Search

That makes sense. Indiana is generally one of the first states called for Republicans but I believe Obama may have won the state in '08 so it isn't completely automatic. I do see a lot of Trump bumper stickers so it may go to him pretty quickly.

Would anyone vote for Bernie Sanders as a 3rd party candidate? It sounds good but it would only take from Clinton and help Republicans in my opinion but I may be wrong. Anyone feel differently?

No one with morals *not in a swing state* should write in Bernie if he doesn't get the nomination. The problem I forsee is Cruz, by and far scarier than Trump in terms of policy. We're talking about a literal theocratic who could nominate judges to overturn Roe vs. Wade and will begin the dismantling of the first amendment. It'll start small, creationism in schools, more christian doctrine obvious within government. From their, they'll make sure Islam and anything else can be treated with the same equality. A slippery slope. His economic advisor is one of the top men who helped cause the recession of '08.... while many neoconservatives have already come on record saying they would vote for hillary over trump [if that's not telling of her actual policy I don't know what is], there has been talk of putting everything behind Cruz at convention. If trump runs third party, you give democrat victory. If Trump doesn't run third party, in swing states you vote could help prevent the growing evangelical and ignorant culture brewing throughout the country from taking over with their sky god and anti-science madness.

After learning Hillary's [and Bill's] actual policy, I can no longer use the term democrat to describe myself, especially if she wins the nomination, and double so if she loses popular vote on pledged delegates but super delegates don't switch to Bernie [very unlikely, superdelegates have always gone with the popular vote, but then again, the super delegate system is not very old]

The best scenario if Bernie isn't elected is the destruction of the democrat party whilst simultaneously a broked GOP convention which destroys the GOP. From the ashes hopefully a four party system of progressive, libertarian, and whatever is left of GOP and Democrats.

Alternate media recommendations:

Secular Talk [radio/youtube]
The David Pakmon Show [radio/some tv/youtube]
The Benjamin Dixon Show [small New York based radio/community tv/youtube, focus on bringing the African American politics to the true progressive side.]
and of course NPR, PBS NewsHour, and Democracy Now

TYT ...meh, occasionally.

Representative to watch for: Nina Turner and Elizabeth Warren

Aaron check out my new tattoo!

https://www.instagram.com/p/_6rdW2x9wJ/?taken-by=trashkollector

i can only express my joy at that via song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBV7o4f-kx8

sargon really is a piece of shit, i was unaware of that at the time.

but fuck it! its punk rock man! discussing shit is for nerds and people without a life!
I can come and go as I please!
It's all just sardonic whoopti fuckin' doooo! I mean its the internet, right!?

Lets all smoke some fuckin meth and sing for the new year!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSQx51l23fs

Every one should quit the board today.

But no one should kill themselves, ever.

#Jer2016

that's the nicest and funniest thing i may have ever read. it made smile

Final post.
I appreciate some of the few good people I met here and I hope you all have a wonderful life
If its not possible to delete a profile I would ask for a mod to ban me just to make sure I don't come back
I won't stay where I am not wanted and where discussions and people are treated as villains.

In case I don't see you, good afternoon, good evening, and goodnight

THen ill leave. and i never thought myself as a philosopher. you misrepresent just as much as any troll i've seen. as if trying to use evidence and logical analysis somehow is the same as saying " a Being of Logic" or a fucking philosopher king. delete me please.

by the way blake, jeremy proves you right [since he actually got your view and mine confused with each other, since you were the one worried about that] if belittling and trying to make people feel like shit is perfectly ok in the PC crowd as long as they use euphemisms maybe you are right about triggers be a bad idea.  lets take jeremy's sentence and show how a non-PC person would say it :

"Jesus, for someone who says their a vulcan, you sure are butthurt" and the PC crowd would CRY FOUL

even though the two sentences mean *the exact same thing* and have the intent to belittle and make someone feel like shit. so his confusion proves you right blake. very well indeed.
I won't be seeing you again sir, so it was a fun conversation until the hypocrite dick showed up

like no, seriously.... Sargon and his #GamerGate crew, who went absolutely nuclear because of an article with the obviously metaphorical and quite-well-explained-if-they'd-bothered-to-read-it headline "Gamers" Are Dead" is now trying to make a career of telling other people they're too sensitive?

