Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-10-2011, 08:42 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-10-2011, 10:59 PM
chamblee54 chamblee54 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 319
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Did Jesus and Satan have a sister?
chamblee54
__________________
Chamblee54
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-10-2011, 11:12 PM
harkin harkin is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,169
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Love how the left just can't resist the use of 'attack' to describe anyone pointing out the vast differences between the Tea Party and Day Of Rage/OWS. Cain attacks, GOP attacks, conservatives attack. Yet people calling for violence against bankers/millionaires, defecating on police cars, expecting the taxpayers of NY to pick up the tab for their mess/disruption are just expressing frustration lol.

Check out the lemmings at the Occupy Atlanta gathering. Treating attendees like a kindergarten class and screeching "mike check!" if anyone starts saying anything the useful idiot wranglers don't want to hear.

Of course this is followed by pats on the back that "democracy works".

Change You Can Believe In!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-10-2011, 11:15 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

There isn't a single Republican in the United States of America which will have to cater to the demands of Occupy Wall Street. At best, OWS represents a subset of urban professional. The GOP doesn't count on any of these votes in normal elections, and these people are already high volume voters. There is no room for their vote to grow, and their vote is never competitive anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-10-2011, 11:41 PM
ginger baker ginger baker is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 103
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

thank you bhtv for an intelligent and fair analysis of OWS. But I have to disagree with Posner's remark (and Weigel's audible nod) that the protestors concede "failure" by the Democratic Party. They may certainly feel it, as well they should, but I dont hear much partisan griping or malcontent directed at Obama. Yes, Charlie Rangel was booed away! But there is no "third-party" presence, no Green Party, no Nader, no talk of 2012. OWS will certainly affect and shift the public discourse to some degree but, barring some further development, they will probably end up voting for Obama anyway!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-10-2011, 11:42 PM
CrowsMakeTools CrowsMakeTools is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 54
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

I've been to the protests, in DC. I didn't see anyone calling for violence against millionaires or anyone else. I didn't see anyone defecating on police cars, when I was there. In fact, I didn't see any police cars.

If you want to characterize these activities in ways that limit your understanding, then there really isn't much opportunity for thoughtful dialogue. If you are interested in hearing a forceful articulation of the grievances that are motivating at least some of the people drawn to these protests, listen to Alan Grayson explain things in less than 1 minute:

http://www.politicususa.com/en/alan-...py-wall-street
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-10-2011, 11:46 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowsMakeTools View Post
Listen to Alan Grayson explain things in less than 1 minute:

http://www.politicususa.com/en/alan-...py-wall-street
That was great. Here's a longer clip from the same show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQnSu0DG3Oo

Grayson is truly fantastic.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-10-2011, 11:49 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
There isn't a single Republican in the United States of America which will have to cater to the demands of Occupy Wall Street. At best, OWS represents a subset of urban professional. The GOP doesn't count on any of these votes in normal elections, and these people are already high volume voters. There is no room for their vote to grow, and their vote is never competitive anyway.
Actually, there's a big segment of the GOP base and the tea party movement that is just as outraged by Wall Street / Corporate abuses as anyone on the left. The GOP did a masterful job of coopting this segment of the tea party during the past few years. What is really worrying the GOP is that a movement like "We are the 99%" could mobilize some of those traditional GOP voters to start voting and thinking differently. It probably won't happen. The obstacles are enormous, and a massive campaign will be carried out to discredit and destroy the movement. But there ARE a lot under the tea party banner who share the same populist economic concerns expressed by the 99%'ers.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-11-2011, 12:06 AM
ohreally ohreally is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 666
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ginger baker View Post
OWS will certainly affect and shift the public discourse to some degree but, barring some further development, they will probably end up voting for Obama anyway!
The issue is not 3rd party. The issue is turnout. OWS will not bother voting for a guy who "understands the frustration of the folks out there." The frustration? The frustration of the 18-25 year old cohort whose future is being wiped out before their very eyes. As long as Obama doesn't take on the mantle of the presidency and keeps behaving like the dog catcher "who just can't understand the mighty forces out there," he's toast. OWS is the final nail in the Obama coffin, the prez who never quite got it.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-11-2011, 12:27 AM
ginger baker ginger baker is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 103
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohreally View Post
The issue is not 3rd party. The issue is turnout. OWS will not bother voting for a guy who "understands the frustration of the folks out there." The frustration? The frustration of the 18-25 year old cohort whose future is being wiped out before their very eyes. As long as Obama doesn't take on the mantle of the presidency and keeps behaving like the dog catcher "who just can't understand the mighty forces out there," he's toast. OWS is the final nail in the Obama coffin, the prez who never quite got it.
I've attended the protests in NYC. There's little if any noise being made on the ground about 2012, not even about "turnout." Yes, probably more in the MSM I'm sure, and even more on its way once it gets its talking points coordinated.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-11-2011, 12:36 AM
ginger baker ginger baker is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 103
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
Actually, there's a big segment of the GOP base and the tea party movement that is just as outraged by Wall Street / Corporate abuses as anyone on the left.... The obstacles are enormous, and a massive campaign will be carried out to discredit and destroy the movement. But there ARE a lot under the tea party banner who share the same populist economic concerns expressed by the 99%'ers.
But the important and big difference is that the Tea Party sanctifies the absolute right of private property, i.e., the capital of plutocrats and the withering away of the New Deal, while populists on "the left" tend to clamor for the simple enforcing of the law, (reinstaing Glass-Stegall, indictments of Wall St.,) a fairer and more progressive tax policy, stronger unions, etc. Thats a considerable difference.

