Political Posts

[LC]

Just now, james22 said:

 

So you agree we should discriminate, great.

 

What are some of the criteria we should use?

 

What a good question. I do not pretend to be an expert.

 

There is for more informed research readily available if you are interested.

 

Literally the first 3 google results:

https://www.dannydorling.org/wp-content/files/dannydorling_publication_id5891.pdf

https://www.epi.org/publication/u-s-benefits-from-immigration/

https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/08/united-states-immigration-reform-evidence?lang=en

[Sweet]

12 minutes ago, LC said:

 

Christianity was definitely a political and imperialist force (and happy to be so) in its heydey.

 

Christian missionaries across the world are evidence enough.

Even if we accept that Christianity was a political force, it’s simply not true to say that was in keeping with the teachings on the New Testament.  
 

Jesus didn’t advocate the establishment of a Christian state, didn’t advocate war or conflict.  
 

What is it that is so hard to understand about this?  

 

Why is there a constant need to try and make everything equivalent when it’s clearly not?

 

Are you a Muslim or come from a Islamic background?

[dealraker]

24 minutes ago, Sweet said:

The IRA were not motivated by religion, they were motivated by nationalism.  The IRA were not bombing and killing because of some passage in the bible.  Their goal was to get Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom, which they saw as a war of ‘liberation’.

 

Catholics tended to be Irish Nationalists, Protestants tended to be Irish Unionists (British), but not always.  Religion had nothing to do with the IRA, and the IRA had Protestants in it too.

 

Don’t take my word for it, take the IRA at their own word.  Pasted below is the IRAs own handbook which they issued to IRA members upon joining:

 

https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/othelem/organ/ira/ira_green_book.htm

 

I lived there for over 25 years from birth.  Anyone claiming the IRA were a terrorist group motivated by religion demonstrates only that they know nothing about the IRA.

 

My first cousin worked for Terex and its predecessors in Northern Ireland for 40 years Sweet and I'm discussing this with him right now as we write.  You use the word "motivated," I'm not sure motivation is the same thing as "involved."  

[patience_and_focus]

1 hour ago, LC said:

 

 

-It refuses, as best it can and as long as it can, to accept modern realities. Homosexuals are still evil. Condoms are still evil. Two simple examples.

 

-In practice: When will Catholics priests answer for their crimes? When will rural Christians elect a humanist leader? You want to claim progress - there has been minimal progress and shitheads (across all religions  incl. Christians) are still justifying their shitty behavior with their shitty religion.

 

As long as you believe your sky god allows it, what won't you do?

 

I think you are going in circles. All the above points also apply to Islam (and then there is additional crap). In fact you have agreed that Islam, as practiced currently, is the worst of the bunch. The above arguments are subsumed by it, meaning all the above has been taken into account and especially looking at the scale of physical violence that is driven by religious fervor in Islam, that is the case.

 

With that settled, the next logical question is why is that so.

 

2 hours ago, LC said:

 

 

I agree: there's a good argument that Islam is currently the worst of the bunch.

 

 

Edited May 10, 2025 by patience_and_focus

[Sweet]

1 hour ago, dealraker said:

My first cousin worked for Terex and its predecessors in Northern Ireland for 40 years Sweet and I'm discussing this with him right now as we write.  You use the word "motivated," I'm not sure motivation is the same thing as "involved."  

He will confirm.
 

Perhaps you need to read my first post to LC on the page over Dealraker.

 

I’m not saying that religion had no impact on the Troubles - I’ve never said that.

 

I am saying that the IRA were not motivated by their religion to bomb and kill in the way modern Islamic terrorists are.  The IRA’s motivation was ‘Brits out’, it was political and nationalist, not religious.

That is what I mean when I say the IRA are not Christian terrorists.  They were political terrorists (debated by some) that happened to be Christian.

This is the context of this discussion which began with LC the page before.

 

Hopefully you see the difference.

 

Edited May 10, 2025 by Sweet

[Gregmal]

We instantly analyze risk in real time with investments. We instantly analyze risk when out in the real world. We get behind a keyboard and adhere to political religion and it’s like “oh you’re racist for thinking a bunch of hooded guys with tattoos on the street corner at 2am are up to no good”, “oh people aren’t fleeing NY because of high taxes and pro crime politicians you’re just being alt right!”…”oh checking IDs and enforcing immigration is evil and discriminatory!”….hilarious but also pitiful…if only in the real world we could call their bluff and see what they’d think if the high taxes were levied on them, while those hooded tat rats hugged their street corners and the immigrants did barbecues behind their fenced in enclaves…I’d imagine we d see a bear market in preachy bullshit and virtue signals

Edited May 10, 2025 by Gregmal

[Sweet]

1 hour ago, james22 said:

 

So you agree we should discriminate, great.

 

What are some of the criteria we should use?

We discriminate every time we put someone in prison.

 

We remove their basic rights and lock them up for years.

 

People get hung up on the word discriminate, but we do it all the time.

 

People are so afraid of the word because it assumes discrimination based on things like race.

[Gregmal]

1 minute ago, Sweet said:

We discriminate every time we put someone in prison.

