The Supremes

[DixonHur 11971]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Plus, all Protestant sins are venereal.

fify

[F250 29210]

3 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Is purgatory in limbo or is limbo in purgatory? I can't remember

I believe limbo is in the nice section of hell where unbaptized babies go for eternity. Kinda fucked up.

 

[sidis 10020]

6 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Is purgatory in limbo or is limbo in purgatory? I can't remember

 

1 minute ago, F250 said:

I believe limbo is in the nice section of hell where unbaptized babies go for eternity. Kinda fucked up.

 

 

limbo first described in canto iv of inferno by dante.  first circle of hell.  dante was being highly consolatory in conceiving of this...effectively accommodating the virtuous non-christian question.  not heaven...but no physical torment.  it was a fairly revolutionary concept and dante effectively being the first lib pussy amongst catholic tradition. 

and of course, completely idiotic regardless of it cultural importance.

[Willfully Horn 8290]

6 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Biden admin will be told it must enforce a Trump era immigration policy

Lower court on Texas already ordered that happen. Eill find the link and edit to add here.

Edit:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dhs-will-abide-court-order-blocking-bidens-ice-restrictions-appeal-proceeds.amp

Edited June 27, 2022 by Willfully Horn

[Macklemore 2946]

23 minutes ago, F250 said:

lulz

Just bring up Apostolic Succession, infant baptism, praying to the Saints, Sola Scriptura, Martin Luther and a lot of other topics and the knives come out.

 

Yes, of course, they will cite the “errors” of Roman Catholicism - but the hatred of flesh and blood Catholics - categorizing them as other and a threat to the American way of life - like back in the 1920s with the KKK, is no longer there. 

[DDD Dad 14665]

7 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Is purgatory in limbo or is limbo in purgatory? I can't remember

This?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

32 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Is purgatory in limbo or is limbo in purgatory? I can't remember

[F250 29210]

15 minutes ago, Macklemore said:

Yes, of course, they will cite the “errors” of Roman Catholicism - but the hatred of flesh and blood Catholics - categorizing them as other and a threat to the American way of life - like back in the 1920s with the KKK, is no longer there. 

Eh, that took place a long time ago early in the post WWII era. The Prolife movement hasn't moved any ecumenical needle between the two groups.

[Anastasis 23718]

[David Dennison 19571]

49 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Plus, all Protestant sins are venial.

Um, I'm sorry, but Protestants are heretics and we all know what happens to heretics.

[Ghost of LL 15705]

4 minutes ago, Macklemore said:

Yes, of course, they will cite the “errors” of Roman Catholicism - but the hatred of flesh and blood Catholics - categorizing them as other and a threat to the American way of life - like back in the 1920s with the KKK, is no longer there. 

Yeah--that's bullshit.  And you wanna know how I know?  Just go to a Michigan-Notre Dame game.  People really reveal who they are when football is the backdrop--witness the innumerable cries of "tackle that n-----" you'll hear at many a Texas high school football game.  In any event, you go to a Michigan-Notre Dame game, and you'll see that nasty Upper Midwest anti-Catholicism on full display.

Yeah, man--there's plenty of real hatred for flesh-and-blood Catholics in this country.

But let's talk about the 1920s and the KKK, since your raise it . . . .

During the two or three decades on either side of the turn of the Century, this country experienced a real spasm of political violence.  Part of it was along the same lines as that seen across Europe at the same time, when numerous political leaders were assassinated by anarchists (e.g., Tsar Alexander II, Empress Elizabeth of Austria) and nationalists (e.g., Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Jean Jaures). 

America had that same batch of political assassinations (e.g., Presidents Lincoln and McKinley).  And aside from the targeted assassinations, we also had a bunch of bombings (e.g., the Wall Street Bombing).  But, this being America, we also had to add on the layer of race-based political violence, ranging from the political terrorism of the KKK to the Tulsa Race Massacre.

Nobody in America remembers that shit.  You maybe remember from some paragraph in a high-school history textbook the names "Sacco & Vanzetti."  But what did they do?  Does anybody remember?

