US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1121

On June 18 2014 14:41 zlefin wrote:
Current Islamic fundamentalism reminds me of the stuff that happened in Europe a lot 1400-1648 (peace of Westphalia).
To me it looks like the same stuff.

They're also clearly unambiguously cut from the same cloth; so you'd expect a lot of similarity.

At any rate; we're getting far from afield from us politics; so perhaps we should refocus on the issue there?

On June 18 2014 13:30 xDaunt wrote:

Pointing out the similarities in the text as a basis for equating the two is asinine. You're not only ignoring centuries of divergent evolution between the two faiths, but you're ignoring the obvious difference in present day manifestations of the two faiths. Even Bill Maher understands this.

On June 18 2014 15:37 Sub40APM wrote:

Bill Maher is pretty aggressive in his anti-Muslim sentiments, why would invoking him somehow give any credence to your argument? Liberals dont have the Republicans need for ideological unity, if a liberal says something stupid other liberals dont have a problem calling him out on it -- remember, they are the party of weak discipline.
Christian Lebanese militias had no problem committing war crimes, neither did the Orthodox Serbs or Catholic Croats.

On June 18 2014 18:22 oneofthem wrote:
location is not very informative. it's what is associated with location that matters, the social history, different interpretation and developments etc etc. still this is a descriptive analysis of what people have believed and acted, with no gloss. an example of gloss would be, certain traditional societies hang onto the atavistic, primitively tribal part of the bible for dear life and have managed to revert to stone age morality. that kind of condemnation is only expressible if you make value laden judgements about these different interpretations. the source of the differentiation will have to come from an understanding of the bible's own history, as well as some existing moral system of your own.


so anyway we know that the bible is a document with diverse sources. it's really a lot of different books put together. it is not consistent. so really to me christianity doesn't even exist as a single entity. it is a series of human actions and incidental occurrences. it is then okay to criticize the backwards and simply dangerous aspects of this diverse mixture of blah. for example, new testament preaching of love and caring is great. stuff about genociding your enemy or stoning undesirables is bad.

we are also not really looking to do some sort of grand pronouncement on "Religion" with a capital R, or on Christianity's Ultimate Role in Western Civilization. that type of thinking is too full of platitudes for me.


i only care to show that if the bible is to be made safe for the modern world, then it has to be read as an artifact of human's own history, rather than taken at face value. there's no pull yourself up from your own bootstraps sort of free standing authority accorded to a text without reasoning about it with best possible facts. do the same with islam and whatever, and if the result is say, 25% good stuff for christians and 20% good stuff for islam, nobody has won. it's just what it is.

On June 18 2014 18:28 Velr wrote:
I wouldn't blame any religion for wars, religion is bad for scientific and social development but wars are basically never truely fought over religion.
People go to war over territory, influence, power and even age old blind, irrational, hate (basically "revenge" for old wars over territory/influence/power).
Religion is just the perfect tool for leaders to exploit as a rallying symbol and at the same time hinders the social progress that would make wars less likely.
It then quickly spirals out of control and certain atrocities are most probably done cause of religion, but i highly doubt that it is the root of the problems that actually lead to the war.

On June 18 2014 15:37 Sub40APM wrote:

Bill Maher is pretty aggressive in his anti-Muslim sentiments, why would invoking him somehow give any credence to your argument? Liberals dont have the Republicans need for ideological unity, if a liberal says something stupid other liberals dont have a problem calling him out on it -- remember, they are the party of weak discipline.
Christian Lebanese militias had no problem committing war crimes, neither did the Orthodox Serbs or Catholic Croats.

On June 18 2014 11:45 GreenHorizons wrote:



Aww that's cute xDaunt

If you were to identify 3 top conservative leaders who would they be?

On June 19 2014 00:45 xDaunt wrote:

The only one with broad conservative appeal and influence that comes to mind is Rush Limbaugh. Conservatives and the republican party in general are fairly headless right now. I suspect that that is going to change in the run up to the 2016 election. Then again, Romney never really assumed a leadership mantle, which is why he lost.

