Stosh

delineate what harm is, I say its opinion.

I can agree with that, we just don't know the reason for the refusal , it could be he has shady dealings you don't know about , or hangs with some folks considered problematic by us though he personally isn't shady, or US competition doesn't want him here , or his home country thinks he might relocate if he Could get a visa here and they want to keep his business there , or a thousand other reasons I cant even guess at. And if I was INS I might not give him the real reason why, maybe we have enough illegals here that we don't want to let in yet more people , though legally. ( or we just have an antiquated clusterbang running the ins )

There are ideas to which one does apply dualistic thinking , to act or not, is somewhat restricted to two options, but not all ideas are confined to such limited choice. The brain makes associations and pumps out a summation which is usually vague , no one experiences true dualism.

I've been overseas and crossed borders , and had a resident alien girlfriend for long time once.. but don't see what that has to do with understanding the procedure behind the scene , regarding the experience of large numbers of individuals, and a single naturalized citizen IS going to make the mistake of thinking , that his or her experience, is representative of everyone else's experience, , which it may , or may not be. And despite what may have been described as host nations denial , I would bet a buck that they send the originating country an email (with a check box asking if they know of any reason what-soever, why the US should not issue a visa to particular individuals ).

Doesnt being denied twice , indicate that the application process is indeed easy, but we just don't want that person here? The answer was 'no'. Heck for all I know, behind the scenes, we asked his home country if we should give him the Visa , and they told us to deny it.

Looks pretty darn open door to me. Something doesnt compute though, if the green card is so easy why are there so many who are illegal?

I hope youre feeling better soon, drink a lot of water. What you said did have the ring of news prompted oversimplification. Many people surely do have compelling emotional reasons for ... bending the laws we have so laxly enforced. I hope , If her concerns are founded on fact , and she really has no other choice, we give a temporary waiver or something. But our medical system isnt all that wonderful as its cracked up to be. There will indeed be hard cases , there always are, and the media likes to find that one special exception to focus attention on.. Theres plenty of folks who really do think that this is some kind of squatters habitat, and think everyone in the world has ,THe Right! to live here. and the media plays into that. I dont know how many times Ive heard in the last month, We are all immigrants. And the ridiculousness of that blows my mind. BECAUSE ,my great ancestors n kin , arrived , were vetted , were examined like cattle, and sometimes were Rejected for health reasons. disabilities, or lack of skills to ply. That eventually they got in, went though a long process to become citizens and proved they really wanted to Be Americans and "get with our program " .... Thats what made them truly americans , and its why I too , am an American Citizen , Not An immigrant , not an illegal alien. Someone hopping on a boeing landing in Dallas , or driving across the Rio Grande ,to see a doctor, is a visitor, or an alien, not automatically citizen or even immigrant.

Dust,youre capable of sound rationale, make a fair argument , dont spin up strawman accusations. It means you dont believe that your own point can hold its own. Trump hasnt imprisoned people by color , nor muslims for being muslim. Muslims from other places can still visit. Mexicans can still apply for citizenship, black americans can still walk around freely as whites as the law can determine. Your appeal to a claim of cultural superiority is in itself what you are arguing is the fault of americans. You think its appropriate, to abandon law as soon as someone cant stomach the burden of the collective conclusion? You think we dont understand the potential dire circumstance she might be in? Society cant ignore its own laws and at the same time honor the right of its people to determine those laws. Laws become meaningless without enforcement, and enforcement is inherently unpleasant. Your hands wont be any cleaner for falsely vilifying those around you.

Considering oneself 'Justified' is indeed a problematic attitude , it removes responsibility for harshness from the individual. Dropping justification or lack of it, and you basically end up with legal vs illegal. Blackstar wishes to consider himself justified in defying rule of law to abide in his own idea of compassion.

You're making a false proposition with that statement, Law and compassion aren't opposites. To rectify the idea you'd have to compare rule of law to rule of whim. Rule of your whim would be screwed up. Failed states , where rule of law is gone , is the situation of being ruled by "compassion bestowed or withheld" and its a pretty ugly thing to have everyone's welfare hanging by the thread of else's whim. EX: Can I drive my car? Well that depends on how compassionate I feel today , and IF I feel more compassionate about pedestrians or drivers. Can I speak my Mind ? Well , lemme decide if what you have to say is compassionate enough , and If I like it , you can say it. If I don't like it , I'm going to compassionately throw you in jail until you decide to be more nice like me, for everyones benefit.

Theres no karmic reason why they suffer if they even do suffer any more than anyone else. Theres a saying where I come from , that they might not have ever heard . Fool me once , shame on you ,,, fool me for three hundred years , and maybe I need to get a lawyer. This karma idea fosters a self view of victimhood, victimhood removes the flexibility which would push from within , to change. They want in fact to hold on to the old ways in some ways , and thats fine, but Im not going to pity them for it, nor am I going to vilify myself over actions I never took. Entirely clean surface water doesnt happen because biologic contaminations occur, you dont just walk up and drink out of lakes , eventually youll have problems. Long before Columbus got here water sources were contaminated by population centers , dead animals , and bacteria. They are not karmic victims wandering around in the woods in Eden ignorant of hygiene, neither has things always fallen their way, and the same is true for you me and all our dead ancestors. Respect them as individuals, respectem as cultural inheritors , and you end up treating them with the same standards as everyone else, or consider them endemic victims and not have that respect.

