Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

This Panic to Terminate a Presidency...

124

Replies

  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member

    Bisley
    I made that statement based on my own supposition that right now we don't have capitalism as the ideology. We have a mutated form thats failing the majority of common people, IMO.

    Capitalism is not really an ideology. It is a completely natural economic system that will always exist to some extent, even if it is nothing more than the black market that existed even in the darkest days of the Soviet Union. We still have a capitalist system of economics, but politicians of both parties have been tinkering with it continuously, since the pilgrim days, including an early attempt at communism, which failed very quickly. We still have capitalism, but in a mutated form, as you said. The politicians have corrupted the early version that served the majority very well for a long time, but was too harsh on the minority (the poor) and discriminated against non-white races. The well intentioned politicians, of both parties, negotiated with each other and managed to soften the effect on the poor and the minorities, by managing the surpluses created by unbridaled capitalism.

    Unfortunately, they made laws that demanded bureaucracies to manage them, and opportunistic politicians quickly learned that this was the way to hide all of their sleazy deals and crony capitalism. It has been a battle of the parties, ever since, in which all of the rules have been corrupted, the language has been changed, and the definitions have been changed – all in an effort to deceive the voters. The only debate, at this point, is about who is the most vile and dishonest.

    It may or may not be important to remember that Im not a talking head pundit with an agenda. Im a middle aged truck driver with little education in the formal sence. I have an adolescent son and adult age step children. My agenda is a hopeful future.
    I am a retired land surveyor, with two daughters and seven grand children. I have a high school education, and have read a couple of thousand books. My lack of formal education limits my ability to persuade, but I like to think that it has aided my objectivity. My agenda is also a hopeful future for my children and grandchildren. I think that the best I can do for them is to teach them to think objectively, recognize the reality of every situation and adjust to it, accordingly, and learn to control their emotions, to the extent that their emotions will cause them to ignore reality.

    Why do you suppose that some people ( I don't know how many) are supposedly clambering for socialism???
    Ignorance, plain and simple. Socialism is an easy sell to anyone who has not yet had responsibility for the long-term well-being of other people. It salves their desire for instant gratification, and hides the fact that it is a cancer that destroys, over time.

    I figure they're not being pulled in that direction. They're being pushed. They're compensation dollars received for their time on the job no longer provide a living. The infrastructure they need to get those dollars has crumbled, well they're told to pay more taxes.

    It is not a government’s job to guarantee outcomes, only opportunity to succeed on a level playing field. Every law that any government makes benefits one while depriving another. A good government can only attempt to provide equal opportunities for all. It is not even possible to do that, perfectly, but when there are surpluses in the amount of wealth that has been created, a benevolent government can afford to try. Capitalism, in the right amount, creates surplus. Surplus and scarcity is the real argument between capitalism and socialism. Infrastructure is a luxury that is made possible by wealth surpluses, not a reasonable basis for an entire government mandate.

    Trumps cuts are a drop in the bucket compared to the last 30 years. Then they're told any failings in their financial wellness are because of inferior content of character. Meanwhile, the middle class has become all but effectively suppressed well the poor get oppressed. Im not talking about me. Im relatively wealthy compared to my community. The policies that caused this are called capitalism???? They don't correspond with the explanation Ive read here.

    Electing a president who can wave a magic wand and cure the ills of society is not possible. Anyone who admits this cannot be elected, so they all promise to fix whatever the loudest voice pleads for. The best liars, or the most charismatic ones get themselves elected, and if they are more good than bad, they will then work on sensible things that will have positive effects. It is very rare to have a candidate that has these social skills, and is also competent to run a bloated bureaucracy. They compete in an arena that will destroy them, if they ever admit to the slightest human infallibility.

    Trump is an anomaly, in the sense that he is not a gifted liar, nor charismatic. All of his lies are superficial, and easily seen through, so he tells the truth (as he sees it), more often than not, and suffers through the repercussions. Everyone is amazed that such a person could ever be elected, with some of them becoming apoplectic in their desire to bring him down, while others just want to use him to accomplish useful things.

    The tax cuts did little to help those who don’t pay taxes, but benefitted those who want jobs, because the corporate tax cuts stimulated business growth, and therefore job creation. It does not seem like much, to the needy, but there is no magical legislation that can eliminate their problem, without first fixing the root problem.

    Also.
    It seems to me that the current conservative right needs boogeymen to fuel their agenda. The muslims, the millenials, the illegal immigrants, the socialists, the communists, the women, the poor, anyone that disagrees are all going to get us. Be afraid, be afraid.

