its construction.

If you really want to address the problem, then abolish the welfare programs. Trying to mitigate the harm from bad programs by introducing another bad program (harsh border control) is not going to work well.

Abolish welfare programs?  What? Punish all the innocents who are in need of a helping hand?  Talk about grabbing the donkey by the tail.  That's just daft and is not addressing the problem at all.  It is running away from the problem in fact and placing the focus in the wrong place.  The problem is the class of immigrant being allowed in, not the welfare policies per se, unless you mean make illegals ineligible for welfare.  They already are ineligible but  Democrat States ignore that and openly approve them as eligible for welfare, as clearly shown by me on this page and is a problem with Democrat Policy - quoted and documented above.
.

ZeusAres42

Anyway, in brief, it is possible to be a Democrat and a Christian as well. Just as it's also possible for a Jew that doesn't always wear his yamulke to still be a Jew.

Grafix

@ZeusAres42 - WOW!  Just like that, eh?  I have to believe you, because you said so?  No attempt to justify your claim is deemed by you as even necessary?  You sure you can fit your balls into your trousers?  LOL!

I can reply in the same vein.  I believe that I am right and you are wrong.   I don't believe you.  Show me why I should believe you.
.

ZeusAres42

Grafix said:

@ZeusAres42 - WOW!  Just like that, eh?  I have to believe you, because you said so?  No attempt to justify your claim is deemed by you as even necessary?  You sure you can fit your balls into your trousers?  LOL!

I can reply in the same vein.  I believe that I am right and you are wrong.   I don't believe you.  Show me why I should believe you.
.

Yes, you just gotta believe me. Thanks for having faith in me.

ZeusAres42

Grafix said:

@ZeusAres42 - WOW!  Just like that, eh?  I have to believe you, because you said so?  No attempt to justify your claim is deemed by you as even necessary?  You sure you can fit your balls into your trousers?  LOL!

I can reply in the same vein.  I believe that I am right and you are wrong.   I don't believe you.  Show me why I should believe you.
.

@Grafix In all seriousness, I think that's already been covered by others in this thread as to how you can still be a Christian and a Democrat now. I was just merely summarising.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix I think I have already demonstrated how this will work, but if you are still confused I would suggest you read the forum explanation or simply experiment by making one of these debates yourself. Anyways, we still need to pick a time and set some ground rules. Here is what I propose:

Title: Are supernatural and religious experiences delusions?

Type: Formal-ish.

Description: Throughout history and in virtually all cultures, there are many myths, anecdotes, and legends regarding supernatural experiences, such as ghosts, demons, mythical beasts, angels, and of course Gods. This debate aims to examine these experiences in an attempt to determine if they could actually happen or if they can be explained through natural means.

Rules: This debate will consist of three rounds. The first round will be to propose a thesis of ones position on this question and to provide any evidence in support of that position. The second round will be to cross examine the opponent's position, and to provide any counter evidence or demonstrate how it is in fallacy. The final round will be a rebuttal to the cross examination, to demonstrate any misconceptions or correct any errors in the cross examination.

1. This debate will consist of three rounds of 30 minutes each.
   
2. The first round will be to propose a thesis of ones position on this question and to provide any evidence and constructive arguments in support of that position.
   
3. The second round will be to cross examine the opponent's position by asking any fair, clear questions relevant to the debate. No new constructive arguments are to be provided during this time.
   
4. The final round will be a rebuttal to the cross examination, to answer the questions asked and if necessary correct any misconceptions or errors in the cross examination. No new constructive arguments are to be provided during this time.
   
5. Each person participating in the debate must advocate for their position for the duration of the debate and must advocate for everything provided by that position.
6. Any fallacies in the opponents argument must be clearly stated and the type of fallacy must be demonstrated.
7. There should be no harassing or name calling.
8. External evidence can be provided from any links, published papers, graphic images, or quotes from relevant authorities.
9. video evidence such as youTube or Vimeo may not have a duration longer than 20% of the round time (6:00 for a 30 minute round time)
10. Any deviation from the procedure provided in steps 1-4 or failing to follow the rules in steps 5-10 will result in a forfeit of the debate.

These are the rules and format I propose. If you agree to these terms, we can move ahead with selecting a time at which we will both be available, otherwise please make your recommendations.

Grafix

@ZeusAres42 - In response to my asking you to give reasons, as opposed to making flat diktats which expect a broad acceptance, without explanation, now you respond with this....

In all seriousness, I think that's already been covered by others in this thread as to how you can still be a Christian and a Democrat now. I was just merely summarising.