 

We remove their basic rights and lock them up for years.

 

People get hung up on the word discriminate, but we do it all the time.

 

People are so afraid of the word because it assumes discrimination based on things like race.

Yup like broken window policing. Stop and frisk…hows the current nonsense working out?

Edited May 10, 2025 by Gregmal

[dealraker]

54 minutes ago, Sweet said:

He will confirm.
 

Perhaps you need to read my first post to LC on the page over Dealraker.

 

I’m not saying that religion had no impact on the Troubles - I’ve never said that.

 

I am saying that the IRA were not motivated by their religion to bomb and kill in the way modern Islamic terrorists are.  The IRA’s motivation was ‘Brits out’, it was political and nationalist, not religious.

That is what I mean when I say the IRA are not Christian terrorists.  They were political terrorists (debated by some) that happened to be Christian.

This is the context of this discussion which began with LC the page before.

 

Hopefully you see the difference.

 

Yes, I agree.

[james22]

40 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

We instantly analyze risk in real time with investments. We instantly analyze risk when out in the real world. We get behind a keyboard and adhere to political religion. . .

 

I've said before that I'd rather not know investor's politics here, because it makes me question their judgement.

 

But you're right, it's not bad judgement or poor pattern recognition, it's guided by something entirely else.

 

So I'll not let differences in politics influence my take on anyone's investment advice.

 

37 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

if only in the real world we could call their bluff . . .

 

Real communism has never been tried! LOL

[Gregmal]

5 minutes ago, james22 said:

I've said before that I'd rather not know investor's politics here, because it makes me question their judgement.

I think you kinda just have to shrug and brush it all off. It’s the internet. I don’t care or hold anyone’s opinions against them personally, ever. Most of my friends are liberals. Gods gift to me is a semi autistic perspective towards a lotta shit most people get all butthurt and feather ruffled by. You can call me the worst names you want and if you’re down to have a civil chat over a beer I could care less. Unfortunately that ain’t the case for everyone and a lot of people get emotionally invested in things that are mainly distractionary bullshit that’s designed to get them emotionally charged in a manipulative and Pavlovian way. It’s sad.

[james22]

1 hour ago, Gregmal said:

I think you kinda just have to shrug and brush it all off.

 

To be fair, it's easier as a conservative:

 

“To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.”  

 

https://tucson.com/opinion/national/charles-krauthammer-conservatives-can-agree-that-liberals-are-stupid/article_88c69db5-56a8-5515-9140-2304c5dbec93.html

 

I wouldn't expect anyone believing I'm evil to just shrug it off.

 

Edited May 11, 2025 by james22
Added link

[LC]

10 hours ago, Sweet said:

Even if we accept that Christianity was a political force, it’s simply not true to say that was in keeping with the teachings on the New Testament.  
 

Jesus didn’t advocate the establishment of a Christian state, didn’t advocate war or conflict.  
 

What is it that is so hard to understand about this?  

 

Why is there a constant need to try and make everything equivalent when it’s clearly not?

 

I feel like you're sort of making my point - an entire group using "Christianity" to justify their political ambition.

 

I'd put the question back to you and ask why you can't see the malfeasance common to all these faith-based groups.

 

 

Quote

Are you a Muslim or come from a Islamic background?

 

Nope! Raised Catholic. Can you imagine a pope from Chicago? Probably a Blackhawks fan...

[LC]

9 hours ago, patience_and_focus said:

With that settled, the next logical question is why is that so.

 

Every reason I've heard is nonsense that is non-causal and further, applicable to any (and every) major religion, at some point in time. I'm curious to hear your explanation.

[Milu]

12 hours ago, Gregmal said:

I think you kinda just have to shrug and brush it all off. It’s the internet. I don’t care or hold anyone’s opinions against them personally, ever. Most of my friends are liberals. Gods gift to me is a semi autistic perspective towards a lotta shit most people get all butthurt and feather ruffled by. You can call me the worst names you want and if you’re down to have a civil chat over a beer I could care less. Unfortunately that ain’t the case for everyone and a lot of people get emotionally invested in things that are mainly distractionary bullshit that’s designed to get them emotionally charged in a manipulative and Pavlovian way. It’s sad.

Same, almost all my friends are stereotypical liberals constantly getting worked up about every global issue or ‘outraged’ about the latest thing trump or musk did. Some you can have a reasonable conversation about these topics with and others seem to get personally offended by the fact I like Musk and am mostly neutral on trump. I fluctuate between keeping my political opinions to myself  and just going fuck it I’ll just speak honestly and if somebody doesn’t like it that’s their issue, not mine. Haven’t quite settled on an approach yet!

[73 Reds]

56 minutes ago, Milu said:

Same, almost all my friends are stereotypical liberals constantly getting worked up about every global issue or ‘outraged’ about the latest thing trump or musk did. Some you can have a reasonable conversation about these topics with and others seem to get personally offended by the fact I like Musk and am mostly neutral on trump. I fluctuate between keeping my political opinions to myself  and just going fuck it I’ll just speak honestly and if somebody doesn’t like it that’s their issue, not mine. Haven’t quite settled on an approach yet!