    Read the part of my previous post about how to reach reasonable conclusions. I explained it poorly, but anyone who wants to become more objective can find critical thinking tools to do it with. With all of the honesty you display in your posts, you have a blind spot when it comes to attaching blame. Forgive me for sounding ‘preachy,’ but I don’t possess the eloquence that would be needed to make my points without ‘sounding’ like a know-it-all Internet commando.

    Socialism don't work. Fine I get it. If capitalism does and it needs to be sold, the representatives selling it are doing a poor job.

    It’s a good point, and kind of amusing to me, in a way. During my early attempts to understand the Cold War, Pravda was making the same point, daily. They completely did not understand about American advertising, and contended that advertising was nothing more than propaganda designed to sell something to someone who did not want the product. In an economic system where the government controls goods and services, competition between similar products is non-existent – toothpaste is toothpaste, and adding a green stripe that tastes like peppermint does not provide a necessary benefit, so the state does not waste money adding a green stripe to toothpaste. Perfect logic, in a totalitarian state that provides subsistence level commodities to any who will stand in line for it. I tended to agree, at the time, until someone explained that advertising is the natural result of having a surplus of  the same product. Politics are mostly advertising, these days, and finding truth in advertising is harder than it has ever been.




  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,667 Senior Member

    It is an undeniable fact that there is a class of people who have no interest now, or ever again, to strive to achieve the middle class. They simply want access to the benefits of your achievement. 

    Then we have yet another class of people who thrive by being bleeding hearts about this because they do not know and/or refuse to realize the basic truth of the above.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member

    Nope, as long as they can keep us occupied with false narratives and imaginary arguments about socialism vs. capitalism they win. It seems most of us are more than willing to let them.  
    I appreciate that you took the time to explain your thoughts, and I read all of it. In the final analysis, though, it all comes down to the last two sentences that I snipped, above.

    Tons of evidence exist on this subject, but we tend to repeat ourselves, over and over until it is just adding to the noise that overwhelms everything else.

    At some point, we need to do some canceling out, to finally reduce all of the 'data' down to a binary question. You cannot get the answer to a mathematical equation without doing this. It is the quest of all scientists to reduce conjecture, hypothesis, and theory to a simple scientific  truth. Even the legal system attempts to follow a similar path to reach reasonable conclusions.

    When it comes to ideology, 'the left' in this country has always behaved pretty much the same, whether they call themselves Abolitionists, communists, progressives, liberals, or socialists. They believe that they are the guarantors of morality, where it concerns the rights of man, and that they may use whatever means are necessary to win the war against the elites. They profess no allegiance to any organized religion, yet they employ all of the methods of persuasion used by the religions they portray as the most offensive. They are a religion unto themselves, in the eyes of people who think as I do. You can state similar generalities about the right, and bring evidence to back it up, but neither of us will have settled that disagreement.

    We can argue until the end of time, with both of us accusing each other of the exact same offenses, and who started it, and who is merely responding in self defense. It meets the definition of insanity, perfectly. It solves nothing, in the end, because emotions won't stay out of it for long enough to allow us to agree on any of the very simplest and most undeniable facts.

    The end of this road for a country that cannot get past it, is oblivion. A whole generation will have lived out their lives, having never solved the very simplest of problems and will depart life  without one simple achievement to mark as their contribution to civilization.

    So what is the solution? How do we avoid this monumental embarrassment? There is no comprehensive, all encompassing answer to the problem, even if it was possible to agree on what the problem is. Somehow, someone has got to figure out a way to make our government address one problem at a time, and solve it to everyone's satisfaction before moving on to the next. It requires consensus, and that cannot be achieved anywhere, as long as everyone considers themselves a victim, and politicians can have celebrated careers catering to them.

    This is why successful governments seem to be ignoring the victims - they distract from the larger problems of the majority, and too many politicians benefit by currying favor with those who shout their victim-hood the loudest. A successful government must be satisfied with solving the larger problems, that affect the majority, before they can address the problems of the minority. A succesful government has to be at peace with itself over those arguments, before it can even begin to address society's victims.

    It is a sad proposition, but perfectly logical. If possible, I would like to see an argument that accepts that general idea, in principal, and offers solutions that could soften it, without destroying its effectiveness.
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,749 Senior Member
    edited February 2019 #95
    Bisley.
    Well we're gradually reaching some common ground. At least as far as who we are, what we want and why.

