It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
CampeadorYou leftists take the bait so damn easily,
And the ever so predictable leftists are out in front of Trump Tower burning American flags. We all knew that you hate your own country, but you don't have to keep making it so damn obvious.
Why do you think that people who oppose trump outlawing burning the flag don't oppose Hillary doing the same thing, any logical person would think otherwise.
philipcWhy do you think that people who oppose trump outlawing burning the flag don't oppose Hillary doing the same thing, any logical person would think otherwise.
“Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they’re so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact.”
*Nominee. No member of the military within the past 7 years can serve as SoD. It needs to get past a federal law, Congress has only allowed it to happen once.
Not sure why you're happy either. He won't advocate for reneging on the Iran deal, he is pro-NATO, is anti-torture, wants better relations with civilians in war zones, isn't anti-Muslim in the slightest (he is anti-political Islam which is entirely different, and yes they are different), and generally is rather level headed.
.MASSHOLE.isn't anti-Muslim in the slightest (he is anti-political Islam which is entirely different, and yes they are different)\.
You read that entire Slate profile? Not bad. (Unless of course you did not)
I do like this quote though,
“You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually it’s quite fun to fight them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right up there with you. I like brawling.”
Go ahead and try to explain the difference between "Islam" and "political Islam".
CampeadorYou read that entire Slate profile? Not bad. (Unless of course you did not)
I do like this quote though,
“You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually it’s quite fun to fight them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right up there with you. I like brawling.”
Go ahead and try to explain the difference between "Islam" and "political Islam".
In your own words please.
Islam: the religion based around the religious texts of Muhammad's life and lifestyle.
political Islam: the use of Islamic beliefs as a basis of law and politics. Call the followers Islamists.
Rather simple. Not sure why I need to break that down. You can be a follower of Islam and not believe in political Islam (like many Muslims) but you cannot be a believe of political Islam and not be a member of the Islamic religion.
CampeadorAnd secondly, isn't it like midnight in your timezone?
.MASSHOLE.Islam: the religion based around the religious texts of Muhammad's life and lifestyle.
And that excludes Sharia in what way, exactly?
Is Sharia not the very definition of "political Islam"?
Not to mention, Mohammed's "life and lifestyle" were pretty fucked up. His present-day equivalent wouldn't be very different from Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
CampeadorAnd that excludes Sharia in what way, exactly?
Is Sharia not the very definition of "political Islam"?
Not to mention, Mohammed's "life and lifestyle" were pretty fucked up. His present-day equivalent wouldn't be very different from Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
So no Muslims believe in a separation of church and state? Interesting...
CampeadorAnd that excludes Sharia in what way, exactly?
Is Sharia not the very definition of "political Islam"?
Not to mention, Mohammed's "life and lifestyle" were pretty fucked up. His present-day equivalent wouldn't be very different from Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Because being Islamic =/= belief in all of Islamic texts.
Just like being a Christian =/= belief in all of the the Bible's teachings.
One can pick and chose which aspects of the religion they like/believe in and follow those. I know this is hard for you to comprehend, this is about the 5th time I've had to break this down to you.
Sharia is one aspect of Political Islam, but it does not dictate who rules (democracy, authoritarian, republic, etc) or which beliefs will rule (Salafists vs. Modernists).
Except in present-day this is not acceptable, in the time of Muhammad it was. If you want to hold the majority of rulers in the pre-18th century world to today's standards you would have a hard time finding someone who did not do something utterly reprehensible.
But this is why being Islamic =/= Islamist. A Muslim who is not an Islamist will acknowledge that Muhammad lived in a different time and some of his actions are not applicable to present day situations while an Islamist, especially a Salafist, will view them as acceptable and applicable to current day situations.
CampeadorJudging by the laws of Islamic countries around the globe, not a whole lot.
Well, the majority of our country voted for hill-dog, yet trump is the president elect. Must mean that all Americans or the vast majority support trump... lol
Ignorance is bliss, and to live in a black and white world is a simple outlook for a simple mind.