I mean, I know you want us to engage with this bullshit academically but like....I can't stop laughing long enough

your practicing one of the worst logical fallacies and you know, i don't think you want an actual conversation. thats cool. i give up on it and the fact that using the sargon video was one part of a long post of a nearly 3 part post trying to get a conversation....and you laugh...whats the logic fallacy, guilt by association. you're giving him more credence by acting like a holier than though, religious fuck only your religion is the new liberalism, you don't talk about it, you l;augh, you act like a prick, and goddamn it you're not worth it

i didn't watch his gamergate stuff as i know he was being a dick, as i said before, for the process of being a dick

But the logical fallacy is assuming a person is wrong about all the things they say because their wrong about one [or anything] else they say when there are multitudes of his using evidence, logic, and actually following structured debate. I discovered this, as a post above mentioned, when i went out to watch *things I distinctly disagreed with to open my mind to objectivity* and discovered, well, people like you are just full of shit and don't want to disucss anything. i give up. i'm done. i don't know when i'll be back

I hope that this can get people questioning and objective....its hard when the person or people are mere words on page, as I recently parted with a friend [well I now know he was never a friend, friends don't shoot you down to an internet archetype and say your a fucker for merely having, or attempting to have, a conversation. I may not know what to believe and I may not know what or where my knowledge comes from, but I DO know convinction, I know what it means to be a good person, and I struggle daily with ethics and decisions because I truly want to be the best possible, moreso the best ethical, version of me I can become. But I fear these words are merely paint on the side of a store that no one ever shops at because no one ever cares.

Its a struggle to keep caring

OK my paranoia, which is natural and has existed within me since I entered puberty at ten years old, tells me that Blake would have had other people commenting if I hadn't responded. and fact checking is apparently something called 'mansplaining, which is sad that intellectual rhetoric has been denigrated [perhaps similarly how modern poetry has denigrated and is only serious in academia. I just don't understand the internet culture, but despite the idea that Jeremy had that we all have and experienced the internet to know these things naturally via enculturation, at age 32 who spent nearly ten years being a drug addict [highly functioning one but whateva], attending college off and on depending on level of drug abuse, playing music, and honestly just didn't use the internet. I never had a myspace, I had AIM for a year or two when it first released over all platforms, and lets face the facts I'm bad at interpersonal communication both on and off the web, also as Jeremy pointed out [which felt like being the weird kid in the room] so if my posting is preventing others from this discussion I will leave for awhile, its cool. so i'm going to respond on the fly to Blake, and perhaps this is a more poignant response as it will be immediate...

so my conclusions are that yes, there needs to be a discussion of Islam among the policy makers, however i'm not sure there is any policy that could be implented that wouldn't break one's liberty and civil rights. I follow the golden rule of democracy, "Your rights end where mine begin"

I'm just not sure confrontation with what is an extreme minority in the US is a beneficial ...but then again, the coddling in Britain has led to self segregation and muslim courts within their bounds. so lets check out some numbers about Isam and muslims in the US:

https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Center-for-Security-Policy-Nationwide-Survey-Topline-Results-5.21.2015.pdf
-now the numbers at first in this one are definitely worrying in what many Islams *think* and *have faith* in but how do they *practice* it? HUGE majority supercede Shiar law to our Bill of Rights. Which means that in practice, they will stand by America as Americans [in ideals in practice]...

and then Jihad... the meaning according to the muslim, the very scary numbers of those 1/4 to a 1/3 whom are basically all but ready for the end times, even if they don't actively practice that violence. But look at events in Britain, events in Sweden, if these ideologies became more important *in practice* that could be a serious problem in the future. I would also note, but not elaborate in case i'm boring the hell out of blake, that much of current islamic violence is within the political spectrum of sectarian violence due the Sunni / Shiat fight. ISIS is maned  by former Sadam leaders not because they support ISIS but because they want a Sunni political state, as opposed to the shiat theocracy of Iran.

but again, more evidence for some sort of wrangling in rogue justice:

https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/150612-CSP-Polling-Company-Nationwide-Online-Survey-of-Muslims-Topline-Poll-Data.pdf

while not majorty, the numbers are generally around 35-40%~ for Shiarah law and a staggering 84% say they believe there are violent Jihadist in the UNited States!

