Willie71

Mysogynistic propaganda? The most pathetic apologetic in this election. There are numerous exposes on the Clintons, and I don't mean the right wing crap. Abby Martin has done a few. Charles Ortel has a pretty good expose. I don't discuss this with people willing to believe that criticisms are rooted in misogyny. It's insulting and innacurate. Trump is a disaster. I already agreed with that. What is up with the idea that criticizing Clinton means support for trump? I can really dislike both of them, and believe on good evidence that both are terrible for the future of the USA and the world. As far as I can tell neither party wants to overturn citizens United, beyond rhetoric. Lessig, Sanders, and Stein are the ones serious about overturning citizens United.

My issue is with the whole system, whether republican or democrat. Clinton is just the poster boy in the current landscape for political corruption. Trump is selling himself as the populist candidate. Trump is a disaster, no doubt, but I don't think a more hawkish, more pro business POTUS than Obama as we see in Clinton is the answer either. I'm really glad I'm not American and don't actually have to choose.

Here's a brief snippet from an interview with Robert M. Price, a very well informed individual on the historicity of Jesus.

The right wing certainly is liberal with the truth and facts. However, the Clintons do have connections to many very influential people around the world. I'm not naive enough to believe there haven't been many back room deals, bribes, or other forms of corruption. It's a dirty game, and the most likely reason conservatives don't hang Clinton for corruption is because they benefit from the same system. How do you draw attention to the evidence without exposing the whole system? People in glass houses and all that. Citizens United legalized much of this crap, and that's not even all of it. How anyone could look at that system and not shake their head puzzles me.

I got myself mixed up, Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple the day before the crucifiction, but it wasn't destroyed for 40 years.

Isn't he asking why he knows smart people who are religious? While the trend is against that for the reasons I listed, the culture of the area, dopamine levels of individuals, and conservativism result in intelligent people being religious. Am I missing something? The "smart" religious people I know are apologists. Yes, annecdotal evidence, but one possibility. My brother, a petroleum engineer believes in God and Jesus even though he believes the bible is man made fiction. He says that it's possible man made it up or recorded it wrong independent of God and Jesus being real.

Religiosity is related to a few things. There is an inverse relationship with intelligence and education, but the culture of an area has a lot of influence. Higher dopamine levels increase religiosity on average, and conservativism, with a tendency toward authoritarianism and heightened fear response primes people for authoritarian religion. Chris Mooney wrote a great book on the latter. (More about denying facts, but religious belief is a subset of this issue.) https://www.amazon.ca/Republican-Brain-Science-Science-Reality/dp/1118094514 Conservative brains tend to strengthen their erroneous beliefs when challenged and presented with contradictory facts. Several experiments bear this out.

Are you aware of the arms deals to foreign powers while Secretary of State following donations to the Clinton foundation, including arms going to radical groups who are supposedly your enemies? How about campaigning against Glass Stiegel? How about calling TPP the gold standard before Bernie and Trump drew attention to it? How about opposing single payer after receiving donations from the insurance industry? There are numerous examples even though the rhetoric from the MSM continually claims there are no examples.

While Clinton has been pulled to the left by Sanders and populism, she is firmly a third way democrat. http://www.salon.com/2016/03/23/america_has_abandoned_the_90_percent_partner/

If the crucifixion was real, then Jesus would have been 80+ years old at that time. The historicity of the birth to the destruction of the temple is an impossible amount of time for Jesus to be about 30 at the time of the crucifixion. Needing to throw out the birth timeline to make the crucifixion work, or throwing out the crucifiction to make the birth work makes no difference. It could not happen as described in the bible, especially since two incompatible birth stories are presented.

If you build the wall, all of the for profit prisons being converted to deportation holding areas won't have enough clients.

It appears I misunderstood too.

More evidence that Jesus was just a plagiarized version of previous mythical figures: http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/ Re: the gospels. https://www.amazon.ca/Incredible-Shrinking-Son-Man/dp/1591021219 Robert Price goes through the gospels in the order they were written, and notes the evolution of the story to better fit the hero motif. In Paul, the virgin birth was not present, a pretty important part of the myth to forget or leave out. Even with the most basic research, the Jesus Myth falls apart like a house of cards. Re: Romulus and Remus: are you suggesting they were real people, born of virgin, impregnated by the god Mars? (From wikipidia)

Re: the embarrassment argument: Lord Raglan describes a pattern to the hero myth. Jesus shares the majority of the traits with other fictional heroes, but isn't even the top of the last. The probability of a real person having the majority of these traits is vanishingly small. The list: List of "heroes" that fit this pattern. Note all are fictional, but we debate whether Jesus was real.

Please explain.

This is much of the point of the Richard Carrier book. When establishing the evidence from the literature base, there was an assumption that Jesus probably lived, without really looking at the evidence. This error perpetuated from published work to published work. When the evidence is examined with fresh eyes, the evidence is simply lacking.this is not "proof" that there wasn't a historical Jesus, but there is no "proof" there was. Now the issue of the Jesus story is even less convincing. There are numerous mythical figures following the Lord Raglan hero myth. The Jesus story and Christian rituals also follow pagan mythology, and are basically plagiarized.

Is this a serious question?

Nomadic goat herders were trying to explain their world, since they didn't know about things like science. For a long time, the message was controlled by the priests who omitted the parts inconvenient to sell the story.

I think the "neither of the above" number is pretty big in this election. Clinton would be the last person I would vote for, except for Trump. I'm glad I'm not American, and don't actually have to vote.

Much of this depends on the type of conservativism one is referring to. The OP was referring to trickle down economics, a proven failure. In its lite version, third way democrats are pushing the same failed policies, but at least the top 10% benefit, rather than just the top one percent. Clinton is in about the same economic space as Reagan was. Pro corporate trade deals, pro military industrial foreign policy, limited Wall Street regulation, pro fracking etc. They claim it's because if the global economy, which is a partial truth, but the global economy was created by these policies, rather than these policies being a response to globalization. The wealth is redistributed to the elite. In this video, Thomas Frank discusses the third way ecomomic policies, and their failure for the majority of the population. The book is well with the read.

Bill Clinton getting on the plane to discuss "grandkids" with Loretta Lynch? Does anyone actually believe that?

Substance abuse is a health issue, and is best treated as such. Using the justice system is a bizarre perversion. Guns are a capitalist/propaganda/profit issue. Gun control has worked in many countries, so there is a track record to build off of. Criminalizing addictions has no track record of success.

The NRA wants people like the Orlando shooter to have access to guns, why? Profits. Gun sales go up after every mass shooting.

The Rense article is simply not supported by the literature. It's a propaganda piece, and all that it claims has been proven wrong by multiple credible sources.

This is why I use her first name, but the point is that it is dismissive, and that is valid. I also called Bernie Bernie, so it wasn't a mysogynistic thing on my part.