Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

This And That

Collapse
X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by RobRoy View Post
    It's a formality. It's just a part of nationalism. It's a little thing that every reasonable person in a country can agree on.

    Well, it used to be. And THAT is the core problem. It will have to play out.
    Rob, patriotism and nationalism are not the same thing.
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________
    How Come Other People Can Get Away With Jokes Like That?

    Face it Tea Bagging Neo-Cons...if Reagan ran today, you'd be calling him a RINO socialist! -- scott666

    Barack Obama must be kenyan - everytime he speaks they trot a translator out the next day to explain what he said.-- ToBeAnnounced

    And even then some people still don't understand.-- RogueGnome

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by The Badger View Post

      Rob, patriotism and nationalism are not the same thing.
      I agree. And as the boondogle of multiculturalism is becoming clear, more people are coming out as "not just patriotic, but nationalist". I'm one of them, insofar as I care about it at all, which is not much. But I agree with the nationalists in that this country must abandon the salad and return to the melting pot. A country with multiple, and contradictory, major cultures within its borders will not survive.
      Patriotism is about protecting the land we live.
      Nationalism is about protecting the way we live.
      From https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-di...and-patriotism

      Last edited by RobRoy; 09-27-2017, 10:17 AM.
      All text I enter is my opinion. If I feel it necessary to prove it, I'll back it up with links.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by RobRoy View Post
        I agree. And as the boondogle of multiculturalism is becoming clear, more people are coming out as "not just patriotic, but nationalist". I'm one of them, insofar as I care about it at all, which is not much. But I agree with the nationalists in that this country must abandon the salad and return to the melting pot. A country with multiple, and contradictory, major cultures within its borders will not survive.
        Patriotism is about protecting the land we live.
        Nationalism is about protecting the way we live.
        From https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-di...and-patriotism
        Not these days.



        Patriots: People who put their country, its Constitution and its laws ahead of their own safety, security and personal interests in order to advance their country and its society into a better state.

        Examples: The Founding Fathers, Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King, Civil Rights workers, dissidents, teachers, social workers.

        Nationalists: People who wrap themselves in the flag in order to promote their own narrow, twisted views and self-interests no matter what it does to their fellow citizens.

        Examples: The Bundy family, Timothy McVeigh, the "militia" movement, right-wing reactionaries and evangelicals, neo-NAZIs, The Klan and white supremacists of all sorts.

        Think carefully, folks, before deciding which side you want to be associated with.
        Last edited by The Badger; 09-27-2017, 10:53 AM.
        __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________
        How Come Other People Can Get Away With Jokes Like That?

        Face it Tea Bagging Neo-Cons...if Reagan ran today, you'd be calling him a RINO socialist! -- scott666

        Barack Obama must be kenyan - everytime he speaks they trot a translator out the next day to explain what he said.-- ToBeAnnounced

        And even then some people still don't understand.-- RogueGnome

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by The Badger View Post

          Not these days.



          Patriots: People who put their country, its Constitution and its laws ahead of their own safety, security and personal interests in order to advance their country and its society into a better state.

          Examples: The Founding Fathers, Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King, Civil Rights workers, dissidents, teachers, social workers.

          Nationalists: People who wrap themselves in the flag in order to promote their own narrow, twisted views and self-interests no matter what it does to their fellow citizens.

          Examples: The Bundy family, Timothy McVeigh, the "militia" movement, right-wing reactionaries and evangelicals, neo-NAZIs, The Klan and white supremacists of all sorts.

          Think carefully, folks, before deciding which side you want to be associated with.
          That's kinda funny. When I moved to KY, I moved to a Baptist "dry" county. It is always fun, when a baptist says that drinking is a sin, I ask, "So, which are you - Mormon, or Muslim?"

          Of course, I'm doing what the video does: Guilt by association. Well, except I do stand with the Bundy family and evangelicals.
          Last edited by RobRoy; 09-27-2017, 11:05 AM.
          All text I enter is my opinion. If I feel it necessary to prove it, I'll back it up with links.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by RobRoy View Post
            That's kinda funny. When I moved to KY, I moved to a Baptist "dry" county. It is always fun, when a baptist says that drinking is a sin, I ask, "So, which are you - Mormon, or Muslim?"