A myriad of would-be-if-they-could-be explanations, many off-topic, have proved merely to be lame attempts to justify the Democratic Party's anti-Christian Policy, yet none have succeeded, if we are going to be truthful here.  There needs to be a redeeming argument as to why the Democrat Party engages in defending porous borders and particularly on why  it encourages a culture to enter our shores, which grooms its society and teaches its children to kill us, because we are non-believers, in its religion, specifically Christians. For whatever reason, this culture has no interest in any other non-believing cultures and only targets Christians.  Work of Satan?

Worse, certain Democrat States give these illegal entrants free health care, free education and free housing + a defense against and Sanctuary from lawful deportation.  All of these States' Policies in this regard, actually defy and flout the Federal Policy on immigration.  That alone is unlawful and an aberration.  It seems to me the Democrat Party itself is only one step removed from engaging in criminal conduct itself.  Not a single person in this forum has justified these policies.  Not one.  If you believe someone has, then quote the post. The Federal Govt. has now won two Supreme Court Appeals on this very point and can now withhold funding from these States.
.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Transfer your post above to the other topic where we started it under "Illumination".  I refuse to discuss it here because it will derail this topic.  Please show respect for debating courtesies, for other commenters' topics and also a respect for my previous request in the same vein. Once you do that I shall respond.  We started the discussion on my challenge to debate you  HERE.
.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Aren't you doing the same thing by posting under someone else's debate?

MayCaesar

Grafix said:

@MayCaesar - You wrote ...

What matters is not what they were calling the bill or the people, but what the content is - and the content has nothing to do with limiting who can cross the border and stay on the US territory.

The content is highly indicative.  Is about the type of character eligible for entry into the U.S.  To deny that is just bunkum.  It's in the text of the Founders' speeches, already on the page and further, the fact that they were discussing an Immigration Bill is  highly relevant, because their remarks were made in that specific context.  It also disproves your claim that they did not want any Bill on Immigration.  They did, otherwise they would not have put such a Bill on the table.  Then you wrote ....

Well, first, it does not compound the problem: the absolute size of the population grows, but the relative fraction of the welfare consumers does not (it actually drops slightly, considering how hard it is for immigrants to get any assistance from the government), and since the immigrants just as well pay taxes and do everything else, the problem does not really grow.

By your indiscriminate use of "it", I presume you are talking about the problem of illegal immigration..  Inadequate border security without an impenetrable barrier allows the entry of illegal immigrants and the subsequent entry of undesirable criminals fleeing from the law in their own nation, including established traffickers who enter with the intent of trafficking.  Put that together with poor vetting of those who claim to be refugees, but who are nothing more than "economic migrants", seeking a better economy for work and taking jobs from Americans, because the illegals are paid at a lower rate, via cash under the table.  All of these issues DO  compound the problem of undesirable immigrants, and result in an escalation in crime, destroying our once peaceful neighbourhoods.  As an immigrant, you probably are unaware that millions of Americans are not too young to remember when it was safe to walk on our streets, safe to leave our houses unlocked and even safe to leave our vehicles unlocked.  The wrong type of Immigration has changed that.

That's tosh about the cost being confined merely to welfare.  The cost is not confined to the increase in welfare.  The cost is spread across $25 billion a year going out of our economy in Remittances alone.  Add to that the cost of court processes + the cost of incarcerations, already stated at $90 million per day for both illegal and legal immigrants awaiting deportation. Add to that the cost of detention centres. Add to that the cost of extra law enforcement on the streets.  Add to that the cost of the damage they do in the destruction of property.  Add the fall-out from drug trafficking and addiction and child-sex trafficking + the medical costs of treating those affected. Add the extra cost in welfare for Americans, whose jobs illegals steal from us with their cheaper labor etc. Overall, the cost goes into billions, upon billions and has been estimated in the hundreds of billions per year.  The cost of constructing an impenetrable border barrier will pay for itself within the first year or two.  That's the whole point of building it and what do the Democrats do?  Everything to obstruct its construction.

If you really want to address the problem, then abolish the welfare programs. Trying to mitigate the harm from bad programs by introducing another bad program (harsh border control) is not going to work well.

Abolish welfare programs?  What? Punish all the innocents who are in need of a helping hand?  Talk about grabbing the donkey by the tail.  That's just daft and is not addressing the problem at all.  It is running away from the problem in fact and placing the focus in the wrong place.  The problem is the class of immigrant being allowed in, not the welfare policies per se, unless you mean make illegals ineligible for welfare.  They already are ineligible but  Democrat States ignore that and openly approve them as eligible for welfare, as clearly shown by me on this page and is a problem with Democrat Policy - quoted and documented above.
.

