auburnatl1

29 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Then why do people insist on bringing religion into politics?  A Christain doesn’t have to defend their choices in politics and/or the non-religious should not insist that they do.

IMO the gospels make it pretty clear about political activism.  And I think some fear a Caliphate mentality. However, youre asking a fair question that’s worth discussing. 

2 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

Not every Catholic agrees with you. For sure most of my Catholic friends and neighbors don't.

DC's Cardinal Gregory criticizes Biden's 'cafeteria' Catholicism | National Catholic Reporter (ncronline.org)

Biden is is obviously not in alignment with some of Catholicism’s doctrine - but are you seriously gonna try to do the equate thing? My 2 cents - bail quick.

4 minutes ago, alanevans said:

Joe Biden is a committed Catholic Christian. Who’s true to his wife and is a decent man

Barack Obama is a Christian. Who’s true to his wife and is a decent man.

Mike Pence is a Christian. Who’s true to his wife and is a decent man.

Donald Trump is by no means any kind of Christian and has cheated flagrantly on all of his three wives, two of which were essentially Europian rentals.

How anyone could possibly think of voting for that man and claiming it is faith based is beyond me 

The quote I’ve heard is “he’s a flawed instrument of God” ( I wont repeat again Jesus’ instruction about avoiding getting involved in politics).

Is what it is.

33 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

100%wrong! I voted for Desantis.

The point was no one will admit voting for Trump in the primaries.  If you’re saying you didn’t as well - the great mystery of how he curb stomped everyone else with no one actually voting for him  continues.

1 hour ago, alanevans said:

Most of you Trumpist “Christians” follow Supply Side Jesus

And the heck with that pacifist turn the other cheek stuff.

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

"still at it"??  

I am simply posting and Salty responded (in his typically vague way). 

I'm not calling anyone out. 

Heck, I'm not even arguing with because I don't understand his argument - other than it has something to do with the bible.

Well no one will ever fault you for not being persistent. I’m still betting Salty is taking you to weekly Bible study by Labor Day.

8 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

One of the great mysteries of the ages.  Millions of people overwhelmingly voted for Trump over Desantis and Haley - and no one will admit to it. No one.

So now it’s they really dont want to vote for Trump, but darn it they just have to because of Biden….

As has been mentioned many times, convenient that people always compare Trump to Biden but it was crickets during the primaries. In fact I havent found anyone who will admit they passed on Desantis or the other non completely sociopathic options.  Even though he won at over 60%. 

Again - at least man up, it’s not about Biden - never was, and own the trumpism.

7 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

But go nuts at what, exactly?

One of the selling points of federalism is having 50 laboratories to try things out and see what works and what may be adapted elsewhere. We’ve long thought that other countries should be more like us— and for years we had processes and approaches that others adapted. It’s obviously overly simplistic to expect a huge, diverse country with our history to adopt broad wholesale changes overnight based on much smaller, homogeneous countries, but I often see these countries dismissed out of hand with little (and usually no) analysis which seems unwise and counterproductive. I’m always curious about what other organizations (and in this case countries) do well and what can be learned.

A few years ago conservative social media went crazy over a report that McDonald’s paid $20 an hour in Denmark. It was broadly panned as “socialism” run amok and paying low skill menial labor too much. Then we soon after reached the conclusion such labor is “essential.”

I revisited Denmark shortly after and was curious about the McDonald’s. Visited a few different venues. Most efficient, well-run McDonalds I’d ever visited and the prices were pretty in line with ours. Even an attractive “value menu.” Employees were sharp, friendly, fast-moving and looked like folks who could work in any office. What’s the problem? Why the derision?

When certain countries consistently report the highest level of life satisfaction, surely they are worth examining for possible improvements, aren’t they?

Of course. Personal observation - to support it the indigenous culture must be rule of law oriented at a personal level (such as Scandinavia) or strong government models inherently corrupt, go kick back/ bribe crazy,  and becomes unworkable  (ie Russia, Latin America, Africa, SE Asia). Even French culture often struggles with this (ie Haiti and even historically New Orleans).

