|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 19 2016 13:31 Nyxisto wrote:
Forgive my ignorance, are Mormons considered to be Christians? Don't they believe that someone found Egyptian plates in New York or something?
They're considered by mainstream conservative denominations as a cult, both catholic and protestant. The other major-identified cult is the Jehovah's witnesses, maybe christian scientists depending on where you're at. Denying the deity of Christ is a big deal.
On January 19 2016 17:05 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2016 13:35 OuchyDathurts wrote:On January 19 2016 13:31 Nyxisto wrote:
Forgive my ignorance, are Mormons considered to be Christians? Don't they believe that someone found Egyptian plates in New York or something? Eh, it depends who you ask. Many people who openly mock Mormons as a cult were open to consider them Christian when it came to Mitt Romney. I don't know anyone who would consider them Christian but I know a lot of people that don't consider Baptists or Catholics real Christians either. It depends entirely on who you ask. Honestly, the only sort of church that I can think that would call Mormons fellow Christians tend towards de-emphasizing the central tenants of Christianity anyways... the sort that can't even kick out an atheist minister because they fear being dogmatic (see United Church of Canada and Gretta Vosper).
Yes, in that way it's all just facets of liberal theology. Atheist ministers, ordained practicing gay ministers, and on down the list.
|
On January 19 2016 03:50 Plansix wrote:
Also, free market theory functions fine in socialism. Adam Smith's work specifically cites that its the governments job to take care of the poor and disabled so they are able to participate in the free market. And regulation is also part of the free market, because it is necessary to prevent fraud and assure that the consumer has the most accurate information to making purchasing decisions.
Right wing care for the poor and disabled is on a completely different scale and level than socialism. I.e Friedman argued for a basic income via negative income taxes to integrate the market into welfare so to say. Coupled with a flat tax. How we do it now however is via minimum wage etc.
Except for extreme libertarians everyone agrees that markets require at least a bit of regulation against criminal offenses like fraud. There are few who will argue against that. Again though that's on a very different scale than what we have now.
|
On January 19 2016 09:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2016 07:46 Souma wrote:
In response to Plansix and GreenHorizons:
People have to condemn it everywhere. When Plansix or anyone tries to justify a protester's unacceptable action on this forum, that's adding to the problem. The internet is a powerful forum, so you definitely should not callously disregard places like Reddit.
We're talking about common sense here. If someone purports violence, condemn them. If they're spreading a message contrary to what the movement is about, stamp them out. This is the job of the protesters and their supporters. If they can't manage that, then they shouldn't be surprised when people outside the movement don't empathize with their cause.
Can the media be unfair and only depict the bad aspects of a protest? Of course. We've witnessed it time and time again. But that's just another obstacle people are going to have to try and overcome in this day and age, and believe it or not one of the best ways to do that is to just stay on message and true to the movement, and not let the idiots string you along.
Vote Bernie Sanders, 2016. If only the problems with BLM were so simple. Let's keep in mind that we're talking about a "movement" that is so eager to find meaning for its existence that it is more than happy to plant its retarded flag on the most ludicrous of causes. BLM literally invents racism out of thin air to justify itself. Of course, the great irony here is that, by doing so, BLM completely undercuts its ability to credibly address legitimate racial problems.
Imho it all boils down to a lack of leadership. If the founders were actual media presences who spoke in favour of some causes and disavowed others, it would be a lot clearer to everybody, including BLM activists, what the principal issues they are fighting are. However, while nominally having founders, it is mostly a distributed unorganized label that people stick haphazardly on any protest they feel like. It suffers from similar problems to the Occupy movement: a complete lack of focus, making it easy to discredit and ridicule by people who disagree.
|
On January 19 2016 19:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2016 13:31 Nyxisto wrote:
Forgive my ignorance, are Mormons considered to be Christians? Don't they believe that someone found Egyptian plates in New York or something? They're considered by mainstream conservative denominations as a cult, both catholic and protestant. The other major-identified cult is the Jehovah's witnesses, maybe christian scientists depending on where you're at. Denying the deity of Christ is a big deal.
