Politics - Jason X

[Hurlshort]

Geez, it's like the White House exists in a vacuum and has no idea what type of tone should be taken at any time. That Puerto Rico stuff is just brutal.

[Malcador]

The responses some of the staff gave were hilarious. Good news story as no one died, pretty much sounds like the PMs here at work

[SonicMage117]

 

It was a pretty big thing a few years ago, but I don't think Christians ever whined about the phrase Happy Holidays.

I know for a fact that isn't true, and if you doubt me I'll create a compilation of Christians whining about happy holidays.

You got it wrong, the non-Christian are the ones who are trying to remove Christmas altogether because of "Christ", Christians have never had a problem with the phrase Happy Holidays. I know for a fact that churches have always used Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays. Even a simple search on Youtube will show this.

 

But for interest of discussion, what reason do you think Christians would try to remove the word Happy Holidays? Just curious. If you're referring to the constant marketing of Christian Churches saying "Just say Nerry Christmas" that's because they don't want the term Merry Christmas to die, it's not because they have a problem with the term Happy Holidays. It's quite different.

Edited September 29, 2017 by SonicMage117

[redneckdevil]

As someone who works in retail, the "happy holidays" and "merry Christmas" for a lot of (misguided) people is a battle. Look at Starbucks when they do happy holidays, the Christian's and insane Christmas people get offended. Go to Walmart and tell people merry Christmas and u get people offended that ur either pushing Christianity on them or ur being disrespectful for all the many other holidays out there.

There's stupid people on both sides with a majority of people not giving a **** either way and just want presents and the damn holiday to be over with asap.

 

The real crime is that we push Christmas for several months, wayyyy before the month of December even begins.

[ShadySands]

There are some groups believe that making more neutral greetings and Starbucks cups is an attack on them and their faith. Sometimes they are right and some people do want to get religion out of the public sphere as much as possible but to say that it is one sided is false.

 

Ninja'd by RND

Edited September 29, 2017 by ShadySands

[SonicMage117]

And people leaving their decorations up for months after just because they're too lazy to put everything up lol

 

I remember the Starbucks thing, I think the thing was that Christians got mad because the cups originally had Merry Christmas and not Happy Holidays which they replaced it with. Of course, this being long after Happy Holidays term users declared war on term Merry Christmas.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/09/starbucks-removed-christmas-from-their-cups-because-they-hate-jesus-christian-says-in-viral-facebook-video/?utm_term=.48840bfe3248

 

Here is a silly video that a "Christian" made saying that Starbucks hates Jesus because they replaced the phrase but you know, I'm not opposing the idea that this may actually be a person who says that they're a Christian but just wanted to stir things up on social media instead, causing Christians to look silly. The Christians that I know would never make Christianity or the church look like such a joke.

 

I mean, I guess every religeon has their nutjobs, every ones that don't consider their religeons as a religeon hehe

[Tigranes]

"Christians NEVER had a problem with happy holidays! This video of a Christian that has a problem with happy holidays now I'm not saying he's a fake Christian but you know maybe he is maybe he isn't is all I'm saying, I mean even if he is a Christian he could just be a nutjob exception am I right?"

 

There's nothing wrong with a simple "I didn't know that, that's an interesting point to consider".

 

It really is about America and other Western nations trying to decide to what extent they're still a 'Christian nation' and to what extent they are fully secularised. It's pretty clear that America, for one, isn't quite ready to blatantly abandon the vestiges of the former, even as we move in many ways in the second direction.

[injurai]

It's already been decided by the younger generations. We are secular.

[SonicMage117]

"Christians NEVER had a problem with happy holidays! This video of a Christian that has a problem with happy holidays now I'm not saying he's a fake Christian but you know maybe he is maybe he isn't is all I'm saying, I mean even if he is a Christian he could just be a nutjob exception am I right?"

 

There's nothing wrong with a simple "I didn't know that, that's an interesting point to consider".

 

It really is about America and other Western nations trying to decide to what extent they're still a 'Christian nation' and to what extent they are fully secularised. It's pretty clear that America, for one, isn't quite ready to blatantly abandon the vestiges of the former, even as we move in many ways in the second direction.

Do you have a problem with what I said?

 

It feels like your trying to make an argument of the valid points I made... or trying to make it seem like I somehow comtradicted myself which I didn't, perhaps I wasn't clear enough, I'll explain further and hopefully you'll understand where I am coming from.

