Gyroscopic Investing

Reub wrote: Jindal moved up on my list with his great response to the "Christian threat".

I think you should read the other thread on Jindal before getting too excited by another Obama-wannabe.

MachineGhost wrote:

dualstow wrote: Most so-called Jews and Christians have moved on, and believe in Leviticus about as much as the average Greek believes in Zeus or Norwegian in Loki. Not that there's something wrong with being a true believer, and I understand that believers might counter that "those are not real Jews/Christians", but that's the way it is.

Secularism is assimilating and resistance is futile?

No.

But, I think it's misleading to draw the conclusion that modern Christians are dangerous because there's violence in the Old Testament.
Earlier, Moda wrote:

However, the problem is, the God of the Old Testament, IMO, was something of a terrorist/murderer himself... and to the degree that Christians believe the entire Bible is the 100% true Word of God (some don't), they are advocating following a book that has much of the same gory brutality as the Koran does.

Christians haven't really done that since medieval times. And while you can find violence all over the world with religous groups that hate each other, Buddhist monks duking it out in Thailand, Indonesian Muslims burning Christian churches, Northern Island etc., I don't think it has much to do with God.

Even when non-secular people are carrying out violence, I think that most of it has to do with hating The Other these days, not copying Yahweh's baby-smashing in the Bible or even killing someone because they are "infidels." (Islam may be an exception. And of course there are some apocalyptic Christians and crazy fundamentalist Jews). The father of zionism was not religious at all and Christians got violence out of their systems in medieval times.

Dualstow,

That's not what I was saying.

Many Christian conservatives use the Koran as proof that Islam, by its very nature, is either evil or fundamentally flawed.

By this logic, however, Christianity and especially Judaism are fundamentally flawed, as the God of the Old Testament is brutal as hell.

I wasn't saying that violence 1,000 years ago deserves our attention as much as violence today.

Modern Christians are dangerous to Muslims in the sense that they're willing to destabilize an entire country in ways that results in the displacement or death of millions of people. Now this obviously isn't just a Christian problem, but if you ask an Iraqi, I bet you'd find some who think American Christians are a potential threat to peaceful Muslims.

Obviously, this is only one narrow aspect of our activities overseas.  And neo-cons are only one subset of Christian Americans. But that's sort of my point. Certain subsets of Christianity AND Islam are a threat to peaceful people of the other religion. In different ways to be sure, but the threat is there.

l82start wrote:

Bobby Jindal addressed Obama’s remarks at the Prayer Breakfast. According to National Review Online, Jindal said:

    “It was nice of the President to give us a history lesson at the Prayer breakfast,”? Jindal said. “Today, however, the issue right in front of his nose, in the here and now, is the terrorism of Radical Islam, the assassination of journalists, the beheading and burning alive of captives.

    We will be happy to keep an eye out for runaway Christians, but it would be nice if he would face the reality of the situation today. The Medieval Christian threat is under control, Mr. President. Please deal with the Radical Islamic threat today.”?

This snarkastic quote would be pertinent if Obama spent the entire prayer breakfast lamenting on the past crimes of those who did horrors in the name of Christ.

Since that isn't even remotely close to what happened, Jindal sort of just looks like a boob.

Now you can argue Obama isn't doing enough to prevent violence in the Middle East, but in the face of that opinion, the entire speech should be criticized as a distraction.  The comment on past crimes of "Christians" is of almost no importance to point out...

With the exception that it brings right wing nut jobs out of the woodwork... And why I'm starting to think Tenn might be spot on with his analysis.

moda0306 wrote: Dualstow,

That's not what I was saying.
Many Christian conservatives use the Koran as proof that Islam, by its very nature, is either evil or fundamentally flawed.
By this logic, however, Christianity and especially Judaism are fundamentally flawed, as the God of the Old Testament is brutal as hell.
I wasn't saying that violence 1,000 years ago deserves our attention as much as violence today.

I gotcha. I appreciate the clarification.

Obama makes a fool of himself by mentioning high horses and the Crusades and he's playing rope a dope? Is that the best you can come up with to cover for his lunacy?

Simonjester wrote: there is something bad form about most everything this president says and how he says it, bad form to bash Christianity at what is, or at onetime was, a predominantly christian sponsored event, bad form to be in perpetual campaign mode and take cheap shots or dump blame on others in speeches, bad form to be such a pure political beast, measuring every word and action for political gain and never on substance or principal (and often poorly unless riling the opposition is the goal)...