My conclusion is that I have no answer because we're stepping close to a serious dangerous slope of what it means to be a democratic and free nation. So how do we deal with what appears to be staggering numbers of people whose relative belief is exactly as Blake said, regressive, anti-woman, violent to the core.

The main thing I can say is this: it IS a conversation that needs to be had.
Blake was brave to bring it up
He should never have to fear of being labeled racist for seeing what he feels [and based on evidence is] a possible danger to his family and person [he did not say this but I assume it implied]

Never break the Democratic Golden Rule, now all we need is an idea....(assimilation via brazil's method in early 20th century, very similar but more forceful than US that has lead to an almost non-existence of race and identity politics to separate people? maybe ..]

Well i'm wrong again. If this whats happening at Trump events....its much worse and much more serious than I thought....

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-yewGHQbNFpDrGM0diZOLA

Update: The evidence is leaning toward your position. Ignoring the problem is and could be as bad as ignoring hitler when he first began invading eastern europe. That analogy is lacking in the fact that Nazism was a Soverign State and we're talking about a demographic of people, the concept of demographics can be hurtful to the gathering of data as much as it can be helpful. In case you get on and I haven't posted, I am leaving a video that not only agrees with your take on this problem but supports it with evidence

TRIGGER WARNING (as long as trigger warnings aren't law,  I think they're one of the greatest ideals to come out of 3rd wave feminism and represents a move away from the ape within and to the human without)
the following video is from a controversial speaker, though most label him without hearing what he actually says. He IS A DICK THOUGH! not all the time, not even half the time, but definitely a good 3rd of his content, which may be done to get the views while simultaneously being ironic in the battle to keep our Freedom of Speech. I do not always agree with him, but most of the time, due to his providing of evidence and multiple sources and structing his positions with logic, he tends to be correct. But he's not nice about it because he is,m perhaps justifiably, perturbed by the ignorance and willingness of ideologies and simply treats those who do not attempt to provide logical arguments as fools. THIS IS IMPORTANT THOUGH! If there ever was a rape culture [and i personally do believe the US and most western nations have a serious rape culture problem, this shows how much WORSE it could get **because of liberal, not conservative, ideology***

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaYwwyQWUrE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze0sK8f48x4

I'd like to thank you for a chance to have a conversation and inquiry of which debate is not a necessary. In this post I'd like to clarify and show mistakes [where i was wrong] before commenting on your above statement. I will first attempt to rebuttal my own position, then will offer you a rebuttal. please understand I am asking the forward questions to further the discussion and do not necessarily hold one view over the other nor am attacking you as a person.

Very quickly, I love trigger warnings, as long as they aren't Law. I read someone against them saying "any conflinct can be a trigger for trauma" or something like that. and I said yes, yes it can. and nice people will leave trigger warnings if they think its relevant to the topic. This is THE BEST thing to come out of third wave feminism, coupled of course with LBGT equalities

To give another example of the madness of current liberalism, yale students petitioned to have a tenured professor's name removed from the wall of his college *because his last name was lynch* and that had connotations to slavery, despite the etymology being from white men hanging colonials still loyal to Great Britain. But that doesn't matter because its his last name! Should we ban the new Twin Peaks TOO!?

*Corrections*
-While I was using authority and dogmatism synonymously, i do believe the progressiveness in current liberalism today is authoritarian and dogmatic. I would call it anti-liberal if its ends didn't match the anti-authoritarian ends as well. There means to do not justify this. In ethics, they are taking a hard line Kantian deontological ethic of *intention* despite any consequences [many of the political philosophers who are credited fore modern democracy were Utilitarians such as John Stuart Mill and John Locke, among others]

-THe jihadist as spoiled kids was meant to be anology, obviously most are the exact opposite of spoiled. It was meant to simplify a foreign policy that is so complicated that I'm not sure if I could sufficiently explain how I would do it or what I truly meant but it would include boycotting Israel as well as Saudia Arabia and not relying on the middle east for oil, while oil is not the main cause of many of these issues, it is an underlining influence and power that puts the region on the world stage where it otherwise wouldn't be. except for perhaps Turkey.

