Season 12 Chit Chat Thread

[son-goku5]

2 hours ago, djsurrey said:

I'm not sure they are the least secular. Angela Merkel is the chairwomen of The Christian Democratic Union of Germany. I don't know much of anything about German politics but only that Germany seemed to be willing to accept refuges from Syria in large numbers.

The name of the party may say Christian Democratic Union but they don't put the Christian above the Democratic. If any party wanted to create a law based on religion, the people would go nuts, even if they belong to the religion because religion has no place when creating policy in a secular or polytheistic society. As it happens almost in every western nation, the churches are shrinking every year because, to quote Don Cheadle in House of Lies "those young cherubic kids that you try to brainwash, they are hip to your shit"

And yeah, I always find it weird that so many people in the one nation where separation of church in state is written into the constitution want laws based on their religion so they can discriminate in the name of it.

2 hours ago, djsurrey said:

Or perhaps it does mean something. "God save the Queen".

To take a little sidestep here, I find it funny that the english fans are the only ones that sing their national anthem during a soccer game ^^

[Nogravitasatall]

10 minutes ago, son-goku5 said:

The name of the party may say Christian Democratic Union but they don't put the Christian above the Democratic. If any party wanted to create a law based on religion, the people would go nuts, even if they belong to the religion because religion has no place when creating policy in a secular or polytheistic society. As it happens almost in every western nation, the churches are shrinking every year because, to quote Don Cheadle in House of Lies "those young cherubic kids that you try to brainwash, they are hip to your shit"

And yeah, I always find it weird that so many people in the one nation where separation of church in state is written into the constitution want laws based on their religion so they can discriminate in the name of it.

To take a little sidestep here, I find it funny that the english fans are the only ones that sing their national anthem during a soccer game ^^

So weird. But they were founded by the Puritans, I think.

... and we enjoy the Royals. The women’s magazine industry lives off them and i watched Suits, so now I’m a bit softer on the idea of the Windsor’s having a role. Harry and  Rachel!. So C21 and cute. Useless politically, which is good. Also we’ve seen Trump, and as a result the movement towards a republic may have taken a hit. 

But I’m  not sure we know our own national anthem past the first verse. Hehe.

[joyceraye]

16 minutes ago, son-goku5 said:

To take a little sidestep here, I find it funny that the english fans are the only ones that sing their national anthem during a soccer game ^^

They don't know the words to Jerusalem and anyway it's too high for most male voices. Even all but the youngest members of Women's Institute branches find some bars of it difficult to reach.

[Nogravitasatall]

43 minutes ago, joyceraye said:

They don't know the words to Jerusalem and anyway it's too high for most male voices. Even all but the youngest members of Women's Institute branches find some bars of it difficult to reach.

I always think of Monty Python when I hear Jerusalem referenced. I don’t know it in any other context and I can only imagine what is a Woman’s Institute. The Famous Five never mentioned them, as I recall.  

We do have the Country Woman’s Association. Maybe it’s similar. 

[son-goku5]

50 minutes ago, Nogravitasatall said:

So weird. But they were founded by the Puritans, I think.

Who is they?

51 minutes ago, Nogravitasatall said:

... and we enjoy the Royals. The women’s magazine industry lives off them and i watched Suits, so now I’m a bit softer on the idea of the Windsor’s having a role. Harry and  Rachel!. So C21 and cute. Useless politically, which is good. Also we’ve seen Trump, and as a result the movement towards a republic may have taken a hit.

The Royals are like Kaviar for a medium income family. A guilty pleasure that you don't need but spend money for anyway. 😃

[Nogravitasatall]

15 minutes ago, son-goku5 said:

Who is they?

The Royals are like Kaviar for a medium income family. A guilty pleasure that you don't need but spend money for anyway. 😃

Yeah. There is still some historic consequence. The Queen’s representative here, the Governor-General, who is the Head of State (appointed periodically on recommendation by the PM) , did in 1975 dissolve the Whitlam government. Huge repercussions, because it was not a democratic process. There is a thunderous quote from  Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, who was something of a progressive titan, but who did step forward a bit quickly.

From the steps of Parliament House he declaimed:

 “God save the Queen. (dramatic pause) But nothing will save the Governor-General!”.

They were very interesting times here. We are still waiting for the contemporary correspondence with the Queen to be released. Rumours of CIA involvement were floated around.

Re Puritans: religious dissident refugees from the Olde Worlde. Plymouth Rock, the Mayflower etc. Wikipedia.