.MASSHOLE.Because being Islamic =/= belief in all of Islamic texts.
Just like being a Christian =/= belief in all of the the Bible's teachings.
One can pick and chose which aspects of the religion they like/believe in and follow those. I know this is hard for you to comprehend, this is about the 5th time I've had to break this down to you.
Sharia is one aspect of Political Islam, but it does not dictate who rules (democracy, authoritarian, republic, etc) or which beliefs will rule (Salafists vs. Modernists).
Except in present-day this is not acceptable, in the time of Muhammad it was. If you want to hold the majority of rulers in the pre-18th century world to today's standards you would have a hard time finding someone who did not do something utterly reprehensible.
But this is why being Islamic =/= Islamist. A Muslim who is not an Islamist will acknowledge that Muhammad lived in a different time and some of his actions are not applicable to present day situations while an Islamist, especially a Salafist, will view them as acceptable and applicable to current day situations.
It's called rationality.
So only Islamists attempt to emulate the example of Mohammed, there must be more of them around the globe than I thought.
Sharia is a system of laws that govern the lives of muslims in all spheres, and therefore it is entirely political in nature. Any muslim who's life is governed by Sharia is part of political Islam, regardless of the amount of Sharia they follow.
And only you would be shameless enough to defend the worship of a pedophile as "it was acceptable back then". The painful amount of contortions you have to go through to make your point must be wearing on you. It's difficult to watch.
Islamists set themselves apart only because they are more militant in their attempts to impose Sharia on non-believers, aided along by useful idiots like yourself who buy into the smoke and mirrors they feed you about the true nature of Islam.
Oh and,
"A Muslim who is not an Islamist will acknowledge that Muhammad lived in a different time and some of his actions are not applicable to present day situations"
How would you know? Find me one Muslim who condemns any action done by the prophet. They don't exist, because they'd be murdered as apostates.
californiagrownWell, the majority of our country voted for hill-dog, yet trump is the president elect. Must mean that all Americans or the vast majority support trump... lol
Ignorance is bliss, and to live in a black and white world is a simple outlook for a simple mind.
To live in your confused haze would be worse I think.
CampeadorJudging by the laws of Islamic countries around the globe, not a whole lot.
Let's do something fun. We're going to look at some Muslim countries and their judicial systems in regards to Sharia Law
Green indicates Sharia plays no role in the Judicial System
Yellow indicates Sharia plays a role in personal status issues
Purple is FULLY Sharia Law
Orange is regional variations in application.
CampeadorSo only Islamists attempt to emulate the example of Mohammed, there must be more of them around the globe than I thought.
Sharia is a system of laws that govern the lives of muslims in all spheres, and therefore it is entirely political in nature. Any muslim who's life is governed by Sharia is part of political Islam, regardless of the amount of Sharia they follow.
And only you would be shameless enough to defend the worship of a pedophile as "it was acceptable back then". The painful amount of contortions you have to go through to make your point must be wearing on you. It's difficult to watch.
Islamists set themselves apart only because they are more militant in their attempts to impose Sharia on non-believers, aided along by useful idiots like yourself who buy into the smoke and mirrors they feed you about the true nature of Islam.
Oh and,
"A Muslim who is not an Islamist will acknowledge that Muhammad lived in a different time and some of his actions are not applicable to present day situations"
How would you know? Find me one Muslim who condemns any action done by the prophet. They don't exist, because they'd be murdered as apostates.
It's called reality.
No, only Islamists believe that they should emulate EVERY action of Muhammad and his teachings.
So any Muslim who does not drink or eat pork is now an Islamist? What about those who do pray, fast, or go to Mecca? Are they Islamists? That is part of Sharia Law.
What about the Kings and Popes of old? You going to say they're innocent of this as well? I am not saying it is OK nor am I saying it excusable, but I am telling you it is not uncommon. Hell, the Renaissance art period focused on the youthful male and female.
I could find you one, but you'd say its anecdotal.
I keep thinking I've seen the stupidest of Trump, yet every week he does something new that is just astounding.