-When referring to the liberalismn of christ i meant something closer to what Hegel called a [damn i was reading pdf and i lost his exact phrasing] 'judgement' based, to paraphrase, which meant that christianity and Judaism both had a tendency toward ethics and morality. While I have not read the Koran from what I understand there is less value judgements as, from what a military intelligence form vet of both Iraqi wars who spoke and lived with Iraqis for two or three years, that those who follow the prophet have no need for moral judgements as this world is temporary. similar to new testament revelation in its apocalyptic description but differing quite a bit on what they deem *the present everyday world* to be and what their existence means in it. This is important and I will look into it further as it seems if true this could be a very direct ontological difference of the religion and culture

- Muslim leaders in Iran, every part of Indonesia, Pakistan, and others DID come out against ISIL.  In my previous comment, I didn't quite find my wording which is that no government but a secular government can produce and retain the freedom that liberalism aims to achieve. This is point of contention between my military friend, who honestly believes that if the US became a Christian theocracy, would not act in the same way as the muslim examples such as Iran

-Fun final comment: personal idea i have never read nor heard discussed [maybe it has i don't know] but if you look at the age of Islam, being a younger religion, and compare christianity at its equivalent maturity [roughly 600 years ago, the 1400s] Europe was ripe with authoritarian christian and monarchy governments, had little to no liberty for the common man, demeaned and killed women, etc etc etc and while I doubt this idea has much merit, i think it is an interesting one at least, that Islam is in its "terrible twos" or "terrible six" if you will, you get the metaphor i hope

The rest of this post is a copy paste from a video I commented on, needing to explain to someone where I'm coming from and how I feel. It is not necessary however for the discussion

I am feeling something that in the past could only be described, through similarity in description, as the absurd a la Camus. Last night I was reading Phenomenology of Self Conscious and under the chapter 'Stoicism, Skepticism and the Unhappy Consciousness' page 109 where the skepticism I have acquired and built, which led me to your videos recently when I began questioning liberalism and/or parts that evidence seemed lacking, is remarkably similar to the skepticism Hegel draws upon. Full disclosure, Hume introduced me to philosophy and therefore broke away my dogmatic slumbering.

I will try to be brief. Hegel describes the end result of skepticism as a global skepticism, which I too have found to be the result of inquiry via skepticism, but that it turns into a "negative knowledge" (109.) "We can know nothing and we cannot know nothing" and if we can't know that we don't know, the process further negates itself. While I concur with the aspect of freedom arising in this feeling or consciousness it pertains an overwhelming isolation and tends toward rather negative [depending on one's perception i guess] consequences, such as relativism which just doesn't sit right with me. For this reason, for lack of a better description and method for truthness, I have found you and others who use practical philosophy, supplying evidence for facts to attain veracity, and for lack of something better the closest approximate to any true perception of the UNiverse and our own consciousness must relie on consistency through our measurements, whether they be from our senses or from scientific instruments. Still, I feel an unrest that has cost my consciousness to be "lost" as Hegel puts it, due to its constantly affirming and denying itself. What began as a personal process through epistemological thinking now enters, i believe, the ontological one. What does my level or lack thereof of knowledge mean for my existence. It can truly be a wonderful but also terrifying experience because there exists an aloneness that goes far beyond Descartes meditations, perhaps. I don't know [of course]

*i will return to rebuttal myself and your previous comment within the next few hours, I will pull some resources just to make sure I don't blunder like the other comment I did*

I completely understand your sentiment, especially in regards to Islam.  Though the conservatives pushing this "liberal coddling" of islam is ridiculous to the point of absurdity. Ironically, while conservative dogmatism is much much worse and endorses much more illogical positions than those I previously alluded, convinction is definitely lacking on their side I think, and convinction is a great virtue when held with a desire to understand [the world and other people]

Now for islam....a problem to say the least. More worrisome than the jihadist is the possibility that they could eventually push right-wing democratic peoples to actually engage them in full blown war, which is what they want. In this way, the extreme christian consveratives and jihadist aren't too dissimilar, with one acting out their desires as another one does not. But Islam is by any measure a violent religion. but so christianity and its old testament judeo-christian theology is. As far as violence preached in gospel, the percentage is higher in the Koran [numerically small but smaller book]. An overwhelming majority of muslims are not from violent muslim countries nor practice violent practices, but the media narrative, partly due to the largest powers in Islam being countries and sects that are the hardline fundamentalism, gives off a perception that there are much more than truly exists [i suspect]. But then there's the hitchens logic, why have so few of the muslim leaders, leaders of their authority, come out against ISIL and such sectarian violence in the way that leaders [not all but majority] of christians now say things like INquisition- wrong. Gay marriage - support . etc. On the whole the other judeo-christian religions have moved steadily more liberal while Islam has ironically gone more conservative. Why? I can't answer but I suspect things such as classicism hidden underneath a society that has been continually oppressed and now used to further Jihadist leaders [much of ISIL leaders are admitted mercenaries, not jihadist, from Sadam's former government. They do not believe in caliphate ideaology *but have years of military and political strategy and experience*] and, in a way that can't be justified due old testament dogmatism, perhaps the core of Christs' teaching having a liberal and dare I saw somewhat democratic lean to it compared to nearly all religions of God style worship while Muhammed was a conquerer and warrior could have quite the cultural context and cultural conditioning that could to lead to current affairs. How do we deal with this problem? I have an idea and I could be very, very wrong.....  ignore them. We shouldn't try to keep assad out of syria, we shouldn't have gone into iraq and we shouldn't stay their, pull ourselves out and treat them like the spoiled child whom spankings makes more rebellious. Put them in timeout. the only and i mean ONLY way for this to work would also include breaking ties with Saudia Arabia, which is a country whose government would be just as bad as ISIL if they weren't on the world stage in the way they are [thanks again to capital / oil]

I have so much more thoughts but I am typing faster than thinking and I feel I need to gather my thoughts more and organize them a little before continuing. till tomorrow

I found this awhile back and saved it. I think no better example of this growing divide can be seen than the man himself having to bring down the current authoritarian [ and while there is a difference i have been kinda using the term interchangeablly with dogmatism here, but the end result from a majority controlled liberal of such dogmatic designs would lead to a leftist authoritarian state]

http://www.vox.com/2015/11/17/9750654/obama-missouri-yale-political-correctness

I too  have become much to aware of this divide. Interestingly enough, it came more to the forefront of my consciousness when deliberately watching political and psychological videos for which I had disagree or had written off. Due to the presence of the SJW and some of the actions of third wave feminism (specifically in Canada in terms of Law, there is someone jailed for using hate speech even though it now came out that it was someone else whom was using hate speech and the defendent, who did not agree with him, was fighting for his right of free speech) that are starting to practice a banning of free speech in mildest terms, leading [not there yet] to ideals similar to crimes of thought.

In this respect, it would appear current liberalism is moving toward an authoriatarian ideal, where in the place of dictators of statehood there is [for lack of a better term, i will use analogy] dictations of social hood. Identity politics is an example of one such device. THere is paradoxical problem that while it is logical to prove that identity politics separate people and limit individual agency, perhaps even freedom, certain problems that existed before the advent of identity politics cannot [apparently] be solved without it. Take affirmative action, the poster child for identity politics enforcing an authority. It would be ignorant to not consider AA as racist in its action as it specifically pertains to race. However, the problem it seeks to alleviate cannot be solved [arguably] without it [due to systemic problems, in this case racism]. Therefore AA is used and should be used to the extent that it is no longer a necessary...but since its exists leads consciousness toward the racist ideal, it may never [at least by itself] achieve this goal. It is a figure 8 if you will of logical politics.

Taking the above example can be applied, I think, to many such problems facing myself and liberals today.

SInce i'm here, PEEP SHOW SERIES 9!

watch it! watch it now!!

i mean, if you like, of course

I forget where you live, but he has a dozen American dates. Maybes one of them is near you!