Edited August 10, 2018 by Nogravitasatall

[djsurrey]

1 hour ago, son-goku5 said:

2 hours ago, Nogravitasatall said:

So weird. But they were founded by the Puritans, I think.

Who is they?

Google helps.
 

Quote

The Puritans were English Reformed Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries who sought to "purify" the Church of England from its "Catholic" practices, maintaining that the Church of England was only partially reformed.

The founders were not all Puritans. There were also Quakers.

Quote

In a 2007 interview, author David Yount (How the Quakers Invented America) stated that Quakers first introduced many ideas which later became mainstream, such as democracy in the Pennsylvania legislature, the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution from Rhode Island Quakers, trial by jury, equal rights for men and women, and public education. Even the Liberty Bell itself was cast by Quakers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers#History

Also,

Quote

Puritans should not be confused with more radical Protestant groups of the 16th and 17th centuries, such as Quakers, Seekers, and Familists. These groups taught that individuals could be directly guided by the Holy Spirit and prioritized direct revelation over the Bible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritans#Terminology

I don't think the difference in US society and European has its origins that far in the past. It seems more likely to me that lessons were learned in Europe by the devastation of the world wars. Something that did not happen in the mainland US.

Then there was the cold war and McCarthyism.

Edited August 10, 2018 by djsurrey

[Die Zimtzicke]

14 hours ago, Nogravitasatall said:

Quite recently too, 1956. I wonder if people remember or are taught that it changed.

Few remember. It's like few people remembering we have had several different versions of the pledge of allegiance. "Under God" was not in there until the McCarthy era of the 50's.
http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm

[HeWolf]

13 hours ago, Nogravitasatall said:

I’m not sure about your claim of nonsense. Facebook has a market capitalisation of $400billion plus because its advertising model works. Facebook identifies receptive audiences and delivers focused and relevant product advertising to them.   Trump invested heavily in Facebook and not in free-to-air media because he (his campaign) knew he could target receptive voters. 

The Russian materials had millions of views by people preselected to be receptive to their messaging. People like those who think that the FBI abrogated its legislated responsibilities, when much legal analysis concurs that by custom, practice and legal standard the Secretary of State’s electronic document handling arrangements were stupid, but not criminal. So by putting their propaganda and disinformation materials into Facebook the Russians were quite likely to have successfully nudged those already with a predisposition.  

The echo-chamber effect of social media is well recognised. Just look at this forum. People get angry about known fictions.

And the margins were so tight. It would not have taken much of a nudge to lift turnout for one and suppress it for another. Putin admitted in Helsinki he wanted a Trump result. 

It seems that effective Russian nudging is a highly plausible proposition. And Trump welcomed it at least by proxy. “If it’s what you say, I love it” said his son. Not so much the nonsense you might think.

 

Nonsense may be a tad hyperbolic. But, it's the internet where hyperbole reigns supreme. While I reside in a red state; I work on a federal installation with a pretty even mix of Republicans and Democrats. The election was a definite topic of discussion and not one person I ever spoke to, or heard speaking to someone else, ever began a statement with, "I'm voting for _________ because I read X on Facebook". Sadly, some people may have relied on an easily manipulated forum for information and allowed that to determine their vote. Enough to make any difference? I remain skeptical.

As stated above; I work on a federal installation for a government agency. The prohibitions against conducting government business on a personal platform are clearly stated and frequently reiterated. Mishandling classified material is a crime. Stupidly mishandling classified material is still a crime. Clinton, and her aides, broke the law, tried to hide evidence of breaking the law, and lied about breaking the law. Justice in America is not blind, nor is it truly equal in application. She is not the first powerful politician to get away with something. She also won't be the last.

Putin doesn't like Hillary Clinton. That's no secret. He preferred a Trump result. No doubt the Russians preferred a certain candidate over another many times in the last 50+ years. I'm sure they wanted Carter and Mondale over Reagan. Dukakis over Bush, and so on...

 

Edited August 10, 2018 by HeWolf

[son-goku5]

50 minutes ago, djsurrey said:

Google helps.

Not really ^^ The phrase was "they were founded by the Puritans" and I have no idea what group was founded by the Puritans. I do know what the Puritans are.

50 minutes ago, djsurrey said:

I don't think the difference in US society and European has its origins that far in the past. It seems more likely to me that lessons were learned in Europe by the devastation of the world wars. Something that did not happen in the mainland US.