Simon,

I really don't know what you are talking about, unless you are basically saying ALL politicians do it to the same degree or worse than Obama.


Bashes Christianity?

Campaign mode?  Cheap shots?  Dumping blame?

Political beast?

No principle?


Look, Obama may or may not believe a damn thing he says, but as puffy speeches go, it wasn't a bad one.  There wasn't nothing overtly political about it.  There were lots of (IMO) agreeable principles laid out in it.  I didn't hear any blame.  I heard nothing "campaigny."

If this was all the thing you say, I'd be interested to hear how ANY puffy speech by a politician isn't just as bad if not worse.  In the context of what it was and what others do, I see nothing uniquely bad about it.

Overall, it's something we've dubbed a "prayer breakfast."  May  nerves are going off after simply hearing the name.  The idea that any politician could come out of such a meal without having delivered a nauseating speech is probably quite unlikely... especially back when this was a more "Christian-only" event.

Simonjester wrote: i do think the same about all* political speeches to one degree or another, regardless of party or political leaning. politics for politics and power sake type politicians making puffy speeches (or spouting talking points) to appeal to the people for pure political gain are like fingernails on a chalk board to me.. I will give that some of my thinking that Obama is worse is due to recency bias, and some is due to me getting older and the more i hear the more sensitive to it i get ... but even with those allowances i think Obama really has taken smarmy politician to a whole new level..

*the only exception to the "all" rule is the very rare speech in congers i see on cspan.. but most of those speeches are political philosophy/policy speeches and the are ...rare...

Reub wrote: Obama makes a fool of himself by mentioning high horses and the Crusades and he's playing rope a dope? Is that the best you can come up with to cover for his lunacy?

The guy won two presidential elections in a row.  If we're talking campaigning strategy, he's no lunatic.  The majority of the public sees both the right wing and left wing as annoyingly distasteful.  Obama can bring folks like you out of the wood-work.  Why is it so hard to believe that more people see right wingers as lunatics than Obama?

This just in: Obama's drones have killed more people than the Spanish Inquisition.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/02/07/ob ... quisition/

Just because you can divide people and lie to them to win elections doesn't mean that you are not a dangerous lunatic. Please check the history books.

moda0306 wrote: Obviously, this is only one narrow aspect of our activities overseas.  And neo-cons are only one subset of Christian Americans. But that's sort of my point. Certain subsets of Christianity AND Islam are a threat to peaceful people of the other religion. In different ways to be sure, but the threat is there.

NeoCons are not a subset of Christianity.  There are NeoCon Jew, NeoCon Athiests, etc..  It's about a vision of American Exceptionalism intervening around the world to set right and wrong.  Isn't it our moral duty to help the suffering in need? 

A non-NeoCon would draw and stand besides an imaginary line and refuse to cross it while just over the line a helpless woman is being gang raped.

MachineGhost wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Obviously, this is only one narrow aspect of our activities overseas.  And neo-cons are only one subset of Christian Americans. But that's sort of my point. Certain subsets of Christianity AND Islam are a threat to peaceful people of the other religion. In different ways to be sure, but the threat is there.

NeoCons are not a subset of Christianity.  There are NeoCon Jew, NeoCon Athiests, etc..  It's about a vision of American Exceptionalism intervening around the world to set right and wrong.  Isn't it our moral duty to help the suffering in need? 

A non-NeoCon would draw and stand besides an imaginary line and refuse to cross it while just over the line a helpless woman is being gang raped.

Woah.  First off, I guess I'm going to have to go-ahead and disagree with the bolded statement.  Unless you're playing a semantics game saying we're all neo-cons or something.

To the rest of it, without the political support of conservative Christians, and their bias as Christians, the Iraq invasion wouldn't have had enough support.  Therefore, Christians are, by logical connection, somewhat of a threat (in context, of course) to peaceful Muslims.  This shouldn't be controversial, but just accepted fact.  It doesn't mean that "everyone's equal," but to the degree that largely Christian populations form political support to actions that bring risk to peaceful Muslims, they are, by definition, a threat. 

craigr wrote: This just in: Obama's drones have killed more people than the Spanish Inquisition.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/02/07/ob ... quisition/

I guess that make's his speech the epitome of hypocrisy... As well as if he's killed more than Boko Haram killed.  Or ISIS. Or any of the other tragedies he mentioned.  Perhaps even the shooting at Sandy Hook, what with its measly 30 dead kids. 