Entry in the US is not considered in any of the quotes you have provided. The Founding Fathers never intended to restrict who can come and live in the US, they only talked about naturalisation and eligibility for governmental programs. That is what "immigration" meant back then: to come and naturalise. Just come and live - that was not called anything special, because nobody in the US thought there was something wrong with it.

Crime rates are way down and are at their lowest in the US history, so I do not know what that time when "it was safe to walk on our streets" is. It is not the safety that has been compromised; it is the public perception. People have been scared into seeing danger everywhere, because that is when they start looking for the government to support them, and that is exactly what the government wants.
Well, you made my case for me in the second paragraph: since dealing with deportations and other related things is costly - remove the whole thing. Revert back to the open border policies this country has had for the majority of its history, and all the costs will suddenly go away! I just solved your problem.

Welfare programs is another thing the Founding Fathers never intended the government to provide. Daft? They certainly did not think so.
Ever since the country was founded, the government has been growing and expanding, taking in new duties and responsibilities. We have gotten to the point where many people do not even think they can survive without the government's help... In the modern world with a thriving international free market this thinking should not be a thing.

ZeusAres42

@Grafix A Christian might want to be a democrat for specific reasons important to them. It's that simple. Unlike some of the others in this thread, I don't see any point in continuing to drive this point home. You either get this or you don't.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Yes, of course it is doing the same thing under someone else's debate, but the logic is this ...

(a) By moving the discussion to here, as you have attempted to do, you are supporting the view that two wrongs make a right.  They don't.  They compound the original wrong;

(b) Your are splitting up the discussion across multiple topics, which is just plain dumb, making it more difficult to follow;

(c)  The very reason for why I suggested we have this debate outside of the other topic, where I made that suggestion, was to prevent you from further spamming and trolling that discussion in the first place.  So your wrong, created this discussion, under that topic, which is not relevant to that topic.  Nevertheless there is nowhere else we can arrange the debate details   These moves by me are honourable motives, unlike yours. 

Now you want to persist with spamming this discussion with off-topic content.  Go back to the original discussion so we can keep it together, spam as few discussions as possible and get the debate parameters organised.  I posted under that topic, several days ago, my suggested amendments to the parameters you suggested.  If you have responded, then I will get to your response in due course.  I am busy and cannot be everywhere at once.  I haven't viewed the topic again since then, but I will try to today.  Apologies if I have kept you waiting.

Grafix

@MayCaesar - You wrote ....

Entry in the US is not considered in any of the quotes you have provided. The Founding Fathers never intended to restrict who can come and live in the US, they only talked about naturalisation and eligibility for governmental programs. That is what "immigration" meant back then: to come and naturalise. Just come and live - that was not called anything special, because nobody in the US thought there was something wrong with it.

May, quit the crap by hiding behind semantics.  They may not have used in these specific quotes the actual word "immigration" but they use words such as "importation of convicts" from British jails being necessary to prevent and use the word "emigrant" in requiring that they should be "free, white persons"  and it be a necessary amendment to this Bill, which we know is a Bill on Immigration, noted in the historical record and this debate likewise on the historical record of the very same Bill.  Below are their words, employing the terms I just noted ...


Then in we also see the concern of how long a migrant need be in the nation before becoming eligible to vote, clearly a proposed amendment to the Immigration Bill, requiring assimilation before being eligible to vote, as the heading to the extract already states.  Ignoring obvious references is a deceit.



Then we have an excerpt taken from James Madison's full quote seen above, expressing his view as follows ....



Clearly he is discussing immigrants and the issues attached to immigration, requesting restrictions on dual citizenship to prevent immigrants from using their commercial interests in America to promote wealth gained from the benefit of any dual citizenship, which is at the expense of American commerce, obviously a consideration regarding immigration being proposed as an amendment to the Bill on Immigration. Trying to fly a kite and hope it will stay up, by bleating ... but ... but ... they haven't used the word "immigration" anywhere, is a duplicitous argument. Then you claim ...

Crime rates are way down and are at their lowest in the US history, so I do not know what that time when "it was safe to walk on our streets" is. It is not the safety that has been compromised; it is the public perception. People have been scared into seeing danger everywhere, because that is when they start looking for the government to support them, and that is exactly what the government wants.

