What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

5mn_Major said:
Unfortunately, you're misunderstanding the problem again.

This is not a religious issue. Do not blame Islam or Christianity for terror. This is a fanaticism issue. These people hate the US and the west in general - and its not because they believe in a God. If you don't understand the problem you cannot find a solution.
Click to expand...

My entire point in OP is that the religion is not the information, it's the carrier wave. I wish you would actually read what I write if you're going to take the trouble to respond to it. I genuinely appreciate the dialog, but in situations like this you have literally misread us as disagreeing when we are in agreement.

Here is the implied portion of my statement that you do disagree with: because an ideology is a good carrier wave to the extent that it is totalist, fundamentalist religion, well, more accurately literalist religion is an excellent carrier wave because it is totalist. Symbolic or metaphorical religion is less likely to be used to transmit a violent message because it does not present the believer with an all-or-nothing literalist choice. The part of the ideology that allows violence and extremism in its name is given gutter guards and moderation. It is tamed in the name of social utility -- the very opposite of the mission statement of a literalist faith.
 
Last edited:
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Kepler said:
My entire point in OP is that the religion is not the information, it's the carrier wave. I wish you would actually read what I write if you're going to take the trouble to respond to it. I genuinely appreciate the dialog, but in situations like this you have literally misread us as disagreeing when we are in agreement.
Click to expand...

Not exactly...

Kepler said:
Religious fanaticism has ranked among the most destructive rallying cries in human history. Although Islam is no more inherently violent than Christianity, it is foolish to deny that right now the worst violent ideological troublemaker in the world is violent Islamic fanaticism. They are going through a cuckoo fundamentalist shake out century, and we ought not to pretend that they are quiescent. In comparison, violent Christian fanaticism is currently relatively dormant. It could of course break out as an epidemic or even a pandemic if conditions are right. We need to keep an eye on that.
Click to expand...

It is that statement that is somewhere between misleading and wrong. Terror is due to individual fanaticism and not religion. A blanket Muslim country ban is in fact the wrong solution...and it comes from exactly the kind of mis interpretations you espouse.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

5mn_Major said:
Terror is due to individual fanaticism and not religion.
Click to expand...

No sh-t.

Sigh. The point is the religion is the megaphone, not the cheer. I do not think I can be any clearer. I may simply not be communicating what I am trying to. But what you are arguing with is once again NOT what I am writing.

We've had these basic disagreements before where you read what I write in a way entirely different from what I believe I have written, and certainly from what I mean. I am willing to give up and say for whatever magical mix of biography and synapses, you and I simply can't have a conversation if the word "Christian" appears in it even as an afterthought. One of us shuts their brain off when that word appears in a statement.
 
Last edited:
5mn_Major said:
Not exactly...



It is that statement that is somewhere between misleading and wrong. Terror is due to individual fanaticism and not religion. A blanket Muslim country ban is in fact the wrong solution...and it comes from exactly the kind of mis interpretations you espouse.
Click to expand...

Try to remember this line of thinking the next time you disparage atheists and agnostics.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

A blanket Muslim country ban is wrong, but that doesn't mean this brand of terrorism is not about religion. A bastardized, distorted interpretation of religion, but born of religion without question. You don't see anyone committing these acts on behalf of, "The republic of..", "the policy of...", or anything of its kind. They're being duped into believing Islam commands them to murder but they don't see it as such. It's not that simple all the way down nothing ever is, but let's not mis-label the source for fear of being politically incorrect or something even more pathetic - defensive about our own faith.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Reading the articles today about our nominees thoughts on women in the workplace is terrifying. Women have hard enough choices if they choose to try and procreate, without businesses trying to discriminate against them for the potential of having babies.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

There's a brilliant line in this article about the hearings I had to share:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._that_anyone_would_question_neil_gorsuch.html

And Sen. Ted Cruz, who is doubtless capable of hacking up a hairball of outrage over hangnails and the existence of Velcro, was affronted that a Democratic president had the temerity to even attempt to fill the chair vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia on an “activist Supreme Court” that is dominated by “unelected lawyers.”
Click to expand...
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
Reading the articles today about our nominees thoughts on women in the workplace is terrifying. Women have hard enough choices if they choose to try and procreate, without businesses trying to discriminate against them for the potential of having babies.
Click to expand...

I have read that besides that one letter most of the other students didnt think it was that big of a deal and his former female clerks and employees said he never expressed anything like that in the workplace. I think that story is not what some in the media are making it out to be...

(for now anyways)

Here is That Side of the Story
 
Last edited:
Handyman said:
I have read that besides that one letter most of the other students didnt think it was that big of a deal and his former female clerks and employees said he never expressed anything like that in the workplace. I think that story is not what some in the media are making it out to be...

(for now anyways)

Here is That Side of the Story
Click to expand...
That is good. Now I can concentrate on the other parts of him that I don't like
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
That is good. Now I can concentrate on the other parts of him that I don't like
Click to expand...

That's what she said.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Handyman said:
I have read that besides that one letter most of the other students didnt think it was that big of a deal and his former female clerks and employees said he never expressed anything like that in the workplace. I think that story is not what some in the media are making it out to be...

(for now anyways)

Here is That Side of the Story
Click to expand...

Nothing like a lame Borking attempt. If this is all they've got, he's going to sail through the hearings.

That said, Cruz is a spineless hypocrite and a turd sandwich rolled into one. All the indignation over Trump insulting his wife, and then he shook the guy's friggin' hand and they had dinner with him. Goes to show you what a marriage of convenience and money theirs is.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
That is good. Now I can concentrate on the other parts of him that I don't like
Click to expand...

Which is why it is important not to waste time on stuff like this. It is not going to keep him from the job so find something that could.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Nothing like a lame Borking attempt. If this is all they've got, he's going to sail through the hearings.

That said, Cruz is a spineless hypocrite and a turd sandwich rolled into one. All the indignation over Trump insulting his wife, and then he shook the guy's friggin' hand and they had dinner with him. Goes to show you what a marriage of convenience and money theirs is.
Click to expand...

Dont forget, Cruz's dad helped kill Kennedy according to the Liar in Chief!
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

The Democrats have nothing to stand on. They followed the GOP's lead and saved the nomination till the election. Their best bet is to let this guy sail through and save the big fight for the next pyscho that comes up for confirmation. They do it now they're done.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

ScoobyDoo said:
The Democrats have nothing to stand on. They followed the GOP's lead and saved the nomination till the election. Their best bet is to let this guy sail through and save the big fight for the next pyscho that comes up for confirmation. They do it now they're done.
Click to expand...

Yep, we're just exchanging one conservative for another. A kinder, gentler machine gun hand, if you will. Save the rage for when RBG goes.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Gorsuch refuses to say how he'd rule on hypothetical cases. Think I'd ask Gorsuch:

Here are 8 recent SCOTUS critical cases - which outcome do you agree with and which do you disagree with...and why?
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

That's a sensible approach. I must have been used in the past to get a read on judicial philosophy.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

5mn_Major said:
Gorsuch refuses to say how he'd rule on hypothetical cases. Think I'd ask Gorsuch:

Here are 8 recent SCOTUS critical cases - which outcome do you agree with and which do you disagree with...and why?
Click to expand...

It it works I'm all for it. He's got to at least answer some questions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top