Does anybody remember that McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist?  Or that anarchists blew up Wall Street in 1920?  Or that the Attorney General's house in Washington was blown up in 1919?

Fuck no--because we Americans are really good at telling stories about ourselves, but very bad at remembering our actual history.  Like, we'll tell ourselves that the North won the Civil War.  Much like in a hundred years we'll say that we won the war in Iraq because we went in, captured the enemy capital and occupied the country.  Just like with the Civil War, we'll just omit the fact that we then encountered an indigenous insurrection against our occupation, that in due course the American people got tired of subsidizing an occupation against that insurgency, that in the course of the occupation we managed to oversee the creation of a terrorist organization that would bedevil us for decades, and that for good measure on the way out, we betrayed our allies and left them to the tender mercies of the people we had been fighting together.

 

But I digress.  Where was I?

 

Oh, yes--the political violence of the turn of the Century.  It was all fueled by (1) gross income and wealth inequality, (2) a corrupt ruling class that disfranchised the majority, and (3) the inability of our purportedly democratic institutions to handle the conflict.  Sound familiar?

That era was only brought to an end by the New Deal/Post WWII creation of the modern bureaucratic state, which managed to channel and regularize political discourse and greatly reduced income/wealth inequality.  But this is the exact thing SCOTUS and the GOP are trying to tear down.

So what they're going to do is reinstitute the environment that led to the political violence of that earlier era.  And I suspect we're going to see a return of that violence.  I absolutely think we're going to see assassinations.  It's virtually impossible to assassinate the president; it'd actually be quite easy to assassinate a supreme court justice.  Or a senator.  Or, for that matter, a mayor or district attorney.

Shit sucked in the 1910s.  It's about to suck again.

[jimmyjazz 47348]

11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Um, I'm sorry, but Protestants are heretics and we all know what happens to heretics.

Never forget about the get out of jail free card.  "I swear!"

[sidis 10020]

9 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Yeah--that's bullshit.  And you wanna know how I know?  Just go to a Michigan-Notre Dame game.  People really reveal who they are when football is the backdrop--witness the innumerable cries of "tackle that n-----" you'll hear at many a Texas high school football game.  In any event, you go to a Michigan-Notre Dame game, and you'll see that nasty Upper Midwest anti-Catholicism on full display.

Yeah, man--there's plenty of real hatred for flesh-and-blood Catholics in this country.

But let's talk about the 1920s and the KKK, since your raise it . . . .

During the two or three decades on either side of the turn of the Century, this country experienced a real spasm of political violence.  Part of it was along the same lines as that seen across Europe at the same time, when numerous political leaders were assassinated by anarchists (e.g., Tsar Alexander II, Empress Elizabeth of Austria) and nationalists (e.g., Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Jean Jaures). 

America had that same batch of political assassinations (e.g., Presidents Lincoln and McKinley).  And aside from the targeted assassinations, we also had a bunch of bombings (e.g., the Wall Street Bombing).  But, this being America, we also had to add on the layer of race-based political violence, ranging from the political terrorism of the KKK to the Tulsa Race Massacre.

Nobody in America remembers that shit.  You maybe remember from some paragraph in a high-school history textbook the names "Sacco & Vanzetti."  But what did they do?  Does anybody remember?

Does anybody remember that McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist?  Or that anarchists blew up Wall Street in 1920?  Or that the Attorney General's house in Washington was blown up in 1919?

Fuck no--because we Americans are really good at telling stories about ourselves, but very bad at remembering our actual history.  Like, we'll tell ourselves that the North won the Civil War.  Much like in a hundred years we'll say that we won the war in Iraq because we went in, captured the enemy capital and occupied the country.  Just like with the Civil War, we'll just omit the fact that we then encountered an indigenous insurrection against our occupation, that in due course the American people got tired of subsidizing an occupation against that insurgency, that in the course of the occupation we managed to oversee the creation of a terrorist organization that would bedevil us for decades, and that for good measure on the way out, we betrayed our allies and left them to the tender mercies of the people we had been fighting together.

 

But I digress.  Where was I?