    Maybe also there seems a general consensus on the problems. Unless I read it wrong, the debate has somewhat condensed to this.

    Some economic disparity is unavoidable, but better than any scheme of wealth distribution and its inevitable subsequent corruption.

    Versus.

    The economic disparity has become too severe not to be subjected to government intervention.

    Then there's the question of blame. Where I lose my objectivity. Maybe clarification is needed here. I assume and even presume that any and all disparities that exist are intentional on the part of the people that most influence and make policy.

    Unless I read you wrong its your contention that those that most influence and make policy are hamstrung by the very people clambering for a more level and just policy???

    Not saying my perception of the debate is correct. Only attempting to leave covered ground behind and avoid un-necessary typing.

    ????????????


  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    Bisley.
    Well we're gradually reaching some common ground. At least as far as who we are, what we want and why.

    Maybe also there seems a general consensus on the problems. Unless I read it wrong, the debate has somewhat condensed to this.

    Some economic disparity is unavoidable, but better than any scheme of wealth distribution and its inevitable subsequent corruption.

    Versus.

    The economic disparity has become too severe not to be subjected to government intervention.

    Then there's the question of blame. Where I lose my objectivity. Maybe clarification is needed here. I assume and even presume that any and all disparities that exist are intentional on the part of the people that most influence and make policy.

    Unless I read you wrong its your contention that those that most influence and make policy are hamstrung by the very people clambering for a more level and just policy???

    Not saying my perception of the debate is correct. Only attempting to leave covered ground behind and avoid un-necessary typing.

    ????????????


    We are getting closer to determining what questions need answering, I'd say.

    As to the part I bolded in the quote, I simply don't trust the government to solve the disparity problem, because they never have. I blame the government for very poorly conceived efforts to correct the problems, fifty years ago, and for doubling down on their failures, instead of answering the tough questions that would have led to a better plan.

    Class envy is the wrong political approach, because it seeks to punish too many people who have done nothing wrong. A capitalist nation can create enough wealth to provide new jobs and job training for those who want to help themselves, but anything that the majority sees as punishment for their own hard work is ill-conceived and doomed to failure, because it perpetuates the ill will between the classes that already exists, and promotes more where it never did exist.





  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,749 Senior Member
    Fair enough.

    The links Tennmike posted for me on the election reform bill thread seem to have content almost the same if not completely the same as what Alpha is arguing for. If that's the case, and I'll leave it up to him for clarification if he so chooses, then a portion of the debate does seem to be capitalism versus socialism.

    In the meantime I hope circumstances allow me uninterrupted audio access to the President's speech tonight. And with winter coming to a close, I can try to use this clarification for my own brevity.
  • DanChamberlainDanChamberlain Senior Member Posts: 3,395 Senior Member
    Just remember, when representatives discovered they had both the power and the desire to take from you, it ceased to be representation... dcc 
    It's a source of great pride for me, that when my name is googled, one finds book titles and not mug shots. Daniel C. Chamberlain
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    edited February 2019 #99
    bisley said:

    At some point, we need to do some canceling out, to finally reduce all of the 'data' down to a binary question. You cannot get the answer to a mathematical equation without doing this. It is the quest of all scientists to reduce conjecture, hypothesis, and theory to a simple scientific  truth. 
    I think such a reductionist approach is a big part of the problem. While some problems can be solved or understood by such an approach, a much larger and more important subset of problems very much cannot. They are complex, non-linear, and resistant to simplistic solutions. Going down the road you suggest is a huge part of what has gotten us to where we are now.

    OR

    We need people who can cut through the lies of simplistic solutions being peddled to us by those who seek to gain or keep power and think more deeply and comprehensively about many of the difficult problems we face. Yes we first need to agree on the problems first. But then we need to work together on solutions that benefit the vast majority, not the minority special interest, or the minority powerful elite. When we as citizens learn to do that, maybe, just maybe we can also get to the point of finding ways of electing politicians who can do that. 

    Which??

    Your first paragraph contradicts the part of my post that you chose to quote, and the second makes the same point as I made, but in 'liberal-speak.'

    This is what drove me crazy about Barack Obama - he eventually said everything on both sides of every argument, so his minions could select the proper quotes, when there was something to grab the credit for.

    Very clever, politically, but not an honest approach to problem-solving. If citizens ever do learn to see through the BS that politicians spew out and the media edits and regurgitates, it will turn the federal government inside out.

    There was a time when politicians were much more likely to win an election if they had served with distinction in the military. Why do you suppose that was so?

