Marianne Williamson

Rank 20 of 47
|
Score 60
11/30/2025, 5:12:55 PM
X
In reply to:
Spencer Andrews
@TruthIsLiberty4
·
19d
@marwilliamson Yes, mistakes were made and we should never do so again. But should our response to that be 'open borders with no qualifications or vetting'? No awareness of those entering and the ability to forecast the cost of govt (assuming we provide social welfare to *anyone* who asks)?
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
20d
It’s extraordinary how some Americans are quick to say “Get ‘em out! Get ‘em out!” with so little understanding of all the countries we ourselves have invaded and basically raped and pillaged. Afghanistan turned out to be one of them.

At the end of the war, Afghans who risked

The statement is part of a public discourse on immigration policy and the consequences of past foreign interventions. It engages with societal issues such as border control, social welfare, and historical accountability.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but could be seen as dismissive of the concerns raised about open borders, which might indirectly contribute to misunderstanding.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement lacks an effort to promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it dismisses the previous argument without providing a constructive alternative or acknowledging the complexities involved. [-1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement does not engage in personal attacks but fails to provide constructive criticism or dialogue, as it simply negates the previous point without further explanation or engagement. [-1]