Too much ice

[LouderVol]

So to be clear, it wouldn't be ethnic cleansing because the number needs to be 150m? Ethnic cleansing doesn't require us to meet a specific remigration goal. Ethnic cleansing doesn't require that DHS tweet out the right number for complete remigration.

Ethnic cleansing only requires that you target a group and you don't actually have to completely expel them, so saying "nuh uh, because they wouldn't get all 150m non-whites" is just a weird way to spend our time. You know the trail of tears only expelled a fraction of the 5 civilized tribes, right?

Deporting a few white people has no bearing on this conversation.

"Jump over the current issue" = responding to insane things said by the DHS

You and Kennedy are freaking out about a label instead of freaking out about the wildass thing the government threatened. Dude, what are you on about?

ethnic cleansing nor complete reimmigration were mentioned in the tweet. those were assumptions made.

assuming the tweet meant all POC, they are still "leaving" behind about 1/3 of the total. the trail of tears hit AT LEAST 90% of the eastern tribes. the historical ethnic cleansings also involved a very large percentage of death, and usually is the "native" population being forced away. you can argue that 63% is close enough to 90% to fit some definition, or it crosses some undefined threshold. but the rest of the items aren't an issue.

what I am about is actually stopping the bad behavior instead of trying to mislabel everything to score political points. Like I said from the start I am against what DHS and this admin is doing. full stop, no ifs ands or buts. jumping the shark with misapplied fear mongering labels doesn't get us any closer to stopping DHS, it just gets us into boy who cried wolf territory. eventually you will be right, but you will have wasted the good will you have turning everything up from an 8 to an 11.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Not many people know that fact either.
The internet can explain it better than I can.


The name changed form as it moved through languages that had different sounds and grammar rules.

1. Hebrew / Aramaic
   The original name was Yeshua (ישוע). This was a common Jewish name in the Second Temple period and is a shortened form of Yehoshua, which means “Yahweh saves.”
2. Greek
   When the New Testament was written in Greek, Yeshua had to be transliterated into a language that did not have the “sh” sound. Greek also typically added an “s” at the end of masculine names.
   So Yeshua became Iēsous (Ἰησοῦς).
3. Latin
   When the Bible was translated into Latin, Iēsous became Iesus. Latin kept the same basic spelling but dropped the Greek grammatical ending.
4. English
   In early English Bibles, the name was written Iesus. The letter J did not become distinct from I until the 1500s to 1600s. Over time Iesus became Jesus, with the modern English pronunciation.

So the path looks like this:
Yeshua → Iēsous → Iesus → Jesus

The change is not a translation of meaning but a transliteration, adapting the sounds of the name to each language’s alphabet and pronunciation rules.

It’s funny that everyone else in the Bible named “Yeshua “ was translated “Joshua “. I wonder why the inconsistency?

 

[n_huffhines]

250K views · 8K reactions | Immigrants have reduced government deficits by at least $14.5 trillion over the last 30 years, said David J. Bier, the Cato Institute Director of Immigration Studies, before the Senate Budget Committee. | The Cato Institut

Immigrants have reduced government deficits by at least $14.5 trillion over the last 30 years, said David J. Bier, the Cato Institute Director of Immigration Studies, before the Senate Budget Committee.

www.facebook.com