My only point is you’re suggesting a very nuanced and sophisticated model that is highly dependent on an educated and rule of law-based society. The US is such a cultural  hodgepodge, I’m not sure.

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

I don’t think we become Denmark for many reasons. But I see most people mischaracterizing “European socialism,” so I was wondering what your specific issues are with it. The stores and malls I visited were higher end than most here, well stocked and doing brisk business. The airports are much nicer. Even a country like Portugal, I’ve seen food courts in department stores that were mind blowing. Most Americans criticizing it have no clue, but I know you do— thus my question.

Scale, diversity, culture (US is WAY more about individualism and many currently distrust gov running things at any level), international role,  tax shock - many American would go nuts. Pretty different.

If your point is only about their healthcare system - maybe.  Though given the current debt the timing could be better.

Nonetheless,  you have fair point to challenge the status quo. 

17 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Oil and gas are trying to toe the line. The only reason they're finally somewhat vested in green energy is because public opinion has reached a point where it was advantageous for them to do so. Big oil was balls-to-the-wall against climate science at the start. Most of the misinformation that's still circulated today came from those industries paying PhDs to denounce climate scientists. Exxon's own scientists knew for years what was coming, but execs suppressed it.

Sounds very similar to big tobacco, doesn't it?

The ironic thing is, if those companies had simply begun investing early in green energy R&D themselves, they could be reaping the benefits now. 

 

 

Respectfully, what is green energy at scale?ie EVs simply move the carbon footprint from the car to the power plant - and unless theyre nuclear or hydro….  Do you advocate doing the French approach of promotion nuclear fission plants? Solar (which in many areas is problematic)?  

I haven’t read the current thinking on the “how’s”, but even after you get past the denialists, worrying about China and coal, ect - just us - what technology do we utilize. Obviously when and if fusion becomes a reality, I get it, but until then what is the current thinking on how to actually achieve this?

13 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Let’s take Denmark, for example— what do you like? Take issue with?

Dear lord not the Scandinavian counties again😇  I understand your point, I love Copenhagen (but translating that to the US…), and we agree the Dems have a potential opportunity. 

21 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Bernie hit a chord in 2016– on progressive economics with little mention of identity politics. If democrats could hone that message they’d get a lot more traction.

As has been mentioned before, there is current vacuum on economic ideology  - with both sides almost fixated on social issues.  While I disagree with Bernie’s  European socialism, a lot, I agree that there is an opportunity for Dems to reengage with labor along these lines. Beyond grade school protectionism/tariffing - maga has no clue or message on this dinner table topic.  

8 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Sad. Also tribal. And that’s a change from 40 years ago.

IMO discussing gun control on a site anchored in southern culture makes climate or the deficit debates look like bickering over the best cake recipe.

11 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

And if the American society is fine with it, what’s the problem?

Interesting point.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/513623/majority-continues-favor-stricter-gun-laws.aspx

7 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

This. When I was young, folks had guns, but few had gun fetishes. Gun fetishes are common now.

I was in a small town in Ga once with a group of poorer folks. Some were talking to me and worrying if they afford feeding their kids. And then a couple of them proudly showed me their new high end Glocks and Barettas they had just bought earlier at a gun show. Probably several weeks salary.

For them it wasn’t cultural, it was almost primal.

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

Back to blaming the gun?  If our law and order process is OK with the current situation, we have evidently settled on 20,000 a year in gun homicides as an acceptable number.  If we refuse to clean up the crime, for whatever reason, it will not improve.

That blame thing again.

All countries have crime and bad people. It’s the species. Again, what’s the difference in the US? Hating the answer is fine, but it’s still the answer.

34 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I don’t have a solution, but just blaming the gun is the easy way out.  Any, you’re right, it would take a concerted effort that would last a long time.  The entertainment industry would have to be fully on board.