 

I guess first off I'll say, a small percent of Christians do not represent Christians as a whole. Just as someone from your religeon who does something stupid does not represent your religeon whether it would be aethiesm, Christianity or anything else. I don't know the guy so I don't really know his walk with God, he could be a real Christian or for all I know he could be a troll who is trying to make Christians and churches look bad - because that's never happened before *wink wink*

 

The fact remains the same, Christians have always used Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays inside and outside church without issue. The situation of the Starbucks cups isn't that Christians had a problem with the phrase "Happy Holidays", it's that the phrase "Merry Christmas" was replaced and that means it was essentially banned. So it's a totally different argument altogether.

 

I'm a Christian and I think the video that the guy made was stupid and ignorant. Making such claims that Starbucks hates Jesus when that was not the point, the point was that they changed it so that it wouldn't offend anyone and lose their customers. Starbucks most likely did not want to change it but that's that. As a Christian I don't let it stop me from drinking their coffee and I doubt any mature Christian would as we understand that there are more possibilities than what most people might think to be going on.

[ShadySands]

I give up

 

Let's talk about the Kurds or something. Why isn't the US backing their bid for independence?

[Malcador]

I give up

 

Let's talk about the Kurds or something. Why isn't the US backing their bid for independence?

Because that would upset Turkey and Iraq. I guess.

 

But probably due to the psychic vampires.

[Gfted1]

I wish I was a psychic vampire. Or just psychic. Or just a vampire. Im tired of being poor and mortal.

[ShadySands]

 

I give up

 

Let's talk about the Kurds or something. Why isn't the US backing their bid for independence?

Because that would upset Turkey and Iraq. I guess.

 

But probably due to the psychic vampires.

 

Turkey isn't much on our side anymore anyway and I'd take the Kurds over Iraq most days of the week

 

Those vampires are like the Spanish Inquisition

Edited September 29, 2017 by ShadySands

[Ben No.3]

 

"Christians NEVER had a problem with happy holidays! This video of a Christian that has a problem with happy holidays now I'm not saying he's a fake Christian but you know maybe he is maybe he isn't is all I'm saying, I mean even if he is a Christian he could just be a nutjob exception am I right?"

 

There's nothing wrong with a simple "I didn't know that, that's an interesting point to consider".

 

It really is about America and other Western nations trying to decide to what extent they're still a 'Christian nation' and to what extent they are fully secularised. It's pretty clear that America, for one, isn't quite ready to blatantly abandon the vestiges of the former, even as we move in many ways in the second direction.

Do you have a problem with what I said?

 

It feels like your trying to make an argument of the valid points I made... or trying to make it seem like I somehow comtradicted myself which I didn't, perhaps I wasn't clear enough, I'll explain further and hopefully you'll understand where I am coming from.

 

I guess first off I'll say, a small percent of Christians do not represent Christians as a whole. Just as someone from your religeon who does something stupid does not represent your religeon whether it would be aethiesm, Christianity or anything else. I don't know the guy so I don't really know his walk with God, he could be a real Christian or for all I know he could be a troll who is trying to make Christians and churches look bad - because that's never happened before *wink wink*

 

The fact remains the same, Christians have always used Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays inside and outside church without issue. The situation of the Starbucks cups isn't that Christians had a problem with the phrase "Happy Holidays", it's that the phrase "Merry Christmas" was replaced and that means it was essentially banned. So it's a totally different argument altogether.

 

I'm a Christian and I think the video that the guy made was stupid and ignorant. Making such claims that Starbucks hates Jesus when that was not the point, the point was that they changed it so that it wouldn't offend anyone and lose their customers. Starbucks most likely did not want to change it but that's that. As a Christian I don't let it stop me from drinking their coffee and I doubt any mature Christian would as we understand that there are more possibilities than what most people might think to be going on.

Because atheism is a religion

 

*wink wink*

[injurai]

Iranian Kurdistan is a lost cause. They might be able to get part of Northern Iraq and a Corner of Syria. Maybe if it becomes an intentional moment Turkey will bequeath a bit of land too, but certainly not while they are becoming increasingly conservative.

 

If I could see one and only one change to the middle east on the caveat that the region couldn't change for 500 years. I'd be for the Kurds independence.

[SonicMage117]

Because atheism is a religion

 

*wink wink*

I didn't think it was since they didn't believe in a higher power or the afterlife but after doing deeper research and conversing among aethiests themsleves, it seems to me that the absense of a god or afterlife is the very thing that ironically classifies it as a religeon, for if there is no judgment awaiting to condemn you then there is no need for a conscience, morality and surely sin does not exist, the concepts of good and evil are thrown out the window. Aetheism is so interesting and it's definitely unique but even in the absense of all things, it still defines itself by general religeous traits.

 

It wasn't until I started learning about it out of sheer curiousity and the more that I saw how aetheists claimed that it wasn't, the more that evidence proved otherwise. I have quite a few friends who are aethiests so the topic of aetheism always fascinated me - though never shook my faith as a Christian. Thus, you may find this a good read:

https://strangenotions.com/is-atheism-a-religion/

 

^At which explains much better than I ever could on a thread or forum.

Edited September 29, 2017 by SonicMage117

[Zoraptor]

I give up

 

Let's talk about the Kurds or something. Why isn't the US backing their bid for independence?

 

Because it's a mess. In no particular order:

 

1) The referendum was a threat which provided leverage on Turkey and Iraq, the reality actually removes that leverage rather than enhances it

2) Upsets Turkey and Iraq

3) The ruling KDP is deeply unpopular with everyone now, including other Kurdish groups and their prior friend Erdogan

3a) They barely had a quorum for the referendum decision due to boycotts in their parliament

3b) There haven't been elections in the KRG for ages, hence the boycott

3c) Masoud Barzani is well past his mandate and shows no signs of either leaving or holding an election. He's been around ages and has literally no integrity at all- he was even Saddam's Uncle Tom in the north when Saddam was gassing Kurds (after all, he was gassing the PUK Kurds who Barzani was fighting a civil war with at the time).

3d) They were (technically still are) actively blockading (!) the Syrian Kurds, the US's only effective ally in Syria

4) The Peshmerga have actually done very little to fight ISIS, and that has annoyed some in the US military a great deal.

4a) They disarmed the Yazidis then ran away back to Irbil so the Yazidis were genocided- and were rescued by the PKK and Syrian Kurds, not the Peshmerga- now they want Sinjar and other Yazidi areas to be part of their country which will be actively resisted

4b) In terms of fighting ISIS they're behind every other major player, by miles and despite their press attention. They've stuck to the borders they want and that's been it.

5) There's no realistic path to being a viable state without agreement of their neighbours since they're landlocked and surrounded.

5a) If Turkey turns off their oil then they're bankrupt in near literally a week.

6) If they try and keep Kirkuk, which they need for that oil, there will be war with Iraq over it, no doubt at all.

7) Crimea, and its referendum. The objection to that was that the vote was illegal/ unconstitutional (since no one actually believes the vote didn't represent the population's wish) so they cannot easily support another referendum of the same style.

 

The US loves the status quo because it's stable- ish- and provides lots of lovely leverage against basically everyone in the region. A threat that remains a threat can be used as said leverage indefinitely, but a threat once delivered upon leads to... consequences. Support for the Kurds means that Iraq is in Iran's sphere irreversibly, and short of a continuous military intervention- problematic if both Iraq and Turkey refuse access to airspace, which they will- there will be war over Kirkuk. There's no practical advantage between an autonomous KRG and an independent one for the US, only disadvantages.

[ShadySands]

Tom Price resigns

 

Seems like a lot of turnover in the first year

Edited September 29, 2017 by ShadySands

[Hurlshort]

Seems like an understatement.

[ShadySands]

Curious about the estate death tax?

[Gromnir]

take from the poor and give to the rich

 

 

so you got impressive space with what appears to be fantastic views and you turn it into a cliché. is1990s eastern european oligarch a style?

 

...

 

whatever.  somehow is reassuring to know a billion dollars can't save somebody from being tacky.

 

 

 

gonna be our last comments regarding nfl demonstration... at least until something meaningful happens. 

 

kaepernick is a comical idjit. as we noted earlier, kaepernick's original protest was ill-conceived, ill-defined, and self-defeating. no positive changes were promoted once he acquired national attention.  he made no attempt to do anything other than sit on sidelines and then spew forth doggerel at post-game conferences while wearing castro t-shirts and shades.  unfortunately, 'cause he were first, those who followed has been stuck with the baggage o' his initial protests.  he were, in point o fact, protesting the flag and america and everything the stars and bars were representing.  kaepernick were sporting his pig socks and acting the fool every time he got in front o' a camera.

 

however, while kaepernick ain't a jackie robinson, or a muhammad ali, am nevertheless glad he eventual took a knee during the anthem. am also kinda glad trump's misguided attacks 'pon the nfl and its players breathed new life into a torpid cause. hurl posted a picture o' tommie smith and john carlos as they protested in 1968.  no, kaepernick's protest ain't the same.  the situation ain't the same. am thinking it were in another thread wherein gd posted a link from the recent ken burns documentary: the vietnam war. if you get the chance, check out the episode which covers 1968. different.  much different.  even so, am understanding the frustration o' those who protested in 1968.  their generation endured two decades o' fire and blood, but since brown v. board and the civil rights acts, what monumental changes has been made?  sure, has been incremental and meaningful progress, but is glacial and largely silent. the children o' our generation is more accepting o' racial differences than were our parent's, and the next generation will be even more accepting than is ours.  forward.  inching forward. but is that it?  is this as good as it gets?  admitted, what laws or government policies can be crafted to make folks be more enlightened?  is there any such thing a government can do, or is we stuck waiting for our great-grandkids to final look back 'pon us as ignorant dinosaurs? the frustration is understandable and reasonable.  we look at the enormous changes which were achieved by the previous generations and feel shame at the lack o' our progress.  

 

race relations didn't sudden get worse in the mid 2000s.  the economy got worse, and for many folks, black and white, it ain't yet improved. no job. no hope. no... future.  when you is angry and afraid, you blame bad guys for your situation.  to many black teens living in chicago and baltimore, the bad guys is cops. to unemployable coal miners in west virginia, the bad guys is blm and tree-hugger liberals.  even so, only the very young would think to see equivalence 'tween race relations o' today and what were occurring in the 60s, or 70s... or even the 90s with the rodney king and oj simpson trials.  things is better, but the fubar economic situation for too many americans has brought forth anger and fear.  expect anger and fear to be well articulated and focused is silly.

 

two best things which happened for the nfl anthem protests:

 

1) kaepernick lost his nfl job, which meant he weren't weekly in front o' cameras saying stoopid stuff; and

 

2) trump went off script, again, in alabama and made the nfl a new target in his weekly/daily culture war.

 

even so, am glad kaepernick took a knee.  yeah, it ain't 1968, or anything close to 1968.  the incredible improvements made in the past few decades is pretty darn amazing and people can be proud o' such improvements, but am thinking it is also easy to forget just how much bigotry o' all kinds permeates our culture here in the US in 2017.  am also not sure exact how it happened, but the relative recent acceptance o' hate groups being functional legitimized by inclusion within the umbrella o' alt-right woulda' been unfathomable to us in 2000. am thinking we, as a people, need take a long and serious look at ourselves in the mirror. as much as it disappoints folks to hear, we do not believe bigotry can be exorcised through legislation.  there is still battles to be fought in the war for racial equality, and our generation and the next is gonna need make sacrifices, as individuals, if we wanna see a time when we can justifiably declare victory.  kaepernick, as much o' a maroon as he is, did/does reminds us how the fight 'gainst racial inequality continues.

 

as an aside, an alternative to the anthem protests would be to use one o' the following songs to follow the national anthem every week.

 

 

 

am not genuine serious, but is good songs and we wouldn't mind hearing 'em weekly as a kinda reminder o' how much further we got to go before we can claim to have seen the end o' racial bigotry in this nation.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Hurlshort]

Hard to disagree with the tacky comment. Gaudy isn't a positive quality. It also just looks outdated.

[Agiel]

Posted this before, but it remains relevant. What's remarkable is that Trudeau nailed his speech mannerisms... back in 1988:

 

[injurai]

Remember, half of Trump is just this brand that he sells people on. We have no idea what his preferred furnishings are. Rich people buy stuff just as a way to invest their wealth. Like ****ty avent-garde paintings from famous artists.

[Gromnir]

Remember, half of Trump is just this brand that he sells people on. We have no idea what his preferred furnishings are. Rich people buy stuff just as a way to invest their wealth. Like ****ty avent-garde paintings from famous artists.

 

am thinking this might be the essential fail when attempting to explain trump.  you are looking for meaning behind the action.  for trump, there rare is a difference.  act is the meaning. trump is dangerously self-centered and impulsive, but his wealth has always protected him from the consequences.  how many trump businesses has failed?  a couple decades ago he were +$900 million in debt.  he made his way back to billionaire status by managing to convince banks and investors (many o' whom would suffer for their myopia)  that he were a big deal. but at the core, he likes big.  he likes gold. such preferences is not part o' some machiavellian calculation.  they is.  he is. 

 

americans, both those who like and those who hate trump, wanna give him depth.  those who like trump see him as some kinda genius who is secret manipulating... sub 40% approval ratings and no noteworthy legislation or signature programs since he took office?  trump reacts.  is no deep plan.  many of those who hate trump also see depths in him which ain't there, 'cause the alternative is the admission they were bamboozled and beaten by a borderline sociopath with impulse control issues who is extreme sensitive 'bout the size of his... hands.

 

if 'chauncey gardiner' were vainglorious and pugnacious ...

 

  

 

 

use occam's razor on trump and you are left with exact what you see in the picture.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 30, 2017 by Gromnir