Insidious pettifogging.  Crime rates are down compared to what, though?  Such a statement is useless without its equivalent.  Sure, they're down compared with the Obama era, which encouraged crime and did everything to foment it, to divide the people along identity lines, with the crapola of Democrat Identity Politicking, divisive, fomenting tensions.  But we're not talking about a comparison with then.  We're talking about a comparison with the time from when America opened its borders in an indiscriminate manner, which began with the Bush Presidencies.  Father and son are both globalist pricks, on the side of the crony-capitalist Agenda, the same donor class which funds the Democrats.  That's when the loss of our clean, peaceful, relaxed and enjoyable neighbourhoods began.  Prior to then we could  leave our houses and cars unlocked, our daughters could  travel safely on public transport late at night.  Just because you're an immigrant yourself and have never known that, never lived through that and are ignorant of it, hardly makes you right, let alone the expert here, does it?  

It's ironic you admit to government scaremongering, though.  I agree, but it's all on the left side of government, given that's the very same Agenda of their crony-capitalist donor class, who run the puppet governments of the Leftosphere, right across the Western hemisphere .  Yes, they foment, fund and instigate all of the protests, protesters and radical activists, like Greta Thunberg, David Hogg, Climate Change doom and gloom scaremongering, fomenting and funding radical left wing activists, Ms-13, Antifa, BLM, etc., funding their travel expenses, accommodation, hire cars and meals during scare campaigns. They even staged and funded regular mass shootings to scare the bejeebies out of us all, with the same paid "actors" recognised at each one.  Funny how these stopped under Trump, isn't it?  Ever thought why?  You know its true, but can't admit it.

Then you make this ridiculous statement, the double blind, the quintessential Luciferian deception which goes like this,  Hey!  Don't look there.  Look over here, etc.  Just listen to yourself, one more time ...

Since dealing with deportations and other related things is costly - remove the whole thing. Revert back to the open border policies this country has had for the majority of its history, and all the costs will suddenly go away! I just solved your problem.

Except this country has NEVER had open border policies EVER.  That's the lie you are trying to peddle here and which I have disproved with evidence of the Founders discussing restrictions on immigration,      ALL   O N    T H E    C O N G R E S S I O N A L     R E C O R D .  Got that?  Is the record a ?  I don't think so.  The Founding Fathers were far more strict about Immigration than any subsequent generations have ever been.  They restricted it to "free white persons"  Remember?  America had a "White America" immigration policy handed to it by them.  They expressed their concerns about unvetted immigration this way ...



Correct. The Founders railed against Big Brother government, were against welfare, because it breeds a dependency on government.  They saw government as the big bad bogey man, able to oppress and manipulate any who did become dependent upon it.  A truly great wisdom, instead encouraging all to become self-sufficient, precisely the Conservative Politic to this day.  I agree too with your next statement.   Crony-capitalist globalism, a lynch pin of leftist policy, has all but destroyed free market capitalism across the West - deliberate - and must be dismantled and curtailed, but the Democrats resist that. Why you defend leftie politics then, astonishes me.
.

Grafix

@ZeusAres42 - You wrote ...

@Grafix A Christian might want to be a democrat for specific reasons important to them. It's that simple. Unlike some of the others in this thread, I don't see any point in continuing to drive this point home. You either get this or you don't.

You are just doubling down on a face-value claim, unprepared to analyse the implications behind the position.  Sure, many who claim to belong to the Christian faith vote for Democrats.  Who could deny that?  You simply state the obvious pretending it is a rebuttal.  It's not.  The topic seeks to explore the following about Christian voters who vote for the Democratic Party  ...

(a)  Are they aware that they support an anti-Christian Political Party?

(b)  If they are then they are not a reflection of the Christian philosophy or its ideology and that put's their commitment to Christianity on the line.

(c)  If they are unaware, then they are simply politically ignorant and should not vote.

(d)  It is not possible to vote for a politic which openly challenges the moral values of a particular demographic and then claim to be upholding that demographic's moral ethos.

(e)  If a voter is aware of the Agenda of that Party and chooses to vote for it, nevertheless, then he is either clueless, or is perhaps placing personal gain - the hip pocket nerve, let's say - ahead of the greater good and is for reasons of personal gain, abandoning the moral principles of the demographic, yet which he claims to uphold.  It's an oxymoron and a betrayal.

Whichever way we look at it.  A vote by any Christian for the Democrat Party is an immoral vote and a repudiation of the Christian moral value set.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix This is no longer relevant. I set up the debate like, three days ago open for anyone. You missed your opportunity, that debate already happened. I know you were online while it was open, so you have no one to blame but yourself for missing it.

RickeyD

It  is not possible for one to worship God and Satan simultaneously; therefore, you cannot serve God and vote for a Progressive-Democrat-Socialist i.e. the Party of Satan.