On June 19 2014 00:50 Nyxisto wrote:


No, he lost because his party demanded unreasonable and stupid stuff. 2006 he signed a healthcare law that looks pretty much like Obamacare and was pretty successful . Then when he ran for president he was forced to please all the gop super-conservatives by talking nonsense 24/7.

On June 19 2014 00:58 Paljas wrote:

talking nonsense 24/7 is usually not the reason why people lose elections

DENVER (AP) — The federal government this week declared more than 400,000 acres in southwestern Colorado and eastern Utah off-limits to energy exploration or any other kind of development to protect the Gunnison sage grouse, a precursor to a much larger fight over another species of the bird that ranges across 11 Western states.

The Bureau of Land Management directive released Monday formalizes protections the government had already implemented to preserve the Gunnison grouse. A decision on whether to list it as an endangered species is due in November.

BLM spokesman Steven Hall said that the protected land falls in 800,000 acres that have been identified as the bird's general range.

The Gunnison sage grouse only lives in a small sliver of Colorado and Utah and the estimated 4,500 animals remaining are about one-tenth of its original population. Because it is so depleted, Hall said, its habitat has to be aggressively protected.

President Obama's approval rating has dropped to 41 percent, a majority of Americans disapprove of his handling of foreign policy issues, he has lost support from the Hispanic community and Americans actually think his administration is less competent than the Bush White House post-Hurricane Katrina, according to a new survey from the Wall Street Journal and NBC News.

In short, the poll is nothing but bad news for the president.

The survey would appear to be so bad, in fact, that NBC News' Chuck Todd said Tuesday that the poll basically means the public has declared the Obama presidency to be over.

"This poll is a disaster for the president," Todd said. "You look at the presidency here: Lowest job rating, tied for the lowest; lowest on foreign policy. His administration is seen as less competent than the Bush administration, post-Katrina."

"On the issue of do you believe he can still lead? A majority believe no. Essentially the public is saying your presidency is over," Todd added.

You can read more about the WSJ/NBC News poll here.

On June 19 2014 00:50 Nyxisto wrote:


No, he lost because his party demanded unreasonable and stupid stuff. 2006 he signed a healthcare law that looks pretty much like Obamacare and was pretty successful . Then when he ran for president he was forced to please all the gop super-conservatives by talking nonsense 24/7.

On June 19 2014 01:37 xDaunt wrote:
Time for the Obama Defense Force to mobilize:



Source.

On June 19 2014 01:41 Danglars wrote:
Once again we run into how things are viewed by the leftist, statist mindset, and how Romney struggled to motivate his base. He failed to even capture the turnout of even McCain/Palin in 2008, and that's with 4 years of Obama record to run on! His support of an ACA-lite undoubtably was part of that too, I'll hand you that.

We're waiting for the conservative leader that will not pull punches to please media figures, and I hope that's in time for 2016. Someone that shows consistent leadership in the face of heavy opposition from beltway pundits and the political adviser class, not to mention his political opponent and smear campaign. Their ideas fail and have failed, so they are left calling their opponent's ideas "nonsense" because any examination of record dooms them.

On June 19 2014 01:41 Gorsameth wrote:

Sure ill bite.

I wonder how much of it is because of Obama himself and how much is the lack of action by the government caused by the gridlock in congress.

On June 19 2014 01:41 Danglars wrote:
Once again we run into how things are viewed by the leftist, statist mindset, and how Romney struggled to motivate his base. He failed to even capture the turnout of even McCain/Palin in 2008, and that's with 4 years of Obama record to run on! His support of an ACA-lite undoubtably was part of that too, I'll hand you that.

We're waiting for the conservative leader that will not pull punches to please media figures, and I hope that's in time for 2016. Someone that shows consistent leadership in the face of heavy opposition from beltway pundits and the political adviser class, not to mention his political opponent and smear campaign. Their ideas fail and have failed, so they are left calling their opponent's ideas "nonsense" because any examination of record dooms them.

On June 19 2014 01:45 Gorsameth wrote:

Don't you feel like someone who tells 'beltway pundits' to get lost has no chance of winning the Republican primary?
As an outsider that seems to be the main problem the party faces. The candidates who have a chance of winning nationally have little chance to make it through the primary which seems to be turning more extreme every time.