This whole conversation with the government of Taiwan (or on Taiwan if you're Chinese) just broke a fucking 37 year agreement between China and the US over "One China". The man is a fucking idiot. First he ignores intelligence briefings, then he ignores the State Dept. and fucking goes and sets up meetings with foreign governments WITH ZERO regard for any sort of international relations (fucking talking to Pakistan and backing Pakistan is a GREAT way to piss off India), and NOW THIS.
californiagrownMy haze is a loving haze of tentative curiosity. Yours is a cold haze of loneliness and fear.
To paraphrase the boss, you've ended up like a dog that's been beat too much, now you're spending half your life tryna cover it up.
Paint it any way you like in that delusional space you've got between your ears.
You're like most leftists, in a haze of cognitive dissonance, I guess you're not unlike other leftists when you call that "loving haze", although that's usually used in a different context haha
.MASSHOLE.This whole conversation with the government of Taiwan (or on Taiwan if you're Chinese) just broke a fucking 37 year agreement between China and the US over "One China". The man is a fucking idiot. First he ignores intelligence briefings, then he ignores the State Dept. and fucking goes and sets up meetings with foreign governments WITH ZERO regard for any sort of international relations (fucking talking to Pakistan and backing Pakistan is a GREAT way to piss off India), and NOW THIS.
If anyone is wondering why HE called the Taiwanese government, look no further than here.
[/url]
You keep running around in circles, finding anything you possibly can to latch onto, it's quite pathetic really.
So having a good relationship with Russia? That's bad, we need to stand up to them. Beef up the military presence of NATO on the Russian border, no cooperation in Syria.
Treating Taiwan like the actual country it is, instead of continuing to pay lip service to the communists who still act like the island belongs to the PRC?
That's bad, HO-LY SHIT!
The "One China" policy is just another leftover relic of the failed Carter administration.
Give it a rest, dude. Your hysteria is getting a little bit out of hand.
Also, for someone who essentially personifies nepotism, you sure seem to have a lot of issues with it.
CampeadorYou keep running around in circles, finding anything you possibly can to latch onto, it's quite pathetic really.
So having a good relationship with Russia? That's bad, we need to stand up to them. Beef up the military presence of NATO on the Russian border, no cooperation in Syria.
Treating Taiwan like the actual country it is, instead of continuing to pay lip service to the communists who still act like the island belongs to the PRC?
That's bad, HO-LY SHIT!
The "One China" policy is just another leftover relic of the failed Carter administration.
Give it a rest, dude. Your hysteria is getting a little bit out of hand.
Also, for someone who essentially personifies nepotism, you sure seem to have a lot of issues with it.
Well Russia has invaded a foreign sovereign state....that is bad. The dispute between Taiwan and China goes back to post-WII concessions and is a lot more complicated than either you or I can actually discuss with adequate knowledge. But you'd never admit that. But going against the current state of affairs with his lack of knowledge is dangerous.
But the man is an idiot with foreign policy, if you actually believe he is competent you're delusional. The man misses intelligence briefings, does not consult the State Dept. before contacting foreign nations, and is using fucking Twitter to discuss his foreign policy positions that he has no clue about.
Let me guess, you loved his twitter rant about trade right?
And my "nepotism" doesn't affect the entire country and international relations. Nice Tu Quoque attempt.
.MASSHOLE.Let's do something fun. We're going to look at some Muslim countries and their judicial systems in regards to Sharia Law
Green indicates Sharia plays no role in the Judicial System
Yellow indicates Sharia plays a role in personal status issues
Purple is FULLY Sharia Law
Orange is regional variations in application.
Seems to me that Green out weighs Purple...
It's stuff like this that just further confirms that you're an actual idiot.
At least half of those green countries are not even muslim countries.
You've only further confirmed my point. The overwhelming number of muslim majority countries have Sharia law ingrained into their legal systems, with many practicing strict Sharia law. Places like the UAE (funnily enough in the same category as Greece), punish women for being raped.