            Of course, I'm doing what the video does: Guilt by association. Well, except I do stand with the Bundy family and evangelicals.
            Self-centred anarchism and empty rebellion over common sense, eh? Enjoy.
            In the meantime, the Bundys' view of "proper range management" is going to
            result in another even worse dustbowl and the evangelicals are working hard
            to institute their version of Sharia law. You know the idea; all "science" had to
            come from the Bible and all laws must be based on "Biblical Principles," even
            though none of the things they're advocating are actually IN the Bible, and
            Jesus would object strongly to most of it. It's hard to defend money changers
            and trinket vendors when Christ, Himself, threw them out of the temple for
            desecrating the place with vulgar, greedy trade.
            __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________
            How Come Other People Can Get Away With Jokes Like That?

            Face it Tea Bagging Neo-Cons...if Reagan ran today, you'd be calling him a RINO socialist! -- scott666

            Barack Obama must be kenyan - everytime he speaks they trot a translator out the next day to explain what he said.-- ToBeAnnounced

            And even then some people still don't understand.-- RogueGnome

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by The Badger View Post

              Self-centred anarchism and empty rebellion over common sense, eh? Enjoy.
              In the meantime, the Bundys' view of "proper range management" is going to
              result in another even worse dustbowl and the evangelicals are working hard
              to institute their version of Sharia law. You know the idea; all "science" had to
              come from the Bible and all laws must be based on "Biblical Principles," even
              though none of the things they're advocating are actually IN the Bible, and
              Jesus would object strongly to most of it. It's hard to defend money changers
              and trinket vendors when Christ, Himself, threw them out of the temple for
              desecrating the place with vulgar, greedy trade.
              What temple are you talking about? Do you know the specifics of what the moneychangers were actually doing? How is that even relevant to the Bundy situation? Have you actually studied either?
              All text I enter is my opinion. If I feel it necessary to prove it, I'll back it up with links.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by RobRoy View Post
                What temple are you talking about? Do you know the specifics of what the moneychangers were actually doing? How is that even relevant to the Bundy situation? Have you actually studied either?
                Jesus clearing the temple of moneychangers and vendors. The Book of John, Chapter 2, verses 13-22
                https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...John%202:13-22
                http://www.sacredspace.ie/scripture/john-213-22
                https://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%202.13-22

                For those who can't be bothered to look, here's the quote:

                John 2:13-22New International Version (NIV)

                Jesus Clears the Temple Courts

                13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”[a]
                18 The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”
                19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
                20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.
                Footnotes:

                1. John 2:17 Psalm 69:9


                New International Version (NIV) Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.
                There you go, Rob; chapter and verse on Christ clearing the temple of the business people.


                Jesus came to the temple on "around the time of Passover" and found money changers doing a brisk business, along with others selling "sacrificial" goods to be offered up on the altar. Basically, they'd turned the temple into a shopping centre, ignoring its significance as a house of prayer. Imagine how you'd feel if you walked into church and found the place turned into a market.

                How is this relevant to the Bundy situation? It isn't, at least not directly. The Bundys aren't interested in making money like a bunch of Ferengis on the make, but they do want to run government-owned public lands "their way," rather than according to the agreements they signed. They don't feel like paying the land use fees they agreed to, either. On top of all that, they "don't want to be told what to do" by biologists, climatologists and land management experts from the Bureau of Land Management, the EPA and other government agencies who have studied the effects of unregulated grazing. It is "inconvenient" for the Bundy Bunch to manage the land they rent sustainably, or to pay their rent, so they didn't bother.