@Milu similar situation to you but my friends/relatives all know my position on all things politics and for the most part they are the ones who choose not to address these issues while in my presence.  Not sure what to make of that but it keeps everyone civil and happy.   When discussing these issues it is probably wise to stick with policy matters and try to leave people and personalities out of the discussion as much as possible.

[Spekulatius]

I think people forget that Christianity isn’t the reason for westerns rise, it was the Renaissance  and the aptly named age of enlightenment. Basically at that time, the west (Italy mostly) overcame the confines of the Medieval time Christian thinking (Galileo etc) and the age of reasoning started.

 

If we were stuck in deep Christianity, we still would debate on if the earth is flat or not. The Muslims in a way never had their age of enlightenment yet NS that’s why they fall behind if they embrace their religion as a political framework as well.

 

I don’t agree with Karl Marx on many things but I agree on one thing - Religion is Opium for the masses. If we had gotten rid of religion post the Roman empire, we would probably be a couple hundred years ahead in our civilization.

Edited May 11, 2025 by Spekulatius

[73 Reds]

7 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

I think people forget that Christianity ist the reason for westerns rise, it was the Renaissance   and the aptly named age of enlightenment . Basically at that time, the west (Italy mostly) overcame the Corine’s of the Medieval time Christian thinking (Galileo etc) and the age of reasoning started.

 

If we were stuck in deep Christianity, we still would debate on if the earth is flat or not. The Muslims in a way never had their age of enlightenment yet NS that’s why they fall behind if they embrace their religion as a political framework as well.

 

I don’t agree with Karl Marx on many things but I agree on one thing - Religion is Opium for the masses. If we had gotten rid of religion post the Roman empire, we would probably be a couple hundred years ahead in our civilization.

Nah, faith in a higher being is probably the number one driver of human evolution.  And humans are incapable of ignoring history and where they come from.

[Sweet]

Fantastic short video

 

Edited May 11, 2025 by Sweet

[james22]

1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

I think people forget that Christianity isn’t the reason for westerns rise, it was the Renaissance  and the aptly named age of enlightenment. Basically at that time, the west (Italy mostly) overcame the confines of the Medieval time Christian thinking (Galileo etc) and the age of reasoning started.

 

Nope and nope:

 

Christian theology was essential for the rise of science [and the West].  . . .

 

The “Enlightenment” was conceived initially as a propaganda ploy by militant atheists who attempted to claim credit for the rise of science.

 

https://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/stark_falseconflict-1.pdf

 

 

https://www.amazon.com/Glory-God-Monotheism-Reformations-Witch-Hunts-ebook/dp/B00R3M704M

https://www.amazon.com/Victory-Reason-Christianity-Freedom-Capitalism/dp/0812972333

https://www.amazon.com/How-West-Won-Neglected-Modernity/dp/161017139X/

[dealraker]

2 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

I think people forget that Christianity isn’t the reason for westerns rise, it was the Renaissance  and the aptly named age of enlightenment. Basically at that time, the west (Italy mostly) overcame the confines of the Medieval time Christian thinking (Galileo etc) and the age of reasoning started.

 

If we were stuck in deep Christianity, we still would debate on if the earth is flat or not. The Muslims in a way never had their age of enlightenment yet NS that’s why they fall behind if they embrace their religion as a political framework as well.

 

I don’t agree with Karl Marx on many things but I agree on one thing - Religion is Opium for the masses. If we had gotten rid of religion post the Roman empire, we would probably be a couple hundred years ahead in our civilization.

Yes.

[james22]

Just now, dealraker said:

Yes.

 

No.

 

When Europeans first began to explore the globe, their greatest surprise was not the existence of the Western hemisphere, but the extent of their own technological superiority over the rest of the world. Not only were the proud Mayan, Aztec, and Inca nations helpless in the face of European intruders, so were the fabled civilizations of the East. China, India, and the nations of Islam were backward by comparison with sixteenth-century Europe.

 

How had this happened? Why was it that although many civilizations had pursued alchemy, it led to chemistry only in Europe? Why was it that Europeans were for centuries the only people who possessed eyeglasses, chimneys, reliable clocks, heavy cavalry, or a system of music notation? How had nations that had arisen from barbarism and the rubble of fallen Rome so greatly surpassed the rest of the world?

 

https://www.aei.org/articles/a-civil-religion/

[Milu]

3 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

@Milu similar situation to you but my friends/relatives all know my position on all things politics and for the most part they are the ones who choose not to address these issues while in my presence.  Not sure what to make of that but it keeps everyone civil and happy.   When discussing these issues it is probably wise to stick with policy matters and try to leave people and personalities out of the discussion as much as possible.

Ya agree on the leaving personalities out. Politics is generally such a divisive topic where people have strong opinions that likely don’t change that I often wonder if it’s worth discussing at all around friends. 

[changegonnacome]

Trump administration poised to accept 'palace in the sky' as a gift for Trump from Qatar: Sources
 

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-administration-poised-accept-palace-sky-gift-trump/story?id=121680511
 

Seriously? 

[james22]