On this day of Thanksgiving I am
offering a story from long ago. Amistad is a movie based on a court
case from 1841 which was heard before our Supreme Court. It revolved
around a group of people who were abducted from their native country
of Sierra Leone. They were sold as slaves and were being transported
to a Caribbean plantation aboard the ship Amistad when they revolted,
killing the captain and the cook.
As I look at the uncertainty of our
future I thought there might be some wisdom to be garnered from our
past.
Two of my favorite scenes from this
movie:
And this:
So today I am giving thanks for those who have struggled to overcome hardships, fought to uphold our Constitution, and tried to adhere to the principles that were envisioned when our country was created.
Happy Thanksgiving!
208 comments:
1 – 200 of 208 Newer› Newest»I've seen that movie before (on TV; PBS I believe).
I finally got around to looking at your selection of clips. I understand you just liking the first one, but it's connection to Constitutional principles is a bit unclear to me, assuming there's supposed to be a connection and it's not there on account of you just happened to like that particular scene.
It's an old movie, out in the 1990's I believe.
Ahh, the first scene has to do with letting our ancestors guide us. They should be an integral part of what we do in the present. In our case that would be the people portrayed by those statues we see in the second scene. ;)
RIP Florence Henderson. Always a classy person.
"Ahh, the first scene has to do with…"
Okay, if you say so.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Always a classy person."
Wasn't she boinkin’ the oldest of those boys?
I hadn't heard that. They did go on a date, supposedly. But I think they were both of legal age.
And, er, not actually related.
Gotta run, errands to do, Christmas decorations to hunt up..
Jeb Bush, in The Wall Street Journal: (Gotta go through Google to get there.) Bush analyzes what the Republican Party needs to do to respond to the hostile takeover of their party by Donald Trump. Bush's prescription is to do more of what they were doing before. It doesn't make much sense to me, but it appears to make sense to Bush.
So sure they were. So smug the were. Lee C was too. No what?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyEXshBOwEU
If the were so completely wrong this far, maybe they are just as wrong about the prospects of a Trump presidency.
Lee C who is always courageosuly siding with the to date beltway consensus will most likely foretell a Trumpian disaster. That is, unless the "establishmant" gets in line with Trump - then Lee C will automatically do so also.
You appear to be having yourself an airhead event. Seems to be related to your anger over not being named a genius on account of Trump managed to pull out a minority Presidency. It was a fluke, get over it. Get over yourself while you're at it.
(Every once in awhile some fool actually does draw into an inside straight. It's still dumb poker, even when it occasionally hits. You need to quit tryin’ to stretch a dumb poker move into a stroke of genius.)
When ya'll got a minute or two extra (ain't too long). I have here a brief introduction to Michael Flynn, Trump's new NSA chief and soon-to-be White House advisory screwball. The NewYorker
I have here a brief introduction to Michael Flynn, Trump's new NSA chief and soon-to-be White House advisory screwball.
It explains why Trump likes him.
There was an article in my paper this morning regarding Russia helping to spread fake news in our media to help Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton. It occurs to me that Putin may regret that.
If the were so completely wrong this far, maybe they are just as wrong about the prospects of a Trump presidency.
I suspect that all of those people would be very happy to be wrong in that regard. We shall see.
Btw, while they read the Electoral College wrong, they did not read the majority of Americans wrong. Trump has no mandate for his policies.
One thing is probably for sure, the cost for protecting Trump and his family is going to be extremely expensive, given that Melania and Baron will be living in Trump Tower and Trump will be in the White House.
"…given that Melania and Baron will be living in Trump Tower…"
The Donald says they're gonna move to Washington DC in the spring when Barron gets out of school. Of course, he also said that Melania was going to give three important policy speeches towards the end of his campaign, and that didn't happen either.
Trump's Wall in Scotland
He got a wall in Scotland; ain't gonna be no wall on the Mexican border. He's gonna tell us that the wall's that're already there (maybe 700 miles walled and fenced already out of over 2,000 miles of border) are adequate to solve the problem.
He's simply gonna declare the problem solved, and that'll be the end of it.
I had a thought of my own this morning: President Obama should probably pardon Rosie O'Donnell, or, at least, offer her a pardon. (Just to piss The Donald off if for no other reason.)
He got a wall in Scotland; ain't gonna be no wall on the Mexican border.
It did strike me that, while his flip flopping wasn't good for the people in that article, it is something that we should hope for.
Fareed Zakaria said something similar just now on his show.
He was just interviewing the current National Security adviser and she bluntly said that the office of President carries with it huge responsibility. It is something that weighs heavily. I think that Trump will find out quickly that this is not a reality TV show and that if he really screws up it could have very, very serious consequences. He truly would be wise to seek council from prior Presidents, yes, even Bill Clinton.
I am going to see a Christmas play today. I have been busy all weekend with one thing or another. Yesterday I put up the Christmas tree and the outside lights, so today is for relaxing.
Later...
Lee: "It was a fluke, get over it."
It was a hard fought win against all odds, against a unified enemy and despite traitors in the home camp, and still it came in as a GREAT win, the greatest one in decades for the Republican party. File that under #notafluke, whydontcha.
It's too bad really to see you folks so concerned and frightened when all you have to look forward to is GREATNESS.
The Emperor Donald J Trump is gonna build a great and beautiful wall and Make America Greate Again - and all you ingrates do is sulk? Get with the program, get aboard the Trump Train! It's fun to win.
Different sections of the Stock Market develpoments from 11/08 to 11/15
Indistrials: +6%
Pharma: +10%
Finance: +11%
Strange that. Now that the world has collapsed according to some people.
"…Donald J Trump is gonna build a great and beautiful wall and…"
Ain't gonna be no wall; he's gonna do the exact same thing Obama was doing, little wall where there's already wall, fence where there's already fence, patrol the rest, and declare the problem ‘solved’.
Ain't gonna ‘lock her up’ neither. It'd be too embarrassing to have to admit that was never feasible; she stretched the State Department Rules, but those aren't laws--worst they could have done was fire her, ‘cept she long time ago quit.
Ain't gonna be no roundup of illegals either; ain't gonna happen. Obama was already deporting criminal aliens at a record pace (without much fanfare from Republicans); The Donald will keep up Obama's program and declare it now to be a great victory for the angry old white folks on account of it's now a fellow angry old white man doing it instead of a youngish black man (youngish for a President anyway).
That is what's gonna happen.
Oh, and The Donald's reversal of Obama's Executive Orders opening up normal relations with Cuba; that ain't gonna happen neither.
Obama's opening with Cuba will stand (much to the dismay of the right-wingers who'll nevertheless manage to find a way to pretend it's what they wanted all along).
This sorta shit will go on until they get that first Supreme Court nomination; if he defies his right wing on that then they'll quit pretending real fast.
The anti-Romney chorus just keeps getting louder. They ratcheted it up again this weekend. I almost wish Romney would say something in public about wanting to be Trump's Secretary of State (even if it isn't true) just so Trump could go ahead and appoint Guiliani and get it over with. I don't really give a damn ‘bout Guiliani having to wait while Trump tries to get Romney to grovel, but I'm gettin’ tired of hearin’ ‘bout this one and just wish it were over.
This part is disconcerting, that Trump will lie when the truth would do. Trump is now claiming that he won the popular vote. (Twitter feed--Web page) He may even have convinced himself this is true (and that would be scarier still).
But, we probably don't have to worry ‘bout Trump actually believing that crap himself.
"It's not insignificant that Trump's tweet [claiming that he had won
the popular vote] also successfully shifted the media narrative away
from negative stories about Trump's many conflicts of interest. The
New York Times published a front-page investigation into the conflicts
on Sunday."
Politico.com
Might as well LINK to the New York Times' article on Trump's conflicts of interest, now that I've mentioned it.
With the Republicans now in control of the White House (soon to be anyway) and both Houses of Congress, a whopping 81% of Republicans are dissatisfied with how things are now going in Washington DC. (QuinnipiacPoll PDF file)
It's rather bad form to refuse to meet with the President, so Trump has requested another meeting with Mitt Romney on Tuesday to try to pump up The Donald's claim that Romney ‘really wants’ to be Trumps' Secretary of State. (So far Romney has declined to confirm that claim by Trump, but, just having the meeting should give Trump some basis to keep repeating the claim.)
And, in what must be a blow to Rudy Guiliani, Trump is also meeting with David Petraeus, today, on the same subject.
Trump is also meeting with David Petraeus
Him I like. Despite everything.
"Him I like."
Under ordinary circumstances I'd say he was disqualified from Secretary of State (hell, he actually disclosed classified information to his mistress (real life Mata Hari thing goin’ on there); Hillary may have mishandled her e-mails but she didn't do that), but, the alternative is probably Rudy Guiliani, who probably wants the job to grab at a bunch of bribes he expects to collect through his ‘international security consulting’ business.
... he actually disclosed classified information to his mistress...
Yeah, that's the "despite everything" bit. But I still like him better than the others.
A strange case
The Facebook page believed to belong to him included the grievances about attacks on Muslims, according to two federal law enforcement officials, including events in Myanmar, formerly known as Burma. Shortly before the attack, he wrote: "Seeing my fellow Muslims being tortured, raped and killed in Burma led to a boiling point," according to federal law enforcement officials.
Myanmar?
And did he not notice all of those beheaded corpses they are finding in Daesh's mass graves? Maybe he should have taken his anger out on them rather than college students in Ohio?
"Maybe he should have taken his anger out on them rather than
college students in Ohio?"
School killings are hard to pin down to anything logical because the perps usually don't make a whole lot of sense. (Most of them have so far been Caucasians of Christian heritage, but they still don't make a lot of sense.) I wouldn't be surprised if this guy turned out to be a largely isolated individual who felt powerless in his real world and so turned to the internet for some sort of inspiration and/or guidance. That's how it usually goes with these guys--whether of Muslim or Christian heritage.
On due reflection, it occurs to me that David Petraeus' experience has more to do with killing people and breaking things than it does with diplomacy. I'd think Secretary of Defense would probably be a better fit than Secretary of State. (On the other hand, if the alternative is Rudy Guiliani….)
Today Trump's tweeting about jailing people (or revoking their citizenship--presumably that last only applies to naturalized citizens) for flag burning. (Trump Tweet) I kid you not.
That NYT article about his many conflicts of interest must really be bothering him and his inner circle (i.e. the Trump kids). He's doing all kinds of things to divert attention to how outrageous and ill informed he can be.