                Cliven Bundy had been in court more than once over all of this. Rather than just doing what the court ordered, he made a cause celebre of it. He raised a stink based on opinions and no facts, attracted the attention of similarly rebellious and ignorant people from the ranching and militia movements and came close to starting a war. It's the same "all for myself" arrogance and ignorance, with a dose of sanctimony mixed in. The standoff at Cliven Bundy's ranch was bad enough, but Ammon Bundy made the protest into a farce by seizing the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in protest. Ultimately his bad time at Malheur (they mean the same thing, look it up) was exposed for the attention grabbing nonsense it was. He and his merry band of self-proclaimed "patriots" had to give up. The only reason most of them didn't wind up in jail is because the most serious federal charges were a bit of a stretch, and the rest (bedlam, breakage and being a bunch of ornery s**s) were misdemeanors.

                But their little revolution did not prove anything, nor did it make any difference in how the government is run.
                __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________
                How Come Other People Can Get Away With Jokes Like That?

                Face it Tea Bagging Neo-Cons...if Reagan ran today, you'd be calling him a RINO socialist! -- scott666

                Barack Obama must be kenyan - everytime he speaks they trot a translator out the next day to explain what he said.-- ToBeAnnounced

                And even then some people still don't understand.-- RogueGnome

                Comment


                • arcadesonfire
                  arcadesonfire commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Jesus didn't like worship and commerce blending. He only defied secular gov't. And Jesus's baptizer preached 'from those according to what they have to those according to what they need.'... Jesus was an anarcho-socialist.
                  Last edited by arcadesonfire; 09-27-2017, 01:27 PM.

              • #38
                I was hoping this was about a Primus song.....guess not..

                Comment


                • #39
                  Originally posted by RobRoy View Post
                  No, it doesn't.

                  We also didn't always put "In God We Trust" on our money. And there has not "Always been baseball", regardless of the quote from "Field of Dreams."

                  But for a country to survive, some sort of nationalism is in order, hence the tradition at sporting events. Even Little League.

                  You do point out what many conservatives have been saying about this: This whole thing is really about eliminating the national anthem and the flag being displayed at games. It is another chess piece that must be moved to their goal of globalism. American nationalists have about had it, as is demonstrated by the response to this.

                  Get out your popcorn because the show has just begun.
                  Unfortunately for your side "American Nationalists" are only about 30% of the country, at the very most.
                  ______________

                  Comment


                  • #40
                    Originally posted by guido61 View Post

                    Unfortunately for your side "American Nationalists" are only about 30% of the country, at the very most.
                    I don't know if you ever heard this before, but it used to be said that to have a "controlling interest" in a company's stock, you needed 6%.

                    If you get my drift.
                    All text I enter is my opinion. If I feel it necessary to prove it, I'll back it up with links.

                    Comment


                    • #41
                      Originally posted by RobRoy View Post
                      I don't know if you ever heard this before, but it used to be said that to have a "controlling interest" in a company's stock, you needed 6%.

                      If you get my drift.

                      I get your analogy is pointless, if that's where your drift was headed?

                      The truth is the majority of Americans don't agree with the Nationalists. By a GOOD margin. And there is nothing to indicate they are making any headway in new converts. If anything, they are stirring up as much hardnosed opposition as they are support, as we saw on Sunday.

                      The ONE advantage they have is that the way our elections are set up --- 2 senators in each state and the electoral college --- currently benefits them as they have disproportionate support in small states.

                      But for as astounding as Trump's victory was last November, one lesson that the Nationalists SHOULD take to heart is just how exceptional it was. For them to win the presidency it took an enormous number of dominos to fall in just the right way. A candidate with unique appeal and name recognition. An opposing candidate for whom "baggage" doesn't even begin to describe her failings. Scandals against her that continued to break right up until the end. An overall mood of the country that allowed a good percentage of people be willing to take a chance on a political neophyte because---why the hell not?

                      And even then, he couldn't win a majority of the vote and it took just the right number of people voting in just the right states to pull it off.

                      And every indication is that was his PEAK of popularity. And the PEAK for the "nationalist" movement. But if you can show me anything to indicate otherwise, I'll take a look at it.

