Forum Replies Created
-
Taibbi needs a better editor–both of those articles belong in a litter box.
I think Trump’s already toast, but he really has no other choice but to court black voters. And appealing to them, he can say to other voters on the fence, “See, I’m not racist. I want to help black America.”
Taibbi’s criticism of Trump’s strategy makes no sense to me.
Republicans also like playing look how bad the Democrats are. I see about 15 minutes of FOX during the week and I’ve already seen FOX commenting on the mess in Chicago. Everyone, except for maybe the KKK, wants something done about the violence in inner cities. They may not want to hear about it at a Trump rally, but i’d guess 85% of Americans would like the mess in Chicago to be cleaned up.
Can someone also explain Taibbi’s criticism of Trump’s hedge fund barb to me?
He denounces moves to give foundation donors suspicious reconstruction contracts in Haiti and a seat on an intelligence advisory board. Then, saying Clinton ran the State Department “like a personal hedge fund” (a phrase that makes no sense, even to people who hate hedge-fund managers), Trump mentions another controversy involving a Russian uranium company. Then, still another, involving the Swiss bank UBS.
It’s a dead giveaway. The primary-season Donald Trump would never have been able to remember five things. Even more revealing is his rhetorical dismount: “But these examples,” he shouts, “are only the tip of the Clinton-corruption iceberg!”
Trump’s metaphor makes perfect sense to me (I may not understand hedge fund managers very well). Hillary and hedge fund managers both primarily care about making millions. If the people they work for/their customers do well, that’s good. But what really matters is their own bank account. And they will absolutely get theirs.
It’s amazing the press still don’t understand the Trump phenomenon. I bet there’s a ton of voters who like his personality and image. He’s entertaining, he’s smart (because he’s rich), he’s hard working (because he’s rich), and he is a straight shooter (compared to Obama who won’t even say radical Islam) to his supporters. His voters don’t care about flip-flops or all that other stuff. They like the guy.
I’m sorry for offending those who believe as I do on Trump but have no children or grand children. I’m sure there are many such people. It’s just that I have encountered few. I have roughly 11 friends who I can easily call progressives and “leftists”. 3 of them are either married or not and none of the 3 have children. To a person they spend their entire time arguing how terrible Hillary is. The other 8 have extended families including lots of kids. They are deeply involved in preventing a Trump Presidency and less concerned about Hillary’s obvious faults. So in that light its anecdotal. That’s my little world and I perfectly understand that may or may not be representative. And to those individuals where that is not representative I do apologize.
Now -as to the subject of my post-when did we lose our civility when it comes to a genuine debate?
I have a family–3 young kids–and I find the thought of voting for Hillary nearly as repulsive as the thought of a Trump presidency. I absolutely won’t vote for her. The argument is that 4 years of Trump and then a chance to elect a democratic candidate who actually tries to do something about money in politics, the environment, universal health care, etc is better than 8 years of Hillary.
Zooey and Mackeyser–who both have children I believe–have made that same argument against Hillary in the past on this board. I think it’s at least an interesting argument.
A democratic party that has been almost completely behind Hillary since the beginning needs something to shake it up. Maybe a Trump presidency would do that. That’s why I won’t vote for Hillary. Maybe President Trump will help the party listen more to the younger members of the party who are serious about severing ties with Wall Street, making the environment more of a priority, etc.
The only hope is the younger members of the Democratic party who supported Bernie over Hillary by large margins. It’s the older generation who is bringing us not only possibly the worst presidential candidates ever but has also helped engineer the problems (global warming, humongous deficits, never ending wars) for future generations, like my children.
I do believe that all religions can be hijacked by maniacs. Islamic scholars make this claim in regard to ISIS. I heard one guy calling their interpretation of things “bizarre”. It is a death cult, an apocalyptic cult so maybe it’s unfair to judge all of Islam by that particular group. But clearly there are threads in the different schools that are disturbing.
And yet–there are certainly peaceful Muslims.
I know this doesn’t answer your question. I hope someone can answer it because I’d love to read about that.
Well, I am glad someone else thinks it’s a good question, too. It’s a question that I think is too easily dismissed with the idea that Islam isn’t a religion of violence.
I think that language is wrong or misleading. But with my limited knowledge, it seems like Islam can be poison for young people who have a tendency to take religion too seriously.