Now this is going to get old really, really fast.
President-elect Donald Trump fired off a series of tweets late Monday and early Tuesday criticizing CNN for reporting that his claims about voter fraud are baseless -- which they are.
[Lee]: He's doing all kinds of things to divert attention to how outrageous and ill informed he can be.
Ummm...I don't think that's working for him.
You hear so much about wildfires in California, but not so much in Tennessee.
"I just see fire everywhere," said Logan Baker, who had checked into the Park Vista Hotel on Monday. The fire swept up to the hotel parking lot, he told CNN affiliate WATE. He posted videos of the hotel doors and windows glowing from the fire looming outside.
Baker was among dozens of guests who couldn't leave because falling trees engulfed in flames had blocked the only road out.
"We can't go outside. The firefighters said the wind is blowing at 80 miles per hour and the debris in the air is too hard to get us down right now," he said.
The fire had not reached the hotel, but smoke had permeated the building, making it hard to breathe, he said. Guests stood in the hotel lobby with masks over their faces.
But Baker said he felt safe so far. He said he could see downtown Gatlinburg "just engulfed" in flames with cabins on the hillside on fire. The night sky had turned orange, clogged with smoke as ash rained down.
I'm beginning to realise the "liberals" and anarchists aren't going to stop their bitchin' and whinin' for the whole duration of the Trump presidency. Kinda like it was for the Bush presidency, but a hundred times louder. It seems that some folk don't wanna accept the election outcome unless their guy (or, more likely, gal) won. I've decided that rather than be annoyed by their illiberal and anti-democratic tendencies, I'm just gonna enjoy watching them squirm. If they can't get it through their thick skulls that there are is an equal number of people as themselves who don't share their cockeyed liberal socially engineered utopian vision ... well they're just gonna have to suck it up. It really does amaze and shock me, though, that the media continue to act as if some terrible mistake has been made ... when it was them that were shown to be clueless out-of-touch mouthpieces.
"You hear so much about wildfires in California, but not so much in
Tennessee."
That's pretty much normal for all natural disasters in "fly-over" country (except for rivers flooding, for some reason they take note of the rivers flooding, and also except for earthquakes and tremors in Oklahoma, which are a recent phenomena).
"I'm beginning to realise the ‘liberals’ and anarchists aren't going to
stop their bitchin' and whinin' for the whole duration of the Trump
presidency."
That would be much like how FoxNews and Radio-Right-Wing never once let up during the Obama Presidency (‘til just now that they've got the Trump mistake to pretend ‘bout; and yes, it was indeed a mistake--but how ‘terrible’ is hard to say; I say the Republic will survive--the Republican Party may not)
"That would be much like how FoxNews and Radio-Right-Wing never once let up during the Obama Presidency"
Absolutely true. Those guys are lying tools. However, it's easy to switch off a single channel. (Since I cancelled a satellite subscription I don't even have Fox anymore, which has been good for my sanity). But I mean all the rest of the media. That's not just Radio-Right-Wing or Channel-Nut-Job. It's everywhere.
"... and yes, it was indeed a mistake"
A mistake would be when the voting machines get the numbers wrong. What you're referring to is called "an election".
"What you're referring to is called ‘an election’."
I'm referring to the result. It's not sacrosanct, not above analysis because vox populi vox dei; that happens to, in fact, not be true. Your fallacy there is more formally known as the ‘Argumentum ad Populum’ fallacy.
It ain't vox Lee vox de potestate neither. Yore personal analysis does not make it "a mistake".
You've garbled your response ‘potestate’ isn't Latin, nor derived therefrom.
Was it not you who whined about spell-checkin' bein' the last bastion of a sore loser? Now yore doin' it in Latin! Course, the one thing you wanna be sure of in these circumstances is that yore right. And as it happens, you ain't. Maybe yore 16th century Jesuit Latin dictionary needs updatin'. ;-)
I stand corrected. That was apparently a fairly early import.
But, your fallacy is still a fallacy. It's not provably not a mistake on the grounds that it's the actual and true result of the vote. Declaring it to not be a mistake on account of it's ‘an election’ doesn't work. The fact that it's an election doesn't mean it's not a mistake, and it will never mean that.
While we're on the subject of Radio-Right-Wing and FoxNews… I've been listening intermittently throughout the day. They're concentrating on winning the election against Hillary today--it's been all Hillary, all day.
They must be spooked by somethin’; I haven't figured out quite what yet. May be that recount, but that don't feel right, nor are they too spooked yet by the NYT article either, at least, I don't think so. They're up in the air ‘bout something though--makes no sense to be going after Hillary today except that it's a familiar target and they can expect a Pavlovian response driving out all other thoughts for the day. But I'm not sure what's got ‘em spooked.
Fairly good piece in TheAtlantic about the philosophy of the incoming cultural warriors who're gonna save us from ‘radical Islam’ by saying ‘radical Islam’ at nearly every available opportunity. (As usual for The Atlantic it's fairly long and fairly dense.)
Obama's administration avoided, so far as they could, identifying the Islamist terrorists by their Muslim connections, on the theory that it just played into the radicals' desire to foment a wider Christian/Muslim World War.
The folks who're taking over our security are eager to prove that playing up the connection with the Muslim religion is going to make us safer somehow than did the Obama administation's policy of playing that connection down (and precisely how this would make us safer is a subject for another time).
The piece in The Atlantic identifies the major players in this new strategic approach.
Well, the Tennessee fire led off NBC Nightly News tonight, but they made prominent mention of the fire threatening DollyWood, so I'm not sure whether or not to give them points for that.
"It's not provably not a mistake..."
Double negative ... I sense a bit o' Jesuitical sophistry is imminent ...
"...on the grounds that it's the actual and true result of the vote."
LOL. So we agree the electoral mechanism was not substantially flawed. I presume any remaining mistake is in the eye of the beholder. And you bein' the beholder, I'm just gonna totally discount that as sour grapes.
"They must be spooked by somethin’; I haven't figured out quite what yet. May be that recount, but that don't feel right..."
Sounds right to me. I expect there's a conspiracy theory floatin' around the rightwingosphere that Crooked Hillary has used Jill Stein as her frontwoman in requesting recounts in WI, PA and MI. And that the recounts, if they are allowed to happen, will be frigged in Hillary's favour. I imagine rightwing fears have been heightened by the generally illiberal reaction to the election.
"I sense a bit o' Jesuitical sophistry is imminent ..."
Simply put, It's not a mistake because I said it was a mistake. Rather: I said it was a mistake because it was.
You're getting the cause confused with its result.
"Obama's administration avoided, so far as they could, identifying the Islamist terrorists by their Muslim connections, on the theory that it just played into the radicals' desire to foment a wider Christian/Muslim World War."
I never really understood that approach. Do they think those with jihadi sympathies will forget which side they're on if everyone treads on eggshells? Or do they really think that "true Islam" is not political? What a crock o' BS. All religion is political.
The only people who think otherwise are the ones that say "Happy Holidays" and want to ban prayer from schools and bibles from courtrooms and prolife activists from sidewalks. The ones who grudgingly think religion is ok as long as it is confined to the private sphere. How can any philosophy (religious or otherwise) through which a person makes sense of their world not affect their dealings with their neighbour and the State? It's plain stupidity to imagine otherwise.
The thing is, Western religion has spent a great deal of time reflecting upon, writing about and, yes, fighting about its relationship with civil society. It also has some foundational maxims to go by ("Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", "my kingdom is not of this world" etc). It is able to accommodate pluralism, to cooperate with other humanist points of view. Islam has followed a very different trajectory. Part of its problem is its history of conquest, part of it is being trapped in the mandatory literal interpretation of the Qu'ran which is generally not very pluralistic.
I don't think it's very wise to ignore these differences. But "liberal" thinkers have so deluded themselves that they think controlling what is said in public can determine what is thought in private. That is the essence of political correctness. It didn't work to fend off Brexit, or Trump, nor will it save Renzi or Hollande, and it certainly ain't gonna counter Islamic extremism.
"Do they think those with jihadi sympathies will forget which side
they're on if everyone treads on eggshells?"
They think their public statements will be quoted on jihadi websites and in jihadi literature, both out of context and mistranslated to give the impression that the Obama administration views this conflict as a war against all of Islam. They think the jihadis will then use those statements to argue that the war is already on and the ‘peaceful’ Muslims no longer have the option of living in peace with the infidels of the West.
On the other hand, I haven't yet heard any of the critics produce a credible argument that any war has ever been lost or even compromised by the name one officially assigned to the enemy.
(If I were picking a name I'd go for ‘Kharijite’ or sometimes spelt ‘Khariji’ sometimes ‘al-Khawarij’. It has the Muslim connection implied, which will perhaps placate the critics who insist that we simply must conform our rhetoric to the jihadi's desired rhetoric, and I think the Islamic societies would probably accept it and not feel that it necessarily included all of Islam. I'd give it a shot anyway, run it past the linguists and sociologists conversant with Islamic societies.)
"They think their public statements will be quoted on jihadi websites
and in jihadi literature, both out of context and mistranslated…"
I would also point out that this was the exact same view as was held by the Bush administration, and it only became suspect after Bush was gone and the designation was continued by the Obama administration. For seven years of Bush's war it wasn't an issue at all. It became an issue when it could be tied to the black guy, the secret Muslim, the Manchurian candidate, in the White House.
"Part of its problem is its history of conquest, part of it is being
trapped in the mandatory literal interpretation of the Qu'ran which is
generally not very pluralistic."
You seem to suffer from the right-winger delusion that there is one version of Islam and that the Islamists have the franchise on it. I will have to chalk that up to your own not very pluralistic view of religion, as you're not much in agreement with the right-wingers on economic matters (most other things perhaps, but definitely not economics).
@ Lynnette,
Carrier, Inc., the Indiana air-conditioner manufacturer has announced an ‘agreement’ to keep some of the 1,400 jobs they said they were going to move to Mexico in Indiana (they did not specify for how long), supposedly this is the result of an ‘agreement’ with the incoming Trump administration (terms not announced).
Personally, considering how Trump's been telling us how we should avoid ‘bad deals’ struck by fools…. I'm gonna havta wait on congratulating him until I see the written, signed agreement. Until then I'll have to consider this is probably just a PR stunt (beneficial to both parties as such).