    I contend that it was so because so many men had served in WWII, and they knew that nothing introduces a person to reality faster or more effectively than being in a wartime environment, and that nothing useful is accomplished by ignoring reality. Certainly, there is a place for idealism in a free country, but a healthy amount of realism is needed to solve major problems. Put into 19th century terms, the 'Renaissance men' were the idealists, or liberals of their time and the realists were the conservatives of their time - the two extremes that manifested themselves mostly in art, but also in politics. Only in the United States was it possible to blend polar opposites into something that actually benefited the ordinary citizenry.

    One obvious counter to this argument is to say that realism is a pitiless and unforgiving philosophy of self interest, which is partly true...for the 19th century. But after much strife, the United States made a great deal of headway towards breeching the gap between the two opposing philosophies, so that the American promise of individual freedom for all might someday be realized. It has happened in jumps and jerks, but the intent is still there, in the minds of most folks. They just have to always remember what the goal is, and try to bring all of their citizens into the fold. They must not yield to the temptation to redefine the rules and alter the definitions of words in order to change the subject, making the problems easier to solve, or to make them go away, entirely.

    In Trump's SOTU speech, I was very happy to see him briefly refer to using 'principled realism' to solve problems, which implies that there is compassion for the weak to be found within realistic problem solving. In other words, a free people can deal with threats and problems that need solutions, and can be solved without oppressing or ignoring the weak, or poor. This is a clear compromise between reality and idealism that only a free country can bring off, in a world where radical positions are the norm.

    It must be so, else the world's poor would not be flocking to our borders.
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,749 Senior Member
    If this continuing convolution of congressional chaos doesn't transparently reveal irrefutable felonious guilt. The general public, including anyone that can't stand Trump should be howling mad. 
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,749 Senior Member
    edited March 2019 #101
    I'd rather see the effort directed for our benifit instead of theirs. At this point I can only see wasteful escalation in our future regardless of what capital letter directs the fishing trip.

    I've no doubt a Hillary victory would have been just as bad or worse.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    Just curious, early - what do you think, if anything, that Hilary might be guilty of? Forget, if you can, for just a moment, what may or may not 'balance the scale,' politically speaking. Base it on whichever facts you accept as likely being true, of course.

    To be fair, I'll go first, about Trump. I think it's likely that he may have crossed the line on a business deal or two, in 40 years of NYC real estate dealing. I also think it is reasonable to assume that he might have had Cohen 'fix' embarrassing personal civil allegations, in a way that kept his own hands clean. I think that he probably always 'intended' to stay legal, but he could have misjudged it a few times. I believed this, when I voted for him, and have not changed my mind.

    I think it is fair to say that Hilary was likely involved in similar shenanigans, somewhere between her up-scale conservative upbringing and her progression through Arkansas politics, a brief but profitable law career, First Lady, Senator of a state she had not previously resided in, Secretary of State, and as a principle in the Clinton Foundation, and candidacy for POTUS.

    The point of this, of course, is to assess our own objectivity, and a willingness to collect, and the ability to assess, the weight of evidence. Rather than to simply pick a person and find their crimes, as Lavrenti Beria did for Joseph Stalin, it seems like a fair way to 'police' our own objectivity. After all, if we can't honestly evaluate such things, everything we say about justice is purely political, with no room for actual justice.

    I think that the difference between actual justice and political justice is the question of our time, and that anybody who can't tell the difference needs to go back to school.
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,749 Senior Member
    She's very likely guilty of misappropriation of funds, and graft. God only knows what she could be guilty of in her private business deals. Could make Trump look like an altar boy, who knows?

    I think we're willing to let much of this stuff slide to get policy we want for lack of any realistic alternative.

    Now heres some unsubstantiated personal suspicion. What if Hillary and Trump both had simultaneous efforts at collusion with Russian to influence the election???
    What if such practice was already well established??? Seeking forgien influence is as old as history.

    Impossible to prove. There's big money on Pennsylvania Avenue. Big risks are surely commensurate.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,667 Senior Member
    If you guys had voted for me, you wouldn't be having this conversation! ;)
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    ...I think we're willing to let much of this stuff slide to get policy we want for lack of any realistic alternative.

    This true, I think. It's a shame, but that's where we are at, since 2016.

    Now heres some unsubstantiated personal suspicion. What if Hillary and Trump both had simultaneous efforts at collusion with Russian to influence the election??? .....
    Proving Trump's collusion is dead. Mueller hasn't found anything that can be prosecuted, and neither will the Democrat controlled House hearings. In fact, the Democrats don't even want to talk about it, any more. They are going for any crime that occurred at any time in Trump's adult life (so far).