I think the difference of societies is rooted in the ideas of the nation. Think about who came to America and why. Some came because they were prosecuted in their home, either for political or religious reasons. Then you had economic migration, like the swell of Irish who came because they were starving at home due to the potato famine. Comparatively few people simply say one day "You know, I should move to America" and leave. The average human is very hesitant to leave what he or she knows.

50 minutes ago, djsurrey said:

Then there was the cold war and McCarthyism.

McCarthyism had some of its roots in the Nazi society when neighbor ratted on neighbor and people were fired from their jobs because of their political beliefs. The Nazis took it further with the Jews, but who knows where McCarthy would have gone, had the Senate not stopped him finally.

Other similarities were in the French Revolution, or rather the aftermath. During the time called "The Great Terror", when anyone could be beheaded even for not supporting the revolution loudly enough. At the end, Robespierre wanted to present a new list of traitors, but he wouldn't show it to the parliament, leaving them all scared that their name could be on the list so they shouted him down and ultimately cut off his head as well. McCarthy did the same. In one of the Senate hearings, where he wanted to present another list of communist in the army (a list he probably pulled from his ass ^^) and Joseph Welch said his famous line "At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

35 minutes ago, HeWolf said:

Nonsense may be a tad hyperbolic. But, it's the internet where hyperbole reigns supreme. While I reside in a red state; I work on a federal installation with a pretty even mix of Republicans and Democrats. The election was a definite topic of discussion and not one person I ever spoke to, or heard speaking to someone else, ever began a statement with, "I'm voting for _________ because I read X on Facebook". Sadly, some people may have relied on an easily manipulated forum for information and allowed that to determine their vote. Enough to make any difference? I remain skeptical.

The clincher was the Comey letter. As I said in an earlier post, I looked at the polling averages two weeks before the election. Clinton was leading in all of the three states that gave Trump his win, then the Comey letter came out and you could see her numbers drop. But it was the last drop that made the barrel flow over. You had the confluence of Russians pushing conspiracies and republican efforts to suppress the Democratic vote and the Comey letter lit the fire.

35 minutes ago, HeWolf said:

As stated above; I work on a federal installation for a government agency. The prohibitions against conducting government business on a personal platform are clearly stated and frequently reiterated. Mishandling classified material is a crime. Stupidly mishandling classified material is still a crime. Clinton, and her aides, broke the law, tried to hide evidence of breaking the law, and lied about breaking the law. Justice in America is not blind, nor is it truly equal in application. She is not the first powerful politician to get away with something. She also won't be the last.

No, she didn't break the law. If she had, she would have been indicted. Comey himself has said, in that unprecedented press conference, that what she did was negligent but no prosecutor would bring charges because they wouldn't stick.

And that "classified information" that you cling to so much came after the fact. When Clinton sent that information via email, the information in it wasn't classified. It was classified later but you can't unsend an email.

Imagine you're a spokesperson or press secretary for a large company. You give some information to the press, which is your job, and two weeks later, your boss comes to you and says "You know, this information can't be out there, this is now classified internal material." You would only look at him dumbfounded because the information is already out there.

And please refrain from mentioning "private server". A lot of current Trump administration officials and some congresspeople are using private email for government business. Kushner and Ivanka Trump also used a private domain to communicate with White House officials and when it became known, they moved their email domain to the TrumpOrg.

By the way, a number of email servers of the Trump Organization runs on Windows Server 2003, which Microsoft has stopped supporting long ago

35 minutes ago, HeWolf said:

Putin doesn't like Hillary Clinton. That's no secret. He preferred a Trump result. No doubt the Russians preferred a certain candidate over another many times in the last 50+ years. I'm sure they wanted Carter and Mondale over Reagan. Dukakis over Bush, and so on...

True, but back then, they couldn't do anything about it because there was no social media to influence stupid people stuck in a hyperpartisan environment that can't differentiate between truth and fiction anymore, given that they mostly watch a now state-run TV network that feeds them constant lies.

Edited August 10, 2018 by son-goku5

[djsurrey]

8 minutes ago, son-goku5 said:

58 minutes ago, djsurrey said:

 

Not really ^^ The phrase was "they were founded by the Puritans" and I have no idea what group was founded by the Puritans. I do know what the Puritans are.

I took it to mean the US constitution.

[djsurrey]

5 hours ago, son-goku5 said:

McCarthyism had some of its roots in the Nazi society when neighbor ratted on neighbor and people were fired from their jobs because of their political beliefs. The Nazis took it further with the Jews, but who knows where McCarthy would have gone, had the Senate not stopped him finally.

I have never thought of it in that way.

Quote

Although the Igor Gouzenko and Elizabeth Bentley affairs had raised the issue of Soviet espionage as far back as 1945, events in 1949 and 1950 sharply increased the sense of threat from Communism in the United States. The Soviet Union tested an atomic bomb in 1949, earlier than many analysts had expected. That same year, Mao Zedong's Communist army gained control of mainland China despite heavy American financial support of the opposing Kuomintang. In 1950, the Korean War began, pitting U.S., U.N., and South Korean forces against Communists from North Korea and China.

The following year also saw several significant developments regarding Soviet Cold War espionage activities. In January 1950, Alger Hiss, a high-level State Department official, was convicted of perjury. Hiss was in effect found guilty of espionage; the statute of limitations had run out for that crime, but he was convicted of having perjured himself when he denied that charge in earlier testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee. In Britain, Klaus Fuchsconfessed to committing espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union while working on the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory during the War. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were arrested in 1950 on charges of stealing atomic bomb secrets for the Soviets and were executed in 1953.

There were also more subtle forces encouraging the rise of McCarthyism. It had long been a practice of more conservative politicians to refer to progressive reforms such as child labor laws and women's suffrage as "Communist" or "Red plots".[9] This tendency increased in the 1930s in reaction to the New Deal policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Many conservatives equated the New Deal with socialism or Communism, and saw its policies as evidence that the government had been heavily influenced by Communist policy-makers in the Roosevelt administration.[10] In general, the vaguely defined danger of "Communist influence" was a more common theme in the rhetoric of anti-Communist politicians than was espionage or any other specific activity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#Origins

 

[djsurrey]

6 hours ago, son-goku5 said:

I think the difference of societies is rooted in the ideas of the nation. Think about who came to America and why. Some came because they were prosecuted in their home, either for political or religious reasons. Then you had economic migration, like the swell of Irish who came because they were starving at home due to the potato famine. Comparatively few people simply say one day "You know, I should move to America" and leave. The average human is very hesitant to leave what he or she knows.

I'd agree with some of that. There have been other reasons for migration. Gold rush for example. Political instability. Refugees from war (including WWII). Migration is much easier today than in the past.

Edited August 10, 2018 by djsurrey

[son-goku5]

10 minutes ago, djsurrey said:

I have never thought of it in that way.

I meant not in why they did it but how. Under McCarthyism, denunciation was widespread and even a small hint of possible communism could lead to grave consequences. This is what the Nazis did. In Hogan's Heroes, the character of Major Hochstadter said it best, even though it was meant as a joke: "Whether he's guilty or not, we at the Gestapo deal only in reults!"

That same saying could be used for the McCarthy era. I remember a clip from one of the McCarthy hearings, where they "interviewed" one of the "Hollywood Ten", a screenwriter named Dalton Trumbo. It went like this:

Senator: "Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?"

Trumbo: "I believe I have the right to be confronted with any evidence that supports this question. I should like to see what you have."

Senator: "Oh, you would?"

Trumbo: "Yes." (laughter in the audience)

Senator: "Well, you will pretty soon." (pause, then sound of a gavel) "The witness is excused."

The ten where imprisoned and hundreds more were blacklisted. As the above transcript shows, they didn't even have evidence, just word of mouth. But if a witness didn't say "No.", they were still found guilty.

14 minutes ago, djsurrey said:

I'd agree with some of that. There have been other reasons for migration. Gold rush for example. Political instability. Migration is much easier today than in the past.

Gold rush would be economic migration, which I mentioned Someone wanted to get rich quick. Other people came when the Homestead act was passed, a lot of people wanted their own piece of land which they never had in their home countries.

[djsurrey]

5 minutes ago, son-goku5 said:

Gold rush would be economic migration, which I mentioned

In many cases it would have been wishful thinking.

[joyceraye]

6 hours ago, son-goku5 said:

Think about who came to America and why. Some came because they were prosecuted in their home, either for political or religious reasons.

Not really. They had to have been prosecuted and convicted for something like robbery or murder to be sentenced to transportation to America. 

[djsurrey]

33 minutes ago, son-goku5 said:

Other people came when the Homestead act was passed, a lot of people wanted their own piece of land which they never had in their home countries.