Now, I must ask, what is the main draw that leftists have towards Islam? What do you find so appealing about it that you go through life and limb (often literally) to defend it?
CampeadorIt's stuff like this that just further confirms that you're an actual idiot.
At least half of those green countries are not even muslim countries.
You've only further confirmed my point. The overwhelming number of muslim majority countries have Sharia law ingrained into their legal systems, with many practicing strict Sharia law. Places like the UAE (funnily enough in the same category as Greece), punish women for being raped.
Now, I must ask, what is the main draw that leftists have towards Islam? What do you find so appealing about it that you go through life and limb (often literally) to defend it?
Those countries are Muslim majority...Do you want me to list them and the percentages for you?
With many? The majority is not many...some have ASPECTS (like we do/did with the Bible in regards to Marriage, Abortion, teaching religion in school, etc.), but very few are the majority.
But really, keep trying to argue against facts.
I would defend any other religion if someone was making broad, sweeping generalizations that are factually incorrect like yours.
.MASSHOLE.The dispute between Taiwan and China goes back to post-WII concessions and is a lot more complicated than either you or I can actually discuss with adequate knowledge. But you'd never admit that. But going against the current state of affairs with his lack of knowledge is dangerous.
You're clueless, those "concessions" weren't made immediately after the Second World War. They came much later, initiated by Nixon, and later formalized by Carter.
For someone so clueless, you sure seem overly worried about the "One China" policy. But, oh, I forgot, "it's too complicated to discuss".
Go do one of your 10-15 minute Google searches and come back when you feel like you can regurgitate enough information to make it look like you're not hopelessly clueless.
CampeadorYou're clueless, those "concessions" weren't made immediately after the Second World War. They came much later, initiated by Nixon, and later formalized by Carter.
For someone so clueless, you sure seem overly worried about the "One China" policy. But, oh, I forgot, "it's too complicated to discuss".
Go do one of your 10-15 minute Google searches and come back when you feel like you can regurgitate enough information to make it look like you're not hopelessly clueless.
I mean, you do know about the Chinese Civil War right? Did you ever cover that? Then the subsequent Sino-Japanese War (aka WWII)? It is basic Modern History.
.MASSHOLE.I mean, you do know about the Chinese Civil War right? Did you ever cover that? Then the subsequent Sino-Japanese War (aka WWII)? It is basic Modern History.
I do, but it's increasingly evident that you haven't got a clue.
CampeadorNot so fast, amigo. You clearly said green, unless you'd like to recant that statement.
Let's count.
You have 8 of those Green that are majority Muslim (if my eyes don't deceive me) of the 19? Maybe 20? where over 50% are of Muslim religion. I didn't bother looking that are Muslim Majority, but many of those fall in the 30-49.9% category as well so we could add a few more if we really wanted to.
I just don't care that much, you are the typical Trump supporter, ignorant of facts even if they're staring you in the face.
CampeadorI do, but it's increasingly evident that you haven't got a clue.
Really? So you don't really have an issue with the fact that the Chinese Civil War never officially (read legally) ended therefore the Taiwanese Government, in the eyes of the POC, are illegitimate?
.MASSHOLE.Really? So you don't really have an issue with the fact that the Chinese Civil War never officially (read legally) ended therefore the Taiwanese Government, in the eyes of the POC, are illegitimate?
I believe you meant to say PRC, which took control militarily of the mainland from the already established Republic of China, which already had administrative control.
The Korean War also never "officially" ended. Do you take issue with the DPRK maintaining that the Republic of Korea is illegitimate? Should we sever diplomatic negotiations with South Korea just because their communist cousins tell us to?
If not, why should that be the case for Taiwan and the PRC?
If you wanted to argue based on this vague idea you have of "legitimacy", then technically speaking the Republic of China should still be the legitimate government of mainland China, wouldn't you say?
The "One China" policy was always an example of a pathetic acquiescence to the PRC communists, with the trade-off being cheap Chinese exports.
If the United States desires to re-open diplomatic relations with China (which we had until that coward Carter closed the embassy in 1979), who are the communists in the PRC to tell us we cannot?
They seem to be doing just as they please anyway in the South China Sea.
CampeadorIf the United States desires to re-open diplomatic relations with China (which we had until that coward Carter closed the embassy in 1979), who are the communists in the PRC to tell us we cannot? .
CampeadorI believe you meant to say PRC, which took control militarily of the mainland from the already established Republic of China, which already had administrative control.
The Korean War also never "officially" ended. Do you take issue with the DPRK maintaining that the Republic of Korea is illegitimate? Should we sever diplomatic negotiations with South Korea just because their communist cousins tell us to?
If not, why should that be the case for Taiwan and the PRC?
If you wanted to argue based on this vague idea you have of "legitimacy", then technically speaking the Republic of China should still be the legitimate government of mainland China, wouldn't you say?
The "One China" policy was always an example of a pathetic acquiescence to the PRC communists, with the trade-off being cheap Chinese exports.
If the United States desires to re-open diplomatic relations with China (which we had until that coward Carter closed the embassy in 1979), who are the communists in the PRC to tell us we cannot?
They seem to be doing just as they please anyway in the South China Sea.
Yep, my mistake.
Well seeing as it was a successful overthrow of the government, then it is very different than the DPRK situation given that the country itself was divided by the USSR and the United States and its allies into two different regions. China was never divided, there was a civil war.
Nice try though.
Should it be? Yes. Is it? No. This is very similar to the Palestine-Israel situation in the sense that you have two governing bodies, both of who claim the other is "illegitimate" but the international community interacts with both.
Well seeing as our exports to China in 2015 were 116b, out of which 25.9b were agricultural exports, I'd say it has done rather well. Want know how much of our total agricultural industry that is? Almost 20%. Where the hell are you going to make up that difference? Africa? Domestic? Nope.
Your lack of economic knowledge ALWAYS shines through.
These are the voters for Trump btw, those Fly-Over state members too FYI.
Funny, you remember the TPP? Want to know what that ACTUALLY was aiming for? A united trade area so the PRC couldn't monopolize it and increase its influence in the area.
.MASSHOLE.Well seeing as our exports to China in 2015 were 116b, out of which 25.9b were agricultural exports, I'd say it has done rather well. Want know how much of our total agricultural industry that is? Almost 20%. Where the hell are you going to make up that difference? Africa? Domestic? Nope.
Your lack of economic knowledge ALWAYS shines through.
Funny, you remember the TPP? Want to know what that ACTUALLY was aiming for? A united trade area so the PRC couldn't monopolize it and increase its influence in the area.
Still clueless, China depends far more on U.S. - China trade than the United States does. They have more to lose by putting that in jeopardy.
Unless you take an argument reductio ad absurdum, you seem to have a difficult time creating any kind of coherent counter-argument.
CampeadorStill clueless, China depends far more on U.S. - China trade than the United States does. They have more to lose by putting that in jeopardy.
Unless you take an argument reductio ad absurdum, you seem to have a difficult time creating any kind of coherent counter-argument.
And yes, I remember the TPP, good riddance.
Again, you're trying to mask your lack of economic knowledge by saying my outcomes are absurd and ridiculous. I mean, you failed to respond to my last post about economics.
.MASSHOLE.Again, you're trying to mask your lack of economic knowledge by saying my outcomes are absurd and ridiculous. I mean, you failed to respond to my last post about economics.
Wrong.
I already replied, only so many times that I can keep responding to your globalist drivel and speculation, which you occasionally sprinkle lightly with Krugman economics to make it seem like you're making accurate economic forecasts.
I already replied, only so many times that I can keep responding to your globalist drivel and speculation, which you occasionally sprinkle lightly with Krugman economics to make it seem like you're making accurate economic forecasts.
Except you missed the entire part where I told you how wrong you were...
.MASSHOLE.Christ, they're not apples to apples situations here.
One of Trump's main points during his campaign was reducing the trade deficit. An appreciating currency is not good for that, a depreciating currency is. But on the whole, a depreciating currency is not a good thing (look at Japan). This isn't Keynesian economics, this is common sense.
