RealGM

.
Continued from here.

America's future is screwed. Maybe less so then the Wizard's future.

nuposse04 wrote:America's future is screwed. Maybe less so then the Wizard's future.

A bunch of Ernie Grunfelds running around

CobraCommander wrote:Your recollection is....Accurate. Somehow people tend to believe that whatever political party they are against has cornered the market on evil, ignorance, anti-americanism, racism, hatred, killing, etc... While both parties practice the same war time acts and treat the citizens of their country the same. Don't be fooled by a Donkey or an Elephant--- apart from Trump all of these guys are singing from the same sheet of music. Which is WHY no body in establishment wants Trump to win- (Btw... I'm not a fan of Trump...I am just giving you my opinion)

Time to start a party

It's a shame that some Western Europeans countries are committing cultural and economic suicide with their immigration policies. Perhaps our leaders can learn something from the situation in Europe and avoid the same sort of immigration mistakes.

France: Exodus of 10,000 millionaires amid rising Muslim tensions

By Ananya Roy
March 31, 2016 11:41 BST
Updated 1 hr ago

Rising tensions in France, especially in Paris following a series of Islamist terrorist attacks in 2015, have spurred an exodus of its super-wealthy citizens, a new report on migration trends of millionaires and high-net worth individuals across the world reveals. The report warns that other European countries, including the UK, Belgium, Germany and Sweden "where religious tensions are starting to emerge", will also see similar trends……….

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/france-sees-millionaire-exodus-religious-tensions-rise-1552423

Pop's post appeared to assume that Obama supporters have unconditional acceptance
or agreement with everything he does. I assure you that is not the case.

Going back to DCK's post about people wanting to kill us or at minimum, hate us,
I think everyone agrees that we want and need to be protected from those ready
to perpetrate violence or harm against us. The fine line is how best to do that
in a way that doesn't create more people of a similar ilk in the process. This is
obviously not an easy problem. I don't think anyone believes it is. Well, actually
I think there are some people who do think and propose simple fixes for these
complicated problems and I can think of at least one who gets a lot of media
attention for his simple fixes. These simple fixes sound plausible to those who
have not studied or don't understand history because they don't ask themselves
(or anyone else) the question, Then What? Or they rationalize immorality in response
to threats.

I can't fathom why it's so difficult to understand that having one family member being a member of ISIS doesn't automatically make the entire family ISIS members? What am I saying wrong here?

Most terrorists are outliers. They do not come from a family of ISIS members. They get recruited by ISIS because they are particularly psychotic. We all know this right? I'm not making it up? Am I wrong?

Why this automatic assumption that the people you are bombing are the bad guys, we're doing the right thing, and it isn't remotely possible that you could be, oh, creating an army of terrorists in the process? Why is THAT idea so hard to understand? Did we learn nothing from Vietnam? It seems like common sense to me. I'm not using my economics superpowers here, I'm just making a very simple, logical statement. Tell me how I'm wrong. I don't think I am. I think we have some gaslighters on this thread deliberately twisting reality to fit their internal hatred vortex.

Zonkerbl wrote:Most terrorists are outliers. They do not come from a family of ISIS members. They get recruited by ISIS because they are particularly psychotic. We all know this right? I'm not making it up? Am I wrong?

You are partially wrong. Take the case of Brussels - the community hid him even though they knew he was a terrorist and was part of the Paris atrocities.

So, it isn't nearly as simplistic as you make it out to be... in that case the family and community supported ISIS.

In other cases they are outliers - so, I think it is far more nuanced than you think.

Zonkerbl wrote:Why this automatic assumption that the people you are bombing are the bad guys, we're doing the right thing, and it isn't remotely possible that you could be, oh, creating an army of terrorists in the process? Why is THAT idea so hard to understand? Did we learn nothing from Vietnam? It seems like common sense to me. I'm not using my economics superpowers here, I'm just making a very simple, logical statement. Tell me how I'm wrong. I don't think I am. I think we have some gaslighters on this thread deliberately twisting reality to fit their internal hatred vortex.

Are you talking about the targeted drone strikes, are you talking about the broad sweeping generalities of all warfare, are you talking about taking out a terrorist cell in a city?

If you are saying all self-defense is wrong - I can't go there with you Zonk.

If you are talking about propping up bad governments - I am right on your heals.

dckingsfan wrote:

Zonkerbl wrote:Most terrorists are outliers. They do not come from a family of ISIS members. They get recruited by ISIS because they are particularly psychotic. We all know this right? I'm not making it up? Am I wrong?

You are partially wrong. Take the case of Brussels - the community hid him even though they knew he was a terrorist and was part of the Paris atrocities.

So, it isn't nearly as simplistic as you make it out to be... in that case the family and community supported ISIS.

In other cases they are outliers - so, I think it is far more nuanced than you think.

Now you're just trolling me. I know you can read. I'm not going to argue this point anymore because I can tell you are deliberately gaslighting. Whatever. You utterly failed to convince me, and I hope whoever else is reading this at least understands my point.

Wow, I think I just gave you a reasonable response why you are wrong - then you appeal to the stone.

Just because you cannot imagine how this could be not be true doesn't make it true.

You are saying that most terrorists are outliers - I am saying that isn't always the case.

Yesterday I posted this on the final page of the old thread:

Hunch: Republicans have no concept of how much fiscal conservatism most of the country would consent to if GOP lawmakers would stop trying to tell people who they can marry and what they can do with their bodies.

Speaking personally, there are so many issues that I am open to changing my mind on -- or at the very least, exploring a range of solutions to -- if politicians weren't threatening my daughter's theoretical right to a safe abortion should she ever need it, or threatening my gay friends' rights to be married to each other.

Not to mention the fact that if what anti-abortionists really want to do is limit the number of abortions, there are better ways than making them illegal. Education, birth control, adoption, etc.

As the GOP stands that this crossroads, they should abandon their social agenda, get the government out of peoples' bedrooms, and focus on solving problems that affect peoples' day to day lives. I think they'd be shocked at their success over time.

Today, this:

Mississippi Senate passes sweeping ‘Religious Liberty’ bill

According to the bill, the government would not be allowed to prevent organizations from refusing to marry a same-sex couple, from firing an individual whose “conduct or religious beliefs are inconsistent with those of the religious organization” or from blocking the adoption of a child because of religious beliefs.

THIS is why Republicans can't win national elections. They're so dumb. Read the writing on the freaking wall.

dobrojim wrote:Pop's post appeared to assume that Obama supporters have unconditional acceptance
or agreement with everything he does. I assure you that is not the case.

Going back to DCK's post about people wanting to kill us or at minimum, hate us,
I think everyone agrees that we want and need to be protected from those ready
to perpetrate violence or harm against us. The fine line is how best to do that
in a way that doesn't create more people of a similar ilk in the process. This is
obviously not an easy problem. I don't think anyone believes it is. Well, actually
I think there are some people who do think and propose simple fixes for these
complicated problems and I can think of at least one who gets a lot of media
attention for his simple fixes. These simple fixes sound plausible to those who
have not studied or don't understand history because they don't ask themselves
(or anyone else) the question, Then What? Or they rationalize immorality in response
to threats.

I agree with you Jim that that is not the case. I reread my post and can’t find anything there that would lead one to believe that I thought it was the case, so not sure where you came up with that.

Setting that aside, and assuming you’ll indulge me for a moment, there are both R’s and D’s that support illegal immigration for a myriad of reasons. Some for business purposes, some for reasons of compassion, etc.

The president is a smart man. He knows that by taking in as many Latinos, Muslims and Asians as possible, either through prosecutorial discretion or through the refugee process that eventually D’s may be able to dominate future elections. He also knows that by providing them with govt. welfare ASAP after their arrival he will ingratiate himself and his party to them and earn their loyalty. The icing on the cake is that the 48% of working Americans that pay no income tax (overwhelming D’s) won’t have to finance the scam.

It’s Machiavellian of course but probably the fastest, cleanest implementation of Cloward-Piven that I’m aware of. I admire the President’s intellect. I just wish he had used it to strengthen, not weaken the country.

popper wrote:

dobrojim wrote:Pop's post appeared to assume that Obama supporters have unconditional acceptance
or agreement with everything he does. I assure you that is not the case.

Going back to DCK's post about people wanting to kill us or at minimum, hate us,
I think everyone agrees that we want and need to be protected from those ready
to perpetrate violence or harm against us. The fine line is how best to do that
in a way that doesn't create more people of a similar ilk in the process. This is
obviously not an easy problem. I don't think anyone believes it is. Well, actually
I think there are some people who do think and propose simple fixes for these
complicated problems and I can think of at least one who gets a lot of media
attention for his simple fixes. These simple fixes sound plausible to those who
have not studied or don't understand history because they don't ask themselves
(or anyone else) the question, Then What? Or they rationalize immorality in response
to threats.

I agree with you Jim that that is not the case. I reread my post and can’t find anything there that would lead one to believe that I thought it was the case, so not sure where you came up with that.

Setting that aside, and assuming you’ll indulge me for a moment, there are both R’s and D’s that support illegal immigration for a myriad of reasons. Some for business purposes, some for reasons of compassion, etc.

The president is a smart man. He knows that by taking in as many Latinos, Muslims and Asians as possible, either through prosecutorial discretion or through the refugee process that eventually D’s may be able to dominate future elections. He also knows that by providing them with govt. welfare ASAP after their arrival he will ingratiate himself and his party to them and earn their loyalty. The icing on the cake is that the 48% of working Americans that pay no income tax (overwhelming D’s) won’t have to finance the scam.

It’s Machiavellian of course but probably the fastest, cleanest implementation of Cloward-Piven that I’m aware of. I admire the President’s intellect. I just wish he had used it to strengthen, not weaken the country.

Or perhaps he (the President) thinks it's the humane/prudent thing to do.

We can debate if he's right or not but it doesn't necessarily have to be the Machiavellian motives you ascribe to him.

Don't get me wrong. It's an added benefit but might not be his sole motivation.


Just something to consider.

fishercob wrote:Yesterday I posted this on the final page of the old thread:

Today, this:

Mississippi Senate passes sweeping ‘Religious Liberty’ bill

According to the bill, the government would not be allowed to prevent organizations from refusing to marry a same-sex couple, from firing an individual whose “conduct or religious beliefs are inconsistent with those of the religious organization” or from blocking the adoption of a child because of religious beliefs.

THIS is why Republicans can't win national elections. They're so dumb. Read the writing on the freaking wall.

Why is this much different than Hooters requiring that their servers dont get fat? I mean that with sincerity. If they are putting forth a vision/depiction of what they deem moral as a company/religion, why wouldn't any employees have to abide by it

I'll cosign that Hooter's Liberty bill if you write it.

pcbothwel wrote:

fishercob wrote:Yesterday I posted this on the final page of the old thread:

Today, this:

Mississippi Senate passes sweeping ‘Religious Liberty’ bill

According to the bill, the government would not be allowed to prevent organizations from refusing to marry a same-sex couple, from firing an individual whose “conduct or religious beliefs are inconsistent with those of the religious organization” or from blocking the adoption of a child because of religious beliefs.

THIS is why Republicans can't win national elections. They're so dumb. Read the writing on the freaking wall.

Why is this much different than Hooters requiring that their servers dont get fat? I mean that with sincerity. If they are putting forth a vision/depiction of what they deem moral as a company/religion, why wouldn't any employees have to abide by it

To quote the Red Hot Chili Peppers: "if you have to ask, you'll never know."

dckingsfan wrote:

CobraCommander wrote:Your recollection is....Accurate. Somehow people tend to believe that whatever political party they are against has cornered the market on evil, ignorance, anti-americanism, racism, hatred, killing, etc... While both parties practice the same war time acts and treat the citizens of their country the same. Don't be fooled by a Donkey or an Elephant--- apart from Trump all of these guys are singing from the same sheet of music. Which is WHY no body in establishment wants Trump to win- (Btw... I'm not a fan of Trump...I am just giving you my opinion)

Time to start a party

Yeah now that the basketball season is over and we have all this time on our hands....lets start a party that leads righteously. Wait...who gets to decide what is righteous? If it's ME - then let's roll ..but if it's you...we should slow down and have elections.

fishercob wrote:

pcbothwel wrote:

fishercob wrote:Yesterday I posted this on the final page of the old thread:

Today, this:

Mississippi Senate passes sweeping ‘Religious Liberty’ bill



THIS is why Republicans can't win national elections. They're so dumb. Read the writing on the freaking wall.

Why is this much different than Hooters requiring that their servers dont get fat? I mean that with sincerity. If they are putting forth a vision/depiction of what they deem moral as a company/religion, why wouldn't any employees have to abide by it

To quote the Red Hot Chili Peppers: "if you have to ask, you'll never know."

Sorry to be so dumb that I cant read the writing on the wall. But why are people so damn determined to poke at religious people. Im an atheist, but man...
A gay couple want a wedding cake and someone says. I appreciate you wanting to have my cake company bake your cake, but I'm going to decline for religious reasons... instead of going elsewhere, you know, like the free market truly dictates, people want to sue everybody.

Again, my example of the Hooters girl was to show that someone could be fired for a reason that at face value seems harsh or unwarranted (Being Fat or Being Gay/Trans), but when you dig into the reasoning it actually makes sense.

pcbothwel wrote:

fishercob wrote:

pcbothwel wrote:

Why is this much different than Hooters requiring that their servers dont get fat? I mean that with sincerity. If they are putting forth a vision/depiction of what they deem moral as a company/religion, why wouldn't any employees have to abide by it

To quote the Red Hot Chili Peppers: "if you have to ask, you'll never know."

Sorry to be so dumb that I cant read the writing on the wall. But why are people so damn determined to poke at religious people. Im an atheist, but man...
A gay couple want a wedding cake and someone says. I appreciate you wanting to have my cake company bake your cake, but I'm going to decline for religious reasons... instead of going elsewhere, you know, like the free market truly dictates, people want to sue everybody.

Again, my example of the Hooters girl was to show that someone could be fired for a reason that at face value seems harsh or unwarranted (Being Fat or Being Gay/Trans), but when you dig into the reasoning it actually makes sense.

Apples and oranges.

Fired at Hooters for being fat is being an employee in our "at will" employment scheme. HOWEVER, you can't be fired at Hooters for being black or other protected classes, right? (remember this because it'll be applicable later)

The doughnut shop example is about service to classes of people. Not about religious beliefs.

Put it another way, how about I restate what you're saying in a different context.

1. The KKK claims that it is a Christian organization.

2. A KKK member owns a chain of doughnut shops. In their holding of KKK beliefs, they say that serving blacks denies their "religious liberty".

3. This is okay with you?

4. Even if okay with you, this violates Federal statute(s) because even as a store owner, you can't discrminate against protected classes of people and unlaterlly groups based on race, gender, religion, national origin or disability. We okay so far?

5. In many jurisdictions (states and localities) and in the future, I promise you the Federal government will be here too, sexual orientation is being written into law as a protected class. So discriminating in service against LBGT customers are equally against the law in this instance too. Regardless of your religious beliefs.

If you run a public accomodation, you can't set it up with business rules that discriminate against protected classes of people. Don't like that? Okay, that's your opinion. But I, for one, am glad that MY America is not a country where I'm walking down the street with JRosenth and CCJ and we gotta try and remember which doughnut shop doesn't discriminate against Jews (JRo), blacks (CCJ) and Asians (me). I'm glad that in my America, the doughnut shop on 14th and M doesn't have a "we only serve whites" sign in their windows. And I'm happy that in my America, the fabric of our Amerian experience doesn't allow the figurative KKK doughnut shop owners to divide us as Americans but that we are all equal partners in the American experience.

My dos centavos.