Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[hack]

I didn't say identical. Restoring Glass/Steagall was a return to what things looked like under Reagan. That's one example. I'm not gonna fish for others unless you insist. Be as hard on me as you like -- bottom line is that we have the facts. We can refer to them. If you really think I'm bullshitting here and have no basis in fact than do insist. But I don't think that's necessary. You know where I'm coming from and we've debated most of those points before. It's not the first time I've pointed out here that much of Bernie's platform was a return to a Reagan-period point on the left-right spectrum.

In the big picture, we're talking about this because you said the country is moving left and not right, I think there are some very clear facts that say otherwise. I'm sure that in Bernie's ideal world things move far to the left of Reagan, no doubt. And I'm sure that Reagan would have gone further to the right if he could have as well. It's simply reflecting of a starting point.

[hack]

just saying the dem's approach has come across as very repetitive to me.


We're it not for 9/11 providing a new way to sell fear, you could say that same about the GOP. Trump said the same old shit. He just said it in a more appealing way. I don't think I agree about the Dems being repetitive, since Bernie injected so many new points into the narrative, however.

[froot loops]

The emails and corruption were newer... Attacking vs same story is different, imo. She wasn't the racist the dems have called every pub since 1992. And I'm not promoting the attacks, just saying the dem's approach has come across as very repetitive to me.

I don't get this, I doubt I do ever will. I agree with Stan Van Gundy.

[entropy]

I guess I'm saying it was the boy that cried wolf. If you label Bush, McCain, Romney, Ronald, etc as racists, when someone I think is a racist comes along, many people stop listening.

JMO.. it's ok to disagree. =)

[entropy]

and Froot.. there is validity in repeating something enough and people believe it. I do think you have to have evidence or a suggestion of evidence to make that work. I'm not dismissing the label Hillary wore during the last 12 months.

I just think many ignored the trump labels because it's been said before.. and they were not shocked by it. That's all. They should have.. Instead, it was viewed as politics as usual or every pub is a racist according to the media. It was too easily dismissed.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe people just didn't care or are racist. I just have seen evidence that it was dismissed.

[froot loops]

Eh whatever, I stated my case.

[Da Geezer]

SLF:

Geezer,
Your explanation of the freedom of religion point didn't make sense to me. Are you saying that people have the right to evangelize and express their beliefs at all times and that others do not have a right to be free from that religious practice?

No. I was starting from the question of what motivated evangelicals to break 81-16 for Trump. My basic point was that there are phrases that mean very different things to Evangelicals than to the non-religious. "Freedom of religion" means, to an evangelical, the freedom to meet in their homes, or in the coffee shop, and talk about religion, or is some cases, their religious beliefs. This is far more important to Evangelicals than abortion or gay rights. While you and I tend to disagree on things, I don't try to proselytize here because I am smart enough to know that that is counterproductive.

"Freedom of worship" is what they have in Europe. A person may go to their church, synagog, or mosque and worship to their heart's content. But they may not take their religion outside the place of worship. Almost all the mainline Protestant Churches are run by a group of progressives who don't want to "offend" the outside world. This has to do with "privilege" or "microaggression" or some such, and the leaders can easily find Scripture to support their position.

But the point is that some of you guys just don't even know the language. I believe you think that "freedom of religion" and "freedom of worship" mean the same thing. Religious folks have learned from hard experience (eg "life of the mother" to "health of the mother") to listen carefully to progressives.

I agree, you have an absolute right to freedom from religion. Most Evangelicals understand this. All this talk of the right imposing cultural values on the left is just nonsense. That would create hatred and animosity, and defeat the purpose of evangelization.

My basic point here is that Evangelicals are hearing something very different than what many of you progressives think you are saying. Trust me. Hillary knows this distinction in spades. 81%-16%. And I appreciate the civil tone of your question.

[Wild Hoss]

Just so I understand this correctly...your assertion is that Evengelicals broke 81-16 for Trump because they feared that HRC was going to prevent them from meeting in their homes or coffee shops to discuss religion. Correct?

[AlabamAlum]

Just so I understand this correctly...your assertion is that Evengelicals broke 81-16 for Trump because they feared that HRC was going to prevent them from meeting in their homes or coffee shops to discuss religion. Correct?

Could be. Evangelicals aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.

[UMStan White]

"I tend to disagree on things, I don't try to proselytize here because I am smart enough to know that that is counterproductive."

You're fucking kidding me , right? That's the only laugh I've had all day.

[hack]

I guess I'm saying it was the boy that cried wolf. If you label Bush, McCain, Romney, Ronald, etc as racists, when someone I think is a racist comes along, many people stop listening.

JMO.. it's ok to disagree. =)

Fair enough. I see your point. I wonder if basically the hate for the so-called East Coast Liberal set is so extreme that they would have been better off using reverse psychology to get Hillary elected, by telling Trump voters they should vote for Trump.

[hack]

I agree, you have an absolute right to freedom from religion. Most Evangelicals understand this. All this talk of the right imposing cultural values on the left is just nonsense. That would create hatred and animosity, and defeat the purpose of evangelization.


I don't agree at all. Ours is a freedom to practice it, and not a protection from those who do. What you are talking about in the concept of ``freedome from it'' is the French concept of laicism. We don't have that here.

[hack]

But the point is that some of you guys just don't even know the language. I believe you think that "freedom of religion" and "freedom of worship" mean the same thing. Religious folks have learned from hard experience (eg "life of the mother" to "health of the mother") to listen carefully to progressives.


Are you suggesting that when politicians address the 330m people knows as Americans, they do so in a particularly coded language tailored to the needs of less than a third of them who apparently have redefined some very common words?

[SeattleLionsFan]

Hack,
You are probably right in that there is no freedom to avoid religion. But I do have the freedom to practice my religion and where that conflicts with yours, you have to subjugate your practice vis a vis mine. I.e. You can pray, but you cannot force me to pray.

[hack]

Where the line stops and starts anymore is something I'm not sure of. The letter and spirit of the concept seem very broken to me and have been for a while. Which is why it's so insulting when religious people claim persecution. Plenty of secular people quietly grit their teeth and endure this. If those people weren't ``politically correct" our country would be even more divided than it is.