                      Real indicators, however. Objective analysis. Not opinion pieces from other nationalists written to bolster the troops.
                      ______________

                      Comment


                      • arcadesonfire
                        arcadesonfire commented
                        Editing a comment
                        Watch out Guido, I've heard we're not allowed to use logic and reasoning in here.

                    • #42
                      Originally posted by guido61 View Post


                      I get your analogy is pointless, if that's where your drift was headed?

                      The truth is the majority of Americans don't agree with the Nationalists. By a GOOD margin. And there is nothing to indicate they are making any headway in new converts. If anything, they are stirring up as much hardnosed opposition as they are support, as we saw on Sunday.

                      The ONE advantage they have is that the way our elections are set up --- 2 senators in each state and the electoral college --- currently benefits them as they have disproportionate support in small states.

                      But for as astounding as Trump's victory was last November, one lesson that the Nationalists SHOULD take to heart is just how exceptional it was. For them to win the presidency it took an enormous number of dominos to fall in just the right way. A candidate with unique appeal and name recognition. An opposing candidate for whom "baggage" doesn't even begin to describe her failings. Scandals against her that continued to break right up until the end. An overall mood of the country that allowed a good percentage of people be willing to take a chance on a political neophyte because---why the hell not?

                      And even then, he couldn't win a majority of the vote and it took just the right number of people voting in just the right states to pull it off.

                      And every indication is that was his PEAK of popularity. And the PEAK for the "nationalist" movement. But if you can show me anything to indicate otherwise, I'll take a look at it.

                      Real indicators, however. Objective analysis. Not opinion pieces from other nationalists written to bolster the troops.
                      This is interesting. I completely agree with your post, except the nationalists thing at the beginning. The reason for that disagreement is simple: "Nationalist" is a label that means different things to different people. A lot of people agree with what many "nationalists" teach and don't even know it, just as a lot of people disagree with what many "antifa" leaders teach, and don't even know it. And vice versa.

                      The thing is, there are no antifa or "nationalist" candidates to run.

                      Regarding the rest of your post, you and I pretty much see this whole thing the same way. Trump was the result of a perfect storm. That's what got him in. However, those that disagree with him appear to do everything within their power to ensure he gets re-elected in 2020, not because he is such a great statesman, but because he is a "marginally adult" person in a field full of toddlers.

                      One thing I agreed with Michael Medved on was that Hillary and Trump were the worst choices for both parties because Hillary was the one candidate that could not beat Trump, and Trump was the one candidate that could not beat Hillary.

                      I would have LOVED to see a debate between Hillary and Cruz, or Sanders and Trump instead of the fiasco of an election we ended up with.

                      But make no mistake, a LOT of our country is just tired of politics as usual and it's getting worse.
                      All text I enter is my opinion. If I feel it necessary to prove it, I'll back it up with links.

                      Comment


                      • #43
                        Originally posted by guido61 View Post


                        I get your analogy is pointless, if that's where your drift was headed?

                        The truth is the majority of Americans don't agree with the Nationalists. By a GOOD margin. And there is nothing to indicate they are making any headway in new converts. If anything, they are stirring up as much hardnosed opposition as they are support, as we saw on Sunday.

                        The ONE advantage they have is that the way our elections are set up --- 2 senators in each state and the electoral college --- currently benefits them as they have disproportionate support in small states.

                        But for as astounding as Trump's victory was last November, one lesson that the Nationalists SHOULD take to heart is just how exceptional it was. For them to win the presidency it took an enormous number of dominos to fall in just the right way. A candidate with unique appeal and name recognition. An opposing candidate for whom "baggage" doesn't even begin to describe her failings. Scandals against her that continued to break right up until the end. An overall mood of the country that allowed a good percentage of people be willing to take a chance on a political neophyte because---why the hell not?

                        And even then, he couldn't win a majority of the vote and it took just the right number of people voting in just the right states to pull it off.

                        And every indication is that was his PEAK of popularity. And the PEAK for the "nationalist" movement. But if you can show me anything to indicate otherwise, I'll take a look at it.