 

Oh, yes--the political violence of the turn of the Century.  It was all fueled by (1) gross income and wealth inequality, (2) a corrupt ruling class that disfranchised the majority, and (3) the inability of our purportedly democratic institutions to handle the conflict.  Sound familiar?

That era was only brought to an end by the New Deal/Post WWII creation of the modern bureaucratic state, which managed to channel and regularize political discourse and greatly reduced income/wealth inequality.  But this is the exact thing SCOTUS and the GOP are trying to tear down.

So what they're going to do is reinstitute the environment that led to the political violence of that earlier era.  And I suspect we're going to see a return of that violence.  I absolutely think we're going to see assassinations.  It's virtually impossible to assassinate the president; it'd actually be quite easy to assassinate a supreme court justice.  Or a senator.  Or, for that matter, a mayor or district attorney.

Shit sucked in the 1910s.  It's about to suck again.

[Lurch 5951]

In my high school sports days, we were required to pray. Admittedly I never saw anyone attempt to refuse but anyone in that environment knows that questioning the coach carried some risk.
As one of the non-religious kids, I basically has to learn the Lord’s Prayer as the coach would randomly call on someone to lead the team. This was pre-internet and wasn’t easy to learn in my house. I had to pay attention and quickly memorize it. I’m not even sure I ever paid attention to the meaning because it was only about getting through the moment.
I also believe there were a few asst coaches who could care less about the prayer but it was part of their gig.

We did too. ‘88-90 in Spring TX. I always thought it was weird because I’m pretty sure most of us were Baptist and we didn’t do the whole Lord’s Prayer at church. Many of my relatives strongly believed Catholics weren’t even real Christians. I know I sure as fuck wasn’t having that conversation with our head coach though, so I just mumbled through it with everyone else while doing that whole head-bowed-but-eyes-looking-around thing

[DDD Dad 14665]

54 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Yeah--that's bullshit.  And you wanna know how I know?  Just go to a Michigan-Notre Dame game.  People really reveal who they are when football is the backdrop--witness the innumerable cries of "tackle that n-----" you'll hear at many a Texas high school football game.  In any event, you go to a Michigan-Notre Dame game, and you'll see that nasty Upper Midwest anti-Catholicism on full display.

Yeah, man--there's plenty of real hatred for flesh-and-blood Catholics in this country.

But let's talk about the 1920s and the KKK, since your raise it . . . .

During the two or three decades on either side of the turn of the Century, this country experienced a real spasm of political violence.  Part of it was along the same lines as that seen across Europe at the same time, when numerous political leaders were assassinated by anarchists (e.g., Tsar Alexander II, Empress Elizabeth of Austria) and nationalists (e.g., Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Jean Jaures). 

America had that same batch of political assassinations (e.g., Presidents Lincoln and McKinley).  And aside from the targeted assassinations, we also had a bunch of bombings (e.g., the Wall Street Bombing).  But, this being America, we also had to add on the layer of race-based political violence, ranging from the political terrorism of the KKK to the Tulsa Race Massacre.

Nobody in America remembers that shit.  You maybe remember from some paragraph in a high-school history textbook the names "Sacco & Vanzetti."  But what did they do?  Does anybody remember?

Does anybody remember that McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist?  Or that anarchists blew up Wall Street in 1920?  Or that the Attorney General's house in Washington was blown up in 1919?

Fuck no--because we Americans are really good at telling stories about ourselves, but very bad at remembering our actual history.  Like, we'll tell ourselves that the North won the Civil War.  Much like in a hundred years we'll say that we won the war in Iraq because we went in, captured the enemy capital and occupied the country.  Just like with the Civil War, we'll just omit the fact that we then encountered an indigenous insurrection against our occupation, that in due course the American people got tired of subsidizing an occupation against that insurgency, that in the course of the occupation we managed to oversee the creation of a terrorist organization that would bedevil us for decades, and that for good measure on the way out, we betrayed our allies and left them to the tender mercies of the people we had been fighting together.

 

But I digress.  Where was I?