I was raised Catholic and have never felt a moment of religious clarity or inspiration in my life. I come pretty close to hating church even though I take my kids there (not the Catholic version–I go to an Episcopal church that radically embraces diversity or something like that) But I know some people who absolutely love church and the experience of being there and could be there all day.
For some of those people who love that experience, I wonder if Mohammed the warrior–or whatever the Quran or other holy books talk about–does lead them to become violent. And this is something that existed before ISIS and outside of people who are oppressed by the unjust socioeconomic structure that exists in some of these countries.
Bin Laden didn’t come from poverty, did he? Wasn’t he part of the rich Saudi royals?
So I wouldn’t call it a religion of violence, but it seems to be a religion that can breed violence and aggression because the central religious hero isn’t a Christ-like advocating non-violence, love, and self-lessness.
And sure the vast majority of Muslims don’t follow Mohammed’s example and pick up the sword (gun). But the vast majority of Christians ignore Christ and will spend their last $50 dollars on completely unnecessary creature comforts instead of helping some poor, desperate soul.
I’m approaching this from a non-religious perspective. I’m starting from a perspective that regards religion as a relic from our benighted ancient ancestors who didn’t know any better. So in order to be something that isn’t just dismissed as nonsense, there has to be something overwhelmingly admirable and noble about the prominent religious figures. That’s what I mean when I wonder about the redeeming qualities of Islam.
In Christianity, Christ’s wisdom redeems all of the nonsense in Leviticus and Deuteronomy or wherever that stuff in the video comes from. Buddha, from what I understand, is also a truly admirable figure. It’s hard to use Christ or Buddha’s teachings and thoughts to justify murder.
Mohammed is different. Again from what I understand, he did kill people or at least advocated killing others. That’s a game changer. There’s a monumental difference between a religion with a figure like Christ, who preaches peace and meekness, at the center and a religion like Islam with Mohammed, who preaches (Again, I think. If I’m wrong please correct me.)using violence–or at least used violence–to solve problems. One tradition leads to non-violent protest like we see with MLK; the other tradition leads to violent opposition like we see with bin Laden.
Just because millions of people defend the religion doesn’t mean anything to me. Millions of Americans would argue that being able to own guns and assault rifles makes them safer and America safer. Despite the vast numbers of people who believe that, it’s still a stupid argument that should be dismissed as nonsense.
None of the stuff you posted even comes close to answering the question I asked. Does Mohammed say anything close to what Christ says?
In fact, the very first point the article makes is that trampling on the Quran is similar to trampling on Christ. So trampling on a book is the same as trampling on a person?? How crazy is that? That type of logic is supposed to show how Islam has an admirable moral center like Christianity when Christ says “Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth”?
Or Buddhism when Buddha teaches people to abandon their desires and cravings?
Anybody who knows their Christianity shouldn’t be too surprised that the Bible contains such vitriol. I know if somebody pulled that little stunt on me, my reaction when they did their grand reveal of the Bible would have been, “Ehhhh”.
As a non-religious person, I’d like someone to explain to me what redeeming qualities Islam DOES have. I don’t call myself a Christian, but at least Christ says a lot of good stuff. You know, “Be as the lilies in the field,” “To Caesar what is Caesar’s; to God what is God’s,” “Turn the other cheek”. (Again, I’m no religious scholar, so maybe I got some of that stuff wrong. Please correct me if I did.)
My question—and I think it’s a pretty damn good question—is, “Does Mohammed say anything like Christ says?”. From just a half an hour of reading about Mohammed on Wikipedia, he sounds like a fighter. He doesn’t sound anything like Christ or Buddha.
And if Mohammed doesn’t say anything admirable like Christ or Buddha, I’d say secular people should say, “Yeah, Islam is a stupid religion”. (That should also be the reaction to Mormons.)
I’m not saying Muslims should be put on some list or rounded up. But if there isn’t a substantial vein of noble and admirable teachings that redeem the Muslim religion, it should be seen as a ridiculous pursuit.When young people today tell me they smoke, I tell them “Why? That’s a waste of your money and health.” People should have a similar reaction to a religion that encourages violence.
So if anyone can shed light on what the Islamic holy books say that is admirable, I’d like to hear it.