    What possible motive could the Russians have had for wanting Trump to be opposing them? He has secured the biggest military budget in history, placed economic sanctions against them, and supported every entity that opposes them, in the Middle East. Now, he is opposing them over Venezuela, who owes Russia and China billions, and can't pay it.

    The Russians are not stupid - they had their way with Obama, and would have continued it with Hilary, because both of them were willing to make deals Putin liked, without regard for the negative effects on the American public.

    Pure logic, I think.

  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,749 Senior Member
    Maybe so.
    Maybe it was about money. 
    We'll likely never know.

    Today the press had satalite footage of a NK missle site construction in progress with attendant sensationalism. Its all gotten old. If the sunday morning hacks don't have anything real to talk about this weekend, I might just shut it off for a brief hiatus.
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,749 Senior Member
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    edited March 2019 #108
    Blah, blah, blah.

    I'm supposed to take your bait, and start defending Donald Trump from this worn out Democrat material? Well, I don't want to. It is a useless exercise in futility, to try to make a hardcore lefty  toss his cheat-sheet (talking points) and actually deal with reality.

    All of this Trump-hate is just political noise to distract from the fact that Democrats do not give a damn about any of the things that they promise, or pretend to advocate.

    However, if they don't get their cats herded, soon, they won't be able to fool enough voters to keep the power that they do wield, so poorly. Their Speaker of the House is getting her head handed to her by a handful of freshman martyrs that she dares not behead, and the Jewish Senate Majority Leader is AWOL while the most virulent of the bigots in his own party denounce Israel, and Jews in general.


  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    Fine - just apply the same standards that you demand from everybody else to your own bigots. And don't answer every challenge to your ideology by saying "everybody does it."

    Bait and switch rhetoric has been around, forever, and everybody does it, these days. Small children invented it to avoid punishment, and it only worked once or twice, unless their parents were morons.

    But when it is your whole strategy, it simply exposes immaturity.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,667 Senior Member
    edited March 2019 #110
    Israel is a sovereign nation and an ally, but no more special than any other ally. Criticizing the actions of Israel is no more discriminatory than criticizing the actions of say Japan or the UK. 
    I don't pretend to have the answers regarding Israel, but the above is correct. I'm not convinced that the Israelis had the right to invade Palestine in '48, etc, etc, etc. The whole "no criticism allowed else you're a Nazi sympathizer anti-Semite" thing gets old.
    The real angst on this subject is religiously driven by the Christian super majority in this country. As I'm not involved with Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or any other monotheism - Abrahamic or otherwise - I don't have a dog in this fight. I do have to admire the Israelis fortitude of not "putting up with any slop" which is completely unlike the US.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    Pointing out that a foreign power operates one of the most powerful and influential lobbying operations in Washington is not anti-Semitic and the swiftness and the broadness of the backlash is actually proof of the power and influence that those foreign agents wield in the halls of our government. 

    Israel is a sovereign nation and an ally, but no more special than any other ally. Criticizing the actions of Israel is no more discriminatory than criticizing the actions of say Japan or the UK. 
    Well, I know SOMEONE that hasn't been keeping up with worldwide events. Antisemitism is on the rise worldwide in a big way. Most recently in Belgium. And Europe in general; shades of pre-WWII on the rise, again. AOC and her Muslim cohorts in the House, Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, are virulently antisemitic. So that has started here now. But you won't call them out on that; they are on your side of the fence, politically.

    Anyway, Israel is the ONLY fully reliable ally we have in the M.E. That fact alone is enough to closely collaborate with them. And their and our defense systems do a lot of cross pollinating; they learn from us and we learn from them, and weapons technology advances faster than either effort alone.

    They are constantly under attack by the 'poor defenseless Palestinians' on a daily basis from rocket attacks and from the new balloon borne fire bombs that are dropped from the balloons and explode into a big fire starter on impact.  The fact that they haven't depopulated the Gaza Strip speaks much to their long suffering of the constant attacks.

