OldGimletEye Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 There's nothing like that good old fashioned East Side Populism https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/opinion/trump-picks-wall-street-over-main-street.html Quote People hoping Mr. Trump would upset, rather than restore, global financial capitalism are in for a rude awakening. Quote The government sets an ethical norm — similar to the fiduciary rule, simply a code of conduct for investment professionals — one that has existed from the Code of Hammurabi through the Judeo-Christian tradition and, a bonus for the right, centuries of common law, for private conduct. Ah yes. But what about the Ayn Rand-Judeo-Christian tradition? That's the one the Republican Party believes in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 That's actually one of the most absurd things - objectivist (or even just capitalist) Christians. Ayn Rand's position is diametrically opposed to almost all of Jesus' teachings. And even the slightly weaker position taken by Bannon, conflating Christianity with capitalism, is absurd. The Jesus of th bible may have been many things, but a capitalist he was decidedly not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerenthaClone Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 2 hours ago, Seli said: They are of the opinion that Milo (and other fascist-adjoining types) speaking is an act of violence that threatens the safety of many people who are already in difficult positions. Given that he planned to publicly out supposed undocumented immigrants attending Berkeley and has, repeatedly, outed and encouraged harassment of transgender students at the universities he has spoken at, they might have somewhat of a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 12 hours ago, The Killer Snark said: No, actually I admit that I nade a mistake. It was a while back I read the speech in question, and I was getting confused between a participant and what she replied to him. It seems for a while as if she concurs with his opinion, before she admits she's dubious about the process of putting through a law facilitating miltary control of crisis zones. I admit my error. I just found the speech. PS - I am not a disinformation agent. I am neither Alex Jones or an employee of CNN. You may not intend to be a disinformation agent, and I certainly do not think you are in the employ of Alex Jones. (Your info is way to fucatca to be with CNN, so no worries there mr false equivlency). But you are an unwitting disinformation agent. One of the worst kind, because you are a true beliver. Motivated reasoning has diminshed your critical thinking skills to the point of near non-existance. And you passion for this false info caused you to argue for pages over a minor point that doesn't even matter in the face of active discrimination, defiance of the rule of law, fomenting of chos, deliberate attempts to undermine the govt, an other fuckwittery that Trump et al are up to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 46 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said: That's actually one of the most absurd things - objectivist (or even just capitalist) Christians. Ayn Rand's position is diametrically opposed to almost all of Jesus' teachings. And even the slightly weaker position taken by Bannon, conflating Christianity with capitalism, is absurd. The Jesus of th bible may have been many things, but a capitalist he was decidedly not. Ayn Rand was also expressly and virulently anti-religious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Ayn Rand was also expressly and virulently anti-religious. Indeed. I'm actually an atheist, but as long as it stays a private thing, I think everybody can believe whatever they want to. I love discussing this type of stuff, but if the person I'm talking to doesn't, that's fine. Still, I feel the hypocrisy of many conservative religious types who want to make their religious teachings into law has to be opposed - even more so if they try to justify an immoral position by referring to their book which has a position that is either massively inconsistent or clearly more nuanced than their supposedly religiously derived rationale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 1 minute ago, theguyfromtheVale said: Indeed. I'm actually an atheist, but as long as it stays a private thing, I think everybody can believe whatever they want to. I love discussing this type of stuff, but if the person I'm talking to doesn't, that's fine. Still, I feel the hypocrisy of many conservative religious types who want to make their religious teachings into law has to be opposed - even more so if they try to justify an immoral position by referring to their book which has a position that is either massively inconsistent or clearly more nuanced than their supposedly religiously derived rationale. I am religious and I do not believe we should ever end enshrine religious principles as law. It Is compelling people into our faiths. A compelled faith is false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 is the 9th Circus Court of Appeals invalidating this law? because if not, they have no leg to stand on https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 Quote Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGP Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 15 minutes ago, Commodore said: is the 9th Circus Court of Appeals invalidating this law? because if not, they have no leg to stand on https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 I'm no expert on American jurisprudence, but-- there seems to be a burden of proof implicit in the first statement Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States I'd imagine it wouldn't actually be onerous had Trump's ban come after a terrorist attack or something, but... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 26 minutes ago, JEORDHl said: I'm no expert on American jurisprudence, but-- there seems to be a burden of proof implicit in the first statement Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States I'd imagine it wouldn't actually be onerous had Trump's ban come after a terrorist attack or something, but... That's what I was thinking. Don't know if it's true though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 McConnell rebukes Trump's judge attack The Senate Republican leader also distanced himself from the president on Russia, voter fraud and the travel ban. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/mcconnell-rebukes-trump-judge-attack-234660 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterbumps! Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 18 hours ago, Altherion said: From the previous thread, @butterbumps! That is not the impression that I got: He knows this is a game and has nothing personal against her. The reverse is not the case. Well, you'd asserted that Laurie Penny was the only one who believed in her cause, that everyone else there was just playing a troll game. But that's not how Roosh comes across to me. Right before the paragraph you quoted, he comes across as a true believer, who is also apparently ignorant of feminist beliefs (his confusion that a feminist believes gay men should be allowed to adopt): I have opportunity to observe this because he puts himself right up in my personal space, blocking my view of the room with his T-shirt, and proceeds, messily and at length, to tell me what my problem is. Number one: my haircut, and he’s telling me this as a man, makes my face look round. This is absolutely true. Number two: I seek to destroy the nuclear family, and disturb traditional relationships between men and women. This is also true, although I remind him that the nuclear family as it is currently conceived is actually a fairly recent social format. He insists that it’s thousands of years old, and asks me if I truly believe that it’s right for gay men to be able to adopt children. I tell him that I do. He appears as flummoxed by this as I do by his presence at what is supposed to be a party to celebrate Gay republicans. He’s here for the same reason I am: Milo invited him. What surprises me about Roosh is that he seems to be a true believer. Unlike Milo, he appears to be—at least to some extent—convinced of the truth of what he’s saying. He is bitter and vindictive, convinced of his own victimhood as a self-made blogger who was never given his due by the mainstream media. He tells me that the reason I have a column is that I’m a useful idiot and all my readers have low IQs. I ask him if he’s negging me. I think it's incorrect to suggest he's got nothing against her personally, simply because he proposes a "fake fight." Given what I know of this cretin, it's a "fake fight" because women are too far below him to actually engage in earnest with them. This is a small point and I'm not looking to put up a huge fight about it, it's just that Roosh came across to me like the least aware, more credulous individual in the piece to me. Quote I am not condescending towards her, I just think the point of view in the article is sorrowful and I feel sad for her. No, I do not consider her a troll -- I was not referring to the methods, but to the ideology. There is no categorical difference between the various forms of identity politics. Thanks for clarifying; it looked like you were putting both under the aegis of "provocateurs." I somewhat disagree that there's no categorical difference in identity politics, but I'm not sure if that discussion belongs in the thread. I don't know if we just see identity politics differently (I understand it to be basically civil rights advocacy, naming specific issues faced due to one's identity). I think you see it more as forming alliances based on identity, to where it becomes tribalistic, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 'The Senate is coming apart' Things have gotten so bad in the chamber lately that Chuck Schumer even voted against Mitch McConnell's wife. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/senate-outlook-battles-threats-nuclear-options-234622 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGP Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 24 minutes ago, Mexal said: That's what I was thinking. Don't know if it's true though. Well, that's the thing. If there's no means to challenge the President's judgment, re: that certain foreign individuals are detrimental to US interests (on US soil) then, as written, it's a blanket policy bordering on dictatorship. TRUMP: I'm signing this EO banning Canadian citizens entry to the US as Prime Minister Trudeau's message of inclusivety offends my sensibilities as POTUS and, if the sentiment is infectious, could undermine US isolationist interests. The President could arguably do anything in regard to immigration, the way Commodore is interpreting it. Which of course, he can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 8 minutes ago, JEORDHl said: Well, that's the thing. If there's no means to challenge the President's judgment, re: that certain foreign individuals are detrimental to