Ship of Fools: America First! Who wants to be second?

Thread: America First! Who wants to be second? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020078

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Go to this map. Double click any continent and double click any country and see their video addressing why they should be second. (The German video is insane--reminds me of someone).

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Hey! I linked that down in Hell. The original, the Netherlands, is the best.

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :

I enjoyed Australia's

sabine

Posted by neandergirl (# 8916) on :

I'm a Switzerfan myself.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

In all seriousness, I have always hated that "America First" shit. Back in the early days of the colonies it was i enlightened and naive to think of America as the Promised Land, but after 250 years of existence people should have learned by now that it's a great big world that tends to run more smoothly when you cooperate with it.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

"Unenlightened". Damn predictive text.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I have always hated that "America First" shit.

From this side of the Atlantic, my attitude to the phrase is potentially coloured by "Britain First" which is a neo-fascist bunch of thugs, the sort of thing that the majority of British people want to distance themselves from (though, not too far it seems as many people still swallowed anti-immigration lies and voted Leave on that basis).

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Isolationism is a close, and incestuous, relative of racism.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

There has been a persistent strain in American Christianity, that the US is God's chosen country. It is nonsense, of course, and can't stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny. (Go put the word 'America' into your online Bible concordance; I'll wait.) Nevertheless I have heard it from people I would have deemed intelligent persons of faith.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I rather liked the Lithuanian entry, as they're quite happy to be third .

Very modest.

And their President Dalia Grybauskaitė (not 'Grab-yer-skirt') looks to be one feisty lady...

And trumpas is Lithuanian for 'short', hopefully referring to Pussygrabber's presidency...

IJ

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Here is a POST article pointing out that saying America is a Christian nation is heresy.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Iran's contribution is by far the best, IMHO...

'Iran anywhere, but before Iraq'

[Overused]

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Isolationism is a close, and incestuous, relative of racism.

You paint with too broad a brush-as usual. In the U.S. between World Wars there was a significant amount of progressives who would have described themselves as isolationist and wanted to avoid another war in Europe.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

I've heard quite a bit of proof-texting around walls being God's Will(R). He built one round Jerusalem to protect it from invaders, so the USA should do likewise. (Ezekiel 22:30). Apparently God is not opposed to walls! There's a whole load of crap about one-world government, and how the story of Babel was about God endorsing the nation state as the God-given way to organise humanity. Not sure if this is a tangent.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Isolationism is a close, and incestuous, relative of racism.
You paint with too broad a brush-as usual. In the U.S. between World Wars there was a significant amount of progressives who would have described themselves as isolationist and wanted to avoid another war in Europe.

She said close relative, not identical.

What is "isolationism"? Ultimately it is keeping "us" separate from "them", and quite often that is manifest as fear. It is also manifest as a feeling of superiority, that "we" are better than "them" and "they" will spoil "our" superior civilisation. Between the wars US isolationism was about keeping Europe at arms length from the US, out of fear of being embroiled in another European war. Japan was isolated for centuries, out of fear that Japanese culture would be polluted by European influence. There is a strong current of isolationism in Brexit, out of fears that immigrants are "taking our jobs" and other such nonsense.

Racism is also about drawing a line between "us" and "them". It also is marked by a feeling of superiority, and also by no small amount of fear. Racists want to keep "them" down (or out) because ultimately they fear that racial equality will take away their feeling of superiority, their place near the top of the social pile.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Isolationism is a close, and incestuous, relative of racism.
You paint with too broad a brush-as usual. In the U.S. between World Wars there was a significant amount of progressives who would have described themselves as isolationist and wanted to avoid another war in Europe.

You are right! I forgot plain old xenephobia.
Progressive is a relative term.
One can be racist without hating everyone of different ethnicity.
Racism is, oh bugger; in saying I use too broad a brush, you use one to paint your picture of progressives.
There is a hell of a lot of racism in isolationist movements, despite there being some who are not.
The current isolationism in Britain and America is driven more by xenephobia and racism than sound economic theory.
Whilst one can attribute other motives to different periods of isolationism, you are seriously trying to tell me that the population then had a sound grasp of economics and political theory?

Edited for typo. bruschetta? Seriously, autocorrect?