Last edited by ginger baker; 10-11-2011 at 12:38 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-11-2011, 01:14 AM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
Actually, there's a big segment of the GOP base and the tea party movement that is just as outraged by Wall Street / Corporate abuses as anyone on the left. The GOP did a masterful job of coopting this segment of the tea party during the past few years. What is really worrying the GOP is that a movement like "We are the 99%" could mobilize some of those traditional GOP voters to start voting and thinking differently. It probably won't happen. The obstacles are enormous, and a massive campaign will be carried out to discredit and destroy the movement. But there ARE a lot under the tea party banner who share the same populist economic concerns expressed by the 99%'ers.
Well there isn't really a "coopting" of this segment of people. Anti-TARP sentiment is pretty broad based in the Tea Party; their answer isn't taxing or punishing some vague "1%". It is to create a political environment where banks which engage in such recklessly irresponsible conduct are allowed to fail. Some sort of structured bankruptcy or dismemberment of them. This has nothing to do with business owners, or manufacturing boards, or landowners.

And since the Conservative movement was the only group which can credibly claim to have fought (And defeated, once) TARP, the alignment of the Tea Party isn't all that mysterious.

A good question is; why are these people supporting the President and political party of the government which has overseen this financial industry over the last 3 years? Where were these people in 2010, when the Tea Party demonstrated against these bailouts? How can these people claim any credibility when their standard bearer received vastly more money from the financial industry than his opponent?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-11-2011, 01:18 AM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ginger baker View Post
But the important and big difference is that the Tea Party sanctifies the absolute right of private property, i.e., the capital of plutocrats and the withering away of the New Deal, while populists on "the left" tend to clamor for the simple enforcing of the law, (reinstaing Glass-Stegall, indictments of Wall St.,) a fairer and more progressive tax policy, stronger unions, etc. Thats a considerable difference.
What crime was committed in 2008 that the Obama administration has failed to indict upon?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-11-2011, 01:20 AM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowsMakeTools View Post

If you want to characterize these activities in ways that limit your understanding, then there really isn't much opportunity for thoughtful dialogue. If you are interested in hearing a forceful articulation of the grievances that are motivating at least some of the people drawn to these protests, listen to Alan Grayson explain things in less than 1 minute:

http://www.politicususa.com/en/alan-...py-wall-street
That is a pretty common laundry list of left wing talking points delivered by a pretty nasty left wing partisan. In fact, I think I've heard the President complaining about all of those points.

You've heard people on the right complain about the some things (for different reasons, of course). The issue is how you address these things. That is where the debate is.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-11-2011, 01:28 AM
CrowsMakeTools CrowsMakeTools is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 54
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post

A good question is; why are these people supporting the President and political party of the government which has overseen this financial industry over the last 3 years? Where were these people in 2010, when the Tea Party demonstrated against these bailouts? How can these people claim any credibility when their standard bearer received vastly more money from the financial industry than his opponent?
Um, your premise that Obama is the standard bearer of OWS is just false. The Occupy DC protest was on Pennsylvania Avenue, a few blocks from the White House. These people are there precisely because they want to let both the Administration and the Congress know that current policies are not working! There were no signs of support for President Obama. There were, in fact, a few Ron Paul signs! If there is any common thread in the views that are held by people attending these rallies, it is that the current policies have failed. Your point that Obama and the Dems have been generously supported by Wall Street plutocrats is pretty much the consensus view of people attending these rallies. The consensus view seems to be that the Obama administration has not provided oversight of the financial sector--in fact, they have done Wall Street's bidding.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-11-2011, 02:06 AM
ginger baker ginger baker is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 103
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
What crime was committed in 2008 that the Obama administration has failed to indict upon?
Quite a few, STD, from the point of the view of those who are of the left of Obama. Do your research.

