[steve2005]

blackshoe, on 2017-August-23, 20:08, said:

I don't speak for anybody else, but I think we should withdraw our Army, and probably our Air Force, from everywhere except the United States and their territories.

The Navy (and Marine Corps) is another issue. That organization is the President's arm for handling situations where an immediate application of force is necessary to deal with people and nations who initiate force directly against Americans outside the US.

Withdrawing from everywhere will severely reduce the capabilities and response time of Marine/Navy forces.

[johnu]

Zelandakh, on 2017-November-21, 15:49, said:

But I guess every American school child has to learn all of that and knows it pretty much by rote.

The Republican vision is teaching the 3 R's, reading, writing, and religion. There are no R's in history.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-November-21, 18:56, said:

Trump's FCC is poised to eliminate net neutrality. Now, if you are an American oligarch who owns a controlling interest in
AT&T or Comcast you are pleased; however, if you are one of 62 million regular citizens - you, know, the ones who bought into Trump's populist propaganda scam and voted for him - well, you are screwed.

Welcome to reality, suckers.

We have talked earlier about the hyper-consolidation of the media landscape into basically 6-7 powerful corporate groups.

It is long overdue for the Department of Justice to contest this merger but there were so many before this one that they should have halted as well.

This lawsuit may be a token resistance strategy by the DOJ. However, the PTB should compel AT&T to make the compelling case that this merger of Time Warner & AT&T is good for consumers and good for the news marketplace.

[Zelandakh]

RedSpawn, on 2017-November-22, 06:21, said:

We have talked earlier about the hyper-consolidation of the media landscape into basically 6-7 powerful corporate groups.

It is long overdue for the Department of Justice to contest this merger but there were so many before this one that they should have halted as well.

This lawsuit may be a token resistance strategy by the DOJ. However, the PTB should compel AT&T to make the compelling case that this merger of Time Warner & AT&T is good for consumers and good for the news marketplace.

I think the most interesting part of this merger is that the first party to benefit from it going ahead (aside from AT&T and TW) would probably be Fox, who have a range of buyers already lined up for their entertainment assets. Of course Fox is not CNN, so perhaps the DoJ would approve such a deal in the same way that they did for Comcast and NBCUniversal but it is widely being reported that the buyers will only go ahead if the AT&T-TW deal gets the green light.

At the moment, the whole thing really does look like the only real issue is the involvement of CNN, particularly given that the top antitrust expert at the DoJ reportedly stated that the deal would be approved just a year ago. That is obviously not meant to be how the process works but it is what it is.

The end result could be a real hum-dinger of a court battle with both sides claiming that they want what is best for consumers and Trump's personal position probably being brought into play. In the end it will probably come down to whether AT&T and TW can successfully argue that the merged company is in the same sector as tech giants such as Google, Amazon and Netflix. If they are successful in this then the whole DoJ case basically folds. If on the other hand they fail on this point then they are relying on precedent, which is probably not going to be enough.

[y66]

Winstonm, on 2017-November-21, 19:57, said:

The Atlantic does it again:

bump

[olegru]

johnu, on 2017-November-22, 05:32, said:

There are no R's in history.

Are you sure about that?

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2017-November-21, 15:49, said:

But I guess every American school child has to learn all of that and knows it pretty much by rote.

LOL. Have you met our education system?

[Winstonm]

olegru, on 2017-November-22, 08:19, said:

Are you sure about that?

He was speaking of Republicans' vision and not entirely accurately as some Republicans do recognize the R in ConfedeRate history.

[Cyberyeti]

Winstonm, on 2017-November-22, 10:16, said:

He was speaking of Republicans' vision and not entirely accurately as some Republicans do recognize the R in ConfedeRate history.

Was this a sign of not knowing ones Rs from ones elbow ?

[Winstonm]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-November-22, 10:24, said:

Was this a sign of not knowing ones Rs from ones elbow ?

I think it was describing the Republicans as dumbRs's

Speaking of dumbRs's, Trump tweeted this morning, and here is a part of a tweet about Lavar Ball - the father of one UCLA basketball player who was arrested in China for shoplifting - that perfectly encapsulates the Trump presidency:

Quote

“It wasn’t the White House, it wasn’t the State Department, it wasn’t father LaVar’s so-called people on the ground in China that got his son out of a long term prison sentence – IT WAS ME."

This is kind of sad, actually: Look at me, daddy. Watch me, daddy. Me, Me, Me....

[Al_U_Card]

So, Winston, are all of your declared contracts now NO TRUMP?

(Sorry for injecting some humour there....)

[rmnka447]

Winstonm, on 2017-November-16, 16:10, said:

It's this kind of crapola that influences the beliefs of many evangelical Protestants. both men and women:



Can't even make the tired argument about old verses new as these are New Testament verses.

So, you criticize evangelicals if they find an interpretation of the relationship between men and women that you disagree with.

Yet, if a conservative even mentions anything about the relationship between men and women taken by Islam, you label such criticism islamophobic and label them bigots.

Aren't you engaging in a little hypocrisy?

By your own standards, wouldn't it be fair to call you a christianophobe and call you out for your bigotry against evangelicals also?

The funny thing is that many Evangelicals and Muslims are OK with how their faith/religion define that relationship and espouse it. And, you know that is allowed in this country, it's called freedom of religion.

[Cyberyeti]

rmnka447, on 2017-November-22, 16:19, said:

So, you criticize evangelicals if they find an interpretation of the relationship between men and women that you disagree with.

Yet, if a conservative even mentions anything about the relationship between men and women taken by Islam, you label such criticism islamophobic and label them bigots.

Aren't you engaging in a little hypocrisy?

By your own standards, wouldn't it be fair to call you a christianophobe and call you out for your bigotry against evangelicals also?

The funny thing is that many Evangelicals and Muslims are OK with how their faith/religion define that relationship and espouse it. And, you know that is allowed in this country, it's called freedom of religion.

I criticise both religions equally for that, if they want to take a 19th century (or worse) view of what men and women are, I will tell either that the world has moved on.

[Zelandakh]

rmnka447, on 2017-November-22, 16:19, said:

And, you know that is allowed in this country, it's called freedom of religion.

You do indeed have the right to be as sexist as you like providing you do so in private. However, the moment you take that public and disadvantage a woman through it, you are moving into a different area and are likely to be risking prosecution. And if you have sex with a 14 year old girl because Corinthians says she is created for men to use, well I am sorry but your freedom of religion is not going to help you there one bit, and rightfully so.

[cherdano]

y66, on 2017-November-21, 17:09, said:

How do troll warnings work? Is it like soccer where you need 2 of them before you're sent off?

You should read "Troll warning" as in "Deer warning". I am not warning the deer to get off my lawn the road. I am warning the drivers not to hit the deer, as it might damage their car.

[hrothgar]

rmnka447, on 2017-November-22, 16:19, said:

So, you criticize evangelicals if they find an interpretation of the relationship between men and women that you disagree with.

Yet, if a conservative even mentions anything about the relationship between men and women taken by Islam, you label such criticism islamophobic and label them bigots.

Aren't you engaging in a little hypocrisy?

By your own standards, wouldn't it be fair to call you a christianophobe and call you out for your bigotry against evangelicals also?

The funny thing is that many Evangelicals and Muslims are OK with how their faith/religion define that relationship and espouse it. And, you know that is allowed in this country, it's called freedom of religion.

I readily agree that that a great deal of the criticisms of both "Islam" and "Evangelicals" paint with an overly broad brush...

For example, in my experience when Americans are complaining about "Islam" most of their examples are specific to either Wahhabism or, alternatively, critiquing cultural practices that are common around the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden which they confuse with "Islam". (Female Genital Mutilation being a prototypical example)

In a similar vein, the expression evangelical can be used to refer to a lot of different things. Some folks use Evangelical to refer to most any mainline Protestant Church (for example, I was raised in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America). Others associate the term with Bebbington's definition which focuses on Conversionism, Biblicism, Crucicentrism, and Activism. And, yet others use the term to describe conservative fundamentalists.

So, I guess that the lesson is, when we want to insult knuckle dragging pedophiles who are either muslims or evangelicals, we should not be castigating them because they believe in Islam or because they are evangelicals, but rather because they are conservatives.

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2017-November-22, 16:19, said:

So, you criticize evangelicals if they find an interpretation of the relationship between men and women that you disagree with.

Yet, if a conservative even mentions anything about the relationship between men and women taken by Islam, you label such criticism islamophobic and label them bigots.

Aren't you engaging in a little hypocrisy?

By your own standards, wouldn't it be fair to call you a christianophobe and call you out for your bigotry against evangelicals also?

The funny thing is that many Evangelicals and Muslims are OK with how their faith/religion define that relationship and espouse it. And, you know that is allowed in this country, it's called freedom of religion.

Let me help your understanding a bit as I helped my own. I grew up surrounded by evangelical Christians, so I know this group and I know them well. I knew no followers of Islam. I had to research and learn about Islam, and one thing I learned is that Muslim refers to the culture while Islam refers to the ideology. If you are talking about followers of the religion, they are Islamics; if you are talking about a group of people, they are Muslim.

Hope that helps.

On to your points. You obviously have not been around the WC long enough to know that I have little use for supernatural beliefs of any type - so it doesn't matter to me if it is a Christian belief or an Islamic belief - to me, they are equally ridiculous. It is equally ridiculous, then, for two separate groups who both believe in magic to fail to understand that their problem stems from their silly ideas about the reality of magic. Stupid is an open borders country.

Hope that helps.

And finally, evangelicals. Let me help your understanding here:

Quote

We believe that the Bible is the Word of God; without error as originally written. Its content has been preserved by Him, and is the final authority in all matters of doctrine and faith-above all human authority

I quoted the verses that these evangelicals believe supports the view that women should be lesser - subservient to men. Evangelicals and followers of Islam have the same notions about the inequality of women - yet each claims the other is wrong because they have the wrong coach on their team. Open borders, again.

Hope that helps.

Btw, is there a democrataphobe? Do you have a mirror?

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on 2017-November-22, 17:38, said:

I readily agree that that a great deal of the criticisms of both "Islam" and "Evangelicals" paint with an overly broad brush...

For example, in my experience when Americans are complaining about "Islam" most of their examples are specific to either Wahhabism or, alternatively, critiquing cultural practices that are common around the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden which they confuse with "Islam". (Female Genital Mutilation being a prototypical example)

In a similar vein, the expression evangelical can be used to refer to a lot of different things. Some folks use Evangelical to refer to most any mainline Protestant Church (for example, I was raised in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America). Others associate the term with Bebbington's definition which focuses on Conversionism, Biblicism, Crucicentrism, and Activism. And, yet others use the term to describe conservative fundamentalists.

So, I guess that the lesson is, when we want to insult knuckle dragging pedophiles who are either muslims or evangelicals, we should not be castigating them because they believe in Islam or because they are evangelicals, but rather because they are conservatives.

LoL.

[Winstonm]

Al_U_Card, on 2017-November-22, 10:40, said:

So, Winston, are all of your declared contracts now NO TRUMP?

(Sorry for injecting some humour there....)

No, unfortunately the contract with America has been trumped.

[awm]

Winstonm, on 2017-November-21, 19:57, said:

The Atlantic does it again:

I thought this is a very good article, and it brings together some of the things I've thought about this election for a while. Some of the salient points (and I encourage people to read the article, but it's long):

1. Trump is not really a new phenomenon -- candidates running with this sort of racist/nationalist rhetoric have been running (and winning a lot of white votes) for quite some time.
2. The narrative about "struggling white working class" voters doesn't really hold up to analysis.
3. There's a lot of racism here, but it's not exactly individual racism but rather a refusal to understand privilege and the real issues faced by minority communities.