Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
That is the natural equilibrium state of any religious organization. And Great Awakenings weren't only a thing of the south
. And I still find them puzzling.
They're patriots who love their country and would do anything to protect its interests. Anything.
Can we still make fun of the Scientologists?
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016The issues with Scientology are well documented. To claim that corruption is the equilibrium of every religion is a highly biased statement, though, that ignores that most churches aren't mega churches with preachers living in mansions. Or that there are several churches out there that aren't run by bigots. Frankly, it just reduces everything to a stereotype and I'd like to avoid that.
It's where they go when permanent effort isn't expended to stop them from doing so. It's a greasy slippery slope. If some groups manage not to slip to the bottom of it, good for them. Mormons are pretty good about the faith not being about money, great community lives, but in their case the "corruption" comes from an overzealous holier-than-thou competition.
![]()
![]()
Atheism doesn't have priests or a religious organization, and it's very hard to become an asshole over a lack of belief, but it can and has become corrupt, when it defined itself as an opposition to religion. When children get bullied in school for being openly Christian, you know you're dealing with corruption. When atheist authors prioritize pandering to their audience or viciously insulting the theists over being factual and accurate, you're dealing with corruption (or selling out, if you want to be nice).
Religion's tendency to rot comes from two roots: having a specialist class whose livelihood depends on telling others what to do and what to believe, and forming a group that defines itself in opposition to other groups. The former leads to putting the interests of the priesthood over the tenets of the religion (and that can be a good thing, when those become outdated or turn out to be harmful), the latter leads to treating other groups as inferior, leading to resentment when a minority and oppression when a majority.
If you're going to leave something "for the record", make assertions, not questions. Especially questions that are so unsubtly aimed at making the opposition look bad or feel uncomfortable. Now, if there aren't any further questions, let's get back on topic.
So I've looked up the Wikipedia articles on Great Awakenings. Doesn't say nuffin on corruption. They seemed mostly to be about a change of style and about pandering to emotion and mysitcal experience. At least the first one.
edited 6th May '13 2:50:42 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.OK, to get off the religion talk, I was examining the following political scenario: Marco Rubio gets his immigration bill passed, and it hands him enough hispanic votes that he wins the 2016 presidential elections. Simultaneously, however, the GOP splits on the immigration bill and a large amount of hispanic votes voting and splitting their tickets result in minimal gains for the Republicans in 2014 and huge losses in 2016, so that President Rubio faces commanding democratic majorities in Congress in his first term. What would that end in? Is it OK to ask here?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman![]()
It depends largely on Rubio's platform. He's a Tea Party darling, but he doesn't appear to be a completely insane "dismantle the Fed/go back on the gold standard/eliminate entitlements" type. I don't think that a Democratic Congress and a Republican President would have the same sort of legislative gridlock that we're having now, but how much would actually get passed would depend largely on what the President tried to get done.
Remember, the ideological purism and insistence on dismantling government has always been a feature of the extremes of the Republican party but was largely suppressed after World War Two, only regaining a foothold in government during Reagan's era.
It must not be forgotten that the true goal of the modern Republican party is to destroy faith in government so that they can dismantle social programs and shift income to the wealthy. That's why they're austerity hawks.
As for the militia nutjob types, their main reason for supporting Republicans is the party's insistence on Second Amendment rights, which it has adopted specifically to pander to that constituency. The GOP also likes to play on people's distrust of goverment, which it foments by making government as ineffective and irresponsible as it can whenever it has control.
edited 6th May '13 7:15:58 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Anti-government nuts
Pyrete's examples are not bad at all. Distrust of the local and state authorities is just as common as distrust of the federal government among hardcore anti-government types, and they're more common than some of you are making them out to be. These types of people can be found in all types of residences from urban areas to rural areas and everywhere in between. Their political affiliations also aren't as clearly defined.
@Caffeine regulation
Sounds good, but a few things. There are conflicting studies on what caffeine consumption does to the body in the long term and (surprise, surprise) both the FDA, the American Heart Association and the American College of Sports Medicine recommend mild to moderate consumption of caffeine in order to experience the health benefits identified from its consumptions. In other words, it's that same rule we've been hearing over and over again that people keep ignoring: consume in moderation.
With regard to the link between coffee and cancer, that has more to do with diterpene levels and the amount of artificial sweeteners used in coffee-based products. Coffee grains with a low amount of diterpene are safer for conumption than those with higher levels of diterpene. Most American grains of coffee will have very little diterpene to begin with, so it's not difficult to avoid the compound here in the US. Some of the same can be said about caffeine, which has debatable health risks and benefits depending on how much you're consuming and whether or not you have a predisposed tolerance toward it. On lifting days, I'll have one to two cups of coffee as a pre-workout boost, but I avoid it on cardio days. When preparing for an event that requires a large amount of cardiovascular activity such as an endurance run or triathlon, many fitness experts recommend reducing or stopping caffeine intake.
As for the FDA itself, yes, they should be allowed to do their jobs. However, the FDA and any other organization should be taken with an reasonable degree of caution because this is the same organization that has practically invented reasons why marijuana shouldn't be decriminalized. That has more to do with its relationship with the DEA, the National Republican Committee and other organizations that have a vested interest in keeping pot from getting a green light. The same can be said of the relationship between the FDA and the Corn Refiners of America and Pfizer (high fructose corn syrup and anti-depressants, respectively).
My general point is that distrust of organizations is not a zero-sum, either-or argument. Both private industry and public oversight are subject to misinformation and outright corruption, depending on internal and external influences. Conservatives say government organizations cause all the problems. Liberals say that private businesses cause all the problems. It's bits and pieces of both and then some. There are plenty of examples of this such as the relationship between the Department of Energy and Exxon-Mobil, the relationship between the FDA and major pharmaceutical companies, or the relationship between private defense contractors and the Department of Defense.
Nepotism is also still very much a reality. Hypothetically speaking, if politican A and drug CEO B are in cahoots with government organization president C, you shouldn't be surprised to find that drug CEO B's anti-depressant gets approved with relative ease by government organization president C and with public support from politician A. This is how we got things such as fracking, Prozac and the F-35 Lightning II. Ask the guys in the military thread how they feel about the latter, and you'll get a good idea of what I'm talking about here.
edited 6th May '13 7:22:11 AM by Aprilla
Oh, I don't deny at all the effects of corruption on regulators. That kind of thing is why we create watchdog agencies and try to minimize the effects of money in politics, recognizing that it will always be an uphill battle.
Regulators being unduly influenced by the industries they regulate is neither a Republican nor Democrat thing. But the two sides make different arguments for solving the problem. For Republicans, it's, "Do away with regulations and let the free market handle its own affairs;" while for Democrats, it's, "Minimize the corrupting influences so that the regulators can do their job."
Mostly. You always find some bad apples anywhere.
edited 6th May '13 7:50:45 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Kinda torn here. Do we want to secure the border from illegal immigration before we can fix the horrible mess of immigration laws that we have today?
The article is a bit scarce on details of how this "super fence" would work. I sort of get that it's based on cheap seismic detectors plus surveillance drones to photograph crossers so that border agents can intercept them?
Regardless, it's not about technology per se, it's about having the political will to deal with the problem.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I'll tell you when people stop seeming so hell-bent on perpetuating it by proving them right. The kinds of widespread gratuitous abuse you see among law enforcement in cities like LA and NYC, or among agencies like the DHS are pretty much a textbook example of why someone might see "the government" as a boogeyman to be defended against.
edited 5th May '13 11:06:38 PM by Pykrete