    And Japan and the UK are not under constant daily attack by an aggressor that wants to wipe them off the face of the Earth, so that last statement of yours is either made from abject ignorance, or maybe something less savory.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,667 Senior Member
    Ironically a not insignificant portion of that pro-Israel Christian support is in many ways the most anti-Semitic of all since their underlying reasons for supporting Israel are biblical prophecies and a desire to fulfill them and usher in Armageddon which requires essentially starting a war centered in Israel. 
    I know there are some like that for sure. Then there are Christians who truly are anti-Semitic as "The Jews killed Jesus", blah, blah. Whatever - I leave the Abrahamic Monotheistic angst to the Abrahamic Monotheists. I will say that of the 3 major branches of same, I'll take Judaism over the other two. *shrug*
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    .
    Ironically a not insignificant portion of that pro-Israel Christian support is in many ways the most anti-Semitic of all since their underlying reasons for supporting Israel are biblical prophecies and a desire to fulfill them and usher in Armageddon which requires essentially starting a war centered in Israel. 
    Are you saying that it is OK for Democrats to coddle their own bigots, because Christians are bigots?

    That is how social justice works, isn't it? Since white supremacists usually claim to be Christians, and everybody (more or less) agrees that they are bigots, and that bigotry is bad, it is therefore OK to assume the conclusion that Christians are bigots. So, if Christians are bigots, that makes it only fair to say that Christians are Islamophobes, and mysoginists, and....well, you get the drift.

    So, that means that since the 'young lions' in the Democrat Party are bigots, Democrats are bigots. Is that the way this logic works?

  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,749 Senior Member
    I've read Omar's comments this morning. I see the reaction to them as clear and absolute over reaction. 

    However.
    In the context of the current atmosphere of policy debate, over reaction is the caculated norm of influence.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    zorba said:
    Ironically a not insignificant portion of that pro-Israel Christian support is in many ways the most anti-Semitic of all since their underlying reasons for supporting Israel are biblical prophecies and a desire to fulfill them and usher in Armageddon which requires essentially starting a war centered in Israel. 
    I know there are some like that for sure. Then there are Christians who truly are anti-Semitic as "The Jews killed Jesus", blah, blah. Whatever - I leave the Abrahamic Monotheistic angst to the Abrahamic Monotheists. I will say that of the 3 major branches of same, I'll take Judaism over the other two. *shrug*
    I have no idea where either of you are getting that information to come to that HIGHLY erroneous conclusion. Suffice it to say that both of you are way off base out in left field in the high weeds, and I'll leave it at that.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,667 Senior Member
    edited March 2019 #116
    Mike - I'm not suggesting ALL Christians are that way, or even most. But they're out there. I've run into a couple of them in my time - NOT nice people.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,667 Senior Member
    T
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    Mike, google Dispensationalism. 

    Here's a primer, but feel free to do your own research:
    "They make up about one-third of America's 40 or 50 million evangelical Christians and believe that the nation of Israel will play a central role in the unfolding of end-times events. In the last part of the 20th century, dispensationalist evangelicals become Israel's best friends-an alliance that has made a serious geopolitical difference.

    Read more at https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/end-times/on-the-road-to-armageddon.aspx#T5hrCc2bujVvphUk.99"
    Time-CNN polling? :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
    Who did they poll, Westboro Baptist Church? :D:D:D:D:D:D
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    Religion is a touchy subject and isn't really looked on as a subject of discussion here. But here's my take on what you're talking about.

    Al, Zorba, you're both missing a BIG point that should be self-evident. And the point is this: It is NOT POSSIBLE to be both of the Christian faith and anti-Semetic. Why, you ask? That, too, is self-evident. Jesus was a Jew, and he preached and worshiped at the Jewish synagogues. To be anti-semitic is to hate the Jews, and Jesus was a Jew. Christians are followers of Christ, a Jew. The Christian religion came later. Explain your stand, if you can. What  i have stated above is fact.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,667 Senior Member
    I'm not at all disagreeing with you Mike, quite the contrary. But there are certainly Christians out there who are anti-Semitic. Most Christians are very pro-Israel/Jew for both the reasons you state as well as for Biblical prophecy reasons. Unfortunately, there are the "others", and some of them are pretty LOUD. That's all I'm trying to say...

    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    zorba said:
    I'm not at all disagreeing with you Mike, quite the contrary. But there are certainly Christians out there who are anti-Semitic. Most Christians are very pro-Israel/Jew for both the reasons you state as well as for Biblical prophecy reasons. Unfortunately, there are the "others", and some of them are pretty LOUD. That's all I'm trying to say...

    Zorba, you're cracking me up. Those folk are messed up, and definitely not followers of Christ. They can't be for the reasons I laid out. Just because someone calls themselves a woodpecker don't make them one. See how that works?
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement