MATT DRUDGE Goes Off on Twitter Rampage It s the Night of the Republican Suicide

[MarcATL]

If any liberal can name one thing that RINOS didn't give Obama, let's hear it.

• Higher taxes on the ultra-rich.
• Infrastructure spending.
• Proper spending for security in Benghazi.
• A clean debt-limit increase.
• Tighter restrictions at gun shows.

How many more do you need?

Thank you!

 

[MarcATL]

I'm looking for the roll call vote, but I can't seem to find it.

I didn't see which Republicans didn't vote, but I did see this.

"Every Republican who voted voted to advance fast-track. Democrats were split.

Democrats who backed advancing the bill included Michael Bennet of Colorado, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, Chris Coons of Delaware, Dianne Feinstein of California, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Tim Kaine of Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Patty Murray of Washington, Bill Nelson of Florida, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Mark Warner of Virginia and Ron Wyden of Oregon."

Senate Votes to Advance Fast-Track Trade Bill

All of the conservative Democrats - I'm so shocked!

Conservative Democrat is an oxymoron

That's because you're a far rightwing radical Republican.

 

[Toro]

Why are there so many crazy people on the Right spewing nonsense?

What they passed was to give Obama authority to negotiate a trade treaty, just as Congress has for the President for every trade treaty for decades.

What's the matter with you people?

 

[Toro]

Oh, and the article is wrong.

They didn't pass a trade treaty. They passed a bill allowing Obama the authority to negotiate a trade treaty.

Just as Congress did for Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, etc., etc., etc.

Congress will then vote on the treaty that has been negotiated.

 

[Anathema]

And do you think that no one has previously tried that? Moreover, how do you know you got it right?

Honestly it doesn't seem like anyone in Western society has tried it before. It seems more like they find those common denominators and go in the opposite direction.

I don't know that I have it 100% right but I believe I'm very close.

 

[Toro]

This thread is example #2,856,381 on here of people commenting on things they know nothing about.

 

[Pogo]

"Honor killings" are cultural, not religious. They have nothing to do with Islam, which in fact forbids them.

The practice has been around far longer than Islam or the other monotheistic religions, and in places such as India where Islam never took hold.

The line between culture and religion is not that clear cut for many traditional religions, and if you talked to many of the people who are engaging in honor killings, they say they are doing it for religious reasons.

I haven't see anyone claiming that (link?), and if they did they'd be wrong. The Qur'an specifically prohibits it anyway, so they'd have to defy the tenets of Islam (or Buddhism, or Sikhism, or Christianism, or Judaism) to do it --- that is, if they even practice a religion in the first place. It's already known to have ancient cultural roots, back to Rome and well before.

"Honor" killings have to do with honor, not religion. And "honor" in this context means social status. Usually having to do with sex, and specifically, controlling the women. There is nothing religiously to be gained from honor killing, even by misinterpretation.

"Honor killings" have origins in patriarchy, not religion.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

If any liberal can name one thing that RINOS didn't give Obama, let's hear it.

• Higher taxes on the ultra-rich.
• Infrastructure spending.
• Proper spending for security in Benghazi.
• A clean debt-limit increase.
• Tighter restrictions at gun shows.

How many more do you need?

Thank you![/QUOTE]

Because Obama really made a serious effort for raising taxes on his donors...yeah ok.

You got your stimulus, how much more infrastructure spending do you need? Why did Obama fail with our money to repair infrastructure?

Benghazi is Hillary's fuckup.

Yet you still got your debt limit increase. The RINOS played slaps with Obama, that was it.

Fuck off the Second Amendment. The RINOS know that's the only thing they can't do without losing the entire conservative base.

Good job, you named ONE thing (gun control) that RINOS didn't give Obama, because it would be instantaneous political suicide. But let's not forget how states like New York, Connet, and CA have had no problem restricting guns at the state level regardless!

 

[JoshuaZ]

I haven't see anyone claiming that (link?), and if they did they'd be wrong. The Qur'an specifically prohibits it anyway, so they'd have to defy the tenets of Islam (or Buddhism, or Sikhism, or Christianism, or Judaism) to do it. It's already known to have ancient cultural roots, back to Rome and well before.

"Honor" killings have to do with honor, not religion. And "honor" in this context means social status. Usually having to do with sex, and specifically, controlling the women. There is nothing religiously to be gained from honor killing, even by misinterpretation.

I don't have a link, but I'd point to Savitri Goonesekere's "Violence, Law and Women's Rights in South Asia" which discusses the Islamic justification used in both Pakistan and India.

You are again, assuming a very Christian centric notion of how culture, status, and religion are separate issues. That degree of distinction is not generally made in Islamic countries (and for that matter, is relatively recent a set of distinctions in Christianity also). Many traditional cultures don't distinguish culture and religion nearly as much as you are doing.

 

[Pogo]

I haven't see anyone claiming that (link?), and if they did they'd be wrong. The Qur'an specifically prohibits it anyway, so they'd have to defy the tenets of Islam (or Buddhism, or Sikhism, or Christianism, or Judaism) to do it. It's already known to have ancient cultural roots, back to Rome and well before.

"Honor" killings have to do with honor, not religion. And "honor" in this context means social status. Usually having to do with sex, and specifically, controlling the women. There is nothing religiously to be gained from honor killing, even by misinterpretation.

I don't have a link, but I'd point to Savitri Goonesekere's "Violence, Law and Women's Rights in South Asia" which discusses the Islamic justification used in both Pakistan and India.

You are again, assuming a very Christian centric notion of how culture, status, and religion are separate issues. That degree of distinction is not generally made in Islamic countries (and for that matter, is relatively recent a set of distinctions in Christianity also). Many traditional cultures don't distinguish culture and religion nearly as much as you are doing.

They're two different things. And one predates the other, by a lot. There's no way to conflate them. It's a fallacy to do so. That's why you don't have a link -- there isn't one. In other words if we had an honor-killer right here, of whatever religion, and asked him (and it would always be a him) what religious basis he uses..... he couldn't come up with one.

Religion is more or less practiced by one individual or another but social fabric is part of the foundation of the culture that was already there and long established long before the religion was even conceived. That's why you have places just as "Islamic" (e.g. Morocco) where the practice is unknown. Because there's no relationship. That's also why you see Hindus and Sikhs -- who are certainly not Muslim -- engaging in it. Honor killing traces back to nomadic patriarchy, and there is nothing in one that serves any part of the religion --which again, in the case of Islam, specifically prohibits it --- which means it was already known and established when the religion started.

This is a cum hoc fallacy (correlation without causation) that the Islam-as-Emmanuel-Goldstein wags like to foment, but it's bullshit. They did the same thing with female genital mutilation, which has the same cultural-patriarchal roots and also has no relationship to religion. That's bullshit too.

 

[JoshuaZ]

If any liberal can name one thing that RINOS didn't give Obama, let's hear it.

• Higher taxes on the ultra-rich.
• Infrastructure spending.
• Proper spending for security in Benghazi.
• A clean debt-limit increase.
• Tighter restrictions at gun shows.

How many more do you need?

Thank you!

Because Obama really made a serious effort for raising taxes on his donors...yeah ok.

You got your stimulus, how much more infrastructure spending do you need? Why did Obama fail with our money to repair infrastructure?

Benghazi is Hillary's fuckup.

Yet you still got your debt limit increase. The RINOS played slaps with Obama, that was it.

Fuck off the Second Amendment. The RINOS know that's the only thing they can't do without losing the entire conservative base.

Good job, you named ONE thing (gun control) that RINOS didn't give Obama, because it would be instantaneous political suicide. But let's not forget how states like New York, Connet, and CA have had no problem restricting guns at the state level regardless!

Uh, that quote isn't from me.

 

[JoshuaZ]

And do you think that no one has previously tried that? Moreover, how do you know you got it right?

Honestly it doesn't seem like anyone in Western society has tried it before. It seems more like they find those common denominators and go in the opposite direction.

I don't know that I have it 100% right but I believe I'm very close.

I see. And how do you think your creator will react if you are very far off?

 

[JoshuaZ]

They're two different things. And one predates the other, by a lot. There's no way to conflate them. It's a fallacy to do so. That's why you don't have a link -- there isn't one.

Religion is more or less practiced by one individual or another but social fabric is part of the foundation of the culture that was already there and long established long before the religion was even conceived. That's why you have places just as "Islamic" (e.g. Morocco) where the practice is unknown. Because there's no relationship. That's also why you see Hindus and Sikhs -- who are certainly not Muslim -- engaging in it. Honor killing traces back to nomadic patriarchy, and there is nothing in one that serves any part of the religion --which again, in the case of Islam, specifically prohibits it --- which means it was already known and established when the religion started.