Last edited by ginger baker; 10-11-2011 at 02:16 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-11-2011, 02:12 AM
chiwhisoxx chiwhisoxx is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,490
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Annoying to hear Sarah continually perpetuate the myth that evangelicals are the people who really hate mormons. Polling consistently suggests distrust of mormons is pretty much the same amongst evangelicals as it is amongst the population at large. unfortunately for mormons, it's not a small number (usually around 20%) but the point remains.
__________________
She said the theme of this party's the Industrial Age, and you came in dressed like a train wreck.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-11-2011, 02:48 AM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ginger baker View Post
Quite a few, STD, from the point of the view of those who are of the left of Obama. Do your research.
I'm more interested in actual violations of the law, rather than criminalizing "bad ideas" as seen by the Left. Do you have specific criminal violations in mind, or is it that you just consider the legal regime to be "criminal"?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-11-2011, 03:43 AM
ginger baker ginger baker is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 103
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
I'm more interested in actual violations of the law, rather than criminalizing "bad ideas" as seen by the Left.
Perhaps a concerned citizen like yourself can help OWS get the DOJ off its ass to start leveling indictments against GOldman, Merrill, et al, and have it play out in court so we'd all have a better idea! Bring it on we say!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-11-2011, 09:30 AM
harkin harkin is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,169
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowsMakeTools View Post
If you want to characterize these activities in ways that limit your understanding, then there really isn't much opportunity for thoughtful dialogue. If you are interested in hearing a forceful articulation of the grievances that are motivating at least some of the people drawn to these protests, listen to Alan Grayson explain things in less than 1 minute:

http://www.politicususa.com/en/alan-...py-wall-street

Alan Grayson? The guy who tried to terrify seniors by telling them the GOP wanted them to die quickly? The Alan Grayson who was shunned by his own party and thrown out of office for dishonest political ads? That Alan Grayson? Wow. What was that you were saying about thoughtful dialogue?

You can easily google the photo of a Day Of Rage/OWS demonstraor defecating on a police car. Roseanne Barr and Michael Moore, while cheering on these protests have subtly and not-to-subtly advised violence against bankers with too much money (Barr said they should be beheaded, nice take on Arab Spring).
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-11-2011, 10:13 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
What is really worrying the GOP is that a movement like "We are the 99%" could mobilize some of those traditional GOP voters to start voting and thinking differently.
very doubtful.

Quote:
It probably won't happen. The obstacles are enormous, and a massive campaign will be carried out to discredit and destroy the movement.
An expensive campaign wouldn't be necessary. People who vote GOP don't believe so much of what these folks stand for they could never be turned. It's not in their blood.

Quote:
But there ARE a lot under the tea party banner who share the same populist economic concerns expressed by the 99%'ers.
and there are some views which are correct and lots which are not.

Like this stuff, for instance: (I deleted the items the TP might find worthy...namely the bank bailouts and lobbyists in the halls of government.) And as a side note, Alex Jones likes OWS a lot.

Quote:
They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.
They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.
They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.
They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.
They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-11-2011, 10:45 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ginger baker View Post
Perhaps a concerned citizen like yourself can help OWS get the DOJ off its ass to start leveling indictments against GOldman, Merrill, et al, and have it play out in court so we'd all have a better idea! Bring it on we say!
Why in the world would the DOJ need the people protesting on Wall Street to encourage it to get off its ass? Isn't it their job to prosecute criminals? Don't we pay them to do this? Shouldn't the Obama administration (of which DOJ is a part) be actively pursuing the issuing indictments for wrongdoing if there is any?
Would that include investigating and issuing indictments of Fannie and Freddie?

It's been three years now and I don't think this bodes well for prosecuting these folks you and I have mentioned. It looks like either they stayed far enough inside the letter of the law that nothing they did was illegal or there is so much collusion between Wall Street and Washington that nothing will ever be done.