 

Oh, yes--the political violence of the turn of the Century.  It was all fueled by (1) gross income and wealth inequality, (2) a corrupt ruling class that disfranchised the majority, and (3) the inability of our purportedly democratic institutions to handle the conflict.  Sound familiar?

That era was only brought to an end by the New Deal/Post WWII creation of the modern bureaucratic state, which managed to channel and regularize political discourse and greatly reduced income/wealth inequality.  But this is the exact thing SCOTUS and the GOP are trying to tear down.

So what they're going to do is reinstitute the environment that led to the political violence of that earlier era.  And I suspect we're going to see a return of that violence.  I absolutely think we're going to see assassinations.  It's virtually impossible to assassinate the president; it'd actually be quite easy to assassinate a supreme court justice.  Or a senator.  Or, for that matter, a mayor or district attorney.

Shit sucked in the 1910s.  It's about to suck again.

You sound like a papist.

[Pancho 46380]

I remember creating a thread on Shaggy several years ago asking why we are having religion shoved down our throats by the radical rights, and I was reprimanded for saying that as most posters believed I was overreacting.

 

[David Dennison 19571]

3 minutes ago, Lurch said:

We did too. ‘88-90 in Spring TX. I always thought it was weird because I’m pretty sure most of us were Baptist and we didn’t do the whole Lord’s Prayer at church. Many of my relatives strongly believed Catholics weren’t even real Christians. I know I sure as fuck wasn’t having that conversation with our head coach though, so I just mumbled through it with everyone else while doing that whole head-bowed-but-eyes-looking-around thing

I find this to be oddly hilarious.

[Pods 7638]

2 minutes ago, Pancho said:

I remember creating a thread on Shaggy several years ago asking why we are having religion shoved down our throats by the radical rights, and I was reprimanded for saying that as most posters believed I was overreaction.

 

Yep. Lots of 'overreaction' actually turned out to be under reaction. Normalcy bias is a fucking bitch. 

[SmokeyTheBear 5569]

14 minutes ago, Pods said:

Yep. Lots of 'overreaction' actually turned out to be under reaction. Normalcy bias is a fucking bitch. 

And this is just the beginning ..... So that's fun

[F250 29210]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Plus, all Protestant sins are venial.

Something like that. It's a pretty weird position too. I have a similar criticism of the Star Wars saga. Anakin is a psychopathic murderer but after a single act of penance he gets to be a Force Ghost? That doesn't make sense.

[Dnaguy 12724]

5 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

How have I never seen this scene / movie?!?

The only thing that I know of it is that it was filmed at Alamo Heights high school.

I mean, that was glorious!

[Gap03 3396]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

It's virtually impossible to assassinate the president; it'd actually be quite easy to assassinate a supreme court justice.  Or a senator.  Or, for that matter, a mayor or district attorney.

Before someone loses their shit, of course, I'm just kidding - although it's frustrating as hell that the newly appointed regressionist arm of the USSC was installed through utter chicanery and may be serving for another 30+ years with no fucking consequences for the utter bullshit they spewed as part of their confirmations and the utter disdain for precedent and historical Supreme Court practice.  

[F250 29210]

9 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

How have I never seen this scene / movie?!?

The only thing that I know of it is that it was filmed at Alamo Heights high school.

I mean, that was glorious!

Some of it was filmed at Jeff too.

[chainsaw 10313]

2 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

Before someone loses their shit, of course, I'm just kidding - although it's frustrating as hell that the newly appointed regressionist arm of the USSC was installed through utter chicanery and may be serving for another 30+ years with no fucking consequences for the utter bullshit they spewed as part of their confirmations and the utter disdain for precedent and historical Supreme Court practice.  

That's basically how stochastic terrorism works. There's 350 million people in the US at any given moment, and a large percentage of them are able bodied and over the age of 14. A large percentage of those people are broke as hell, and a large percentage of those people who are broke as hell are also at the end of their rope.

That's anywhere from 100,000 to 5,000,000 people who are like undetonated land mines, and all they need is the wrong message at the wrong time. Mix in some mental illness and some access to things they absolutely should not have access to, and you get kidnapping plots and other harebrained attempts to overthrow the government.