[ 09. February 2017, 15:54: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

What is "isolationism"? Ultimately it is keeping "us" separate from "them", and quite often that is manifest as fear. It is also manifest as a feeling of superiority, that "we" are better than "them" and "they" will spoil "our" superior civilisation. Between the wars US isolationism was about keeping Europe at arms length from the US, out of fear of being embroiled in another European war. Japan was isolated for centuries, out of fear that Japanese culture would be polluted by European influence. There is a strong current of isolationism in Brexit, out of fears that immigrants are "taking our jobs" and other such nonsense.

Racism is also about drawing a line between "us" and "them". It also is marked by a feeling of superiority, and also by no small amount of fear. Racists want to keep "them" down (or out) because ultimately they fear that racial equality will take away their feeling of superiority, their place near the top of the social pile.

For many, particularly progressives, the motivation was pacifism. I seriously doubt people such as Sinclair Lewis and E.E. Cummings would have felt American civilization as inherently superior. They felt war was wrong and wanted to do their part to actively resist it.

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Edited for typo. bruschetta? Seriously, autocorrect?

Autocorrect understands that painting with a broad bruschetta would not be putting America first.

(my autocorrect suggested "butterscotch" [Smile]

)

sabine

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
For many, particularly progressives, the motivation was pacifism. I seriously doubt people such as Sinclair Lewis and E.E. Cummings would have felt American civilization as inherently superior. They felt war was wrong and wanted to do their part to actively resist it.

Again, too broad a brush. Pacifism ranges from all violence is bad to those people aren't worth fighting for.
And polling intellectuals doesn't necessarily reflect the general population.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sabine:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Edited for typo. bruschetta? Seriously, autocorrect?
Autocorrect understands that painting with a broad bruschetta would not be putting America first.

(my autocorrect suggested "butterscotch" )

sabine

Perhaps painting bruschetta with butterscotch?

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
For many, particularly progressives, the motivation was pacifism. I seriously doubt people such as Sinclair Lewis and E.E. Cummings would have felt American civilization as inherently superior. They felt war was wrong and wanted to do their part to actively resist it.
Again, too broad a brush. Pacifism ranges from all violence is bad to those people aren't worth fighting for.
And polling intellectuals doesn't necessarily reflect the general population.

You're right. Far better to assume the worst in people with whom you disagree.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Not assuming. An increased level of racist violence following Brexit and Trump is evidence.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not assuming. An increased level of racist violence following Brexit and Trump is evidence.

We seem to be talking at cross purposes or you are moving the goalposts. I'm not talking about Trump or Brexit. I'm stating that conflating all isolationists during the interwar period with racists is inaccurate and a hackneyed slur. Your original statement condemned isolationism at all times and places and additional comments continued to paint them with that brush.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Let's look at it this way. Trump did almost no outlining of actual policy. What he did was appeal to racism, xenophobia and American exceptionalism(which is often a combination of the two).
One of the few things he did fill in the details for? An economic plan that will be detrimental to his base. And yet they still voted for him.
No matter what people thought he might represent, all they had was what he said. Which is mostly racism and xenophobia.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Let's look at it this way. Trump did almost no outlining of actual policy. What he did was appeal to racism, xenophobia and American exceptionalism(which is often a combination of the two).
One of the few things he did fill in the details for? An economic plan that will be detrimental to his base. And yet they still voted for him.
No matter what people thought he might represent, all they had was what he said. Which is mostly racism and xenophobia.

I realize I may not be the most engaging personality but what you wrote above does not address anything I wrote in the post above. Did you even read it? I said "I'm not talking about Trump or Brexit."

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not assuming. An increased level of racist violence following Brexit and Trump is evidence.
We seem to be talking at cross purposes or you are moving the goalposts. I'm not talking about Trump or Brexit. I'm stating that conflating all isolationists during the interwar period with racists is inaccurate and a hackneyed slur. Your original statement condemned isolationism at all times and places and additional comments continued to paint them with that brush.