Besides, Eric Holder is way too busy denying his involvement in Fast and Furious.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-11-2011, 11:15 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx View Post
Annoying to hear Sarah continually perpetuate the myth that evangelicals are the people who really hate mormons. Polling consistently suggests distrust of mormons is pretty much the same amongst evangelicals as it is amongst the population at large. unfortunately for mormons, it's not a small number (usually around 20%) but the point remains.
That's not totally true. There are probably other surveys I don't know about, but the 2011 Gallup one doesn't seem to have addressed the question and the 2007 Pew one shows a distinct difference between evangelical and other attitudes, with African-American Protestants somewhat close (unsurprising, as that's often a subset of evangelicalism).

Specifically, the favorable/unfavorable ratio is:

Overall=53/27
White evangelical=46/39
White mainline=62/21
Black protestant=42/28
Catholic=55/22
White, non-hispanic Catholic (a subset)=59/21
Non-affiliated=52/30

There's a big difference between 21-22% unfavorable (the percentage for Catholics and Mainline Protestants) and 39% unfavorable (Evangelicals). There's even a big difference between 27% and 39%. Especially if you focus just on the Republican coalition, it sure seems like evangelicals form the biggest problem.

Another and perhaps even more significant issue is that lots of Christians see Mormons as non-Christian, and this is more common among evangelicals, apparently. My suspicion, although I don't have any polls to link, is that evangelicals are more likely to care that a candidate is, in their opinion, non-Christian. For example, technically speaking, I don't really think Mormons are Christian due to certain theological inconsistencies, but I don't care at all, I'm happy to vote for a non-Christian. The public statements of many evangelicals make me think they wouldn't agree and thus even those who have positive opinions of Mormons might be less likely to vote for them.

That said, I'm not convinced this is such bad news for Romney, as I think a certain degree of this is unfamiliarity and he could probably deal with a lot of this sentiment. To the extent he can't, I'd assume it would be deepest in certain groups the Republican wouldn't be getting anyway (people who think Mormons are too devout or too extreme in their religion and are suspicious of Mormons in a way they might be suspicious of certain kinds of religious Catholics or evangelicals, people who tend to be a smaller group and among the coalition on the left) and -- more troubling and probably why Sarah considers it significant -- evangelicals.

Last edited by stephanie; 10-11-2011 at 11:18 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-11-2011, 12:27 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ginger baker View Post
Perhaps a concerned citizen like yourself can help OWS get the DOJ off its ass to start leveling indictments against GOldman, Merrill, et al, and have it play out in court so we'd all have a better idea! Bring it on we say!
Right. You see the problem; it isn't illegal to make a bad investment. You basically want show trials?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-11-2011, 01:56 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Dave Weigel thinks that some pastor talking about "Muslim pedophilia" is completely nuts. I do not know what this pastor had to say about Muslims, but if he said that the 'prophet' Muhammad was a pedophile, he would be right.

Most Muslims are not pedophiles (unlike most "most Muslims"-statements, this one is actually accurate), obviously, but thanks to the fact that the best man who ever lived (as Muslims see him) had sex with a 9-year-old girl, any Muslim who does want an underage bridge has a ready excuse: why, you aren't going condemn me for what the prophet did, are you?

It's good to be a prophet, especially if you have reprehensible urges. You can get away with anything. Ask Muhammad. Ask Warren Jeffs, another prophet.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-11-2011, 02:08 PM
Abdicate Abdicate is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Posts: 90
Send a message via Yahoo to Abdicate Send a message via Skype™ to Abdicate
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

What caused the financial implosion of 2008? I thought that regulatory capture was fundamental. So financiers manipulated the regulatory agencies which should have been bubble-popping, and private risk was legally shifted onto ill-informed taxpayers.

Amy Wax speaks often of a generalizable analogy--of a person physically injured in an attack. While a decent societal response should involve the punishment of the attackers and the transfer of their assets, if any, to the victim, the ultimate success of the recovery depends greatly on the victim's attitude/effort/strategy for recovery. The OWS temptation--to dwell on the punishment of the financiers--feels like it addresses our present woes, but in fact it is an abdication.

Last edited by Abdicate; 10-11-2011 at 02:09 PM.. Reason: link addition
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-11-2011, 02:12 PM
Winspur Winspur is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 120
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

The Mormon - evangelical tension reminds me a lot of Sunni - Shia Muslim tension in countries such as Lebanon and Iraq. I don't think there is much theological basis for declaring the Mormons not to be Christians, but some of their beliefs, just like the odder facets of Shia Islam (the 12th imam returning as Messiah, ritual flagellation on Ashura) are often cited as proof of the religion being beyond the pale.

33:30 Beck said "[OSW's] goal is to steal money from productive Americans."