Most of these will be unsuccessful, but every now and then these people succeed. Most of it you see from the far right, but there's no reason to think stochastic terror is a tactic that belongs exclusively to them. I think back in the 70s and 80s some radical left groups engaged in that sort of stuff too.

But as we get more divided, I believe you'll see more sophistication in these tactics. Especially if you're dealing with people who saw action in Iraq and Afghanistan (real action, not cushy desk jobs).

[Lurch 5951]

I find this to be oddly hilarious.

Yeah. It’s pretty fucked up.

[Grade of D as in David 13256]

3 hours ago, Dutchrudder said:

Is it normal for the SCOTUS to trickle out decisions like this?  

With prostates that old I'd be surprised if they can do anything other than trickle. 

[WhatTheBuck 28942]

8 hours ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Why does this dude have to pray at the 50 yard line?

Looks like there are players from both teams involved.

I don’t have a problem with the practice. It should be non-denominational, open to players of all faiths, totally voluntary, and the coach shouldn’t be leading it. 

[Dnaguy 12724]

2 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

It's virtually impossible to assassinate the president; it'd actually be quite easy to assassinate a supreme court justice.  Or a senator.  Or, for that matter, a mayor or district attorney.

So in the 2020 adaption, it’s the male, Liberty University student who uncovers the plot to swing the court?! I like it… but what do we call it….
 

The Telamon Brief.

Staring Dean Cain …. With lots of makeup … as a 24 year old Dylan Wade.

Dylan uncovers a sinister plot in which George Soros assassinates Alito and  Thomas to ensure that the court can be re liberaled while an aging and unpopular Biden can still nominate two solid liberal justices. 
With the help of the Washington Examiner reporter  Stephanie Heller, played by Stacey Dash, Dylan is able to expose this terrible ploy.

Also starting Kid Rock as Hunter Biden.

[chainsaw 10313]

2 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

So in the 2020 adaption, it’s the male, Liberty University student who uncovers the plot to swing the court?! I like it… but what do we call it….
 

The Telamon Brief.

Staring Dean Cain …. With lots of makeup … as a 24 year old Dylan Wade.

Dylan uncovers a sinister plot in which George Soros assassinates Alito and  Thomas to ensure that the court can be re liberaled while an aging and unpopular Biden can still nominate two solid liberal justices. 
With the help of the Washington Examiner reporter  Stephanie Heller, played by Stacey Dash, Dylan is able to expose this terrible ploy.

Also starting Kid Rock as Hunter Biden.

Don't forget Gina Carano star of Little Ben Shapiro On The Prairie

[Ghost of LL 15705]

2 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

You sound like a papist.

Not anymore.

I listened to the Cathedral ring its bells for a fucking hour on Friday.  I've seen the inside of a Catholic church in this country for the last time.

[chainsaw 10313]

12 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Not anymore.

I listened to the Cathedral ring its bells for a fucking hour on Friday.  I've seen the inside of a Catholic church in this country for the last time.

I can excuse pedophilia but I draw the line at celebrating the overturn of Roe v. Wade

[Macklemore 2946]

3 hours ago, Pancho said:

I remember creating a thread on Shaggy several years ago asking why we are having religion shoved down our throats by the radical rights, and I was reprimanded for saying that as most posters believed I was overreacting.

 

A coach exercising his right to free exercise by praying on the field after a game is “having religion shoved down our throats by the radical rights”?  Quoting the WSJ EB:

“The Roberts Court’s religious liberty rulings don’t risk any state establishment of religion. But they do let Americans of faith express their views—as the Founders intended.”

French laïcité is not the law of our land.

 

Edited June 28, 2022 by Macklemore

[David Dennison 19571]

6 minutes ago, Macklemore said:

A coach exercising his right to free exercise by praying on the field after a game is “having religion shoved down our throats by the radical rights”?  Quoting the WSJ EB:

“The Roberts Court’s religious liberty rulings don’t risk any state establishment of religion. But they do let Americans of faith express their views—as the Founders intended.”

