LawTalkers - Politics: J'accuse!

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Politics: J'accuse! (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=561)

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I just want to get back to having a President who's fatter than me.

Hank's kind of Republican:

http://1912.history.ohio-state.edu/r...ft's12.jpg

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I'm presuming that analysis, which is appropriate, is not undertaken in a vacuum, but rather in an historical and social context. The poor treatment of fundamentalist Islam of women should be measured against non-Islamic treatment of women in the same culture --- take sub-Saharan Africa, for example. Similarly, the poor treatment of women in Christianity should be measured against the non-Christian treatment of women in the same culture --- take Arkansas, for example.

The question is whether the religion is an improvement over secularism in each religion's region. The answer in the case of fundamentalist Islam is more often "yes" than it is in the case of fundamentalist Christianity, because Christianity predominates in regions in which secularism coincides with economic prosperity, freedom of travel, and freedom of marriage, three cultural contexts that benefit secular women but are denied to women in the same region for religious reasons.

Well, if we're going to look at it in an historical and social context (I concede this is a valuable exercise) when run a risk of becoming tautological. In particular, you note the correlation between Christianity and economic prosperity, freedom or religion and freedom of travel, but do not mention the issue of causation. All of these are permissable because of a tolerance thereof among at least some Christian sects. Economic prosperity in the Christian west is due in large part to the lack of a religious dogma holding it back (indeed, in large part it is due to the opposite: the protestant work ethic and the unsanctioned but certainly not discouraged response in the Catholic community).

Quote:

Originally posted by baltassoc
Well, if we're going to look at it in an historical and social context (I concede this is a valuable exercise) when run a risk of becoming tautological. In particular, you note the correlation between Christianity and economic prosperity, freedom or religion and freedom of travel, but do not mention the issue of causation. All of these are permissable because of a tolerance thereof among at least some Christian sects. Economic prosperity in the Christian west is due in large part to the lack of a religious dogma holding it back (indeed, in large part it is due to the opposite: the protestant work ethic and the unsanctioned but certainly not discouraged response in the Catholic community).

Mr. baltassoc? The Amish are holding for you on line two.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Although Brit Hume pretends to be a journalist, it is telling that you make this comparison.

Brit wears two hats on Fox News. He appears as a pundit on Fox News Sunday and he gives his opinions in that role. On Special Report, when he is reporting or questioning, he is fair and balanced. In the last part of the show, he again voices his opinion.

I think it is clear when he is behaving like a pundit and when he is behaving like a journalist. I am not at all confused by this and Brit doesn't hide or try to deny his dual role.

OTOH, someone like Judy Woodruff of CNN purports to only be a journalist, yet she is constantly interjecting her opinion and bias into her reporting. She is awful.

Backdoor "Trunk"

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
does your wife know about your relationship with notme?

does your wife know about your marriage to fringey?

ETA: K

Backdoor "Trunk"

Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
does your wife know about your marriage to fringey?

some of them do, some don't.

hiatus interuptus

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If only Penske would come back and moderate.........

Watch what you wish for. This is bullshit. Grow up. Its the fucking news. Its reality and it has a perfectly acceptable place in the debate. When homocide bombers come to Mall of America or Fisherman's wharf the tragedy won't be censored for your sensbilities. Certainly at the least, Slave can attest that the jumpers on 911 were actual people not links to people. I am not endorsing Not Me or Gin Rummy's text or opinions, no offence, but they should be able to post the pics as long as they are relevant to the point of the speech and/or the debate (and as long as they wouldn't get people in trouble with work IT people or worse, but these pics were in the NYT, and doubt any firms ban the NYT, although based on Maureen Dowd alone, maybe they should).

My .02