As things stand we could give Carrier whatever tax break it is that they want, and then they could still move the jobs to Mexico, not in writing; not enforceable; this is one of those kind.
So…. Not a good deal if it's not in writing; surely Trump wouldn't strike such a poor deal right off the bat and then expect us to cheer for it. Would he?
Final note before I go down for the night….
"So we agree the electoral mechanism was not substantially flawed."
I don't know that I agree with that, given the discrepancies between the popular vote and the ‘electoral college’ result. However, that is the currently agreed upon mechanism. Whether or not it is ‘substantially flawed’ is an issue for another time. I do not believe there was significant fraud or error in the voting or the counting, which is what I think you were trying to get at.
"They think their public statements will be quoted on jihadi websites and in jihadi literature, both out of context and mistranslated to give the impression that the Obama administration views this conflict as a war against all of Islam."
So ya reckon that Obama's verbal restraint will force the schemin' jihadis to write moderate headlines for want of material, do ya? They're gonna say "dang that Preznit! ... we were gonna proselytize the planet, but he's just so darn nice!". LOL.
"On the other hand, I haven't yet heard any of the critics produce a credible argument that any war has ever been lost or even compromised by the name one officially assigned to the enemy."
Y'all really don't get the concept of propaganda, do ya? Ain't never been a war fought without it.
"it only became suspect after Bush was gone and the designation was continued by the Obama administration"
Don't confuse me with the wingnuts. I'm an equal opportunity critic. I'm not in favour of causing gratuitous offence to Muslims. Nor do I see any sense in sweeping the Islamic dimension of jihadist terrorism under the carpet. Do you have any notion what percentage of Muslims in the west sympathise with the jihadis? It needs to be challenged, not ignored.
"You seem to suffer from the right-winger delusion that there is one version of Islam and that the Islamists have the franchise on it."
How do you infer that from my statement that Islam is stuck with its literal interpretation of scripture? My statement is factually correct -- a substantial majority of Muslims have such an interpretation.
"Well, the Tennessee fire led off NBC Nightly News tonight, but they made prominent mention of the fire threatening DollyWood, so I'm not sure whether or not to give them points for that."
Made the news here too. Just a couple of sentences quoting a Dolly Parton statement. Trust the MSM to go for the celebrity angle. I shouldn't complain, I was hoping to get to Dollywood on my last drive down the Appalachians, but couldn't convince my travelling companions to go as far as Pigeon's Neck Bone (or whatever that location was called ;-)
"So ya reckon that Obama's verbal restraint will force the schemin'
jihadis to write moderate headlines for want of material, do ya?"
That is a major non-sequitur. (Even ignoring the jump from discussing what the Obama administration ‘thinks’ (as gleaned from their public statements on the matter) to what I think, even ignoring that jump you've nevertheless committed a major non-sequitur. I must suspect that it was intentionally done.)
"Y'all really don't get the concept of propaganda, do ya?"
Oh, I do indeed get it. So do the right-wingers who want to expand the war to include those Muslims not yet drawn into it. That's why they're so damn eager to include a direct reference to Islam in every public statement on the issue and turn this into a religious war against all of Islam (mostly they don't think that through beyond the part where it would justify them in indulging themselves in a little self-satisfying bigotry--need more enemies now that it's considered taboo to badmouth the niggers). So too do the jihadi want to do exactly the same thing, turn this into a broader war than it is. I presume you understand it too and want the same as well. I personally am not interested in fighting your religious war for you. I'll leave that to you Irish.
"My statement is factually correct -- a substantial majority of
Muslims have such an interpretation."
Your statement is, in fact, incorrect. A substantial majority of Muslims are only vaguely familiar with the jihadi interpretation, or even the interpretation of their own ‘school’ of Islam. Such theological arcanery is mostly the realm of fanatics such as yourself (and, of course, of the jihadi as well)
And, with that, I'm down for the night.
I had a thought as I was dropping off. Figured to give you the rest of the night (for me; the rest of my night) to work on it.
"On the other hand, I haven't yet heard any of the critics produce
a credible argument that any war has ever been lost or even
compromised by the name one officially assigned to the enemy."
Lee C. @ Tue Nov 29, 10:34:00 pm ↑↑
You have all that time now to produce an example or even a credible argument in the absence of an example. Floor's yours for now.
Well, I'm up. On reflection it occurs to me that there are several words I could have used last night in the place of the word ‘fanatic’, which is somewhat charged.
The words ‘ideologue’ and ‘partisan’ come to mind, or even ‘zealot’, this being connected to religion, but it was late and I was getting tired and they did not occur to me last night.
A "progressive" Saudi Prince speak out in favour of women being allowed to drive cars:
http://www.alwaleed.com.sa/news-and-media/news/driving/
The issue itself is not an interesting one. We would of course all agree on the topic alone. What's interesting is to look at how he makes the argument.
Nice one Marcus. The Saudis would be able to send all the foreign drivers (who are presumably even lower than women) back where they came from.
"…how he makes the argument."
"The argument…"? Not sure I follow; it appears to me that he makes several arguments.
[Chumpy]: "Your statement is, in fact, incorrect."
My statement is based, among other things, on a Pew Research poll. What's yores based on? The same pollsters that told ya Trump was gonna lose? Y'all's own "expertise" don't count for much round here.
While we're at it, y'all better shut up this young firebrand before she brings jihadi ire down on yore head ;-)
"My statement is based, among other things, on a Pew Research poll."
So far your statement is based on an unverified claim of a Pew Research Poll and perhaps imaginary "other things". You have a link no doubt? (T the Pew Poll I mean; I believe we can safely ignore your claim of ‘other things’ for the time being.)
(By the way, do not think it has gone unnoticed that you have chosen to not provide either an example or a credible argument in favor of including the word ‘Islam’ in the discussion of terrorists whenever possible. Finding something else to fuss ‘bout doesn't conceal your unwillingness to go there.)
Hey Chumpy, that offer of a free education expired some time back. Figger it out yoreself.
To other matters... I see Steve Mnuchin, ex-Goldman Sachs banker, is to be the new Treasury Secretary.
Trump musta thought his name was Steve Munchkin... so he'd be good for the little people! ;-)
So, that means no link to this supposed ‘Pew Poll’. I am not surprised. I rather doubted the existence of any such poll to begin with.
Pete: "I'm beginning to realise the "liberals" and anarchists aren't going to stop their bitchin' and whinin' for the whole duration of the Trump presidency. Kinda like it was for the Bush presidency, but a hundred times louder. It seems that some folk don't wanna accept the election outcome unless their guy (or, more likely, gal) won. I've decided that rather than be annoyed by their illiberal and anti-democratic tendencies, I'm just gonna enjoy watching them squirm."
You only now realised the libtard-lefty way of adressing things? A bit late but still good that you seem to get it.
It's in their system really, to lash out and even (have their useful idiots) lash out violently. They will continue to do that until the paradigm shifts, which it was is happening now, and which is why they are so very upset right now.
They are the very people we have to look closely at because when the pendulum swings they will become radicals for the right - and we mustn't let them get out of line.
Pete: "Do you have any notion what percentage of Muslims in the west sympathise with the jihadis? It needs to be challenged, not ignored."
I could ask you another question about that. Because even if the percentage in your question is low, then why is it there at all? Why should even a small percentage be tolerated? (And the percentage isn't as small as you'd like BTW).
I mean, what is the percentage of anti-muslim immigrats in muslim nations? How many christians or atheists who do not really like muslims go to muslim nations to settle, even if only a few have a future Crusade in mind?
Basically: why have muslims in the west to begin with?
OK, diplomats and exchange students who will be going back and tourists of course, but why muslim residents in western nations?
Give me a positive here.
Again: why have muslims in the west to begin with?
Give me real answers here Pete, pragmatic answers, and not some fucking bulllshit about "equal value" or some such...
This oughta be fun to watch, the avowed atheist and the reactionary Catholic making common cause agin the Muslims. I may need to make popcorn for this show.
It appears that Trump doesn't believe we have enough Goldman-Sachs in government yet, what with the selection of Steve Mnuchin for Treasury Secretary, and so Trump is actively attempting to recruit current Goldman-Sachs President Gary Cohn for some position in the Trump administration (no real clue yet what position would entice Mr. Cohn).
Not atheist Lee, agnostic. I don't claim to KNOW that God doesn't exist, I just don't believe that he/she/it does because I've seen zero signs of that. But I still confess it might be that he/she/it does, however unlikely I say it is.
"Not atheist Lee, agnostic."
Yeah, well, doesn't change the call for popcorn.
David Ignatius in the Washington Post has a dour take on the battle for the truth in today's media environment. I hope he's being overly pessimistic.
Turkish newspaper, al -HurriyetDailyNews gives us the tale about how Erdoğan thinks the Europeans are trying to force Turkey to give up on its bid to join the E.U. and the powers that be in the E.U. ‘apparently’ think Erdoğan wants them to close Turkey out of E.U. membership, so that he can cut loose from the E.U. but avoid the blame for that decision, put the blame on them. (Might want to remember that, these days, newspapers in Turkey very seldom publish things that Erdoğan doesn't want published.)
But "liberal" thinkers have so deluded themselves that they think controlling what is said in public can determine what is thought in private.
Somehow I don't think that delusion is exclusive to "liberals".
OK, diplomats and exchange students who will be going back and tourists of course, but why muslim residents in western nations?
Give me a positive here.
Again: why have muslims in the west to begin with?
Because we are the open societies we claim to be? If we start having tests as to people's religion we are denying all that has allowed us to build successful societies, we are putting a "win" in the column of those who would tear us down.
(Sorry, Petes, I had to respond.)
Which side will America’s next president take in the war on information?
Lol! President? What President? We are going to have a clown in office that uses Twitter to propagate or repeat every falsehood created.
This article is right, the truth is losing out. I talked to someone before the election who repeated some story about Hillary Clinton early in her career as a lawyer. I forget now what the story entailed, but it wasn't complimentary. I asked her where she had heard it and she said it was all over Facebook. When I asked what was the original source she said she didn't know. She had taken the story as fact because it was on Facebook, she hadn't even fact checked it.
"I asked her where she had heard it and she said it was all over
Facebook."
I have seen several laments here of late about the growth of ‘fake news’. The Russians are getting to be old hands at it. It's a full-scale industry in Moscow, only recently directed at the United States, most notably with their interference in our last Presidential election. But, they've been practicing it on European and in EurAsian countries for quite a few years now.