French laïcité is not the law of our land.

 

So you're completely down with a non-Christian coach leading his or her team in a non-Christian prayer on the regular?

[brakeman 28769]

 

🎶 YOUR LAWS AIN’T SHIT. YOU CAN’T FIND THE CLIT. 🎶

 

 

[Dnaguy 12724]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So you're completely down with a non-Christian coach leading his or her team in a non-Christian prayer on the regular?

Friday Night lights!

 

[NWBuck 8631]

I've been following this case since it started (even teaching about it in graduate Education classes)... the "retaliate against players who didn't join him" is news to me. It wasn't covered in any of the newspapers or other stories written about it (and we're not exactly conservative friendly here in Seattle), it didn't show up in any of the previous court case details that I can recall. Can someone point me to something substantive? 

The court decision is still wrong- case that was open and shut all across the nation, even was denied a SCOTUS hearing on one other occasion. When this first came to light, the district offered him a place to pray in private (accommodating his freedom of religion) and even told him he could pray on the field after everyone had left (and he was heading home) if he wished. He initially accepted the offer of privacy until a conservative legal group stepped in and offered to represent him.

This may have been covered as well- but a number of community members were also "concerned" when a group of Satanists showed up at the game to support him (and, therefore, their right to be on the field after games as well).

Like I said- the decision was a bad one.

Edited June 28, 2022 by NWBuck

[Macklemore 2946]

13 hours ago, David Dennison said:

So you're completely down with a non-Christian coach leading his or her team in a non-Christian prayer on the regular?

Yes, that is free exercise. There is no actual evidence of coercion of players by this coach in the record. That is merely supposition.

[SmokeyTheBear 5569]

5 minutes ago, Macklemore said:

Yes, that is free exercise. There is no actual evidence of coercion of players by this coach in the record. That is merely supposition.

And yet you railed against the idea of CRT with no evidence of it being taught anywhere of concern. 

[Js1 87306]

25 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

And yet you railed against the idea of CRT with no evidence of it being taught anywhere of concern. 

Making up facts?  Macklemore is Gorsuch? 

[Macklemore 2946]

25 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

And yet you railed against the idea of CRT with no evidence of it being taught anywhere of concern. 

Wrong - claiming that there isn’t a legitimate concern by parents of what is being taught at a grade school level doesn’t let the technical, academic definition of CRT used at the university level - satisfying @Pancho’s criteria is an attempt to skirt the issue. Lumping all white people as being oppressors or the the founding and independence of this country was founded on slavery and teaching that in grade school is the problem-call that whatever you wish.

[TwiceHorn 32113]

10 minutes ago, Macklemore said:

Wrong - claiming that there isn’t a legitimate concern by parents of what is being taught at a grade school level doesn’t let the technical, academic definition of CRT used at the university level - satisfying @Pancho’s criteria is an attempt to skirt the issue. Lumping all white people as being oppressors or the the founding and independence of this country was founded on slavery and teaching that in grade school is the problem-call that whatever you wish.

Except that's not what they're doing.  They're being led by the nose by Rufo to believe that the most extreme forms of CRT are being taught at early levels of education.

When you call what is being taught something other than CRT, something more accurate, the argument loses most of its force.  Parents are objecting, for the most part, to the teaching of the racial history of the United States.

Critical Race Theory is an actual thing about which reasonable minds can differ.  The term doesn't apply to every teaching or discussion of the grim racial history of the US.

Edited June 28, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[SmokeyTheBear 5569]

6 minutes ago, Macklemore said:

Wrong - claiming that there isn’t a legitimate concern by parents of what is being taught at a grade school level doesn’t let the technical, academic definition of CRT used at the university level - satisfying @Pancho’s criteria is an attempt to skirt the issue. Lumping all white people as being oppressors or the the founding and independence of this country was founded on slavery and teaching that in grade school is the problem-call that whatever you wish.

You STILL don't know what CRT is. 

 

Also since you brought it up before but didn't address my question, what is it you consider the "new right"? You said you embody it. What is it? What are the principles that guide it? 