Now, on to your claim about interest rates and taxes.
Interest rates will rise, but not to the point where they make savings an attractive option. Interest rates will also need to be backed up by a stable economy, and a stable economy is not one that sees capital outflows which will happen if Trump enacts his tariffs. Lower corporate tax rates, lower personal tax rates, they are all being lowered. There is not enough US cash abroad to compensate for the loss of foreign investment. Current foreign investment stands at ~$3 trillion dollars (source). The total amount of US cash abroad? Somewhere around $2.1 trillion dollars (source and source). So, let us assume we lose 50% of our FDI, and regain 50% of our cash abroad (we won't regain 100%, there will be ways around it as there have always been). You have a net of $-0.4 trillion in this country.
Now, you may claim that we will see more coming in than leaving, but that first source indicates the US is seeing the weakest capital inflows in the past ~12 years (2016 report only went up to 2014). Guess what the largest sector is for FDIUS. Manufacturing. Guess what happens when the dollar appreciates. Less exports. Guess who gets hit. Manufacturing.
Anyways, now, let us assume that they some get a positive inflow. What is to say that money is put to use in the economy versus being put into the pockets of the shareholders, the very people who are already paying lower tax rates? Because that is exactly what some of them do (source). Additionally, the dollar would appreciate from the conversion of foreign currency to US dollars.
See, you believe that China is not willing to engage in a trade war. They are, they have already said as much. And do you know who loses in a trade war? The blue collared workers that elected Trump in the first place. You fear a Democrat-led government, but his policies would play many of these people right into that. Ironically, it is believed that a trade war is the exact opposite of what is needed to reduce a deficit (source).
And China is going to have to rapidly change how they engage with Western countries as the IMF has now appointed their currency as one of the Special Drawing Rights currencies. This means it will be in the best interest of China to keep their currency stable, and not to devalue it as it will now be used to back global reserves. Hell, the offloading of US debt is an indication that they want to prop up the yuan, not devalue it.
But please, continue with your misinformed views.
And please, argue with the CBO all you like, but they are the most bipartisan group out there with estimates.
It's pure speculation. The truth is you haven't got any more of a clue what will happen than Nate Silver did with the U.S. election.
I remember you liked citing him quite a bit. What is that website of his again?
I guess the work of economists with PhD's is worth nothing now. Clearly you know more than them, clearly an appreciating currency is good for investment. I mean, who doesn't want to spend more when you can pay less elsewhere?
But again, you dodge when you are proven wrong. First with the Muslim-majority countries and Sharia law, and now this.
.MASSHOLE.See, you believe that China is not willing to engage in a trade war. They are, they have already said as much. And do you know who loses in a trade war? The blue collared workers that elected Trump in the first place. You fear a Democrat-led government, but his policies would play many of these people right into that. Ironically, it is believed that a trade war is the exact opposite of what is needed to reduce a deficit (source).
And China is going to have to rapidly change how they engage with Western countries as the IMF has now appointed their currency as one of the Special Drawing Rights currencies. This means it will be in the best interest of China to keep their currency stable, and not to devalue it as it will now be used to back global reserves. Hell, the offloading of US debt is an indication that they want to prop up the yuan, not devalue it.
But please, continue with your misinformed views.
And please, argue with the CBO all you like, but they are the most bipartisan group out there with estimates.
But I'll address this, since it pertains to China.
China will engage in a small scale trade war out of fear, but any kind of significant change in their exports to the U.S. will collapse the Chinese economy. That money that Americans were spending on Chinese goods will be used to purchase other imports or domestic products. Your CBO study was published in 2000, and since then the trade deficit has rapidly increased each year (except 2009).
Also, more evidence that your assumptions, as per usual, are completely wrong. The Chinese are still devaluing their currency, despite your recommendations on what was in their "best interest", just goes to show how incompetent these people are at the IMF and all these other globalist institutions. Go ahead and explain this if you can.