I never said all, that is your projection. BTW, this thread is about Trump.
For any philosophy there will be a variation in what it means to any individual. It is as predjudicial to broadly ascribe positive motivation as it is negative.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Let's look at it this way. Trump did almost no outlining of actual policy. What he did was appeal to racism, xenophobia and American exceptionalism(which is often a combination of the two).
One of the few things he did fill in the details for? An economic plan that will be detrimental to his base. And yet they still voted for him.
No matter what people thought he might represent, all they had was what he said. Which is mostly racism and xenophobia.
I realize I may not be the most engaging personality but what you wrote above does not address anything I wrote in the post above. Did you even read it? I said "I'm not talking about Trump or Brexit."

Dude, x-post.
You have to have noticed that term here. Unlike a typical face to face conversation, one online is often out of phase. So, unless your post is quoted within a subsequent post, it is mistaken to assume that the latter is necessarily a reply to the former.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

What is "isolationism"? Ultimately it is keeping "us" separate from "them", and quite often that is manifest as fear. It is also manifest as a feeling of superiority, that "we" are better than "them" and "they" will spoil "our" superior civilisation. Between the wars US isolationism was about keeping Europe at arms length from the US, out of fear of being embroiled in another European war. Japan was isolated for centuries, out of fear that Japanese culture would be polluted by European influence. There is a strong current of isolationism in Brexit, out of fears that immigrants are "taking our jobs" and other such nonsense.

Racism is also about drawing a line between "us" and "them". It also is marked by a feeling of superiority, and also by no small amount of fear. Racists want to keep "them" down (or out) because ultimately they fear that racial equality will take away their feeling of superiority, their place near the top of the social pile.
For many, particularly progressives, the motivation was pacifism. I seriously doubt people such as Sinclair Lewis and E.E. Cummings would have felt American civilization as inherently superior. They felt war was wrong and wanted to do their part to actively resist it.

From what I can recall from my history lessons, the main driver behind US isolationism was that it was felt that another war between European nations was likely and that isolationism would minimise the chances of the US becoming involved in that war. Lewis and Cummings represent one aspect of that, the pacifists not wanting any war. There were others who had no particular objection to war, but were not wanting US soldiers getting killed in someone else's war.
In both cases, these fall approximately under the banner of fear - the fear that involvement in European affairs would lead to US troops having to fight in a European war. And, some isolationists no doubt also had other reasons.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Alan had it right in interpreting my first post that began this interchange. But he was evaluating what I actually said.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

On the map if you click NZ you get the video for Australia [Roll Eyes]

Now Australia is a great country [Biased]

but it's not NZ.

I found NZ's video by Googling and I love it. The url is too long to post and I've never got the hang of doing a tiny one, but I encourage you to Google it.

(In NZ, New Zealand First is a political Party with 12 out of 121 seats in Parliament. It is anti immigration.)

Huia

[ 11. February 2017, 03:21: Message edited by: Huia ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

New Zealand Second

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

Thanks lilBuddha, I'm a bit more dozy than usual at the moment [Hot and Hormonal]

but when I'm back to myself I must master the technique properly.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There has been a persistent strain in American Christianity, that the US is God's chosen country. It is nonsense, of course, and can't stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny. (Go put the word 'America' into your online Bible concordance; I'll wait.) Nevertheless I have heard it from people I would have deemed intelligent persons of faith.

I think it is an easy trap to fall into - one that first came home to me not in the US, but at the memorial to the Huguenots in South Africa.

You have a band of people attached to God and Scripture who flee their native land because they are persecuted for precisely these reasons. It's not hard to see how they identified themselves with the slaves in Egypt (in much the same way as christianised African slaves did).

They arrived in somewhere as beautiful as South Africa where there was no persecution and they had the technological advantage. It's also easy to see how they would adopt the next part of the metaphor too: clearly, this was God's Promised Land for them and they had a mandate to drive out and/or subdue the heathen inhabitants.

Today in the US, I think this outlook is aided by the fact that the Old Testament shows us a theocracy, not a democracy, and a culture with a very definite "chain of being" with some at the top and others lower down (usually women, slaves, etc.).

I think not a few christians, especially evangelicals, continue to see authority along the lines of this "chain of being". For them, the idea of equality is actually a less important one than the idea of hierarchy*.

"America First" makes perfect sense in that light.

==

*I recently criticised a US acquaintance for supporting Trump by saying the latter was a "threat to democracy" - then later realised he might have actually thought democracy was not such a good thing...