[TwiceHorn 32113]

6 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

You STILL don't know what CRT is. 

 

Also since you brought it up before but didn't address my question, what is it you consider the "new right"? You said you embody it. What is it? What are the principles that guide it? 

Basically Christofascism.  That all of America's problems will be solved if we just make everyone more Christian and white-like.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Good_Constitutionalism

Edited June 28, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[SmokeyTheBear 5569]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Basically Christofascism.  That all of America's problems will be solved if we just make everyone more Christian and white-like.

Oh I'm aware, I just want to see what they think it is. 

[sidis 10020]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Basically Christofascism.  That all of America's problems will be solved if we just make everyone more Christian and white-like.

in all honesty, some of america's problems would probably be better if we occasionally did act like some parts of the new testament espoused for us to be...it is just too bad that christofascists have no interest in any of that. 

 

16 minutes ago, Macklemore said:

Wrong - claiming that there isn’t a legitimate concern by parents of what is being taught at a grade school level doesn’t let the technical, academic definition of CRT used at the university level - satisfying @Pancho’s criteria is an attempt to skirt the issue. Lumping all white people as being oppressors or the the founding and independence of this country was founded on slavery and teaching that in grade school is the problem-call that whatever you wish.

i can't believe someone that was idiotic enough actually believe this would be able to find their way to this site and actually be technically capable of registering a handle on this site...much less twice.  seems more like someone who would want to find chinese restaurants on montrose where jewish girls in jimmy choos reading the financial times would go eat.

[jimmyjazz 47348]

21 minutes ago, Macklemore said:

Wrong - claiming that there isn’t a legitimate concern by parents of what is being taught at a grade school level doesn’t let the technical, academic definition of CRT used at the university level - satisfying @Pancho’s criteria is an attempt to skirt the issue. Lumping all white people as being oppressors or the the founding and independence of this country was founded on slavery and teaching that in grade school is the problem-call that whatever you wish.

And here we go again.  You simply have to be trolling.  There is no way a normal intelligent adult would encounter significant contradictory pushback to their established position, over and over again, and not think "hmmm, they might have a point, maybe I should dig in a bit more and see if what they're saying is true".

[Chad Fuck 18168]

5 minutes ago, sidis said:

in all honesty, some of america's problems would probably be better if we occasionally did act like some parts of the new testament espoused for us to be...it is just too bad that christofascists have no interest in any of that. 

 

i can't believe someone that was idiotic enough actually believe this would be able to find their way to this site and actually be technically capable of registering a handle on this site...much less twice.  seems more like someone who would want to find chinese restaurants on montrose where jewish girls in jimmy choos reading the financial times would go eat.

Tell me more about this oddly specific reference.

[sidis 10020]

25 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Tell me more about this oddly specific reference.

honestly, it's a mash up of some of his greatest hits.

icono once posted a request for recommendations on an upscale chinese restaurant to dine on xmas eve in houston and in describing what he was looking for...without an ounce of irony or sarcasm, described it as one of those places that jewish girls go with really fancy heels in that semi-autistic way that only icono and wulaw can.

if you aren't familiar with the gloriousness of icono's infamous black people reading the financial times classic, then you sir are not worthy of the elite hornfans to shaggy to surly veteran member esteem in which i previously held you.

Edited June 28, 2022 by sidis

[Chad Fuck 18168]

honestly, it's a mash up of some of his greatest hits.
icono once posted a request for recommendations on an upscale chinese restaurant to dine on xmas eve in houston and in describing what he was looking for...without an ounce of irony or sarcasm, described what he was looking for as one of those places that jewish girls go with really fancy heels in that semi-autistic way that only icono and wulaw can.
if you aren't familiar with the gloriousness of icono's infamous black people reading the financial times classic, then you sir are not worthy of the elite hornfans to shaggy to surly veteran member esteem in which i previously held you.

I recall the FT reference. Clearly I missed out on Jews in Jimmy Choos.