I think that's a good way of putting it. That being said, the only difference between a cult and a religion is popularity.
|
On January 19 2016 19:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2016 13:31 Nyxisto wrote:
Forgive my ignorance, are Mormons considered to be Christians? Don't they believe that someone found Egyptian plates in New York or something? They're considered by mainstream conservative denominations as a cult, both catholic and protestant. The other major-identified cult is the Jehovah's witnesses, maybe christian scientists depending on where you're at. Denying the deity of Christ is a big deal. Show nested quote +On January 19 2016 17:05 Falling wrote:On January 19 2016 13:35 OuchyDathurts wrote:On January 19 2016 13:31 Nyxisto wrote:
Forgive my ignorance, are Mormons considered to be Christians? Don't they believe that someone found Egyptian plates in New York or something? Eh, it depends who you ask. Many people who openly mock Mormons as a cult were open to consider them Christian when it came to Mitt Romney. I don't know anyone who would consider them Christian but I know a lot of people that don't consider Baptists or Catholics real Christians either. It depends entirely on who you ask. Honestly, the only sort of church that I can think that would call Mormons fellow Christians tend towards de-emphasizing the central tenants of Christianity anyways... the sort that can't even kick out an atheist minister because they fear being dogmatic (see United Church of Canada and Gretta Vosper). Yes, in that way it's all just facets of liberal theology. Atheist ministers, ordained practicing gay ministers, and on down the list.
There is actually an ongoing attempt to remove/discipline Gretta Vosper, for the record. I would also dispute the fact that the United church is "de-emphasizing the central tenants of Christianity".
|
On January 19 2016 21:17 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2016 09:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 19 2016 07:46 Souma wrote:
In response to Plansix and GreenHorizons:
People have to condemn it everywhere. When Plansix or anyone tries to justify a protester's unacceptable action on this forum, that's adding to the problem. The internet is a powerful forum, so you definitely should not callously disregard places like Reddit.
We're talking about common sense here. If someone purports violence, condemn them. If they're spreading a message contrary to what the movement is about, stamp them out. This is the job of the protesters and their supporters. If they can't manage that, then they shouldn't be surprised when people outside the movement don't empathize with their cause.
Can the media be unfair and only depict the bad aspects of a protest? Of course. We've witnessed it time and time again. But that's just another obstacle people are going to have to try and overcome in this day and age, and believe it or not one of the best ways to do that is to just stay on message and true to the movement, and not let the idiots string you along.
Vote Bernie Sanders, 2016. If only the problems with BLM were so simple. Let's keep in mind that we're talking about a "movement" that is so eager to find meaning for its existence that it is more than happy to plant its retarded flag on the most ludicrous of causes. BLM literally invents racism out of thin air to justify itself. Of course, the great irony here is that, by doing so, BLM completely undercuts its ability to credibly address legitimate racial problems. Imho it all boils down to a lack of leadership. If the founders were actual media presences who spoke in favour of some causes and disavowed others, it would be a lot clearer to everybody, including BLM activists, what the principal issues they are fighting are. However, while nominally having founders, it is mostly a distributed unorganized label that people stick haphazardly on any protest they feel like. It suffers from similar problems to the Occupy movement: a complete lack of focus, making it easy to discredit and ridicule by people who disagree.
Goodness... It's been the same goals since black people got here.
Raise the public consciousness of racism, to end racial discrimination and segregation in the United States, and for equitable justice. I don't know at what point white America owns their role in still not fixing these problems.
After Obama got elected people were quick to say racism was over, discrimination is rampant from jobs to justice, and many schools/neighborhoods are more segregated now than they were decades ago.
None of that has anything to do with BLM or a lack of leadership or focused goals. That's simply white people denying reality for, well, since this country was founded really.
Frankly trying to pass off blame to movements like BLM just comes off as disgusting. Basically boils down to "Black folks have to act better than white folks to be treated almost as well, it's the people who don't accept that fact that are the problem!"