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
In NZ, New Zealand First is a political Party with 12 out of 121 seats in Parliament. It is anti immigration.

I wonder how many other nations have political parties or campaign groups with a name like "[nation] First". Are any of them not racist and xenophobic?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

*I recently criticised a US acquaintance for supporting Trump by saying the latter was a "threat to democracy" - then later realised he might have actually thought democracy was not such a good thing...

Too few care about the equality of all. Too many care for the supremacy of themselves.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Hey, why haven't we produced a film? We've got a far better claim than all these other cruddy no good little states - who's heard of Germany or the Netherlands? Where are they?

Admit it Mr President. "Nether' means 'bottom'. AND we even do 'bottoms' better than them. We really know how to lick them - we do it better, so much better, than anyone else. Our PM has already shown up in Washington to lick yours, to make us your poodle, or rather the du-dus that come out of it. These others are only pretending. She really loves you.

AND we've a foreign secretary who loves you. He loves you so much he even looks like you. And he's got hair like yours. AND another of our wonderful politicians has been photographed in a golden lift with you. Mr President you'd really love our politicians. You don't even need to try to win them over. They already love you. AND your dear old mom comes from what is still part of here. AND we've got lots of wind farms - O no, I forgot, you don't like them. They spoil golf courses. Perhaps keep quiet about them. Put some pretty girls in front of the pictures of them. We got fantastic women, lots of them. Half our entire population have pussies.

AND we've got even stoopider voters than you have. You got in with a minority vote. But 54% of us voted stoopid. Hey AND we've already got a wall. It's nearly 2,000 years old. It keeps the Scots out. AND it works. It must do. Think about it Mr President. Your dear old mom ended up in New York, not Manchester, Preston or somewhere - though they are really cool. You'd love Preston. AND we shoot Mexicans - O No, sorry, that was a Brazilian. Well, they're all the same.

We used to have the BEST COMEDIANS is the world. We were famous for them. Most of them haven't died yet. Surely we can do better than all these other places. We must be funnier than Luxembourg - that's just a radio station after all.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Isolationism is a close, and incestuous, relative of racism.

And America was not racist in the Depression years? Really?

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

Horseman Bree, how are you reading lilBuddha's claim about the relationship between isolationism and racism as implying that the US wasn't racist during the Depression?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

*I recently criticised a US acquaintance for supporting Trump by saying the latter was a "threat to democracy" - then later realised he might have actually thought democracy was not such a good thing...

What drives me guano is when some stupid Republican then turns around and says, "We're not a democracy we're a republic." This is somehow supposed to show that the Democratic Party is wrong and the Republican Party is right. It gets so fucking old.

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I wonder how many other nations have political parties or campaign groups with a name like "[nation] First". Are any of them not racist and xenophobic?

We (apparently) have an Australia First Party which is ultra-right. It is one of those parties that my eyes glaze over and automatically put at the bottom of the order of preferences.

One of the joys of preferential voting is: who will I put last?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Horseman Bree, how are you reading lilBuddha's claim about the relationship between isolationism and racism as implying that the US wasn't racist during the Depression?

I'm confused by this as well.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What drives me guano is when some stupid Republican then turns around and says, "We're not a democracy we're a republic."

I would lay odds that most of them do not understand the definitions of wither word.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

*I recently criticised a US acquaintance for supporting Trump by saying the latter was a "threat to democracy" - then later realised he might have actually thought democracy was not such a good thing...
What drives me guano is when some stupid Republican then turns around and says, "We're not a democracy we're a republic."

Are they just trying to make some sort of partisan joke based on the parties' names, or is that evidence of some particular viewpoint that I've missed?

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

Who decided that America was number one? I think the main problem in the world is that nations think they are superior to other nations, rather than recognising that we are all created equal. We all tend to love our own countries, but that doesn't mean that we have the right to claim we are better than the people of any other country. Such attitudes lead to resentment, anger and potentially to war.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

bib:
Yes, what in the donald is that?
There is a frequently observed foundational theory, even when recognised, continues to operate. Something about being a little more and special. Exceptionalism isn't erased just because it is acknowledged. With the rise of richman pseudo-populism, it may actually eventually become recognised as the mean practical joke on the world it is.