[LCHorn 2751]

18 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Yeah--that's bullshit.  And you wanna know how I know?  Just go to a Michigan-Notre Dame game.  People really reveal who they are when football is the backdrop--witness the innumerable cries of "tackle that n-----" you'll hear at many a Texas high school football game.  In any event, you go to a Michigan-Notre Dame game, and you'll see that nasty Upper Midwest anti-Catholicism on full display.

Yeah, man--there's plenty of real hatred for flesh-and-blood Catholics in this country.

But let's talk about the 1920s and the KKK, since your raise it . . . .

During the two or three decades on either side of the turn of the Century, this country experienced a real spasm of political violence.  Part of it was along the same lines as that seen across Europe at the same time, when numerous political leaders were assassinated by anarchists (e.g., Tsar Alexander II, Empress Elizabeth of Austria) and nationalists (e.g., Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Jean Jaures). 

America had that same batch of political assassinations (e.g., Presidents Lincoln and McKinley).  And aside from the targeted assassinations, we also had a bunch of bombings (e.g., the Wall Street Bombing).  But, this being America, we also had to add on the layer of race-based political violence, ranging from the political terrorism of the KKK to the Tulsa Race Massacre.

Nobody in America remembers that shit.  You maybe remember from some paragraph in a high-school history textbook the names "Sacco & Vanzetti."  But what did they do?  Does anybody remember?

Does anybody remember that McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist?  Or that anarchists blew up Wall Street in 1920?  Or that the Attorney General's house in Washington was blown up in 1919?

Fuck no--because we Americans are really good at telling stories about ourselves, but very bad at remembering our actual history.  Like, we'll tell ourselves that the North won the Civil War.  Much like in a hundred years we'll say that we won the war in Iraq because we went in, captured the enemy capital and occupied the country.  Just like with the Civil War, we'll just omit the fact that we then encountered an indigenous insurrection against our occupation, that in due course the American people got tired of subsidizing an occupation against that insurgency, that in the course of the occupation we managed to oversee the creation of a terrorist organization that would bedevil us for decades, and that for good measure on the way out, we betrayed our allies and left them to the tender mercies of the people we had been fighting together.

 

But I digress.  Where was I?

 

Oh, yes--the political violence of the turn of the Century.  It was all fueled by (1) gross income and wealth inequality, (2) a corrupt ruling class that disfranchised the majority, and (3) the inability of our purportedly democratic institutions to handle the conflict.  Sound familiar?

That era was only brought to an end by the New Deal/Post WWII creation of the modern bureaucratic state, which managed to channel and regularize political discourse and greatly reduced income/wealth inequality.  But this is the exact thing SCOTUS and the GOP are trying to tear down.

So what they're going to do is reinstitute the environment that led to the political violence of that earlier era.  And I suspect we're going to see a return of that violence.  I absolutely think we're going to see assassinations.  It's virtually impossible to assassinate the president; it'd actually be quite easy to assassinate a supreme court justice.  Or a senator.  Or, for that matter, a mayor or district attorney.

Shit sucked in the 1910s.  It's about to suck again.

It’s funny, I was having a similar thought and intended to start a thread on “what comes next.”  Someone described Ukraine as a country with free elections/high corruption and that creates specific governance problems (you have to be corrupt to provide any sort of governance AND it increases the the stakes for losing an election because the other side is also corrupt AND because the elections are relatively free there’s also a high likelihood of losing).  
 

It would seem the same thing is happening in the US.  For example, if the Supreme Court is going to act as de facto rulers and the only way to effectively seat one is for another to die then it sure seems like assassination is a lot cheaper than buying an election.  
 

This is also why I think the Democrats should be singularly minded on election and civil rights reforms for what little time is left before the next election.  
 

There’s a 538 article I haven’t finished reading about “what caused Jan 6th?”but one piece from the beginning that was novel was that political scientists are fixated on partisanship as the source of our current governance problems when they should be focused on the fact that both sides are so angry (I.e., we’re living in an environment of high agitation broadly).  
 

I also think social media is 50% of the problem (kind of like calvary in WW I, our tactics haven’t kept up with technology/Boomers lose their minds with social media).  As the olds die things will improve, or at least that’s where I hold out hope.