Here in the States it got its start probably with Rush Limbaugh, but got industrialized by FoxNews, with them putting Sean Hannity on TV (originally Hannity and Combs) for an hour per night, five nights a week, and, to lesser extent, Bill O'Riley, who also gets the five hours a week. (Not to mention that FoxNews syndicates Hannity, among others, another 15 hours a week on Radio-Right-Wing.)
Some of the competing cable news companies have tried to compete from on the left, but they don't have anything near the loyal audience nor the impact of FoxNews and its affiliated Radio-Right-Wing (Petes' complaints to the contrary notwithstanding).
Not surprisingly, the Republican leaning editorial outlets have had a spate of articles and essays here of late claiming there is no fake news out there except perhaps what's being run on MSNBC or perhaps CNN, and in any case the fake stuff you see in spite of the fact that they told you it wasn't really there, that isn't really fake news on account of it's got that good right-wing spirit, so it's inherently true; although it may all be a pack of lies strung one upon another.
And, just for good measure… Newt Gingrich is running around mocking Mitt Romney as a suck-up for even being seen with Donald Trump, much less saying nice things about him (or, more accurately, saying things that could be interpreted as nice, with just a little bit of squinting).
Huh! Speaking of facts, I just realized that I wrote "Cuban" instead of "Caribbean" in my post for the location of that plantation. Fixed it. So much for my proofreading. I guess that's why real writers have editors.
Lynnette: "Because we are the open societies we claim to be? [...], we are putting a "win" in the column of those who would tear us down."
I'd say that by being too open soceities we are foolishy letting those in who indeed want to tear us down.
Given the low birth rate in Europe and the high number of muslim (and/or African) immigrants and the high birth rate among them it's INEVITABLE that we native Europeans will become a minority in our homelands. And there's no place to flee once that happens. Just plot the trend, it's not that hard to do.
Lynnette: "If we start having tests as to people's religion we are denying all that has allowed us to build successful societies"
Really? You really think that? You really think the vast progress in science, human rights and for that matter womens rights came from "multiculturalism"? Are you that naive?
Those are western ideals, created by western Christian and non-religous (and ideally a mix between the two) societies of European descent.
You probably think the bulk of the advances in science came out of a multicultural America?
No the bulk came out of Europe, the Industrial revoution was a European thing. We were way ahead of ya'll there, and before that revolution basically ALL greatnesss in the arts and archiecture and such came out of Europe. You merely got the lead after the wars when Europe was wrecked, and for that reason alone.
And even then it was White Christian America that picked up the mantle and moved things forward. The European decsendants in the new worls that is.
Me: "... it's INEVITABLE that we native Europeans will become a minority in our homelands...."
Unless we change that trend of course. Which we will. Either very soon and by political programs or when it's close to too late by war.
I know what I preferr.
"I know what I preferr."
You may encounter some resistance to that notion from the objects of your desire. The ‘keep ‘em barefoot and pregnant’ thing has lost a lot of its appeal to many of the fairer sex.
I don't want to keep women barefoot and pregnant you dolt. I want women proud and aware. I want, say, Marion Le Pen to be a role model for womanhood, not some burka-clad breeding machine for tribal purposes where a boy child is valued way above a girl child who is seen as a mere commodity in a future marriage negotiation.
Strong, proud western women emulating Joan of Arch. Not cultural-marxist man-hating "feminists" or self-hurting muslimas.
"Strong, proud western women emulating Joan of Arch [sic]"
Warrior woman; died young, childless, probably virginal. Okay, I got it--you're goin’ with the kill ‘em all route, not the outbreed ‘em route. I'm up to speed now. (The women may not go for that die a virgin thing though; that may not be real popular with the chicks either.)
Closer to home…
Those among us who remember the history of the American Congress' ‘Sequester’ and how it was originally sold on the promise that the results would be so catastrophic that it would never be implemented--they'd get around to fixing the problem first on account of the sequester was just too awful to contemplate ever going into effect. Except they never could fix the problem and the sequester did go into effect, and now the radical right-wingers are hailing the sequester as one of their great achievements to be defended against those rascally ‘establishment’ types.
Those who remember all that will be interested in this:
"Prepare for the Obamacare cliff.
"Congressional Republicans are setting up their own, self-imposed
deadline to make good on their vow to replace the Affordable Care
Act. With buy-in from Donald Trump’s transition team, GOP leaders on
both sides of the Capitol are coalescing around a plan to vote to repeal
the law in early 2017 — but delay the effective date for that repeal for
as long as three years.
"They’re crossing their fingers that the delay will help them get their
own house in order, as well as pressure a handful of Senate Democrats
— who would likely be needed to pass replacement legislation — to
come onboard before the clock runs out and 20 million Americans lose
their health insurance. The idea is to satisfy conservative critics who
want President Barack Obama’s signature initiative gone now, but
reassure Americans that Republicans won’t upend the entire health
care system without a viable alternative that preserves the law’s
popular provisions."
Politico.com
Yeah, right, that's gonna work this time, uh-huh, yeah, sure.
Lee: "War....."
Ok you speak up for Lynnette you chavuinst bastard. Goes to prove your liking for Islamist extremists, which YOU model as "general peaceeful muslims"
Are you drunk already? This early in the day on weekday?
‘Cause that made absolutely zero sense, on top of being irrationally aggressive.
[Chump]: "So, that means no link to this supposed ‘Pew Poll’. I am not surprised. I rather doubted the existence of any such poll to begin with."
That's an extraordinarily selective paralysis y'all develop in yer Googlin' hand when it doesn't suit ya to know the truth. It ain't hard to find, but if I wrapped a ribbon round it and sent it in the mail y'all would still turn yer nose up at it. Fine. Yer iggerance suits ya. Don't let me dissuade ya from it.
"That's an extraordinarily selective paralysis y'all develop in yer
Googlin' hand when it doesn't suit ya to know the truth."
And, just which of your readers do you think is stupid enough to buy that excuse for you not producing the poll that does not exist, Lynnette or Marcus?
[Lynnette]: "Somehow I don't think that delusion is exclusive to "liberals"."
Ok, fair point.
[Lynnette]: "If we start having tests as to people's religion we are denying all that has allowed us to build successful societies, we are putting a "win" in the column of those who would tear us down."
I broadly agree. I am not on Marcus's side if he's suggesting excluding all Muslims from western society. There are two points though that I expect he and I would agree on, and perhaps even you might too.
First, there is a limit to rates and levels of immigration that any society can reasonably absorb. To me that's just common sense, although I expect there might be arguments about where the limit lies.
Secondly, there are ideas that might be classed as seditious. A pluralistic society can accommodate many viewpoints including proposals to dramatically change the direction of that society. But some ideas are incompatible with pluralism and with the common good. Again there may be a debate about where the boundary lies. In my view you have crossed the line when, for instance, you proclaim that the IS flag will fly over government buildings and you intimidate onlookers with throat-cutting gestures.
The idea that you would ignore that the Britons who did this were wearing Muslim clothes and beards is laughable to me. Should the government denounce radical beard-wearers, in the interests of political correctness? No, in my view, they should directly confront the fact that these people are acting on their view of Islam, albeit a warped one. How can you counter a viewpoint if you're not allowed to mention it? Apart from anything else, it's not very pluralistic.
[Chumpy]: "And, just which of your readers do you think is stupid enough to buy that excuse for you not producing the poll that does not exist, Lynnette or Marcus?"
I don't have to speculate. You're the one I know is too stupid to Google "pew poll literal koran". That or the selective paralysis which, to be honest, casts you in a better light than you likely deserve.
That's the best ya got for that? I'm willing to leave it there then.
You are dismissed.
[Lynnette]: "Lol! President? What President? We are going to have a clown in office that uses Twitter to propagate or repeat every falsehood created."
I was interested to see this article which says many Trump don't actually think he'll change anything much for the better. It chimes with a report on BBC today that many Brexit voters don't think leaving the EU will fix the problems they perceive with immigration or the economy.
I think voters have voted more in protest than hope. That's why another ill-fated referendum next Monday could well be the beginning of the end for the Eurozone. Italy's referendum on constitutional reform was probably needed, but the PM politicised it when he said he would step down if it was defeated. That makes it a vote on Renzi. If he loses there will be an attempt to form a transitional technical government, and if that fails there will be a snap general election in which the Five Star movement could take power. And if that happens, there will then be a referendum on leaving the Euro. When are politicians going to learn that the public everywhere is in an ugly mood? (It's ironic that a lot of this can be traced back to an American property bubble :-)
[Chumpy]: "You are dismissed."
Ooh the pain of bein' dismissed with Chumpy's one good non-paralysed hand. LOL.
Sorry Lynnette -- "many Trump" should have read: "many Trump supporters".
"I was interested to see this article which says many Trump don't
actually think he'll change anything much for the better. "
Ya ain't been payin’ attention then. A fair chunk of Trump's voters are counting on him to burn the whole damn thing down around us all. (Most of the rest think he just possibly might bring back those jobs that are gone forever; both wings shall be disappointed.)
Oh, yeah, and then there was the third batch who voted for Trump because it was absolutely imperative to STOP Hillary, because they've been hating on her for better than 20 years now (or however long it's been as FoxNews has been around), and they wouldn't have been hating on her that long if it hadn't been imperative to STOP Hillary, pretty much at all costs. Now would they? Just posing the question proves the answer to them (they think much like Petes, in fact).
Add in a fourth batch who voted for Trump on account of he had ‘Republican’ written on the ballot next to his name, and I think we've accounted for pretty much his entire voter base.
These last two batches won't be quite as disappointed by Trump, not like the first two, ‘cause they didn't actually vote for Trump; they voted against Hillary, or they voted Republican. Trump was an incidental problem for them.
Hey Chumpy, I figgered out yer problem with dealin' with the world, and in particular with Trump supporters. Too much stigma, not enough persuasion. Well ... that, plus you bein' an uncharitable cuss. ;-)
Only Trump supporters I've had to be ‘dealin' with’ are you and Marcus. American Trump supporters I've just dismissed from conversation; no point in talkin’ politics to most of those people; there are other things to talk ‘bout. (Considerin’ that I live in Trump territory, my focus has been on keepin’ them from tryin’ to ‘deal with’ me on the subject.) Once again you prove yourself to be basically clueless.