One can certainly spin the text to read from a negative polemic , words like inept and stupid generally connote as being 'bad' , but ! from a non-bad-declaring position ,,, that spin isn't in play. For instance , using myself so as not to inadvertently be insulting ,,, I am muddling through life , not knowing really what is best , guessing on who to vote for , taking uninformed chances with every step. I never expected to be here , to live this day , nor do I know the next moment truly till I get to it. I'm filled with subconscious ideas biases and predispositions and a legacy from a crappy childhood socialization done by parents who really had no business raising a child. So If that identifies me as stupid and ignorant and ego-driven ,, well, I gotta admit its true, or I could lie , knowing that its actually true ( a more intolerable stance IMO ) . But , , if someone felt merciful they might agree that this is the basic human circumstance and so its not really especially fair to slap on the negative connotations that I ALone am especially stupid etc. Or , it could be spun as innocence or something, and again be seen as true. Thusly the connotation of these terms is in the eye of the beholder , though the truth of it without the spin is objectively true, and personally ,, since I can admit this stuff is true without melting , falling down on my face in shame , or denting my already tarnished rep .. its really not a big deal though I' would defend a bit if accusations were thrust at me with hostility over it.

If sovreignity is non negotiable, then it couldnt have been granted to them, and they were wrong to go off the reservation to affect conditions under regular American jurisdiction. The sovereignity of an individuals body ,as non negotiable, however, I would support, .. mostly.

I dont know if I agree or not Brian, but I do like the freedom of sentiment your wording suggests, very nice.

That the world often runs in reverse of what we are led to consider it to. Ex: We are often our worst enemy , sharing our opinions is a threat , and so forth.

Funny, I didnt notice that, strictly reading , the point is indeed lost,, but putting it into words, he is enriched because he becomes unburdened. He doesnt have to fix the world, change minds, promote Tao ,or post on here only to suffer the slings and arrows of rebuttal.

Visually engaging, I liked it too.

Ezzacaria IIV , " And Lo ! the menu of heaven ith gruel, and its song ith Manilow."

I dont remember these studies other than the conclusions, but, there is documentation that these two stances reflect a real mindset trend and this trend evolves with age and experience. That doest mean all young people are unrealistically idealistic, or that the older geneneration predominantly jaded. But if I flipped the labels it would look weird to have matched young with jaded , and old with idealistic , Right ? The idea that political left and right are polemical ,is a problem. To see oneself as right and well-meaning, inherently suggests that the others are wrong and hostile, or at Least stupidly blind. Hands pair left and right, but they are both hands, and in that agreeable comparison, the similarities far outweigh the teenie differences. Americans of all strains have much in common, and if one needs enemies, theres plenty of other people to pick o It is indeed possible to be be bolstered by the fact that other people have sentiments we dont share! That someone else is doing their part to keep the world both functional and compassionate , free and defended by indeed Being complementary to our own beliefs rather than be identical. Yes it is a thing you have to intentionally remind yourself of

I was taught, that there was a definition to the left right polemic , that individuals would basically fit with varying degrees of adherence to the basic plan. Left meaning, the person believes society is best off when the gov is lenient on social issues ,and dominant on economic ones, and on the right, the reverse trend would be the defined course. But I dont really think that is the way it works out. The left wants gov power to force All social behavior which they think is in the greatest good to that individuals sympathies. The Right thinks the Govt involvement should remain minimal though aggressively punative regarding the nations laws and defense. These arent actually exactly opposite stances. Theyre just my opinions on what I think the people do think typical of their own affiliation by label.

Notice that Lao would fill bellies, and provide light handed guidance ,,this satiation being enough to let them be naturally good.Whereas Shun,(and Confucius) say sit around and do nothing for their people as ruling figureheads. If one applies this advice on the personal scale, youd be getting told to either take care of your basic needs by Lao (and Chuang) ,but by Confucius and Shun, youre directed to sit aound and do nothing hoping for magic. Personally, I think rather poorly of Shun and Confucius plan which makes for useless rulers ,starving public .

Ironic , I'm coming to see the exact reverse, maybe we'll end up in the middle. I look at the end of the piece , where Chuang just conversationally says what he personally thinks about the scenario just presented , ( I figure the author would know what he thought about his own chapter.) Though I realize that someone can come to their own conclusions on the presentation itself, like Confu certainly would. Thing is , no one is saying that whats being said about the words attributed to Confu are in fact incorrect, so I have to figure Chuang is being accurate at least in his paraphrase. Reminds me of Back to school with Rodney Dangerfield from wikipedia excerpt on it.. " Thornton prefers partying to studying. He hires a team of professionals to complete his assignments, including author Kurt Vonnegut, to write a paper on Kurt Vonnegut for literature class. To Thornton's surprise, a disappointed Diane, recognizing the fraud,( but not the authorship) gives Thornton an F on his paper, telling him that she will not accept work from him that was written by someone else, and adding that whoever did write the paper doesn't know the first thing about Kurt Vonnegut."

Ah! now I seee

Really !? How do you come to see it that way?

And who is it , that is being compared to a dead sow?