:doh:
Jesus Christ!
(He's your boss isn't he? What does he think about your rather nasty and dismissive opinion of so many members of his flock? Both here and abroad?)
Printable View
Well that's fair enough, Jesus if he existed was yet another nutbag a who taught his followers to love thy enemy and to turn the other cheek and that to give no thought to the morrow in terms of thinking about anything other than the here and now (which was the forerunner for apolcayptic ideation, don't plan for a world that is not going to be here).
So to pretend Jesus was a good moral teacher is somewhat perverse to begin with
And yet we are told by Christians that we have to embrace the human sacrifice in order to divest us of original sin.
Hypocrisy is the foundation of all religion. Religion is not the same thing as spiritual belief. Religion is a tawdry, manmade control mechanism like any other. It's the control that's important, not the philosophical integrity or moral directive. This is why so many members of religious clubs will reluctantly agree to slaughter their fellow man, in the victim's best interests of course. History tells us this and history continues to happen right across the globe, centuries on. What's wrong with this picture?
The myth of Jesus, on the other hand, is a device used to underpin the control structure of the biggest religious club. It's very clever. If we all ever bothered to follow the eminently sensible and personally beneficial theoretical teachings of Jesus then (leaving aside the fact we are scientifically primitive at this time so don't grasp the nature of our environment or even our existence) we'd be a damn sight better off. That can't be denied. Don't kill people. Don't steal from them. Have a bit of respect. That's all he really taught. So build a criminal syndicate on top of those principles and you have a shield for life, plus it becomes a simple matter to control the foot soldiers. Basing the whole thing in faith is the icing on the cake. It becomes blasphemous to question the rulebook and, more importantly, the rulers who have, after all, been appointed by a faith based deity who must never be questioned. Pray to me. Kill for me. Pay me. Love your neighbour - and then rob and kill him. Simply God moving in mysterious ways. I bet company CEO's wish they had such advantages at their disposal (they are getting there).
The delicious hypocrisy of religious leaders "sadly" accepting the will of their god because, because, because. They even set themselves up as victims, heroically suffering for their faith. And mysteriously, all the while, accumulating personal power. What was it Carlin said? God is omnipotent, all powerful, the master of all he surveys. But the one thing he can't get a grip on is money. He needs your money!
What is this kabaddi thing I keep seeing on Sky Sports?
:unsure:
It's 'it', Indian style. In India it's quite a big thing, they have leagues and show it on TV and everything.
I thought I saw a lot of brown people taking part, I had no idea what was going on though!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37667924
Trump going mad, trying everything he can now to derail the Clinton camp. Now he's saying she was on drugs and should be tested before the next debate. Oh and that the election is rigged.
Maybe they should bin them both, give Obama the Presidency for another year and start again!
Going? Implying a change.
Clinton, for all her problems, at least has a grip on reality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gCXlTMPnF0
And again, hot on the heels of your last triumph, the next plunge into waters so far out of your depth you can't find a bottom to start your usual digging.
I long for this US election to be over with, it's unremittingly grim
If at all possible it's actually worse than the referendum campaign and there was a an actual murder during that
It's like being sick, we are on the dry heaving now there is nothing more to come it's all essentially over with but still the horrible muscle tightening spasms are there.
Hard to tune out basically.
Ordinarily i might have wanted a Republican to win the White House just to finally wipe the essence of the Clintons from American politics.
But Jesus this Republican? Guy actually won't be happy until he's whipped his poor pathetic supporters up into such a frenzy that they end up hurting or killing someone.
I think this is the worst election ever. I thought our options were depressing last time out but wow, this really does take the biscuit.
Clinton, for all the issues with her, does at least seem to have some grip on reality. Yes she's corrupt and self-serving but most politicians towards the top of the tree tend to be.
Trump though...I think he's downright dangerous. Or maybe he isn't? Who knows? Who knows what he'll do. He has no concrete, consistent policies (aside from building a wall, and that clearly is never going to happen) and constantly contradicts himself.
Oh, and on top of that he's a racist, a misogynist and a bigot with a serious narcissistic personality disorder.
Hold me! :upset:
I find it odd that a man with no political background whatsoever can can even run for the top office.
What I really can't understand is how he can just keep saying stuff without any scrutiny.
Every time I see him talk (before I turn off for fear of putting my put through the screen) he just keeps spouting stuff which just isn't true and rather than thinking "hang on, is that true?" his supporters whoop and cheer and wave little American flags.
Twats.
Freedom of speech, innit.
They've got so wound up in their 'freedoms' they've forgotten what they actually mean.
To Americans, freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want without it ever being challenged.
You do know that the President is just a front man for the machine that works behind him/her?
He's an actor saying or doing whatever will get his party in office.
What's more worrying are the people who are in agreement with what he's saying. That's the real problem. Just like the UK. A flock of sheep being herded here and there, deflecting from the real problems that nobody wants to address.
Having either if them in office amounts to the same thing. A different bunch of power hungry cunts, ensuring the rich people they are in bed with stay rich. There is no politics here, it's just which side gets to the trough this time round.
The very fact that people (even here) are obsessed with the personality of the two people going for office, shows how much we are obsessed with the shite the media spew out. It's like X-Factor for presidents. Soon people will phone vote it all.
Whoever ends up in office isn't going to be dangerous (depending on which way you view it), as the puppet will revert to type as soon as their feet are under the desk. The stats quo will remain....unless Trump can't keep his mouth shut, in which case I'm sure he term will be terminated quickly in some way shape or form.
I don't think that's necessarily of itself a bad thing, i think the problem is that too many politicians are SPADS who know no world outside politics
I'd prefer a politician to have more experience from the outside world, it's not unique in American Presidential History either. Lincoln had held no public office before becoming president and Eisenhower was a General who was courted by both political parties.
But a businessman (well a realtor with a dodgy hair cut and reality tv star) who is running a campaign which is a total hypocrisy on everything he's ever done in business?.....No thanks.
Two reasons for it, One because you scrutinise Trump every time he says something that's clearly stupid or a lie you would spend all the time doing so and Two the Media are terrified of the perception of being seen as biased (which in many cases they are) and therefore they feel the need to draw an equivalence between the candidates.
I don't think you can say Obama has just been a front man for a machine. He's pushed through progressive laws and been frustrated in his attempts to push through others.
Who the president is does make a difference.
Thanks.
There are times when I think it's me that's insane so it's a hell of a comfort to know that at least some other people can see this bloody obvious, smacking them in the face, shitting down their throat reality.
The mere fact the Bush gang has teamed up with the Clinton gang this time around ought to give the game away to even the most challenged of thinkers. Actors playing their role so the audience looks over here and not over there.
The one shining star of this whole process has been Julian Assange. That guy has guts.
Do you really believe the media is terrified of that perception? If so, they have rushed headlong into their worst fear. As a result, their credibility rating stands at 6%. Mind you, that doesn't stop almost 100% of people reaching for the remote control so they can tune in to propaganda that would make the Cold War Kremlin blush. People literally know they are being lied to and yet they still view these outlets as authorities. It's a shocking indictment of the average citizen. However, fewer and fewer young people are engaging so the future is not necessarily written.
It wasn't addressed at you. :shrug:
But if you or LDG disagree then feel free to say why.
Yes I do think they are terrified, print news has become extinct and the media networks are worried about going the same way.
In some ways it's a good thing, people are thinking for themselves more. On the other hand are they? They seem more interested in reading things online that confirm their own opinions rather than anything that expands their understanding.
When NQ says politicians don't control the economy, he broadly speaking is correct. Although indirectly they have created the circumstances in which giant financial institutions have conglomerated like blocks of Lego and created the "too big to fail" impregnibility.
Politicians are also very beholden to their donors, and that tends to create a fenced off set of ideas of what is good policy and what is not. So the accusations of elites and vested interests is often one that has a lot of substance to it.
The problem is on the other hand, some bad ideas are just manifestly bad ideas and some people manifestly should never be in any position of authority. But because the rather closed off circle politics operates in, it strengthens the hands of these individuals and makes them more sympathetic and appealing to the public.
Charlatans and snake oil salesman like Trump exist and are given life blood by the existence of corporate sponsored career politicians like Hilary Clinton.
Frankly every single American politician should be ashamed of themselves about Trump, because they as much as book selling talk radio nuts are responsible for him having gotten this far.
You're talking about technological change, but there has been no accompanying change in the nature of the mainstream media. They are as bad as they ever were and in many ways worse. And this is the reason why more people are "thinking for themselves" (or more likely refusing to think approved thoughts), because the propaganda is now so extreme. Yes, it still captures the majority, but the extremism is shaking non-believers off the tree. Not that it matters because the establishment will do what it has always done when the masses stir - start a war. And watch the media hustle in the build up. Again, as if nothing happened the last time around. If they are afraid of being rumbled then they aren't being very covert. On the contrary, this election cycle has seen them metaphorically flounce out of the closet in wigs and lipstick. Some people are bound to notice.
I think Obama was doing things which he believed would make things better.
He's legalised gay marriage for example which is a step towards equality and Obamacare seems to be a progressive step. Both things Trump has said he will reverse.
Not saying there aren't bigger things going on which no president has control of but the personality and opinions of the next person in the white house will make a difference.
There's more to it than that, as this latest election proves. When you put characters like Trump and Clinton in front of people and ask them to pick a leader from the two and people don't just collapse laughing and then get very angry you know there is something very, very wrong. In my opinion the vast majority of people today are mentally ill. And not always by choice. Many have been driven to the condition as a result of prolonged exposure to the extreme variance in what they conditioned to believe and what they can't help glimpsing out of the corner of their eye. I don't imagine the human mind is chuffed being fed on a diet of life, liberty and justice when the eyes keep sending a steady stream of death, disenfranchisement (in all its forms) and overt corruption. Again I go back to the young people to find some hope. The elder generations that have a living memory of a now airbrushed past will soon be gone. There was every danger the subsequent generations might be totally bereft thereafter, consumed in a permanent fantasy. All indicators point to that not being the case. Just as the environment adjusts, compensates, regenerates and revitalises so will human beings. I think. I hope. This dark age will pass as others have.
You have just agreed with me, but what I've said is that alternative media is often just as bad if not worse in terms of propaganda and outright lies.
The media (and to think of it as a homogenous grouping is pretty laughable) tends to focus on minutiae and distraction rather than propoganda. But it's less about trying to peddle a narrative of the dark puppet masters and more about personal enrichment.
And alternative media is no different, they basically pay their journalists (laughable term) based on how likely click bait the piece is going to be rather than the strength of the piece.
Things like legalising gay marriage is scenery though, Obamas campaign was sponsored by a lot of Wall Street institutions and his treasury secretaries Tim Geitner and Jacob Liew were both Wall Street insiders. And this has been the way of things for a while from Hank Paulsen who was a CEO at Goldman Sachs under Bush and Larry Summers (who served under Clinton).who was in the pocket of the financial sector who lectured at universities about the great self correcting power of the market place and was a proponent of the Glass-Stiegel bill which reversed every progressive regulation put in place by the US government after the 1929 crash and paved the way for giant corporate mergers.
I have no doubt Obama instinctively was far more for regulation and redistribution policies than he otherwise enacted, which was partly due to congressional blocking and partly because of who he was beholden to for winning office.
Well then we should laugh because that's just what we are dealing with, a collection of seemingly diverse sources that, nevertheless, play within the tight bounds of an establishment narrative. Whether it's the New York Times or Joe the blogger, 99% of this "diverse" commentary is handicapped and therefore homogenised by the careful framing within which all opinion and debate is formed. For example, ask a "left wing" or "right wing" commentator about taxes and they'll give you the same answer but with a percentage sign modified up or down. The question is, should a collection of citizens assume additional rights for themselves and then abuse these rights to rob their fellow citizens? This question is then framed as, should we lower or raise taxes? The very essence of the issue has been lost in the reframing. A left winger will explain the virtues of expanded robbery without ever understanding the true implications of his opinion. A right winger will disagree vehemently, calling for smaller government as if such a desire carries automatic virtue. Again, the essence has evaporated. And when you point this out they will go out of their way to argue against their own laws in an attempt to justify their position. Yet when you ask them what should be done about crime they both assume a grave tone as they discuss suitable punishments. They literally hold two opinions simultaneously and then develop a passion for both. Little wonder they are insane.
There's another example. Should the state criminalise or legalise gay marriage. The right says criminalise. The left says legalise. I say, what the fuck business does the state have trying to tell people how they may or may not live their own personal lives? I mean, what the fuck? The correct answer to that question is, yes, we should get rid of the state immediately.
Although it is only mentioned fleetingly by myself I tend to agree with that. If two people want to get married it's no ones business to approve or disapprove. If certain shop owners want to refuse to serve gay people, fair enough....you obviously care more about sexual behaviour than your livelihood and the customer you've turned away will be taken by someone else.