Rhymes with the history of America's 'Greece', which referendumed itself into a painful joke where they debate a deformed toad visiting an elderly woman.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

America thinks it is first because in living memory it has been. At least militarily, politically and economically.
It has been ages since the UK could legitimately think this, but some still do.
Now, I agree that powerful shouldn't mean preeminent, but it isn't hard to see why some do.
You do not get to what should be by ignoring what is. Instead you get Brexit and Trump.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Jesus stated 'the last shall be first and the first shall be last'. Something extreme right wing enthusiasts using the blah blah blah First mantra may wish to ponder, especially if they are also adherents to the Good Book.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Who decided that America was number one?

It is a very old idea, dating back to the Pilgrims ("a city set on a hill"). It has always been stupid, but is especially pernicious when it ties into religion (" ...because God chose us to be number one!"). There are large segments of the population who insist on lip service to the notion. One of the many calumnies slung against Barack Obama was that he didn't think America was the greatest. Hence the slogan of Li'l Donny.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Those pilgrims you refer to weren't a very nice bunch of people from what I gather. The way it comes across to an outside is that they created a nasty puritanical cult. Sort of like British Amish or one of those groups with a compound with the power of life and death over the group, keen on witch trials. Paranoid.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

You may have already seen this linked article in the Washington Post. I can't remember if any of the many threads on these boards have already linked to it. It's Stanley Hauerwas on patriotism as a false god, and the use of Christian phraseology in the service of patriotism as idolatry.

Trump is not the first person to abuse Christianity this way. Unless he and his minions bring about the destruction of the world, he's unlikely to be the last. It's difficult to fault what Hauerwas is saying. It's a warning not just for now but for all time.

I think Hauerwas is bang on.

[ 12. February 2017, 20:29: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

What's sad is that Christians (real ones, not Trumpian heretics) are taken in by his faux faith.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
You may have already seen this linked article in the Washington Post. I can't remember if any of the many threads on these boards have already linked to it. It's Stanley Hauerwas on patriotism as a false god, and the use of Christian phraseology in the service of patriotism as idolatry.

The American Civil Religion has been just this amalgam of patriotism and Christianity Lite for years.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

I've read the term manifest destiny applies to the U.S is that what it means or is that something else?

Historically, the term God's own country or simply Godzone has been used within New Zealand to describe itself, but I have seen that more as a description of the scenery than anything else. As a country we are not big nor powerful enough to impress anyone with our might or superiority - thank goodness.

Huia

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
I've read the term manifest destiny applies to the U.S is that what it means or is that something else?

I think "manifest destiny" as used in the US was the idea that we have an obvious (manifest) divine command (destiny) to kill, displace, and/or corral all the Indians that stand in the way between the current US borders and the Pacific Ocean.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I looked up both on wiki and I don't think an American Civil Religion exists. I think that America, functionally, has always operated as a Christian nation, no lite about it.
Manifest destiny seems to be tied to that as well.
I've always been in favour of disestablishment. However, given the hold that Christianity has in a country that began with that as a premise, I am less certain.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

We periodically have a manifest destiny discussion. I went looking for one of my archived posts, which is below. It's from the "Neigh, Horseman Bree" thread, now in Oblivion. Other relevant posts by others are on that page, too.

quote:
Manifest destiny is basically "we're here, we won, so it's manifestly true that God destined it--YAYYYYYYY us".

Back in 2013, we had a thread called "Will there ever be effective gun control in the USA?". We got into the same sort of conversation, and I posted this:

quote:
As various of us Americans have pointed out on various related threads, American mythology is a large chunk of the problem. There are variations, but IMHO the main theme is something like this:

{Note: I DO NOT ENDORSE THIS!!!}

Our European ancestors were facing trials, tribulations, and persecutions back there. They couldn't follow their God-given faith. (Christianity, of course--nothing else counts.) So these Pilgrims bravely sailed to the New World, guided by the Manifest Destiny that God prepared for them. (Light to the world, etc.)

They bravely built settlements. They met and mingled with the local savages, who initially helped the Pilgrims learn how to live on this continent. But there was a falling out: the Indians didn't want to accept our clearly superior ways, nor acknowledge that God Had Given US This Place To Tame. So we fought them, which was unfortunate; but they clearly had it coming, because they weren't following God's will. Darn it, we tried to help the survivors out with education. We even gave them land to live on. We couldn't have been any fairer than that.