Chicago is the closest :-(

Not surprised, Atlanta is in the south. and people outside US must be aware that a significant majority of the  'Murica! culture exists more or is more vocal in the south. Atlanta can be a really liberal, awesome city though, for what its worth

I don't think this stupidity is limited to white people. 

exactly, nor limited to conservatives.

fun liberal version [fun and sad]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQRAQUTDqF0&feature=share

this is really good.

for real, and i was unawarez

I'm seeing Noel Fielding in Chicago in March. Making the 5-6 hour drive from Ohio. Can't fucking wait.

say wuuuuuuuuuuuut!? I have a paid vacation that i have to take between feb-march.... to see a british comedian live would be epic.

i am green with envy

Ash vs. Evil Dead

and for funsies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR8LVFoCd5s

i'm not saying jewish and non jewish is the same but...um... saying that all jewish is spelled with a k and all non jewish is spelled with a q is so ridiculous i have no comment.

That's why I said almost definitely.  It's a generalization coming from a lot of personal experience.  I've just never seen Kabbalah spelled with a Q in the Jewish community, meanwhile new age/magician types often spell it that way.  So I feel it's important to point out that the guy you mentioned definitely wasn't studying Kabbalah within a centuries-old oral tradition like other Kabbalists.  The importance of lineage is debatable, but really, anybody can combine any number of spiritual practices..and as a spiritual seeker you probably want to know you're working with something that has a good chance of being effective....

Anyway, that wiki link I posted mentioned that sefirot in hermetic Qabbala is different than in Jewish Kabbalah.  So to then assert that the tarot represents the sefirot is pretty far-fetched.  I mean for one thing there are more tarot cards than sefirot.  But regardless of whose sephirot you're talking about, in their own ways both sefirot and tarot are fairly complete symbolic systems of psychological states and archetypes (although I wonder whether sefirot leans more toward the metaphysical than tarot) with their own proven methods for gaining understanding..so I wonder why you have to equate them?  As systems they each have their own internal logic, and if you take the symbol out of context (which is what you do when you compare tarot to sefirot) you lose a lot of meaning.  Maybe you create new meaning, I don't know...

's alight. I 've been stressed. I overreacted and was a jerk. Its a message board not an essay to be turned int at so and so. Less about you and more about where my mind has been lately. I left spiritual study after an experience, that , well i can't exactly describe and i'm not sure if anyone would be interested. I certainly don't want to turn anyone away from the things they are learning that brings positivity to their life.

Ryan, that fool card is pretty sweet. If i hadn't thrown away my crowley deck, i would mail it you. but i did, so i can't. but ya know. wicked art

You should enjoy it it while you can.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06qkp8w

the second half is amazing. this was supposed to be a lighter one and delves into some of the things i have mentioned or yelled in recent time on the board

I am aware that I am currently extremely high strung and I apologize

I'd go into it but i think most of experience or are currently experiencing large amounts of work with little pay and ever rising expectations when you do a kick ass jobs.

its like i'm not competing with other stores now, i'm competing against myself.  i started to say more but erased. post is about the maze.

I would like to think everyone who reads this would enjoy it, but even if you don't, its certainly food for thoughts. and even questions myself [and to be silly, the questioning of questioning, but thats more in relation to me and idealology and dogmatism which becomes this huge thing at the end.

moral maze usualluy has 4 people, two at least on the opposite political spectrum but politics, even when discussing political things, is never at the forefront. the fact that is labeled 'religious' in some podcast libraries kinda makes me want to punch someone...

but like i said, kinda high strung, i miss not caring and doing drugs and for that to be the only thing i think and care about...except i don't miss it, which boggles my mind further

Master of None on netflix is really, really good i thought.

felt like each episode was an indie film, yet entirely different tone from Louie

I was never a fan of aziz ansari, pardon if misspelled, on Parks and rec but I didn't really care for the tone of the show and never watched more than the first few episodes when it aired

on the british side, You me and the apocalypse is turning out pretty well albeit not as many laughs as I would hope, but many british comedies steer clear of direct jokes

and just discovered the Toast of London, which is incredibly hilarious