It's as absurd as it is repugnant.
|
I think there's a difference between "blaming" BLM and saying they did a shitty job. And I suppose I just define shitty job as successful or not. I think BLM should have just focused on body cams. The entire basis of this is that you are trying to change people's minds. It doesn't make sense to assume people's minds will be changed by default. They need to be convinced.
I think as soon as BLM started demanding black-only areas, more black professors and other ridiculous crap, a lot of people were like "lol" and tuned it out. If the issue had been 100% focused on reducing police brutality, I think it could have gone somewhere. But it ended up being some long list of demands that were totally unrealistic. Justified? Yes. Gonna happen? Not a chance in hell.
|
I don’t think protests are supposed to change people’s minds. They are not venue for argument. They are to bring attention to an issue and make the people in power take notice of them. Convincing you or anyone in this thread that their cause has merit isn’t their goal, since we have no power intact the change they want.
And asking a college that has a large number of black students and why 95% of their professors are white isn’t totally out of line. The school should be able to explain that. And before people say “no qualified minorities applied,” it has been shown the networking systems for a lot of professions are racially divided. Colleges don’t put out an ad in a newspaper, they use a number of networks for applicants. So the school could be requesting that everyone apply, but only receiving referrals and resumes whites. So demanding more black professors isn't the answer, but a review of the school obtains applicants is a totally reasonable demand.
|
On January 20 2016 02:41 Plansix wrote:
I don’t think protests are supposed to change people’s minds. They are not venue for argument. They are to bring attention to an issue and make the people in power take notice of them. Convincing you or anyone in this thread that their cause has merit isn’t their goal, since we have no power intact the change they want.
Isn't the point of bringing attention to gather support? And then by people supporting them, they are more likely to vote on such issues? My point is that black professors and black-only areas on campuses were issues with significantly less wide-spread support than stopping police brutality. Very few people see black-only spaces as a good idea and it kinda crushed their credibility to people. It was a hell of a lot easier to get people to support "let's give black people the same rights as white people".
|
I haven't really seen a lot of evidence that large numbers of black students are requesting "black only spaces". I see that cited a lot and I am sure some student requested it someplace. But it doesn't seem to be as common place as you are making it out to be.
This is sort of the problem. When people talk about BLM, they seem to be focusing on this version of the group they picture in their mind, rather than a large number of smaller groups with different requests across the country.
And not every protest is designed to change minds. I would say very few are.
|
On January 20 2016 02:41 Plansix wrote:
I don’t think protests are supposed to change people’s minds. They are not venue for argument. They are to bring attention to an issue and make the people in power take notice of them. Convincing you or anyone in this thread that their cause has merit isn’t their goal, since we have no power intact the change they want.
And asking a college that has a large number of black students and why 95% of their professors are white isn’t totally out of line. The school should be able to explain that. And before people say “no qualified minorities applied,” it has been shown the networking systems for a lot of professions are racially divided. Colleges don’t put out an ad in a newspaper, they use a number of networks for applicants. So the school could be requesting that everyone apply, but only receiving referrals and resumes whites. So demanding more black professors isn't the answer, but a review of the school obtains applicants is a totally reasonable demand.
But it has to change people's minds on some level, otherwise nothing would be accomplished. If you draw people's attention, and then you lose their attention (say) two weeks later, and no minds were changed, then what exactly was the point of the protest? Just to get their moment of fame in the spotlight? I don't think their interests are that shallow.
|
When the football players refused to play for their college due racial tension, it wasn’t to change everyone’s mind. It was to change the mind of the people running the school. Even if every single fan of that team agreed with them, it wouldn’t have brought about the change they are looking for. A lot of the arguments about BLM and other protests are that “it doesn’t appeal to me or change my opinion,” but that may never have been its goal.
|
Ruh roh:
Hillary Clinton's emails on her unsecured, homebrew server contained intelligence from the U.S. government's most secretive and highly classified programs, according to an unclassified letter from a top inspector general to senior lawmakers.