We civilized this country, with guns, determination, and grit, pushing ever westward. We cleared the land, and made it useful. We were pioneers. A man could work hard, get his own land, build a house with his own hands (and, sometimes, help from the neighbors). He had a God-given right to protect it from varmints, thieves, Injuns, and meddling governments. No one has the right to interfere with that--ever.

We're still pioneers. We're still manifestly destined. We lead the world in democracy, innovation, and military strength. We won't start a war (unless it's in our best interests); but, by gum, we will finish anyone who brings war to us.

May God bless and keep the United States of America, and may we always kick the asses of anyone who gets in our God-given way.

Does that make the situation a little clearer??

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

The weird and scary fact in this account is that, to a great extent, the American continent was more empty when the Pilgrims came that at any other time in history. Disease brought by the conquistadores swept through the Native American population and emptied the land. White men found native villages that were empty of inhabitants -- everyone had died of the measles. Naturally they thought that God's hand was in it. There was no other explanation they could have come to. They themselves, coming from germy and disease-ridden Europe, were immune to all these illnesses.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Nope, still bullshit. Plagues happened in Europe, the good and the righteous and the white still fell afoul of the nasty real world. They ascribed what they saw to what they wanted to be.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It also fails to take account of the high death rate from disease and starvation in the first European settlements in the Americas. Praise God for the death of the native population (which we can blame on the hispanics), and forget the toll on European settlers.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Who decided that America was number one? I think the main problem in the world is that nations think they are superior to other nations, rather than recognising that we are all created equal. We all tend to love our own countries, but that doesn't mean that we have the right to claim we are better than the people of any other country. Such attitudes lead to resentment, anger and potentially to war.

Totally agreed. This mindset is exactly what knocks us out of the running for status as a Christian nation.See rolyn's post.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

quote:
What's sad is that Christians (real ones, not Trumpian heretics) are taken in by his faux faith

I guess I have a problem with the implication that real Christians have been taken in by the Orange One's false faith.

I certainly wasn't. Nearly all the members of the congregation I attend weren't.

To be sure some pastors report their congregations are evenly split, but it does seem as time is going on many of the ones who voted for Trump are beginning to wake up to the devil in sheep's clothing.

If anything, it is causing us to be more open about what does it really mean to be Christian.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

People over here have been waffling on about respecting the leader/president of the free world.

Since I have no choice, then if he is my leader/president, I am not free. Oxymoron. Oxymoron squared since he wasn't even the choice of most of his serfs.

And as for the people on the Tory benches going on about the democratically elected leader/president, and respect for the holder of the office....(Well, they believe in the magic mandate fairy who converts something short of a popular vote into a massive mandate for stuff that wasn't in their manifesto, so what do I expect?)

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Penny S:

quote:
People over here have been waffling on about respecting the leader/president of the free world.

I do respect Angela Merkel.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

The expression "America First" seems to have been associated in the 1930s with appeasement of the German Nazi regime. If you google 'america first dr seuss' there are some excellent political cartoons by the good doctor. He seemed particularly fond of portraying the Republican Party as the GOPstrich - a large bird hiding its head in the sand.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Nope, still bullshit. Plagues happened in Europe, the good and the righteous and the white still fell afoul of the nasty real world. They ascribed what they saw to what they wanted to be.

Well of course they did. They still do -- did you see that some fundamentalists are claiming that the dam in Oroville, CA is crumbling because God is smiting California about gay people?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

But how will their 'god' ensure that only gayz are drowned if (Real God forbid) the dam breaks?

Batshit crazy or what.....

[Disappointed]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

It beats me. The same argument was made after Hurricaine Katrina -- all those gays in New Orleans needed smiting. That so many churches and Christians took the hit seemed to indicate that God has bad aim.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Jane--

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Penny S:
quote:
People over here have been waffling on about respecting the leader/president of the free world.
I do respect Angela Merkel.

{Chortle.}

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Re God smiting the Oroville dam:

Does that mean that Westboro Church folks will show up in Oroville? Or at the evacuation centers?
[Paranoid]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

quote:
What's sad is that Christians (real ones, not Trumpian heretics) are taken in by his faux faith
I guess I have a problem with the implication that real Christians have been taken in by the Orange One's false faith.