                        Real indicators, however. Objective analysis. Not opinion pieces from other nationalists written to bolster the troops.
                        This is interesting. I completely agree with your post, except the nationalists thing at the beginning. The reason for that disagreement is simple: "Nationalist" is a label that means different things to different people. A lot of people agree with what many "nationalists" teach and don't even know it, just as a lot of people disagree with what many "antifa" leaders teach, and don't even know it. And vice versa.

                        The thing is, there are no antifa or "nationalist" candidates to run.

                        Regarding the rest of your post, you and I pretty much see this whole thing the same way. Trump was the result of a perfect storm. That's what got him in. However, those that disagree with him appear to do everything within their power to ensure he gets re-elected in 2020, not because he is such a great statesman, but because he is a "marginally adult" person in a field full of toddlers.

                        One thing I agreed with Michael Medved on was that Hillary and Trump were the worst choices for both parties because Hillary was the one candidate that could not beat Trump, and Trump was the one candidate that could not beat Hillary.

                        I would have LOVED to see a debate between Hillary and Cruz, or Sanders and Trump instead of the fiasco of an election we ended up with.

                        But make no mistake, a LOT of our country is just tired of politics as usual and it's getting worse. That plays right into trump's hands.
                        All text I enter is my opinion. If I feel it necessary to prove it, I'll back it up with links.

                        Comment


                        • #44
                          Originally posted by RobRoy View Post
                          This is interesting. I completely agree with your post, except the nationalists thing at the beginning. The reason for that disagreement is simple: "Nationalist" is a label that means different things to different people. A lot of people agree with what many "nationalists" teach and don't even know it, just as a lot of people disagree with what many "antifa" leaders teach, and don't even know it. And vice versa.

                          The thing is, there are no antifa or "nationalist" candidates to run.
                          I'm not talking about who identifies with, or understands a particular label. I'm talking about how many people agree with the ideology and are willing to vote for candidates that support it.


                          Regarding the rest of your post, you and I pretty much see this whole thing the same way. Trump was the result of a perfect storm. That's what got him in. However, those that disagree with him appear to do everything within their power to ensure he gets re-elected in 2020, not because he is such a great statesman, but because he is a "marginally adult" person in a field full of toddlers.
                          Actually, he won largely because of the opposite. Most of us have an "immature fratboy" streak that runs through us and Trump appeals to that. Who among us HASN'T enjoyed some "locker room talk" from time to time? Trump brought that to the national stage and a lot of people enjoyed it enough to vote for him for that very reason. And the rest who voted for him simply didn't care.

                          So if you want to talk about our culture getting WORSE....look no further than Donald Trump. The irony that HE is the man who is going to 'bring back' old school respect and values to America is almost too laughable to stomach. It'd be like electing Jenna Jameson as president on a platform of restoring virtue.

                          One thing to note about the "Trump vs Trumpism" thing? Trump won in November. Not Trumpism. Trumpism won last night in Alabama, but can it win anywhere else?
                          ______________

                          Comment


                          • #45
                            Originally posted by arcadesonfire

                            #37.1

                            arcadesonfire commented
                            09-27-2017, 03:26 PM



                            Jesus didn't like worship and commerce blending. He only defied secular gov't. And Jesus's baptizer preached 'from those according to what they have to those according to what they need.'... Jesus was an anarcho-socialist.
                            Last edited by arcadesonfire; 09-27-2017, 03:27 PM.

                            If you read the Bible, yes, that's how Jesus comes across, more or less.
                            If you listen to Reverend Hellfire, Jesus was entirely different. Take your choice.
                            Last edited by The Badger; 09-27-2017, 02:50 PM.
                            __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________
                            How Come Other People Can Get Away With Jokes Like That?

                            Face it Tea Bagging Neo-Cons...if Reagan ran today, you'd be calling him a RINO socialist! -- scott666

                            Barack Obama must be kenyan - everytime he speaks they trot a translator out the next day to explain what he said.-- ToBeAnnounced

                            And even then some people still don't understand.-- RogueGnome

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X