None of this actually makes Americans different from Europeans.

Edited August 10, 2018 by djsurrey

[Die Zimtzicke]

7 hours ago, HeWolf said:

I'm sure they wanted Carter and Mondale over Reagan. Dukakis over Bush, and so on...

I don't know about that. Reagan and Gorbachev got to be really good friends fairly quickly and I don't think that would've happened if Gorbachev was super leery of him.

 

6 hours ago, son-goku5 said:

No, she didn't break the law. If she had, she would have been indicted. Comey himself has said, in that unprecedented press conference, that what she did was negligent but no prosecutor would bring charges because they wouldn't stick.

And Comey is a Republican, appointed by Republicans, so that's saying a lot.

[djsurrey]

13 minutes ago, joyceraye said:

Not really. They had to have been prosecuted and convicted for something like robbery or murder to be sentenced to transportation to America. 

No. Only a fraction of migrants were convicted of anything.

Quote

Transported convicts represented perhaps one-quarter of all British emigrants during the 18th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_colony

 

[joyceraye]

22 minutes ago, djsurrey said:

No. Only a fraction of migrants were convicted of anything.

 

I know. I was specifically clarifying the point about prosecution.

[djsurrey]

2 minutes ago, joyceraye said:

I know. I was specifically clarifying the point about prosecution.

I would have thought son-goku5  would have meant persecution.

[joyceraye]

25 minutes ago, djsurrey said:

I would have thought son-goku5  would have meant persecution.

Aha. Predictive text strikes again ? Certainly over the centuries there was a lot of persecution, especially of Jews. 

Edited August 10, 2018 by joyceraye

[Nogravitasatall]

1 hour ago, joyceraye said:

Not really. They had to have been prosecuted and convicted for something like robbery or murder to be sentenced to transportation to America. 

Convicts were sent to Australia from 1788. I don’t know how many went to the US. And we believe you that you got transported for stealing bread.

interestingly, the trip took about the same time as travel to the planet Mars. Except you didn’t have to carry air with you.

7 hours ago, djsurrey said:

I took it to mean the US constitution.

Sorry. My bad. Lazy me.  Yes, the Constitution was written by men of the Enlightenment, but the religious dissidents had already moved in prior. 

8 hours ago, son-goku5 said:

True, but back then, they couldn't do anything about it because there was no social media to influence stupid people stuck in a hyperpartisan environment that can't differentiate between truth and fiction anymore, given that they mostly watch a now state-run TV network that feeds them constant lies.

Clint Watts the ExFBI guy who testified to Congress said something like what used to take years or decades in influence campaigns Facebook can accomplish in weeks and months.

facebook is a problem for national security everywhere.

Edited August 10, 2018 by Nogravitasatall

[djsurrey]

1 hour ago, Nogravitasatall said:

Sorry. My bad. Lazy me.  Yes, the Constitution was written by men of the Enlightenment, but the religious dissidents had already moved in prior. 

Something like this:

Quote

Franklin T. Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of some of the Founders. Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 28 were Anglicans (in the Church of England; or Episcopalian, after the American Revolutionary War was won), 21 were Protestants, and two were Roman Catholics (D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons).[31] Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists.[31]

A few prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical Christians such as Thomas Jefferson,[32][33][34] who constructed the Jefferson Bible, and Benjamin Franklin.[35]

Historian Gregg L. Frazer argues that the leading Founders (Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Wilson, Morris, Madison, Hamilton, and Washington) were neither Christians nor Deists, but rather supporters of a hybrid "theistic rationalism".[36]

 

[joyceraye]

Yes, Nogravitasatall, convicts were sent from Britain to the antipodes after the American War of Independence. Exploration was carried out to find a new dumping ground. I once met a man who'd found local newspaper accounts of his ancestors' trial. They'd been caught after policemen investigating a crime noticed their house was bigger on the outside than the inside. It turned out the walls concealed refrigerated passages used for concealing hoards of stolen meat. Father, son and a couple of nephews were transported to Australia. They had enough money, from a source the prosecutor couldn't prove, to pay the fares on a normal passenger ship of all the wives and children to follow them. The man was very surprised. The legend that had gone down in the family had been that the ancestors were transported during hard times for stealing food.No strictly untrue, just a little toned down. When I hear of stories of people transported for stealing bread I wonder how often they were caught doing it before the court had had enough, or whether they'd ransacked a baker's shop at knife point.