This is a cum hoc fallacy (correlation without causation) that the Islam-as-Emmanuel-Goldstein wags like to foment, but it's bullshit. They did the same thing with female genital mutilation, which has the same cultural-patriarchal roots and also has no relationship to religion. That's bullshit too.

Wow, something being in an old fashioned book rather than the internet means it must not exist. Great.

It does seem like you really don't appreciate the interplay between religion and culture. A cultural belief can exist and still be picked up by a religion, and then they get intertwined. If you want a different example where the culture and religion are very hard to disconnect look at Judaism. If someone asked you whether a Bar Mitzvah is a religious or cultural ritual what would you say?

 

[Pogo]

They're two different things. And one predates the other, by a lot. There's no way to conflate them. It's a fallacy to do so. That's why you don't have a link -- there isn't one.

Religion is more or less practiced by one individual or another but social fabric is part of the foundation of the culture that was already there and long established long before the religion was even conceived. That's why you have places just as "Islamic" (e.g. Morocco) where the practice is unknown. Because there's no relationship. That's also why you see Hindus and Sikhs -- who are certainly not Muslim -- engaging in it. Honor killing traces back to nomadic patriarchy, and there is nothing in one that serves any part of the religion --which again, in the case of Islam, specifically prohibits it --- which means it was already known and established when the religion started.

This is a cum hoc fallacy (correlation without causation) that the Islam-as-Emmanuel-Goldstein wags like to foment, but it's bullshit. They did the same thing with female genital mutilation, which has the same cultural-patriarchal roots and also has no relationship to religion. That's bullshit too.

Wow, something being in an old fashioned book rather than the internet means it must not exist. Great.

It does seem like you really don't appreciate the interplay between religion and culture. A cultural belief can exist and still be picked up by a religion, and then they get intertwined. If you want a different example where the culture and religion are very hard to disconnect look at Judaism. If someone asked you whether a Bar Mitzvah is a religious or cultural ritual what would you say?

From the standpoint of Anthropology it would seem cultural but I don't have a Jewish background and it hasn't come up as what I already know is a myth, so I'd have to do my due diligent research. That's what I do rather than assuming the meme "everybody else" is walking around with has any basis in fact.

But no, back to honor killing, they're not intertwined; they're if anything mutually antagonistic. Islam (and other religions) tried to control the already-existing practice by proscribing it. More to the point, I'll just go straight back to this -- if you asked an honor killer who happens to be Muslim (Sikh, Hindu, Christian, atheist, whatever) to cite where their religion mandates or suggests it, they would come up blank. Because you can't cite what does not exist.

And no, I can't accept "an old fashioned book" that for the purpose of this thread, also does not exist. Ipse dixit is worth just that. Moreover you rendered a title only -- not even a quote. The bar is just a bit higher than that.

 

[Dot Com]

In the words of Vladimir Lenin: "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."

These days there's no difference between establishment RHINO Republicans, like Mcconnel and Boehner and a Democrat. They are Obama's Rubber Stamp on every major tyrannical issue, like spying on all americans and pushing through trade deals that cripple the United States.

Conservative internet mogul Matt Drudge unleashed on the Republican Party Friday after the GOP Congress gave Barack Obama sweeping new powers

The Republican Senate passed Obamatrade Friday without reading the bill.

MATT DRUDGE Goes Off on Twitter Rampage It s the Night of the Republican Suicide Alex Jones Infowars There s a war on for your mind

Vote out every RHINO.

Let me repeat the words of the Communist Dear Leader:
Lenin: "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."

That's the RHINOS and establishment Republicans like Mccain, Graham, Mcconnel, etc.

They are Democrat agents, working to control the Democrat's opposition.

We should refer to them exclusively as "The Democrat controlled opposition" and they would be voted out in a single election cycle.

NEWSFLASH!!! McConnell works for the security industrial complex AKA big gov't/patriot act supporters as do the rest of the establ repubs.

 

[JoshuaZ]

From the standpoint of Anthropology it would seem cultural but I don't have a Jewish background and it hasn't come up as what I already know is a myth, so I'd have to do my due diligent research. That's what I do rather than assuming the meme "everybody else" is walking around with has any basis in fact.

But no, back to honor killing, they're not intertwined; they're if anything mutually antagonistic. Islam (and other religions) tried to control the already-existing practice by proscribing it. More to the point, I'll just go straight back to this -- if you asked an honor killer who happens to be Muslim (Sikh, Hindu, Christian, atheist, whatever) to cite where their religion mandates or suggests it, they would come up blank. Because you can't cite what does not exist.

And no, I can't accept "an old fashioned book" that for the purpose of this thread, also does not exist. Ipse dixit is worth just that.

Here's the thing though: things can be a combination of culture and religion. I used an example from Judaism so it wouldn't have the same degree of emotional baggage, but outside the context of Christianity, the line between religion and culture is often very blurry.

And it shouldn't be at all surprising that people can't cite where there religious justification for something is in a text, but that's an incredibly poor reason to conclude that something isn't religious. Can most Christians cite a text for why they believe that there's a Trinity?

It also isn't useful to use religious leaders trying to control something as evidence that the thing in question isn't religious. Religions are not monoliths- religious leaders try all the time to control aspects of religion from getting out of hand or simply not going the way they want them to.

And no, citing a scholarly book by a well-known scholar on a subject is hardly "ipse dixit." I mean, you are welcome to act that way but it isn't very productive.

 

[Anathema]

I see. And how do you think your creator will react if you are very far off?

Then I will end up right where I would prefer to be; because if the Creator is really as gutless and immoral as that would suggest then I want nothing to do with such a Creator.

 

[JoshuaZ]

I see. And how do you think your creator will react if you are very far off?

Then I will end up right where I would prefer to be; because if the Creator is really as gutless and immoral as that would suggest then I want nothing to do with such a Creator.

So you conclude a priori that if the Creator doesn't agree with you the problem is with the Creator and not you? How would you feel about people with moral systems different from your own making the same statement?

 

[Anathema]

So you conclude a priori that if the Creator doesn't agree with you the problem is with the Creator and not you? How would you feel about people with moral systems different from your own making the same statement?

I didn't say the problem was with the Creator... I simply said that I would not agree with the Creator and that I would prefer to spend the rest of Eternity in Hell than in the presence of that Creator. I do not acknowledge the validity of any moral system other than my own. Never have and never will.

 

[Pogo]

From the standpoint of Anthropology it would seem cultural but I don't have a Jewish background and it hasn't come up as what I already know is a myth, so I'd have to do my due diligent research. That's what I do rather than assuming the meme "everybody else" is walking around with has any basis in fact.

But no, back to honor killing, they're not intertwined; they're if anything mutually antagonistic. Islam (and other religions) tried to control the already-existing practice by proscribing it. More to the point, I'll just go straight back to this -- if you asked an honor killer who happens to be Muslim (Sikh, Hindu, Christian, atheist, whatever) to cite where their religion mandates or suggests it, they would come up blank. Because you can't cite what does not exist.

And no, I can't accept "an old fashioned book" that for the purpose of this thread, also does not exist. Ipse dixit is worth just that.

Here's the thing though: things can be a combination of culture and religion. I used an example from Judaism so it wouldn't have the same degree of emotional baggage, but outside the context of Christianity, the line between religion and culture is often very blurry.

And it shouldn't be at all surprising that people can't cite where there religious justification for something is in a text, but that's an incredibly poor reason to conclude that something isn't religious.

Not at all, in fact it's the perfect reason. Otherwise we're going, "I know it doesn't say that but I thought it did". Well it doesn't. Period. So the person who thought that --- was wrong. It's literally that simple.

"When the known facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

It also isn't useful to use religious leaders trying to control something as evidence that the thing in question isn't religious.

It's called linear time. If the year is 650 CE and your team is designing a new religion to market to the masses ---- why would you specifically prohibit a practice that didn't yet exist??

Religions are not monoliths- religious leaders try all the time to control aspects of religion from getting out of hand or simply not going the way they want them to.

Religions are certainly not cultural monoliths -- that's part of my point. It's why you won't find a Moroccan doing an honor killing whereas you will find a Pakistani. Yet they're both Muslim. Obviously not a common cause. Then there's the Hindus and Sikhs just south of them.... unrelated religiously but quite related geographically and culturally. Think about it.

And no, citing a scholarly book by a well-known scholar on a subject is hardly "ipse dixit." I mean, you are welcome to act that way but it isn't very productive.

It makes no point at all. I've never heard of your "well known scholar", I haven't even been given any of his content here, even without documentation, and for that matter I only have your word that the book -- and its author -- exist at all. As I said the bar is just a wee bit higher than that.

Here's the bottom line, to put it into a single thought: an "honor killer" who is also a Muslim doesn't commit he's act because he's Muslim, but rather in spite of it. His religion and his culture guided him two different mutually-exclusive ways, and he chose to go with culture over religion. Just as, say, a Catholic might use artificial birth control.