Foles, I tend to think, may be the other sort of QB. He appears to be very nervy in throwing the football into traffic, believing he can make the play. That highlight reel someone put up a few weeks back shows him doing that. And that’s a very good thing … except when it isn’t. A QB who stubbornly stays with the 1st read and tries to throw people open makes mistakes and throws picks. This apparently is what people criticized Foles for last year.
Now, great QBs balance the two. Sam may or may not have the potential to be a great QB, but he never flashed it for us. Foles probably doesn’t have what it takes to be a great QB.
But we need to understand both sides of what Foles is likely to show us. He will make big plays in tiny windows. A couple of camp reports have spoken glowingly of examples of that already. The other side of the same coin is reckless risk-taking. Sometimes, that nervy QB will get burned. More often perhaps than a guy like Sam whose instinct was always to check down.
This is a good description of Foles’ style of play based on the 4-5 games I watched of his last year. I would, however, say the bold part doesn’t really capture some (maybe many???) of Foles’ mistakes last year. Foles strikes me as a sandlot guy who likes to improvise. Maybe he has a little Kurt Warner in him??
A play against the Cards from last year sticks out. Foles has the TE down the seam on a play action pass and just as he is about to fire the ball to the te, he re-starts his throwing motion to make a deeper throw to the end zone. But he doesn’t have his feet under him and he is unable to put any zip on the ball.The result is an int and a wasted chance to get points against a good Cardinals defense.
(I’ve always wondered if plays like this drove Chip Kelley crazy. If Foles takes what’s there and executes what (I would guess at least) Kelley wants, the offense functions beautifully. Bradford IS that type of qb when he’s healthy.Here’s the link to the highlights if anybody wants to watch the play in question-
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-gameday/0ap3000000418285/Week-8-Eagles-vs-Cardinals-highlights)
So I wouldn’t just simplify Foles’s problems to stubbornly sticks to the first read. He looks like a guy that likes to play a little sandlot football. I believe I read an article about him changing a play during his first year under Andy Reid in fact.
Foles is also deadly accurate when he is flushed from the pocket and throws on the run. I’m guessing that he views that as a strength in his game. The problem is that under those chaotic circumstances a qb can lose track of the defenders and someone can easily step in front of the receiver.
Great discussion!
Here’s my two cents. I liked the Rams draft, but the Havenstein pick worries me. Between their original 41 and the Havenstein pick there were some good lb prospects. I could see one of those lb’s making pro-bowls while Havenstein is just ok.
The Havenstein pick also reminds me of the Joyner pick from last year. Both are smart, physical players who love football, but have serious athletic flaws.
The way Havenstein lumbers around the field sometimes makes me cringe. There are a lot of big, physical guys who have been just mediocre RT in the NFL. I guess we’ll have to see. I do love that there are so many positive comments about Havenstein from guys like Cosell.
I also love being able to pick Mannion with an extra selection. The Rams need a backup qb not named Davis. I like that Mannion has played in a pro style offense and his mechanics at his pro day were noticeably better. Seems like a good bet for a backup/developmental qb.
Jamon Brown and Andrew Donnal both have the 3-cone drill and other combine measurements of NFL caliber lineman. It’s also encouraging that Brown was 2nd team All-ACC after switching over to the offensive line as a freshman. I think that bodes well for Brown’s switch to guard.
Who knows about the end of the draft. Hopefully there’s an EJ Gaines or two in there.
Here’s a couple of videos of Havenstein in action. I was pleasantly surprised by his ability to pass block. He looks impressive if he can get his hands on the defensive player.
Havenstein takes reps at approximately 3:00, 6:00, & 9:00. It’s also interesting to watch him and compare him to a guy like Clemmings who struggled.
The senior bowl video:
” title=”Havenstein at Senior Bowl PracticeIn the Big 10 title game Havenstein played against two guys who should be playing on Sundays–Joey Bossa and Michael Bennett. Havenstein got his ass kicked by Michael Bennett 3 times. On the first 2 occasions Bennett was too quick for Havenstein to block. Havenstein completely whiffs. On another occasion Bennett beat Havenstein for a sack although I would say the qb held the ball too long. On a side note, Bennett looks like a helluva pick for the Jags. How did he last until round 6????
Havenstein also lost his balance and allowed Bossa to make a TFL (I think?) on another play.
This was not an impressive performance though I thought Havenstein looked good pass blocking again. I only watched the first half since Wisconsin totally imploded and was losing 40-0 or something at halftime.
Big 10 Title Game:
