OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
rickenvox said:
Not sure racism is the proper term, although there are Americans who are racist and hate any group coming over, and have killed Sikhs thinking they were Muslims. Islam is only 1400 years old, many of the people who are Muslims today (many forced into that religion historically like Christians during the Inquisition) have ancestors who practiced Zoroastrianism. And there are followers of that religion today who are persecuted in Iran and other countries where it is still practiced. In fact ISIS is destroying ancient sites exemplifying the heritage and culture of their own race. Even if other Muslims didn't destroy those sites, they are considered the achievements of infidels. The "cradle of civilization" was just populated with mere infidels.

The 3 monotheistic religions at their very best, are divisive and devalue all people who are not followers of their same faith. And there are death penalties in countries who practice Sharia law for apostasy - which just means deciding not to follow Islam any longer. This is all outside of terrorism, just the rule of law most Muslims believe the world should be governed by.

These ideas are dangerous and always have been. But before oil and wealth in the Middle East it didn't affect anyone in the western world, and thus no one cared. It took centuries for the Christian religion to splinter into so many opposing groups until people finally realized that religion and government had to be separated, and differences had to be respected. Islam still needs several generations of apostates and blasphemers in order for people to let go of an idea that there is one correct religion belief that can be legislated. Unless the people you're talking about start speaking up and being heard, it'll never happen. Islam needs a 95 theses nailed to the Wittenberg door.
Click to expand...
Misguided racism, xenophobia, religious persecution, bigotry, ignorance... pick your favorite. While I generally abhor the anti-muslim hysteria, and have a BIG problem with things like the travel/immigration ban, I also have a BIG problem with the fact that religion in every form (especially "Christianity") is responsible for more murder, genocide, war, atrocity, oppression, inequality etc than all other causes combined. Zealots are dangerous no matter their favorite brand. The hypocrisy of one group calling another evil is astounding.

Why don't local Muslim clerics speak out in spiritual terms after an incident?

For the same reason local or national Christian leaders don't do so after an abortion clinic bombing.

And that reason is to obfuscate the truth. An evil, misguided truth.

I'm all for religious freedom, believe whatever you want. But when your religion, regardless of the faith you choose, is responsible for the killing of innocents, you need to stand up and own that shit.

Sent from Crab Nebulae via reverse engineered alien technology
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
https://www.axios.com/macarthur-res...ganic&utm_term=politics&utm_content=textshort

If he stepped down because "moderates" didn't want to negotiate, then they're not actually moderate.
Click to expand...

What the Freedom Caucus wanted will likely die in the Senate bill and reconciliation. So it makes sense to not even bother negotiating on it. Especially since the Freedom Caucus will likely repay the favor by labeling the moderates RINOS and campaigning against them in 2018.
 
jp_nyc said:
What the Freedom Caucus wanted will likely die in the Senate bill and reconciliation. So it makes sense to not even bother negotiating on it. Especially since the Freedom Caucus will likely repay the favor by labeling the moderates RINOS and campaigning against them in 2018.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the Freedom Caucus is reasonable. I'm saying that the entire point of being a party moderate is to reach out to the fringe groups. Those groups already call moderates RINOs so that shouldn't be a factor. But if you're going to call yourself moderate, then be moderate.
 
Bob411 said:
I try to never miss Mark Shields and David Brooks. Every Friday night on the PBS News Hour.

Wife refers to them as Shields and Yarnell.
Click to expand...

Brooks's NYT column makes me want to take him on a Alaskan cruise just to be able to push him over the railing into the North Pacific.

Which is odd, because I don't really hate him, he's far far far far from the worst. It'd be more like a mercy killing, but through torture.
 
Flamencology said:
Brooks's NYT column makes me want to take him on a Alaskan cruise just to be able to push him over the railing into the North Pacific.

Which is odd, because I don't really hate him, he's far far far far from the worst. It'd be more like a mercy killing, but through torture.
Click to expand...
Curious as to your criticism of him. Intellectually curious. Not needing an argument.
 
GomezAddams said:
I must be missing something. I'm no lawyer, but I was under the impression that the 5th amendment only protected you from being forced to divulge information that was only in your head. If anything was written down, it's fair game.
Click to expand...
Correct. The Fifth protects you during testimony. The Supreme Court ruled that documentation is not protected under it.
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
I'm not saying the Freedom Caucus is reasonable. I'm saying that the entire point of being a party moderate is to reach out to the fringe groups. Those groups already call moderates RINOs so that shouldn't be a factor. But if you're going to call yourself moderate, then be moderate.
Click to expand...

being a moderate doesn't mean you have to bend over backwards to give in to a group that will not move. there are lines that (scrupulous) people won't cross, and that's not being NOT moderate. it's sticking up for your constituancy. cancelling medicare is a red line. eliminating social security (which IS NOT an entitlement) is a red line.
i wouldn't want any legislator to 'negotiate' elimination or severe cuts on those topics.
 
mongooz said:
being a moderate doesn't mean you have to bend over backwards to give in to a group that will not move. there are lines that (scrupulous) people won't cross, and that's not being NOT moderate. it's sticking up for your constituancy. cancelling medicare is a red line. eliminating social security (which IS NOT an entitlement) is a red line.
i wouldn't want any legislator to 'negotiate' elimination or severe cuts on those topics.
Click to expand...

This kind of moderation is how we got here. It's proven unsuccessful and only breeds further extremism by the group being shunned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top