But then I guess if we're going on that standard, EVERY president sounds like a hypocrite if he EVER speaks out critical of an event that resulted in less deaths than his military adventures.

moda0306 wrote: I guess that make's his speech the epitome of hypocrisy... As well as if he's killed more than Boko Haram killed.  Or ISIS. Or any of the other tragedies he mentioned.  Perhaps even the shooting at Sandy Hook, what with its measly 30 dead kids. 

But then I guess if we're going on that standard, EVERY president sounds like a hypocrite if he EVER speaks out critical of an event that resulted in less deaths than his military adventures.

Now you've got the right idea!

moda0306 wrote: Woah.  First off, I guess I'm going to have to go-ahead and disagree with the bolded statement.  Unless you're playing a semantics game saying we're all neo-cons or something.

Why?  A non-interventionist doesn't believe in intervening across imaginary lines.  Where are you going to draw the line (pun intended) about crossing the imaginary line if you start making exception after exception to your non-interventionist philosophy for humane reasons?

Non-interventionist =/= non-neo-con

And even most non-interventionists wouldn't hold that standard up in ALL circumstances at the federal level, much less the individual level in an incidence of rape.

Sorry MG your analysis just seems crazy here.

moda0306 wrote: Non-interventionist =/= non-neo-con

And even most non-interventionists wouldn't hold that standard up in ALL circumstances at the federal level, much less the individual level in an incidence of rape.

Sorry MG your analysis just seems crazy here.

I don't think its crazy to point out the absurdity of how crazy it is to take a holy high roller, my way or the highway position over what is an imaginary line.

But what is your definition of Neo-Con then?  So you think there's an interventionist non-Neo-Con political block?  If so, who are they and what are they called?

MG,

All these lines are imaginary.  That doesn't mean that there isn't a difference between a neo-con and someone with a less-threatening foreign policy.  Perhaps some real conservatives.  Perhaps liberals.  Perhaps libertarians.

I'm not saying that people who took us to war in Iraq are the only ones to blame.  It was just one example of how one aspect of western civilization is a potential threat to a peaceful Muslim.

moda0306 wrote:

Reub wrote: Obama makes a fool of himself by mentioning high horses and the Crusades and he's playing rope a dope? Is that the best you can come up with to cover for his lunacy?

The guy won two presidential elections in a row.  If we're talking campaigning strategy, he's no lunatic.  The majority of the public sees both the right wing and left wing as annoyingly distasteful.  Obama can bring folks like you out of the wood-work. Why is it so hard to believe that more people see right wingers as lunatics than Obama?

Moda,

1.  Has it occured to you that no matter what the content of his speech, or what people believe, Obama as "scolder in chief" has gotten very old? i.e. him lecturing to people on one topic or another.

2.  Or that most people are not going to read the full content to see that the his use of "the crusades" was used in a reasonable context?

3.  regarding your choice of words:

"see right wingers as lunatics" 

I don't see anyone as a lunatic based on their political views.  I would not assume that most on the right or center do likewise.  OTOH, it is clear, and you can search the web to find many on the left who consider their opponents, not reasonable people who disagree, but Evil, lunatics, etc.

I don't consider either you or TennPA flaming lefties, but if you asked a large group of people about your comment about polluters* and his comment about capitalists wanting to control people because they need money to live (words to that effect, correct me if I'm wrong), I wonder if you and he would be way further "left" than you two realize?

*this one:

Polluters shouldn't have the power to pollute and make money off of it. Pollution should be recognized as removing power from future generations. IMO, of course, but the "laissez faire" folks have power and money on their minds too

Benko,

1) I don't see Obama as any more of a "scolder" than anyone else in politics.  The far right is just super sensitive to some things he says.  IMO, of course.

2) I realize some won't read it in context.  That's what many conservative politicians hoping for. But I'm pretty sure that their reaction is going to do the right more political harm than Obama's comments will do the left political harm.

3) "Lunatics" was far too harsh of a term.  Reub used it first (not trying to sound like a child here... just explaining) so I continued the use of the term.  I think there are fringe liberals and conservatives that see their opposition as evil, lunatics, etc.


I didn't say anything specific about "controlling" people, but the term "power" can imply that.  To me, power is sort of a bull$hit term that gets thrown around.  Power, to me, is the ability to influence something.  I do believe government should have the power, or ability to influence, the cost of material externalities that are experienced via pollution.  Conservatives often believe they should have the power to consume what they want without the pollution of sad item to be a cost that gets recognized in their decision to pollute.

I don't think many groups see themselves as wanting to "control others," so much as control what they see as their morally legitimate sphere of influence.  Capitalists and communists, alike.  They just disagree on what that sphere of influence is.

moda0306 wrote:
I don't think many groups see themselves as wanting to "control others," so much as control what they see as their morally legitimate sphere of influence. 

Here we go again.  Who defines what is moral and on what basis?  Where is that source of morality located?  How do you know that?

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: Here we go again.  Who defines what is moral and on what basis?  Where is that source of morality located?  How do you know that?

I know you won't agree, but morality is revealed through the use of reason from examining cause and effect and it collectively crystallizes in society via spontaneous order (all great political breakthroughs of the past were the common people forcing it upon the ruling elites).  At some point, even the most depraved "immoralist" would drag down all of society into another era of Black Death if not confronted and stopped.  Heck, the RIF's are doing a pretty good job so far.  Now imagine if they took over the world.

Today Obama referred to the targeted killing of Jews in a kosher deli in Paris by ISIS sympathizers as shootings of random folks. He says we need to deal with ISIS as we would with random  crime in our cities. I'm really starting to believe that he needs psychiatric help.

MachineGhost wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Here we go again.  Who defines what is moral and on what basis?  Where is that source of morality located?  How do you know that?

I know you won't agree, but morality is revealed through the use of reason from examining cause and effect and it collectively crystallizes in society via spontaneous order (all great political breakthroughs of the past were the common people forcing it upon the ruling elites).  At some point, even the most depraved "immoralist" would drag down all of society into another era of Black Death if not confronted and stopped.  Heck, the RIF's are doing a pretty good job so far.  Now imagine if they took over the world.

Could you please clarify a couple of points:  I thought Black Death was the bubonic plague spread via fleas - what is the connection to being moral?  Second, what is an RIF?  Sorry, but I'm more of a "King's English" type that the urban slang or labeling types when trying  to clearly communicate by written language.  Thanks.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: Could you please clarify a couple of points:  I thought Black Death was the bubonic plague spread via fleas - what is the connection to being moral?  Second, what is an RIF?  Sorry, but I'm more of a "King's English" type that the urban slang or labeling types when trying  to clearly communicate by written language.  Thanks.

Sorry, the term I was looking for was the "Dark Ages" which was not a benevolent age of reason but of malevolent religious mysticism.

RIF = Radical Islamist Fundamentalist.

Moda


"I'm pretty sure that their reaction is going to do the right more political harm than Obama's comments will do the left political harm"

The point I was trying to make is that you are  further left then you may realize and thus I suspect you lack perspective on how most people will view things.  Basically I don't think the reaction to Obamas speech is going to hurt anyone.  Why?  Anyone was has ever discussed Islamic follower related violence has had the word "crusades" tossed into their face.  But you can't put yourself in their place. 

moda0306 wrote: 3) "Lunatics" was far too harsh of a term.  Reub used it first (not trying to sound like a child here... just explaining) so I continued the use of the term.  I think there are fringe liberals and conservatives that see their opposition as evil, lunatics, etc. .

Because the left and right are the same, use the same tactics, etc.  Except they are not and don't.  No one center or right of center believes this. Of course people on the left believe this.

moda0306 wrote:
I do believe government should have the power, or ability to influence, the cost of material externalities that are experienced via pollution. 

Of course you do.  Again I dont think you have perspective on how 100, 1000 or 100K people view your statements. 

moda0306 wrote: I don't think many groups see themselves as wanting to "control others," so much as control what they see as their morally legitimate sphere of influence.  Capitalists and communists, alike.  They just disagree on what that sphere of influence is.

"morally legitimate "

Because the left knows what is best for everyone and has a right (no duty) to impose it.

Insert link to cartoon

"ideas so good they have to be mandatory" 

MachineGhost wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Could you please clarify a couple of points:  I thought Black Death was the bubonic plague spread via fleas - what is the connection to being moral?  Second, what is an RIF?  Sorry, but I'm more of a "King's English" type that the urban slang or labeling types when trying  to clearly communicate by written language.  Thanks.

Sorry, the term I was looking for was the "Dark Ages" which was not a benevolent age of reason but of malevolent religious mysticism.

RIF = Radical Islamist Fundamentalist.

Thank you for clarifying.  Your response raises another question.  Is this what you mean by Christian Mysticism?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism 

And, from this definition given in the wiki, what is about that you deem "malevolent"?  Thanks again.  Maybe after we get terms defined and mutually understood, we can get back to my questions about "moral". 

... Mountaineer

Edit to add this additional information about Mysticism - maybe this is what you define as mysticism?  Note the use of reason that is described:

Mysticism
(from Gk. mystikos, “mystical; secret”?). A. Term applied to a wide range of phenomena (e.g., demonology,* magic,* dreaminess, weird experiences, occultism [see Spiritism; Theosophy], certain philosophies of life). Mysticism may be divided: (1) Contemplative (as in Augustine* of Hippo, J. Eckhart,* R. W. Emerson,* Plotinus*); (2) Personal, emphasizing personal communion with God (as in Thomas* à Kempis, Fra Angelico,* F. de S. de la M. Fénelon,* G. Fox,* T. Kagawa*); (3) Nature (as in Francis* of Assisi, W. Wordsworth*); (4) Practical, marked by sacrificial service prompted by love.
The goal of mysticism is the alleged intuitive and emotional contact with the Absolute (“that which is,”? “the Good,”? “God,”? and many other ultimate spiritual values). In its practical aspects, mysticism is the attempt to apperceive, use, and enjoy ultimate values.
Following steps may be distinguished in mysticism: (1) freeing oneself from wrong; (2) freeing oneself of the phantasmata of the world; (3) departure into the realm of the pure through contemplation and yearning; (4) mystic view or experience. Mysticism is not so much a doctrine as a method of thought, a reaching for the Infinite through methods of reasoning and attempted direct contemplation. The word “contemplation”? is often used for mystic experience in pre-Renaissance W writers.
In his early period M. Luther* ed. Deutsche Theologie (see “German Theology”?) and commended the work of J. Tauler* (St. L. ed., XXIa, 56). J. Staupitz* was a mystic. But Luther's system centered in the external Word of God and its doctrine of justification. He condemned the mysticism of Sebastian Franck,* A. R. B. v. Karlstadt,* T. Münzer, K. v. Schwenkfeld,* N. Storch (see Zwickau Prophets).
B. Other mystics include Adam* of St. Victor, Angela* de Foligno, J. Böhme,* Bernard* of Clairvaux, Bonaventura,* N. Cabasilas,* Catherine* of Siena, Clement* of Alexandria, R. Crashaw,* Dionysius* the Areopagite, (2), Gertrude the Great (see Gertrude, 1), Gregory* of Nyssa, Guyon,* Hildegard* of Bingen, W. Hilton,* F. v. Hügel,* Hugh* of St. Victor, W. R. Inge,* Jacopone* da Todi, W. James,* John* of the Cross, R. M. Jones,* Julian(a)* of Norwich, W. Law,* Luis* de Granada, Mechthild* of Hackeborn, Mechthild* of Magdeburg, M. de Molinos,* Richard* of St. Victor, R. Rolle* de Hampole, J. v. Ruysbroeck,* H. Suso,* Teresa* of �??vila, E. Underhill.* EL
See also Buber, Martin; Mystical Union; Sufism; Taoism; Yoga.
C. A. A. Bennett, A Philosophical Study of Mysticism (New Haven, Connecticut, 1923); W. K. Fleming, Mysticism in Christianity (London, 1913); E. C. Butler, Western Mysticism, 3d ed. (London, 1967); M. Smith, An Introduction to the History of Mysticism (New York, 1930) and Studies in Early Mysticism in the Near and Middle East (London, 1931); R. M. Jones, New Studies in Mystical Religion (New York, 1927); W. R. Inge, Christian Mysticism (London, 1899) and The Philosophy of Plotinus, 3d ed. (London, 1929); E. Underhill, Mysticism, 6th ed. (London, 1916) and The Essentials of Mysticism and Other Essays (London, 1920); R. Otto, Mysticism East and West, tr. B. L. Bracey and R. C. Payne (New York, 1932).