Theres no doubt people pull the trigger but unless you’ve figured out mind reading and who’s prone to bad decisions, that’s problematic (unless someone already has a history).  Step 1: let’s be honest and practical. Fundamentally - how much  power, lethal tech, and  kill scale do you want to give to a diverse society?  And on top of it, high powered guns have become so cultural they’ve become adult cuddle toys for many.  

Again, it’s simple, look at the murder rate stats - facts and numbers are hard to argue away - what’s the only thing different between the US and the other 1st world countries? Hint - it ain’t the species.  

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

First, the bible is not needed to understand fear.

I am (obviously) referring to the fear of death, which serves a basic evolutionary purpose, as well as fueling the desire to believe otherwise, such as in religious myth/superstition.

I thought it rather obvious, even to those who think differently.

Are you and Salty stlll at it?  Great minds of science and religion can figure out common ground. 

2 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

There are no easy answers to this situation.   The restrictions to a law abiding citizen’s is a no deal for me.   

And yet you accept speed limits/restrictions without question . Again, imo - it’s a deeply cultural and passionate subject.  But hopefully people can at least learn to discuss it without going friggin nuts - on both sides.

11 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

So, how do we get through to the criminals that using a gun in the furtherance of a crime should carry a stiff sentence without sacrificing the rights of the people? 

IMO you’ve asked the right question - how do you demilitarize the bad guys while limiting the impact to the good guys.   Especially with the amount of guns and ammo already in circulation. How’s are always harder than what’s.  Honestly I don’t know and it’d probably take decades - you’d probably have better solutions than me.

My only point was when you have a murder rate like ours  it’s ok to at least ask some fundamental questions. Is what we’re doing getting us what we want? There has to be a middle ground.

4 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

I’m not a stat expert… but what is the number of deaths from vehicles in a year compared to gun deaths?

Roughly equal.

https://everytownresearch.org/graph/gun-death-vs-motor-vehicle-accident-deaths-since-1999/

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

A religion based on such superstitious fear is a non-starter for me.

In terms of Christianity, it basically undermines or devalues everything else Jesus taught IMO.  Those values naturally become secondary to the formal acceptance of it, as so many self-defined Christians demonstrate. 

I get it. We disagree.

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

What?  What machine/activity doesn’t demand perfection if you are going to perform at a high level?  Automobiles accounted for 42,900 deaths in 2021, gun deaths for the same year was 48,800 and over half of those were suicides.  

The difference is Americans are required to take a driver’s test (or at least they used to) to qualify for a driver’s license and we all know how much experience that give you for every driving.

People who own guns are not required to have instructions.  Like anything, if you want to improve your skills, you take lessons.

If only there were no bad guys, but there are.  I don’t think the average home owner amps up his defense of his home based on what the bad guys have.  If they have an AR-15, for example, its probably because it is fun to shoot at the range.

The most popular gun for thieve’s is a hand gun.

Keep focusing on the gun.  You’re playing into the libs hands.

Yep, the libs have got me right where they want me. 

Again, risk/reward, and cars are the perfect comparison. Is the contribution/value worth the  death from human  error that they cause? (The risk is lessened from speed limits,  insurance, duis, ect).  Societies have studied the question and said yes - worth it.  Same with alcohol, ect. Adult discussions

Guns are no different.  Is it worth it and with what limitations?  It’s a valid topic. Whats concerning is some people are so closed minded that they’re terrified to even ask the question and start doing a conservative compliance test

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Franklin specialized in condemning Jews to hell or anyone else who didn't accept Jesus as their savior.   I heard it first hand on one of his radio shows.

Saving yourself from eternal hell was a major theme with both of them - and evangelicals in general for that matter.

 

“The only way to the father is through me” (various nuance translations on this). The question has always been does that mean in his teachings (ie the golden rule) or in the belief that he is divine.  Obviously Franklin went with the later and in his world the Jews have a… problem. Ps it’s a common belief (yes I have problem with it). Ie cs Lewis (ie narnia) also believed this and in his children’s books he made it pretty clear.