I certainly wasn't. Nearly all the members of the congregation I attend weren't.

Well 85% of self-professing Evangelical, conservative, and born-again Christians voted for him. At least SOME of that lot are "real" Christians, I should think. Your congregation may not be representative of that population.

[ 14. February 2017, 23:20: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Perhaps it's good to keep in mind that a) lots of people didn't vote at all; b) the answers from people polled are *their* answers, not necessarily those of the unpolled; and c) people don't necessarily tell pollers the truth.

FWIW, YMMV.

Not pointing specifically at you, mousethief. Have seen similar in many others' posts. This is just the time I happened to mention it.
[Angel]

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well 85% of self-professing Evangelical, conservative, and born-again Christians voted for him. At least SOME of that lot are "real" Christians, I should think. Your congregation may not be representative of that population.

This surprises me a lot, given his contention in Christian circles. From where do you draw this statistic?

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

I like the Swiss version - "We look after everyone's money... including yours" [Subtext: treat us right or you'll never see it again]

Not as much as the Netherlands one, though. That's still the best.

(of course the real reason why there isn't a UK one is that Mayhem & Co think we already are second. Or pretending to be second whilst secretly knowing that we're first. Or something)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

As for the videos, I think the "America First, Mordor Second" one is inspired. Inspired by Melkor, but inspired nonetheless.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Perhaps it's good to keep in mind that a) lots of people didn't vote at all; b) the answers from people polled are *their* answers, not necessarily those of the unpolled; and c) people don't necessarily tell pollers the truth.

Yes, good point. One would have to know how many evangelicals didn't vote. We're told larger numbers (percentage) of evangelicals voted than the population at large. But I've never heard numbers or percents put on that.

But suggesting that GLEs would lie? Shame. [Two face]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by molopata:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well 85% of self-professing Evangelical, conservative, and born-again Christians voted for him. At least SOME of that lot are "real" Christians, I should think. Your congregation may not be representative of that population.
This surprises me a lot, given his contention in Christian circles. From where do you draw this statistic?

2016 Presidential Election.

If you scroll down to voter demographics (a long way down), you'll find an entry for "White evangelical or born again" showing 81% for Trump. mousethief's 85% may be just a rounding up, or based on a different source.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by molopata:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well 85% of self-professing Evangelical, conservative, and born-again Christians voted for him. At least SOME of that lot are "real" Christians, I should think. Your congregation may not be representative of that population.
This surprises me a lot, given his contention in Christian circles. From where do you draw this statistic?
2016 Presidential Election.

If you scroll down to voter demographics (a long way down), you'll find an entry for "White evangelical or born again" showing 81% for Trump. mousethief's 85% may be just a rounding up, or based on a different source.

Misremembery. I will use the more accurate number from now on. Thank you, Barnabas62.

It strikes me now that liberal Evangelicals, like liberal non-E's, probably voted in lower %% than conservative Evangelicals, so the 81% likely overrepresents the conservative proportion of Evangelicals as a whole.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I rather liked the video from the Government of Mordor, too. However, I think it was a hoax - after all, it's quite possible that President Pussygrabber is, in fact, Our Lord Sauron The Great returned from the abyss of Nothingness into which the destruction of the Ring plunged Him!

If you recall the facts, Our Lord Sauron was missing one finger of The Black Hand, which may explain why His Revenant's hands are now small (not enough material left to make a full-sized pair).

I'll collect me Elvish cloak on the way out...

IJ

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

[Smile]

Kindly stay on. After rubbing my eyes on seeing extracts from DDT's latest news conference, I think I'm about ready to believe anything.

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by molopata:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well 85% of self-professing Evangelical, conservative, and born-again Christians voted for him. At least SOME of that lot are "real" Christians, I should think. Your congregation may not be representative of that population.
This surprises me a lot, given his contention in Christian circles. From where do you draw this statistic?
2016 Presidential Election.

If you scroll down to voter demographics (a long way down), you'll find an entry for "White evangelical or born again" showing 81% for Trump. mousethief's 85% may be just a rounding up, or based on a different source.

Thanks for the link Barnabas, much appreciated.

Nevertheless, in aberration to what I just said in my last post I am still not quite ready to accept it. The table provides a categorisation showing Protestants on 27% of the voting population and split on 37 - 60 in favour of Trump. Evangelicals, which I assume to be almost entirely Protestants account for 26% of the voting population, but are split 16 - 81 in favour of Trump. Somehow that doesn't quite rhyme.

One thing that the table also does not account for are the large number of voters who abstained from voting at all. For some of them this will be because they detested Clinton a lot and Trump even more. I know a few Evangelicals who fall into this category. I would thus like to propose a lukewarm defence for the reputation of Evangelical Christians who, all things considered, probably not as bad as 81% pro-Trump.

[ 17. February 2017, 23:25: Message edited by: molopata ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by molopata:

One thing that the table also does not account for are the large number of voters who abstained from voting at all. For some of them this will be because they detested Clinton a lot and Trump even more. I know a few Evangelicals who fall into this category. I would thus like to propose a lukewarm defence for the reputation of Evangelical Christians who, all things considered, probably not as bad as 81% pro-Trump.

I don't consider this a defence at all. They are responsible for Trump as well because they did not stop him.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

Mathematically, it is half of a defense because they are only half as much responsible as people who voted for Trump.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re God smiting the Oroville dam:

Does that mean that Westboro Church folks will show up in Oroville? Or at the evacuation centers?

Yeah, because Oroville is such a gay Mecca. The disaster is occurring in one of the reddist districts in the state.

Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on :

Of course, that might indicate God's judgement on a different group...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re God smiting the Oroville dam:

Does that mean that Westboro Church folks will show up in Oroville? Or at the evacuation centers?

Yeah, because Oroville is such a gay Mecca. The disaster is occurring in one of the reddist districts in the state.

I didn't think that was how it worked. I thought it was to scare the straights for their toleration of the evilness the gayz.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Oroville would be a fantastic Gay Mecca as it is already dammed.

I'll get me coat

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

@ molopata

There may be no contradiction. It depends on whether the questionnaire re religious affiliation enabled people to self identify as evangelicals (or born again) as a distinctive category, rather than sub category of Protestant.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Kelly--

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re God smiting the Oroville dam:

Does that mean that Westboro Church folks will show up in Oroville? Or at the evacuation centers?

Yeah, because Oroville is such a gay Mecca. The disaster is occurring in one of the reddist districts in the state.

But WC doesn't limit itself to protesting at funerals of LGBT folks. They twist things to prove that X person had something to do with aiding and abetting. They were even going to protest at Mr. Roger's funeral. Fortunately, they changed their minds.

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ molopata

There may be no contradiction. It depends on whether the questionnaire re religious affiliation enabled people to self identify as evangelicals (or born again) as a distinctive category, rather than sub category of Protestant.

Absolutely, but I don't think that would be very many people belonging the categories which are not Protestant, as they are almost mutually exclusive. People who are non-Protestant are in the rarest of cases going to identify as born-again (with the caveat of Buddist/Hindu reincarnation of course!).

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

The problem with trying to use statistics to prove real Christians actually voted for Trump and not Hilary is that you assume all those who say they are Christian and voted for Trump are real Christians. Remember, Trump, got less than half the vote. Thus, it stands to reason only 40 percent of all those who claim to be Christian total, actually voted for Trump.

Also, remember, Jesus said "Not everyone who says 'Lord, Lord' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Just because one claimms to be Christian does not make him or her Christian. When I hear all the bigotted remarks from Trump supporters, I know they are way off the mark.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Every time we have the discussion as to "who is or isn't a Christian?" on the Ship, it devolves into mud slinging and finger waving and other forms of unpleasantness. And the bottom line always comes down to, "If X says he's a Christian, who is anybody else to say he isn't?"

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

(Hope this is the right thread for this.)

"John McCain just systematically dismantled Donald Trump’s entire worldview" (Wash. Post).

McCain "threw shade" (hope I'm using that right!) at T at a European conference--never mentioning his name.
[Overused]

Wish we could put them in a competition with each other: boxing, wrestling, pie-throwing...
[Two face]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

For those, like me, who don't care to pay to subscribe to the Washington Post, here's a link to same that is not behind a paywall.

[ 19. February 2017, 10:29: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0