Fox News exclusively obtained the text of the unclassified letter, sent Jan. 14 from Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III. It laid out the findings of a recent comprehensive review by intelligence agencies that identified "several dozen" additional classified emails -- including specific intelligence known as "special access programs" (SAP).
That indicates a level of classification beyond even “top secret,” the label previously given to two emails found on her server, and brings even more scrutiny to the presidential candidate’s handling of the government’s closely held secrets.
“To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one [intelligence community] element. These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the confidential, secret, and top secret/sap levels,” said the IG letter to lawmakers with oversight of the intelligence community and State Department. “According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified IC element sources.”
Intelligence from a "special access program,” or SAP, is even more sensitive than that designated as "top secret" – as were two emails identified last summer in a random sample pulled from Clinton's private server she used as secretary of state. Access to a SAP is restricted to those with a "need-to-know" because exposure of the intelligence would likely reveal the source, putting a method of intelligence collection -- or a human asset -- at risk. Currently, some 1,340 emails designated “classified” have been found on Clinton’s server, though the Democratic presidential candidate insists the information was not classified at the time.
“There is absolutely no way that one could not recognize SAP material,” a former senior law enforcement with decades of experience investigating violations of SAP procedures told Fox News. “It is the most sensitive of the sensitive.”
Source.
|
I still don't think it matters for her as a candidate. She doesn't have some sort of corrupt motivation for having classified stuff on her server. Only thing I could think of would be some under the table pay offs or some shit like that. But if it is government correspondence, that's just her being a computer illiterate grandma, not some sneaky rat. I still maintain that the fault in all this lies in the IT personnel. Very important people in companies are constantly being dumbasses. The IT/NetSec people's jobs are to make these people be safe.
|
That has no chance of gaining any traction. The Republicans beat that dead horse to a pulp a year ago and no one cares any more. Trying to keep it alive will only hurt them, not her.
|
Republicans need not do anything. The FBI either recommends charges or not. If they do, she is torpedoed, even if she isn't charged or eventually gets them dropped/is acquitted. If they don't I suspect there is a chance for a deep-throat-style leak from the FBI if the decision not to recommend was political, but even then the chance is quite low as most the FBI workers don't feel "slighted" by Hillary the way Mark Felt was with Nixon.
|
On January 20 2016 03:41 cLutZ wrote:
Republicans need not do anything. The FBI either recommends charges or not. If they do, she is torpedoed, even if she isn't charged or eventually gets them dropped/is acquitted. If they don't I suspect there is a chance for a deep-throat-style leak from the FBI if the decision not to recommend was political, but even then the chance is quite low as most the FBI workers don't feel "slighted" by Hillary the way Mark Felt was with Nixon.
Yeah, I think Clinton and the DNC has enough influence to make sure that just doesn't happen.
|
On January 20 2016 03:41 cLutZ wrote:
Republicans need not do anything. The FBI either recommends charges or not. If they do, she is torpedoed, even if she isn't charged or eventually gets them dropped/is acquitted. If they don't I suspect there is a chance for a deep-throat-style leak from the FBI if the decision not to recommend was political, but even then the chance is quite low as most the FBI workers don't feel "slighted" by Hillary the way Mark Felt was with Nixon.
I don't see how she's not charged with at least gross negligence at this point.
|
From my understanding, Clinton wasn’t the only person in Washington using a personal email account and the practice was not uncommon. It could be Pandora’s box, where they end up having to charge her and a lot of other people. All the evidence would end up being public record in some form.
|
On January 20 2016 04:12 Plansix wrote:
From my understanding, Clinton wasn’t the only person in Washington using a personal email account and the practice was not uncommon. It could be Pandora’s box, where they end up having to charge her and a lot of other people. All the evidence would end up being public record in some form.
It depends upon the type of information being kept on the private server. Here, it looks like Hillary had the most classified type of information on her server, which is a big no-no. It's hard to assess this case because it's not entirely clear what all of the facts are. The investigators are being very tight-lipped (not that I'd expect otherwise). However, what's leaked doesn't look good for Hillary, and it has been getting progressively worse since the summer when this first became an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