Oh, yeah…
The supposed problem I'm supposed to be having ‘dealin' with’ a Trump Presidency: Not a critical problem for me. I am disappointed, but nothin’ more than that. The Republic will survive. Trump's a fluke; we've seen his kind before, Huey Long, Father Conklin, even Joe MaCarthy fits into that mold. Just none of them ever won before. We'll survive Trump. I don't think the Republican Party will survive Trump, but the Republic will. (Now, if a guy like him got elected to run any of the major European countries, they very well might not survive, but we'll be okay in the end.)
By the way Lynnette… When you're comin’ to terms with the issue of all that ‘fake news’ you might want to recall Petes and his imaginary Pew Poll and the equally imaginary ‘other sources’. Just a thought.
And ya'll have a gentle evenin’ now…
I think I'm down for the night.
[Chumpy]: "Trump's a fluke; we've seen his kind before... Just none of them ever won before."
LOL. You truly ain't gettin' it are ya? Even when by yer own admission he ain't the same as previous. Or rather, the Trump phenomenon ain't the same. The man himself might be a scoundrel (and where you get the idea that I'm a supporter is beyond me). But the ire of the voting public is what counts. They may not get what they want this time, but they have seismically shifted the political discourse.
You think the Dems can afford to trot out another same old, same old, status quo candidate next time round? Everyone's gonna be talkin' the language of change next time, and they will stand or fall on their believability. Trump got an automatic free pass 'cos he was the only one even talkin' the right lingo. Well ... Bernie was too, but the Dem machine didn't realise that when they cheated in the primaries that they had torpedoed themselves too. They actually imagined that all that guff about crackin' the glass ceiling while Hillary cashed another cheque from Goldman Sachs was gonna sail them into the White House.
"Change you can believe in" don't work as a magic incantation anymore. Won't work for Trump either and voters will chew him up and spit him out if it comes to that. I doubt they'll be flocking back to some Hillary-a-like though, the way y'all seem to hope.
"I doubt they'll be flocking back to some Hillary-a-like though, the
way y'all seem to hope."
I'm gonna presume that the ‘y'all’ you inserted there is supposed o refer to me. (I've avoided for years letting you in on the fact that ‘ya'll’ or ‘y'all’, depending on the regional pronunciation and inflection, is plural rather than singular--it's been too much fun watchin’ you screw up when trying to use it, but I may have to give that one up now.) Assuming then that reference is to me, then the response is fairly simple.
Both Marcus and Lynnette, and I presume even you, know that I've never been particularly fond of Hillary Clinton. I've said so many times, written it here many, many times. I think the best thing I've ever said ‘bout her was that I was favorably impressed with her work ethic when she was Obama's Secretary of State; she went up a few points with me after that. Second best thing I could think of to say about her was that she was almost certainly competent to do the job, and she was not Trump; #NeverTrump.
There's no reason that I'd want to be presented with another Hillary Clinton in four years as my best option to depose Donald Trump.
Everybody knows that; you gotta know that; you can't be stupid enough to not know that.
Therefore ∴ You must be trying to start a tangential argument to divert attention from the fact that you made up that story about having a Pew Poll to back you up..
You lied, and now you're trying to cover it up with diversionary tactics. I ain't diverting with ya. Ain't gonna work.
You have a good evenin’ now--I really do gotta go do some other things here for awhile.
[Chumpy]: "I've avoided for years letting you in on the fact that ‘ya'll’ or ‘y'all’, depending on the regional pronunciation and inflection, is plural rather than singular--it's been too much fun watchin’ you screw up when trying to use it, but I may have to give that one up now."
Well, life is full of such simple pleasures. Simple and nasty ones, in yore case. Think I mentioned earlier that, when nitpickin', y'all would do well to make sure in advance that yore right, for fear of makin' an ass of yoreself. (Though in yore case, that opportunity has long since passed y'all by). I could tell you that my singular usage is based on my very own observation of the same in the south of yore great land. But since y'all's unlikely to take my word for it, I will just offer this short Wikipedia reference, which contradicts y'all to y'all's face.
Now, where were we ...
"You must be trying to start a tangential argument to divert attention from the fact that you made up that story about having a Pew Poll to back you up.."
And that Googlin' hand of yores must be either still paralysed or busy doin' somethin' else.
I presume it's futile to ask if you ever get even a tiny bit embarrassed at being so wrong all the time?
"While many Southerners hold that y'all is only properly used as a
plural pronoun, strong counter evidence suggests that the word is
also used with a singular reference, particularly amongst non-
Southerners."
So your defense is that you're not the first damn fool Yankee to get it wrong? That's your defense? And you've somehow convinced yourself that this was not gonna make the laughter at your expense even louder? And now you're struttin’ ‘round proud that you ain't the first idiot I've run across on this? Oh, that's just too rich; I couldn't have made that one up if I'd tried to.
In the meantime; nobody's forgotten your ‘fake facts’ that imaginary Pew Poll of yours.
"particularly amongst non-Southerners"
Chumpy, I know y'all think so little of "your audience" that y'all will try to pass off any ole' bullshitty lie without embarrassment. I imagine that's what's goin' on here, although I don't rule out that y'all actually don't know the difference between "particularly" and "exclusively".
I also have no evidence that y'all has ever crossed the border out of Indiana, let alone crossed the Mason-Dixon line. That makes y'all potentially less qualified than me on the subject. ;-)
But if y'all'd like some verification from an independent third party, albeit a dumb animal, be my guest.
Not that any of this matters a cuss, but ya'll do make yankin' yore chain a hilarious pastime. On a more serious note, I do hope that paralysis of yores is temporary.
"I don't rule out that y'all actually don't know the difference between
‘particularly’ and ‘exclusively’."
I don't think it matters what you think you're gonna rule in or rule out.
Did I somehow give you the impression that I was gonna try to do that dance with you? Argue ‘particularly’ vs ‘exclusively’? Nope, ain't gonna happen. I's afraid you'd try to clean up your act once I mentioned you's doin’ it wrong. Turns out you intend to double down on it instead. No way I'm gonna interrupt that maneuver.
I have no intention of takin’ the dance floor with you; that would distract others from watchin’ you tryin’ to do this dance, and interfer with the fun I'm also havin’ from the watchin’ myself.
See, what ya shoulda done was ya shoulda pretended that you had been using it in the plural; neither Marcus nor Lynnette were likely to have remembered fer shure. Too late for that now though.
Instead you're gonna give us Wiki says on a non-standard dialect, where a bunch of Yankees try to rationalize their efforts to ‘talk Southern’.
I's afraid I'd spoiled it; turns out it's gettin’ even better, on account of you just can't stop yourself from bein’ yourself. This is way good. I'm delighted; do carry on.
Meantime, nobody's forgotten your imaginary Pew Poll, or your equally imaginary ‘other sources’. Nobody's forgotten that you rely on false facts you make up to suit yourself when it suits yourself. This is way good. I'm delighted; do carry on. It gives me repeated chances to remind people what you're trying to divert them from.
"Did I somehow give you the impression that I was gonna try to do that dance with you?"
Nope, y'all gave me the impression y'all were gonna run a mile from it, on account of ya haven't a leg to stand on, let alone to dance with.
"Meantime, nobody's forgotten your imaginary Pew Poll"
Nor are they -- unlike y'all -- forgettin' that Google exists and that I gave ya the search terms. Ya think anyone believes ya haven't already Googled it and found it? Sounds like that paralysis has spread to yore brain too.
"Ya think anyone believes ya haven't already Googled it and found it?"
Ain't none such; I don't need to look. And I've known ‘bout snipe hunts since I's a little kid and they didn't even convince of it back then. (They tell you that you had to hold the bag and flashlight ‘cause you're fat, or just how did they get you so damn committed to snipe huntin’ somebody else?)
I mean, it's not like it's gonna work. You shoulda figured that out by now.
And there ain't no Pew Poll behind your assertions either. You made that up your own self. Ain't no Pew Poll nowhere ever said that a majority of Muslims were in accord with the jihadi interpretation of Islam and the Qu’ran; never been.
Pete: "I broadly agree. I am not on Marcus's side if he's suggesting excluding all Muslims from western society."
I used to think so too, back when there were few of 'em here. But I have since then realised that few attracts more, and more and more. And I have also come to realise that while in small numbers they (at least pretend to) adapt to their new environment the larger the numbers the more demands they make. Strangely demands to mold our society in a direction to bring it more like the societies they once fled from and fled from because those societies did not function.
You ought to have notices that yourself, maybe not in Ireland but in the UK for sure. Just picture-Google "sharia4UK" and see for yourself. No way they would be that outrageous if not for a feeling of strength in numbers. Here, I did it for you:
https://www.google.se/search?q=sharia4uk&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=662&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7ut3e_dXQAhWEApoKHQI7BJ0QsAQIIg
Back here a recent poll in schools in suburbs to Gothemburg found 13% of students has sympaties for Daesh. Now not all immigrants there are muslim and there are even a few unfortunate swedes who live and go to school there for lack of resources to move to a better place. So the rate for muslims only is likely at least double those 13%. And they are here and they are given full access to our wellfare state yet they support head-chopping maniacs.
Do you think that negative is outweighed by any positive? If so, what is that positive? (for us swedes I mean, not for the muslims) In what way do they being here benefit me or mine?
Raped women, muggings, shootings, greanade explosions, depleted wellfare, overextended health care, a police force in a death spiral, plummeting school results, burning schools, burning cars, etc. That's on the negative side. What's on the positive side? Kebab? It doesn't quite make up for all the negatives you know.
Pete: "First, there is a limit to rates and levels of immigration that any society can reasonably absorb. To me that's just common sense, although I expect there might be arguments about where the limit lies."
I agree of course. But I have for some time been realising that it's not merely a question of quantity but of quality as well. Better locate refugees who are muslim to muslim nations. Arabs within Arabia, Africans withiin Africa. Western nations can take responsibility by adding funding and needed expertise. Why are there no syrian refugees in KSA or Qatar for instance? They should go there. And we in the west can maybe take in Christian arabs fleeing persecution in numbers limited to our ability to integrate (or my favourite: assimilate) them. But all in all we should strive to keep refugees as close as possible to their home countries, help them on site and work for a solution so they can go home again.
Also economic migrants should never EVER be allowed to claim refugee status and should always be sent straight back. That'd stop them boats from Libya right there.