Next he'll be saying that they want to rewrite American history and mislead people about the Constitution!
__________________
mrwhitby.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-11-2011, 02:25 PM
bkjazfan bkjazfan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Los Angeles, Ca.
Posts: 1,192
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Mitt Romney's biggest problem is not that he is a mormon. His biggest 2 problems are he is a bore and is wish washy on the issues. If he is the eventual republican nominee we'll have 2 unpopular men running for president. Again, a choice between 2 undesirables.

Last edited by bkjazfan; 10-11-2011 at 02:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-11-2011, 02:28 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winspur View Post
I don't think there is much theological basis for declaring the Mormons not to be Christians
From an Evangelical POV, they don't have the same scriptures (they have an extra one) and aren't monotheists (the Mormons have a very different understanding of the Trinity). From a mainline/Catholic POV (with the note that many mainline types are going to be a lot more liberal about the definition of Christianity), they don't accept the Creeds.

Like I said I don't care, politically, but there's definitely a theological basis.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-11-2011, 02:34 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
Most Muslims are not pedophiles (unlike most "most Muslims"-statements, this one is actually accurate), obviously, but thanks to the fact that the best man who ever lived (as Muslims see him) had sex with a 9-year-old girl, any Muslim who does want an underage bridge has a ready excuse: why, you aren't going condemn me for what the prophet did, are you?
As whburgess (I think) noted, this excuse is actually not going to fly with other Muslims; there's a (to you and I fanciful) explanation as to why it was okay for Mohammed, but not any of his modern followers that's widely accepted by Muslims.

If the goal is to find a philosophy or religion in which the adherents can't construct an excuse for their bad behavior, pretty much everything is going to fall short.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 10-11-2011, 02:35 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkjazfan View Post
wish washy on the issues.
Oh, I don't know. His, uh, flexibility could help him with independents and disaffected Dems. I know plenty of people who assume his current rhetoric (which looks practically liberal anyway compared to some of his opponents) is pretense and the real Mitt is the one who was gov of Massachusetts. (I kind of think this myself.) On the other hand, it seemed that lots of people on the right were willing to accept the flipflop to his conservative positions of '08 as either representing the true Mitt or ones that he'd maintain loyalty to sufficient so that it didn't matter. On that, the Mormonism might actually help, since people often assume Mormons are actually conservative. Apparently Romney is reasonably strong with the right and some evangelical types already, if you look at the breakdown of the polls and where his support is coming from. (I'm repeating what I've read or heard elsewhere, haven't been spending time with the Republican primary polls.) Anyway, I'm not particularly convinced Romney would be a bad candidate.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-11-2011, 02:38 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
From an Evangelical POV, they don't have the same scriptures (they have an extra one) and aren't monotheists (the Mormons have a very different understanding of the Trinity). From a mainline/Catholic POV (with the note that many mainline types are going to be a lot more liberal about the definition of Christianity), they don't accept the Creeds.
The irony of course is that the evangelical objection to Mormons can also apply to Catholics, at least from the perspective of some of said evangelicals (indeed the more anti-catholic evangelicals regard the apocrypha as prima facae evidence that Catholics aren't Christian, and also regard the saints as evidence that Catholics aren't monotheists). This is a less common view than it used to be, and I think is based on some misunderstandings- especially wrt the saints, but it's there.

From the Catholic POV, my understanding is that some conservative catholics regard some/many protestants as not sharing the same creed. I am less familiar with this one, so correct me if I am wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-11-2011, 02:43 PM
ginger baker ginger baker is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 103
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
Right. You see the problem; it isn't illegal to make a bad investment. You basically want show trials?
not "show trials" but justice.

Last edited by ginger baker; 10-11-2011 at 03:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-11-2011, 02:49 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
As whburgess (I think) noted, this excuse is actually not going to fly with other Muslims; there's a (to you and I fanciful) explanation as to why it was okay for Mohammed, but not any of his modern followers that's widely accepted by Muslims.

If the goal is to find a philosophy or religion in which the adherents can't construct an excuse for their bad behavior, pretty much everything is going to fall short.
But as you yourself state in the bolded part, the people constructing excuses are the good Muslims (at least, on this particular issue), who try to find a religious excuse for their good behavior (i.e., disapproving of pedophilia).