US interests (on US soil) then it's a blanket policy bordering on dictatorship. TRUMP: I'm signing this EO banning Canadian citizens entry to the US as Prime Minister Trudeau's message of inclusivety offends my sensibilities as POTUS and undermines US isolationist interests. The President could arguably do anything in regard to immigration, the way Commodore is interpreting it. Which of course, he can't. That's actually what the DOJ is arguing. In their brief they said "judicial second-guessing of the presidents national security determination in itself imposes substantial harm on the federal government and the nation". It also says "President should have the unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens." So all he has to do is claim national security, threat or no, and he can do whatever he wants. That's a really dangerous argument. A former DOJ appellate lawyer who argued all the Gitmo appeals said he would have never put his name on the brief with that sentence in there. Checks and balances exist for a reason and it's to stop shit like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGP Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 12 minutes ago, Mexal said: That's actually what the DOJ is arguing. In their brief they said "judicial second-guessing of the presidents national security determination in itself imposes substantial harm on the federal government and the nation". It also says "President should have the unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens." So all he has to do is claim national security, threat or no, and he can do whatever he wants. That's a really dangerous argument. A former DOJ appellate lawyer who argued all the Gitmo appeals said he would have never put his name on the brief with that sentence in there. Checks and balances exist for a reason and it's to stop shit like this. Truth. Putting on a lawyer hat, though: "[the] President should have the unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens." Meaning, he doesn't. Not really. I could, as you say, see the National Security card being thrown down, but then that would suggest there's some kind of league between the nations/nationalities included in the ban, that no one else is aware of, to hurt US interests on US soil. Which I'd imagine would seem ridiculous to most, well... *anyone. *including members of the judiciary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 2 hours ago, theguyfromtheVale said: That's actually one of the most absurd things - objectivist (or even just capitalist) Christians. Ayn Rand's position is diametrically opposed to almost all of Jesus' teachings. And even the slightly weaker position taken by Bannon, conflating Christianity with capitalism, is absurd. The Jesus of th bible may have been many things, but a capitalist he was decidedly not. I believe Jesus criticized both the merchants and the Pharisians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 3 hours ago, MerenthaClone said: Given that he planned to publicly out supposed undocumented immigrants attending Berkeley and has, repeatedly, outed and encouraged harassment of transgender students at the universities he has spoken at, they might have somewhat of a point. Of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaircat Meow Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 3 hours ago, theguyfromtheVale said: That's actually one of the most absurd things - objectivist (or even just capitalist) Christians. Ayn Rand's position is diametrically opposed to almost all of Jesus' teachings. And even the slightly weaker position taken by Bannon, conflating Christianity with capitalism, is absurd. The Jesus of th bible may have been many things, but a capitalist he was decidedly not. So? Bannon hasn't said he thinks Christianity and Capitalism are the same thing has he? (from what we can tell) He thinks there is a Christian form of capitalism which is the best way to run an economic system, and contrasts it to the ruthless/international globalist capitalism of the present age. Are you saying Christians can't be capitalists, or that capitalists can't try to conduct economic activity in ways compatible with Christianity because the NT rules this out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 Just now, Martell Spy said: 'The Senate is coming apart' Things have gotten so bad in the chamber lately that Chuck Schumer even voted against Mitch McConnell's wife. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/senate-outlook-battles-threats-nuclear-options-234622 Quote But government funding will run out on April 28, and Democrats could filibuster any bill to keep the government open— and force a showdown over keeping the government down. It's unlikely to happen, admitted Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), although other Democrats suggest it could. The summer will see a vote on increasing the nation's $20-trillion-plus debt ceiling. Republicans can push an increase through the House on their own, but need 60 votes in the Senate. Democrats could get leverage there. I'll go on the record and right now and say that if the Democratic Party goes down this route, I will be extremely pissed with them. The Republican Party did this bullshit and it was detestable. This move would be extremely dumb for the Democtratic Party to make as it just feeds into the conservative hysteria over debt and inherent government dysfunction The Democratic Party has to be smarter over what battles it will pick to fight.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.