Also, don't come with the "pension savers" argument Pete. You are too intelligent to buy that crap and I'm also bright enough to see what a hoax it is. So just don't go there and we can avoid the embarassing chore of debunking that theory step by step.
For Lynnette: I'm not sure if you have children but if you have or if you had, would you want your great-geat-grand daughter to be forced to wear a veil and have to swim in a "burkini" at the beach? If not, why do you favour islamisation of western nations?
Here's an advocate for mass immigration to Europe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuYKtwnzG7M
She, without any proof, claims that "small nation states" are a thing of the past and that we europeans MUST accept mass migration. She is also a former Stasi informer from East Germany who has snitched on people and have had them thrown into torture chambers, re-education (torture) camps or in lenient cases just destroyed their career - for "wrong-think". She's now in a high position of power in Germany even though she should be in jail.
She IS MY ENEMY. If my side wins we'll just make sure folks like her never have any say in how our societies function (and I believe that). Jail the worst offenders maybe. If HER side wins then my digital footprint will be traced and I will probably die of phnemonia in some hideous Gulag camp. The Reds love that stuff, as we know.
Not even i office yet, already making America greater:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xX_KaStFT8
MAGA!
"And they are here and they are given full access to our wellfare
state yet they support head-chopping maniacs."
You probably ought to be careful about converting data for the numbers who ‘have sympathy for’ Da‘esh into presumptions of support for either Da‘esh or any of the other ‘head-chopping maniacs’. It's one thing to have been raised to believe (rightly or wrongly) that ones own ethnic group has a legitimate grievance against another group. It's quite another to support the maniacs. (Actually, asking you to be careful about that is probably an exercise in futility--I have to be careful ‘bout believing misinformation you might be spreading, much as I have to guard against Petes and his misinformation.)
We run into the much the same sort of thing over here. It's too easy to look at stats which show that blacks in general have ‘some sympathy’ for the notion that blacks are treated differently by the police than are whites (systemically, that is, any given one situation may or may not conform to this generalization, although as a generalization it is true). It's quite another to support rioting. Sometimes we'll run into black people who do support rioting, but that's not the majority of the blacks who ‘have sympathy’ for a claim of grievances against the system, even if a majority of blacks do have such sympathies.
Failure to recognize where the ‘law and order’ types misrepresent the import of that kind of data (‘i.e. "sympathy for") can lead to failure to deal with the very real problems we do have with our policing models.
Heck. I updated the StillHealing webpage hoping for a constructive reply from a sane, yet sometimes misguided, person such as PeteS or even a text from a very naive Lynnnette, and all I got was ramblings from a deluded Lee C. Sad. Might as well call it a night and pop in a DVD for the remainder of it. See ya'll!
If ya just hang ‘round a little while you'll probably get some support from Petes; he's into fake facts. Even has some of his own to throw ‘round.
Ex-General, ex-CIA Director, ex-felon--no, wait, he was held to be only a miscreant, ex-miscreant, David Patraeus is going on ABC's ‘This Week’ show, to be interviewed by George Stephanopolous (not the most probing of questioners, but not a FoxNews friendly lightweight either) come Sunday morning. This is going to be widely viewed as Patraeus' necessary trial run public address on his miscreant status in view of his possible nomination to be Secretary of State. (Guiliani's gotta be spittin’ mad ‘bout now.)
Now that took a while to get through! I've been busy and haven't had a chance to check in until now. Lot's of interesting points of discussion. First, I note that Petes touched upon something that I was going to leave a link for. I will leave the link anyway.
Italy's referendum
Another major decision to watch closely. It too apparently will have repercussions that we can't foresee.
[Marcus]: Given the low birth rate in Europe and the high number of muslim (and/or African) immigrants and the high birth rate among them it's INEVITABLE that we native Europeans will become a minority in our homelands. And there's no place to flee once that happens. Just plot the trend, it's not that hard to do.
You are probably right, Marcus. If, that is, humanity survives long enough. That is why it is so critical to make sure that the values that have created the successful societies we have seen are passed on to future generations of citizens, be they native born or immigrant.
[Lynnette]: If we start having tests as to people's religion we are denying all that has allowed us to build successful societies
[Marcus]: Really? You really think that? You really think the vast progress in science, human rights and for that matter womens rights came from "multiculturalism"? Are you that naive?
I believe that the progress we have made in the sciences, human rights, and women's rights has been the product of freedom of thought, the freedom people have found in open societies to explore and experiment. Why have the lands governed by strongmen stagnated?
No, I do not agree with those who believe that chopping off heads to make a point is acceptable behavior. And those are not the people I would welcome into my home. But generalizing by believing that all Muslims are going to adhere to the more extreme version of their religion is willfully demonizing a whole group of people.
You cannot defeat an ideology by building a wall, despite what Trump thinks. You defeat an ideology by having a more appealing and successful one. Why do we see immigrants fleeing to the West rather than KSA or Qatar? They are looking for something else.
[Marcus]: You probably think the bulk of the advances in science came out of a multicultural America?
No the bulk came out of Europe, the Industrial revoution was a European thing. We were way ahead of ya'll there, and before that revolution basically ALL greatnesss in the arts and archiecture and such came out of Europe.
Now, Marcus, you may want to rethink that.
[Marcus]": And even then it was White Christian America that picked up the mantle and moved things forward. The European decsendants in the new worls that is.
What helped America to succeed was a form of government that was far different than the monarchies of Europe.
An Ember
Just a quick drive-by tonight:
[Chumpy]: "Ain't none such; I don't need to look."
Have it yore way. Ignorance is bliss. (Although in yore case, ignorance is just ignorance).
[Me @Tue Nov 29, 10:11:00 pm et seq.]: "Islam has... [a] ...literal interpretation of the Qu'ran...My statement is based, among other things, on a Pew Research poll."
[Chumpy]: "Ain't no Pew Poll nowhere ever said that a majority of Muslims were in accord with the jihadi interpretation of Islam and the Qu’ran; never been."
Just juxtaposin' those two statements for future reference, in case Chumpy won't let sleepin' dogs lie, as is his wont. I assume he's anglin' for a future argument in which I fail to deliver something I never actually promised. We're all well used to the mendacity at this stage, so I'm just exposin' the Chumpy lies in advance. Shouldn't need to mention it again as long as Chumpy remains in his self-imposed ignorance.
[Marcus]: "Just picture-Google "sharia4UK"
That's almost exclusively about Anjem Choudary. He has the intelligence of a door post and would be completely ignorable but for the fact that he is one mean ignorant fucker intent on mischief. The UK did try to ignore him for a long time, but finally couldn't avoid slapping him in jail for five years a couple of months back. His menagerie of hangers-on are also as thick as two short planks. They have no traction within the Muslim community. You can find plenty of videos of other Muslims berating them on the street -- iirc I think there's a whole documentary devoted to it. I guarantee you their confidence does not stem from "a feeling of strength in numbers", but from being a bunch of delinquent morons.
[Marcus]: "And they are here and they are given full access to our wellfare state yet they support head-chopping maniacs."
Sweden does seem to have developed a few problems. Perhaps your complete lack of discrimination on who gets to come in is misguided. But -- and it pains me greatly to say it -- I am somewhat of the same mind as Lee C on this. Sympathy does not equal active support. Our local anecdote here is the Catholic community in Northern Ireland vis-à-vis the IRA. Only a microscopic percentage ever actively participated, even though they went as far as accepting policing from paramilitaries. (That was because of the break down of trust for the established police force, which was well justified as the latter turned out to be colluding with Loyalist death squads. Even in the face of this establishment corruption, the vast majority were not active participants in violence beyond throwing a few stones).
[Marcus]: "Also, don't come with the "pension savers" argument Pete. You are too intelligent to buy that crap and I'm also bright enough to see what a hoax it is. So just don't go there and we can avoid the embarassing chore of debunking that theory step by step."
Actually, it seems I am not sufficiently intelligent. The argument, as I understand it, is along the lines that growth in the economy is necessary in order to pay for pensions, health care etc. etc. These are funded from taxation on the working segment of the population. Europeans generally aren't making enough babies to bolster the workforce, therefore immigration is the solution to the inverted population pyramid. I am interested to hear your debunking -- the stage is yours.
There are two points though that I expect he and I would agree on, and perhaps even you might too.
I agree with both of your points, Petes.
In my view you have crossed the line when, for instance, you proclaim that the IS flag will fly over government buildings and you intimidate onlookers with throat-cutting gestures.
Certainly. I agree that they have taken freedom of thought too far. Because with freedom of thought also comes the responsibility to uphold if for others. No, you are right, there is no reason whatsoever that these people shouldn't be named as a problem. They adhere to a radical form of Islam that does not reflect the values we desire.
I'm afraid I'm out of time for tonight. Have a nice night all...
"Just juxtaposin' those two statements for future reference…"
Petes @ Fri Dec 02, 11:32:00 pm
Well, that was a waste of your time. I'd already guessed your argument, and lo and behold when it finally turned up (long after nobody gives a damn anymore) it proved to be precisely the bullshit I'd expected from you. I'm not fooled for a second, and nobody else is paying attention to you at this point. (Your execises in sophistry are too complicated for them to even want to follow.)
There's no point in me wasting my time as well; that just wasn't good ‘nuff. You gotta do better than that.
And there is no ‘future reference’ for you on this; you lied; you got caught. Done deal. It's over.
Post Script:
That is a problem with relying on a trick that requires you to wait 24/48 hours before you spring the trick. Your audience can easily lose interest, so when you try to spring the trick nobody cares. Something for you to remember for next time. (And, of course, I already knew the trick, so you had that problem too.)
Wow. I have to confess -- I'm still genuinely mystified as to whether you're an attention-seeking troll or you really are as stupid as you appear. The problem is, you display both traits to such an extreme as to indicate either paranoia or cretinism. Maybe it's both. I suppose there's nothing ruling out both paranoid and dumb.
It's one thing trying to cover up a silly mistake. I mean, we all dislike being embarrassed and will do that from time to time. But writing a dozen posts to claim the non-existence of something that is one Google search away ... and all to avoid exposure to two other people, one of whom hates your guts anyway! That's quite amazing. I mean, only children make false claims of innocence while their hand is still in the cookie jar, right?
On another occasion you claimed hundreds of people on a Quora post and thousands on Wikipedia were wrong, just so you could be right. Couple all that with the sort of extreme deflection and defensiveness displayed in the two posts above. I think I ought to stop yanking your chain for entertainment. That's not very responsible either, toward someone who really doesn't sound very stable.
Lee: "-I have to be careful ‘bout believing misinformation you might be spreading,"
Turns out you were sorta right, I wrote from memory there. The 13% is youngsters who know someone supporting Daesh. The ones who actually answer themself that they support Daesh were only 11%.
http://www.gp.se/nyheter/g%C3%B6teborg/studie-var-tionde-elev-st%C3%B6ttar-religi%C3%B6sa-extremister-1.3908356
That's Gothemburgs largest newspaper, not some fringe blog.
Lynnette: "You cannot defeat an ideology by building a wall, despite what Trump thinks. You defeat an ideology by having a more appealing and successful one. Why do we see immigrants fleeing to the West rather than KSA or Qatar? They are looking for something else."
They are migrating here for economic reasons. Do you seriously believe many muslims want a swedish lifestyle? There probably isn't ANY country in the world more at odds with their beliefs than Sweden. Check this out for instance:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51a1cd0ae4b0fa7a57038bee/t/5840780503596eb02f6ae7ba/1480620054413/?format=750w
It's the money and lax immigration laws Lynnette. Not some value system they are looking for.
Ad yes we CAN build a wall to stop them from coming here bringing their values which are not much wanted here. Already border controls on the bridge from Copenhagen to Malmö seriously decreased the inflow. We can do more. Much, much more. And we will, at some point.
Here's an Imam from one of Malmös largest mosques explaining who are the perps and victims of all the shootings and violence in our city (hint: the answer isn't christians or swedes):
http://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/skane/malmo-imamens-uppmaning-sluta-doda-varandra
You can Google translate that for yourselves.
Also note that the source, again, is not a fringe blog but Swedish Public Service - quite possibly the most immigrant-friendly outlet in the world and only slightly to the right of Pravda on the political spectrum.
Now, with that in mind, why wouldn't I want more muslim immigration? Hmmm real hard question. Maybe Lynnette has a value-system-answer for me?
Take it from Bernice McCullough, 80, a retiree from Alliance, Ohio. She’s a registered Democrat, and she normally votes within the party. This year, Trump caught her eye—Barack Obama didn’t live up to her expectations, McCullough said, and she was in no mood for Clinton. So she cast her ballot for the Republican. But she did it with very few expectations.
“I doubt very much that he’s going to much of anything,” McCullough said. “I just wanted to see if there could be a change … I didn’t want the same thing that we’ve had for eight years. And I think that’s what was going to happen.” From Petes' Atlantic ariticle
I would be curious to ask this woman specifically what she felt was done wrong during the last 8 years.
I suspect that there were many people out there who expected too much from Obama's "hope" message that he ran on. I also suspect that there are conservatives out there who are not happy with some of the social policy changes made during the Obama years.
We are currently in one of our periods of having the pendulum swinging widely. And yes, I think the Great Recession, started by the housing bust, was a huge catalyst for this. Illegal, or legal immigration for that matter, would not be such a hot button issue if everyone had good paying jobs that kept them in at least a middle class lifestyle.
Interestingly they were just discussing on a news program the question of who would usher in more change, a Trump presidency, or a Clinton one. The take was that it would be Trump. The obvious reason being that the Republicans are in control of the Legislative branch of government as well as the Executive. Trump will now have the opportunity to pick the next Supreme Court justice, which will have far reaching consequences for the Judicial branch as well.
So that woman, and other Trump supporters, may find that there will be change coming. Whether or not we all can live with it will be the question. But she, and others like her, will be able to take the credit, or the blame, for it. Depending on how you look at it.
Btw, the talking heads are all atwitter, so to speak, about the phone call between Trump and the President of Taiwan. So apparently are the Chinese.
I suspect it is an opening move in a game of chess that is changing.
Pete: "Actually, it seems I am not sufficiently intelligent. The argument, as I understand it, is along the lines that growth in the economy is necessary in order to pay for pensions, health care etc. etc. These are funded from taxation on the working segment of the population. Europeans generally aren't making enough babies to bolster the workforce, therefore immigration is the solution to the inverted population pyramid. I am interested to hear your debunking -- the stage is yours."
I wrote a long and IMO excellent answer to that but Blogger screwed me and it vanished when I tried to post. I'm too pissed about that to write it all over again. But TBC.
But I can leave you with something to ponder.
Pete: "growth in the economy is necessary in order to pay for pensions, health care etc. etc."
Why? Why would that be the case?
"Wow. I have to confess -- "
I don't think you know how to confess. I suspect you even lie to the priests at confession.
In any case, yes, I see you ranting on. No, I wasn't impressed.
"I suspect it is an opening move in a game of chess…"
I fear you probably give him too much credit. I don't think he has a plan, or even a game, in mind. I think that was just one of those ‘throw shit in the air and see what happens’ type of things. He thinks he's a counter-puncher; which means he needs them to throw a punch. I don't think it's occurred to him that they may kick him in the balls instead.
But all in all we should strive to keep refugees as close as possible to their home countries, help them on site and work for a solution so they can go home again.
All well and good, but who will pony up the money to do that? And who will find a solution? So far none of that seems to have been forthcoming in the quantity needed.
Raped women, muggings, shootings, greanade explosions, depleted wellfare, overextended health care, a police force in a death spiral, plummeting school results, burning schools, burning cars, etc. That's on the negative side.
Of course they are! I don't disagree that those things are horrible to have to deal with. But exactly how many are attributable to immigrants, and how many immigrants are actually carrying out those crimes? There are families who are trying to find a better life for their kids outside of a violent world that has engulfed their various countries. They deserve a chance. That is all I am suggesting. That Sweden has chosen to enact laws that are more like a slap on the wrist is the fault of the Swedish lawmakers, not the immigrants.
And, yes, it would be very difficult to integrate large numbers of people into a society, I agree. So that means the numbers must be limited. There are only so many resources to go around. Perhaps Sweden should look into financing refugees closer to their home countries? Isn't that what the EU was doing with Turkey?
Drat! Gotta run. I'll be back later to continue...
Post Script:
"But writing a dozen posts to claim the non-existence of
something that is one Google search away ..."
Ain't a ‘Google search away’. Ain't none such--don't exist; never did. At some point it's gotta occur to you that your line ain't workin’; you bullshit don't fly on its own. It'll take awhile, no doubt, but it'll sink in with you eventually.
"All well and good, but who will pony up the money to do that?
And who will find a solution?"
I believe they ("they" being Euroweenies in general, not the Swedes in particular), they are generally inclined to think that those sorts of things are our problem--somebody else's problem anyway, usually ours, definitely not theirs. Hasn't occurred to them that the immigrant hordes don't pose the threat to us that the Soviet Union once presented. (They'll also discover that the Russians don't threaten us as much as the Soviets did, but it'll be a little later for them when that discovery sinks in.)
Pete: "That's almost exclusively about Anjem Choudary. He has the intelligence of a door post and would be completely ignorable but for the fact that he is one mean ignorant fucker intent on mischief. The UK did try to ignore him for a long time, but finally couldn't avoid slapping him in jail for five years a couple of months back. His menagerie of hangers-on are also as thick as two short planks. They have no traction within the Muslim community."
He's hardly alone. You KNOW it's a problem in the UK with radical Islam. Just go to Youtube and searh for "shariah police", just check out the Rotherham horrors. Then you have the 7/11 terrorist attacks and the multitude of foiled attacks since. Again: I give you the negatives and ask you to name any tangible positives: sans kebab.
Lynnette:
Me: "But all in all we should strive to keep refugees as close as possible to their home countries, help them on site and work for a solution so they can go home again."
Lynnette: "All well and good, but who will pony up the money to do that? And who will find a solution? So far none of that seems to have been forthcoming in the quantity needed."
It will be much less expensive in the long run for one thing. And I personally and many people like me would agree to double, triple, quadruple foreign aid and aid for refugees as long as it's aimed at their home countries or refugee camps close to their home countries. For sure I'd be willing to pay more and for sure I'd like to help out.
Lynnette: "Of course they are! I don't disagree that those things are horrible to have to deal with. But exactly how many are attributable to immigrants, and how many immigrants are actually carrying out those crimes?"
Doesn't really matter. What matters is those crimes increase with immigration as a whole. That there are productive and well meaning migrants among them isn't really a factor here. We need to look at the whole phenomenon and decide based on that.
I mean you wouldn't let 10 strangers into your house if 9 of the were pleasant and helped out but the 10'th was a serial killer, now would you? Because the total would be a negative for you. Why should nation states think in another way? It's completely illogical.
"The 13% is youngsters who know someone supporting Daesh."
Maybe all 13% of them know the same couple of guys? You've told us it's a fairly cramped together bunch of folks. And I suspect that vocal and obvious Da‘esh supporters probably stick out even amongst the immigrant population
Lee: "You've told us it's a fairly cramped together bunch of folks. And I suspect that vocal and obvious Da‘esh supporters probably stick out even amongst the immigrant population"
And 11% themselves said they supported Daesh. Selective reading much?
"I mean you wouldn't let 10 strangers into your house if 9 of the
were pleasant and helped out but the 10'th was a serial killer, now
would you?"
I'm afraid that analogy no longer applies. You already let ‘em in; they're there. That's done. Now ya gotta deal with the deal that's been done. You need to be lookin’ forwards, not backwards.
"And 11% themselves said they supported Daesh."
I was gonna pass by the part where you unilaterally switched the wording from ‘sympathy for’ to ‘support for’. I really rather doubt they re-wrote that survey just to improve your argument here on the blog. In fact, I think you decided to write it different this time, if I had to guess as to how that came about. So, I'm not really giving your new interpretation that much credence.
By the way, Pravda is no longer a left-wing publication. Putin's a fascist, not a socialist, and he's been in charge in Moscow for long enough to have corrected Pravda's editorial direction.
Lee: "I'm afraid that analogy no longer applies. You already let ‘em in; they're there. That's done. Now ya gotta deal with the deal that's been done. You need to be lookin’ forwards, not backwards."
So you've let 10 strangers into your house. One or two of 'em turns out to be seriously no good. Now you regret the fact that you strangers in to begin with. You cuck out and live with that Lee? (well I guess you might)
Of course instead then as a sane person I grab my shotgun and simply force them all out. Easy. As long as you have the power to do it - a power your shotgun gives you. Just OUT. They were collectively impacting your life in a negative way so you just remove them. And you have the means to do so - given that you have a shotgun and they don't.
What "already let them in"? What was let in can be tossed out. It's only a matter of will. Political will. And we're changing that as we speak. And the #Trumpeffect did't hurt us, it solidified us. MAGA - MEGA!
Lee: "By the way, Pravda is no longer a left-wing publication. Putin's a fascist, not a socialist, and he's been in charge in Moscow for long enough to have corrected Pravda's editorial direction."
Is that publication even up and running today? Nevertheless I spoke about the Soviet Pravda, which I get that you got.
Word is circulating that Trump wants to license a new Trump Tower in Taiwan, and that may well have something to do with him being willing to piss off Bejing. Guardian
Pravda still has both English and Russian versions on the internet. I don't know if they still publish hard copy.
"Of course instead then as a sane person I grab my shotgun and simply
force them all out."
Ah, so you're in charge, are ya? And your roommates just gotta go ‘long with ya on that, do they? I suspect you might find things rather more complicated nowadays than you seem to allow for there.
"What was let in can be tossed out."
Assad don't want ‘em back, so the question is ‘where’? (Nope, not here.)
Yeah, there. Yourself and Lynette have proven to be such bleeding hearts for refugees. And you yourself isn't a self described lefty, so on immigration you'll find lots of support fom them to the left of ya.
200 million Islamists would be perfect for the USA I believe. They can save your pensions and really boost the burkini industry.
Just open your doors, after all ya´ll aren't racist, right?
I mean Lynnette thinks muslims were the great drivers in modernity and she think that a person's values shift just as they cross a border. And Lee thinks everything is inevitable and non-reversble so for him ass muslim imigration is just a fact to work with. So let's do it. 500K muslims into the USA in a decade! What could go wrong?
I'm afraid your little fantasy trips into your own imagination (such as you've indulged in your last two posts) are going to prove to be fairly unproductive in the long run. Not enough room in there for a functioning quorum, even in a country as small as Sweden.
[Chumpy]: "Ain't a ‘Google search away’."
So you tried it then?
That's funny. You probably didn't intend to be funny, which means this probably qualifies as me laughing at you and not with you.
For Lynnette: I'm not sure if you have children but if you have or if you had, would you want your great-geat-grand daughter to be forced to wear a veil and have to swim in a "burkini" at the beach?
I don't have children, but I do have nieces. And, of course I do not want anyone woman to be forced to wear a veil or any other piece of clothing she doesn't wish to.
If not, why do you favour islamisation of western nations?
I do not. I favor westernization of Islam.
Probably get a little more cooperation from the Muslims on that if ya called it ‘the modernization’ of Islam. Goal would remain the same; a rose by any other name, and all that….
I mean you wouldn't let 10 strangers into your house if 9 of the were pleasant and helped out but the 10'th was a serial killer, now would you?
Obviously you haven't intentionally allowed a serial killer into your home. But when you find one let the other 9 who "are pleasant and helped out" help to get rid of him. Once you are rid of him you have 9 new citizens to help with all those pensions.
Probably get a little more cooperation from the Muslims on that if ya called it ‘the modernization’ of Islam.
lol! You're probably right. Gotta have the right "brand".
[Chumpy]: "Ain't a ‘Google search away’."
Let me put it this way then: y'all either tried it and ya know I'm right, or y'all didn't try it. Either way, that makes y'all a lyin' sack o' crap. I realise logic has never been y'all's strong point but I know y'all like yore Latin -- it's called principium tertii exclusi. In yore case, that translates as the Law of the Excluded Turd ;-)
"Let me put it this way then:"
You can have all the imaginary ways you want. Ain't makin’ no difference.
Word is circulating that Trump wants to license a new Trump Tower in Taiwan, and that may well have something to do with him being willing to piss off Bejing.
Would that surprise anyone? I mean, seriously, you elect a businessman who has always put his interests before others. Why should he put America's interests first?
Hmmm...I have a strange feeling that I will be having many snarky moments over the next 4 years.
"Would that surprise anyone?"
I, for one, am not surprised. I expect that he will come out of the White House with that other $7 billion that he pretended he was worth going in, maybe a lot more. But, as I said before, he will find ‘being Donald Trump’ to be particularly lucrative now that Donald Trump is the President of the United States. He was quick to point out that he is exempt from most conflict-of-interest and public corruption and offical ethics laws. He paid special attention to that, wanted the New York Times to be aware of it too. Figured they could kinda lay off the howling ‘bout ethics and such things that do not statutorily apply to him as President.
[Chumpy]: "You can have all the imaginary ways you want."
Fine by me. Henceforth you will be subject to the Law of the Excluded Turd.
[Lynnette]: " I favor westernization of Islam."
What does that mean specifically? Which bits need westernising?
"Henceforth you will be subject to the Law of the Excluded Turd."
Nope. You may well imagine it to be so. But I'm not ‘subject’ to any of your crap notions, your imagination notwithstanding.
Excluded turd ;-)
Ah, you lost the ability to ‘exclude’ me when you gave up editorship. Best you can do now is try to ignore. And we both know that's merely a pretense on your part. You're really not good at that part. You may pretend, but you're never really gonna pull it off. You may seethe quietly, but you will seethe some.
So, you pretend, and the rest of us will be amused (to a greater or lesser degree) by your efforts at pretense. (Lynnette is soft of heart; she may just pity you.)
Ciao for now.
As votes continue to trickle in, Hillary's lead over The Donald has increased to over 2½ million votes. For some reason, mentioning this fact seems to cause Trump's people to immediately jack about 20 points in blood pressure and about 30 decibels in volume. I watched Kellyanne Conway this morning having fits of apoplexy over the suggestion that losing the popular vote by 2½ million might reasonably call into question her claim that The Donald had won an historic landslide and resounding public mandate.
For some reason Kellyanne Conway irritates me. I don't know why. Oh, wait, I know. She reminds me of someone. Michele Bachmann. Yup, the same blank look and scripted comments.
Which bits need westernising?
The bits who live in the west. ;)
What does that mean specifically?
It means putting aside the more extreme elements of behavior, such as honor killings, which have been attributed to an Islam that has been misinterpreted. It means taking the truly worthwhile tenets of a religion that would improve the lives of those living in a country and emphasizing those, instead of the "fire and brimstone" bits that are counterproductive.
I hadn't made that connection; I suppose I can see some similarities. She doesn't have Bachmann's Christian evangelist zealotry, but she's every bit Bachmann's equal when it comes to flagrantly lying without batting an eyelash over it.
"The bits who live in the west. ;)"
There ya go; no sooner said then it suddenly seems self-evident.
Thomas Friedman has a new book out.
Thank You for Being Late.
Norbert Hofer narrowly lost in Austria. Such a shame. We could have needed that win but I guess you can't win all the time.
It was always too close to call and for that reason I didn't make any predictions.
I have predicted a Le Pen win in France however. Might have spoken out too soon on that. Didn't see Francois Fillon coming. He might well could change the equation in France. Solidly to the right as he is he might steal a sizeable portion of the righ vote and with tactical anti-Le Pen support from the left he could carry it. Le Pen looks way less likely with Fillon as an opponent. She even looks beat in polls right now but we have learned ourselves something about trusting polls, now haven't we?
In any case, the Socialists are out and that can only be a good thing. Emperess Marine would of course have been the icing on the cake but she's young yet and will get another shot at it, if she fails this time around.
"…but we have learned ourselves something about trusting polls, now haven't we?"
Polls showed Hillary with a narrow lead; they were right. She came in 2½ million votes in the lead over Trump; just wasn't a big enough lead. That was more of a failure of analysis than a failure of the polls. (However, European polls seem to me to be consistently less accurate than American polls. May be we do more of them and so have more practice at it.)
Lee: "However, European polls seem to me to be consistently less accurate than American polls. May be we do more of them and so have more practice at it"
Like wars you mean? Could be so.
[Chumpy]: "Ah, you lost the ability to ‘exclude’ me when you gave up editorship."
Bit of a post hoc fallacy there, Chumpy. I gave up editorship in order to keep ya here. Also cause I reckon Lynnette is way better at the job. Who else is gonna persist in the face of a hard right Swede, a shit-stirrin' Irishman, and a paranoid Hoosier who's lost his grip on reality? ;-)
Editorship requires an annoyin' level of equanimity. Whereas I prefer goadin' y'all whenever ya insist black is white (and especially when ya imagine everyone else hasn't noticed) ... which is pretty much all the time.
And, there's all the evidence we need to confirm Petes' inability to stick to his plans. He can neither exclude nor ignore. That failure came quick. (This is the same trait that accounts for him being fat--no self-control.)
LOL. Ya see, Chumpy, it's up to me to choose which turds to exclude. An' I'm gonna let that one float right on by.
That's ‘cause you're short a response to that one (not to mention I just now pointed out your general shortcomings in that regard--that sorta thing will stiffen even your generally flaccid resolve, if only temporarily).
Don't imagine I'm gonna let y'all's invincible ignorance and episodic retreats from reality pass by unnoticed though. It will be my little act of charity to not let that happen. As a preznit coming to a place near you soon once said: "I love the poorly educated".
And, while you're considering that… I've decided to give you a short demonstration on how ya go ‘bout ignoring somebody. (You're the somebody. Figure it for minimum 24, maybe 48 hours.)
See ya…. *wave bye*
"It means putting aside the more extreme elements of behavior, such as honor killings, which have been attributed to an Islam that has been misinterpreted."
But honour killings have nothing to do with Islam. They are a feature of tribal societies in southern and western Asia and north Africa. Some of those just happen to be Muslim. They also take place within the Indian caste system among Hindus. They are not unknown historically in Christian Europe either. Even though fictionalised (and not even true in the story) Chino is reported to have have killed Maria in an honour killing in West Side Story over Hispanics consorting with Italians.
Interestingly, the laws on honour killings in some parts of the Middle East come from the colonial Napoleonic era when crimes of passion got more lenient treatment. Some of those countries have been trying to de-westernise the law to make it more civilised.
I suspect if you talk about westernising (or euphemistically "modernising") Islam you are going to antagonise a lot of folks by tarring everyone with the same brush. Whereas when one speaks of radical Islam one is talking about cults like IS which do claim their actions are done in the name of Islam. Pussyfooting around that fact does nobody any favours.
Honour killings by region
Post a Comment