In this case, there are some Christians/Jews who show comparable behavior, those who approve of the wholesale slaughter of the Amalekites, for example. That's also extremely troubling, and I don't think moral people would make excuses for such behavior are decent people, even if they say that it would not be justified today.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-11-2011, 02:52 PM
bkjazfan bkjazfan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Los Angeles, Ca.
Posts: 1,192
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Mormon theological issues concerning "The Book Of Mormon" and everyone having the possibility of becoming a "little god" put the religion on some people's category of not being normative Christianity. It far outweighs the objections with Roman Catholicism. Yeh, many Protestants don't go for the pope, veneration Of Mary, the Aprocrypha, and some other theological issues but still consider them to be "normative." The big problem with the RC church is not theology but is the continuing the abhorrent sexual abuse scandal which is monumental in scope and a public relations nightmare.

Traditional Catholics as they liked to be called are a small segment of Catholicism and are not influentual. One of their big gripes is that Vatican 2 was a heresy and the church has gone astray since implementation of it in 1965. Also, they think that the mass should only be conducted in Latin even though very few are literate in it. They are strictly a side show distraction.

Last edited by bkjazfan; 10-11-2011 at 03:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-11-2011, 02:52 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winspur View Post
The Mormon - evangelical tension reminds me a lot of Sunni - Shia Muslim tension in countries such as Lebanon and Iraq. I don't think there is much theological basis for declaring the Mormons not to be Christians, but some of their beliefs, just like the odder facets of Shia Islam (the 12th imam returning as Messiah, ritual flagellation on Ashura) are often cited as proof of the religion being beyond the pale.
In one respect, it's more like the difference between Shi'a and Bahai Islam. The Bahai accept another 'prophet' (not one in the Muhammad/Jeffs sense though), which is beyond the pale in all of Islam, and they're generally also slightly more enlightened than mainstream Muslims. The latter is not true for Mormons, who are generally less enlightened than mainstream Christians.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-11-2011, 02:54 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
In this case, there are some Christians/Jews who show comparable behavior, those who approve of the wholesale slaughter of the Amalekites, for example. That's also extremely troubling, and I don't think moral people would make excuses for such behavior are decent people, even if they say that it would not be justified today.
Meh. I honestly find it difficult to be taht worked up about the Amalekites; a more commonly held view among Christians would be (say) Abraham's willingness and plan to sacrifice Isaac. I actually know many Christians, good people, who hold the view you noted above. It actually doesn't affect how I see them in the least. They aren't going to apply this to any real world things, it's not going to affect how they treat people today, and it's not going to make them excuse people who engage in this kind of thing today.

Sufficient to the day is the evil thereof.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-11-2011, 02:56 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkjazfan View Post
Mormon theological issues concerning "The Book Of Mormon" and everyone having the possibility of becoming a "little god" put the religion on some people's category of not being normative christianity. It far outweighs the objections with Roman Catholicism. The big problem with the RC church is not theology but is the continuing the abhorrent sexual abuse scandal which is monumental in scope and a public relations nightmare.
Today, and in today's mainstream Christianity that's true. It wasn't always so. The apocrypha looms large in the minds of sola scriptura anti-catholics, however. (I suspect the common political ground with Catholics has really dampened this more than anything else).
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10-11-2011, 02:57 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkjazfan View Post
The big problem with the RC church is not theology but is the continuing the abhorrent sexual abuse scandal
You're kidding, right? Are you completely unaware of the fact of how biased protestants have traditionally been against Catholics? Here's a hint: when Al Smith/JFK ran, there was no sexual abuse scandal.

Traditionally, the protestant concern about Catholicism was the fact that it had created a hierarchy, and that the Church itself held authority. According to protestants and proto-protestants, only the Bible was authoritative, not the Church, not the pope, not Church councils, etc. Later on, Anglo-American protestants became concerned about the fact that the Catholic Church remained remarkably unenlightened. It rejected democracy and freedom of conscience and at one point, a pope even condemned railroads.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-11-2011, 03:05 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
Meh. I honestly find it difficult to be taht worked up about the Amalekites; a more commonly held view among Christians would be (say) Abraham's willingness and plan to sacrifice Isaac. I actually know many Christians, good people, who hold the view you noted above. It actually doesn't affect how I see them in the least. They aren't going to apply this to any real world things, it's not going to affect how they treat people today, and it's not going to make them excuse people who engage in this kind of thing today.

Sufficient to the day is the evil thereof.
What was Abraham trying to do? Save his own skin (no pun intended) from God's wrath by killing his own son. Anyone who would see that as praiseworthy is an immoral person. The trouble with such Christians is that they do not recognize morality as being independent from their divinity. Which means that, should they get it into their heads that their God wants them to do something that is immoral, they will do it. They may not be doing evil right now, but the potential is definitely there.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.