32431 pts ยท February 22, 2014
It won't happen, but the trust won't come back, either. The US is too far gone. There is no "return to the status quo" without some major changes. Everyone knows that part of a real apology is to admit what you did wrong and show the steps you're taking to keep it from happening again. If no steps are taken, the US will continue to be an international pariah. Maybe Americans don't understand the ramifications of that yet, but they will.
The US needs to sign onto the ICC and turn people over to face international justice. The only chance of even starting to repair the relationship with the rest of the planet is to stop pretending they're above everyone else.
There are absolutely things that could be done by people who are in proximity to him that we do not have the ability to do. The rules went out the window a long time ago. If the actions within the rules cannot control this lawless president, what does that leave?
The war crimes are definitely worse.
You want us to root for the US? Build a country worth rooting for. Try offering those freedoms you keep going on about to EVERYONE, not just straight white Christian men. Build a society that benefits everyone, not just the rich. America COULD be an amazing country, but it actively chooses not to be. Until the most hateful stop getting an outsized voice at the table, why should I root for the US?
I keep hoping he doesn't see the end of the day. Because it would be hilarious for all his supporters to go "Ha ha, April Fools", then wake up tomorrow and find out its still true.
A lovely sentiment. One that the complete lack of consequences for any former president has yet to support, but I guess we'll see.
Think about what message that sends to Cuba, who is evidently next on Trump's list. Think about the message that sends to Denmark the next time he gets reminded that Greenland exists. Think about the message that sends to every other nation on the planet, that the president of the largest military in the world has unilaterally decided that any negotiation lasting longer than ten minutes is a justification for war.
This is a far more horrifying statement than I've seen anyone give it credit for. We justified assassination because they were "stringing us along". At the most generous interpretation, it means that the Iranians were negotiating without intending to keep their word. At worst, the US just decided that any negotiation that wasn't an immediate "We'll do whatever you say" was an acceptable reason to destroy them. Think about the narcissists in power. Which do you think it was?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxB-5yu5Hqw
Near his grave. His actual grave will be too busy being used as a public restroom.
Invisible cheeseburger
Go look up the Paradox of Tolerance. Then come back and let us know if you understand or if you're just being disingenuous.
If your political affiliation is actively hurting people, fuck you.
To be perfectly frank, no historian will go out and claim "There definitely was no such person." First, there isn't any evidence of that, as I noted above. Second, it would absolutely blow up. If you have a university position, there WILL be calls to have you removed. Even if they don't succeed, that's all you'll ever talk about again. All your other research now has that over your head. It isn't worth it, especially since it cannot be proven. That still isn't proof he definitely existed.
I have. Because, you see, I am a religious historian. So let me be very clear about what I am saying here. I am NOT saying that there definitively was no historical Jesus. I'm saying that the writings of Josephus are not proof that there was. They're a secondhand source written nearly 70 years after his supposed death. There are NO primary sources about the life of Jesus. That is not unusual for that time period. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I mean, we have no contemporary mentions of him. The closest we get, as the article notes, is Josephus, who writes about him a full lifetime after his supposed death. I'm not saying that it is impossible that there was an actual person behind the myths, but claiming that there is definite evidence of it is a stretch.
He wrote the song in 1967, when trans issues were a LOT less known. He updated the lyrics to be more inclusive later, and likely would have continued to do so as understanding developed.
I am very dubious about the phrases "removing unnecessary federal requirements" and "increasing local flexibility over housing decisions". Warren being a cosponsor gives me some hope that it isn't complete trash, but those phrases still give me pause.
Knowing several people of the extreme evangelical persuasion, they consider theirs the only "religion". Everything else is "a cult". So when they hear "freedom of religion", their brains hear "freedom for me, but not for them because that isn't a religion. It's a dangerous cult and should be outlawed." Some of them will allow for other flavours of Christianity ("They're wrong, but they're close enough" with an unspoken "for now"), but they believe that freedom only REALLY applies to them.
You know you fucked up when the bloody Cato Institute is like "This does not make financial sense."
It's not going to be a mystery. We have more than enough documentation about why it happens. We'll say something to the effect of "late-stage capitalism was so concerned with the monetization of literally everything that people chose to censor themselves out of fear of losing any avenue for monetary gain they might have."
This is also true for people who get hot. I basically never get hot. I went to Disney World in August wearing jeans and a leather jacket. People were getting so mad at me for walking around all day like that while they were sweating to death in shorts and t-shirts.
My boss called us into his office to see it happening on TV. By the next day, one of our Republican coworkers was denying the thing we had all watched happen the day before.
Your comment scared the hell out of me. I was afraid something had happened to Alan Tudyk. He's still alive, in case anyone else was concerned.
I mean, The Art of War is that old, and still has some useful things to say.
The antichrist is supposed to be universally beloved, only able to be seen through by the most devout of believers. There is no possible interpretation of his approval rating that fits that criteria.
A key component of Egyptian religion is the belief that you could not go to the afterlife if you were not buried in Egypt. So sending out a direct envoy to rule over a captured territory was VERY rare, and only done when absolutely necessary. So yes, while Egypt held nominal control over the Levant in that period, it would not be accurate to call the New Kingdom an "empire" as we use the word today. It would DEFINITELY not be accurate to use it in relation to the Old Kingdom.
The New Kingdom did involve more expeditions of conquest than previous times in Egyptian history, but it was not an empire in the traditional sense. Egypt rarely took on direct control over the territories, instead preferring to demand tribute from those they conquered. For a while the tribute would flow, and eventually the people would say "Hey, they're not even here, why do we keep paying them?" So they'd stop paying, and then Egypt would come back.
1, Egypt was never an empire. 2, the Jews, as a people, didn't even exist when the pyramids were being built. 3, the pyramids were not built with slave labour.
It won't happen, but the trust won't come back, either. The US is too far gone. There is no "return to the status quo" without some major changes. Everyone knows that part of a real apology is to admit what you did wrong and show the steps you're taking to keep it from happening again. If no steps are taken, the US will continue to be an international pariah. Maybe Americans don't understand the ramifications of that yet, but they will.
The US needs to sign onto the ICC and turn people over to face international justice. The only chance of even starting to repair the relationship with the rest of the planet is to stop pretending they're above everyone else.
There are absolutely things that could be done by people who are in proximity to him that we do not have the ability to do. The rules went out the window a long time ago. If the actions within the rules cannot control this lawless president, what does that leave?
The war crimes are definitely worse.
You want us to root for the US? Build a country worth rooting for. Try offering those freedoms you keep going on about to EVERYONE, not just straight white Christian men. Build a society that benefits everyone, not just the rich. America COULD be an amazing country, but it actively chooses not to be. Until the most hateful stop getting an outsized voice at the table, why should I root for the US?
I keep hoping he doesn't see the end of the day. Because it would be hilarious for all his supporters to go "Ha ha, April Fools", then wake up tomorrow and find out its still true.
A lovely sentiment. One that the complete lack of consequences for any former president has yet to support, but I guess we'll see.
Think about what message that sends to Cuba, who is evidently next on Trump's list. Think about the message that sends to Denmark the next time he gets reminded that Greenland exists. Think about the message that sends to every other nation on the planet, that the president of the largest military in the world has unilaterally decided that any negotiation lasting longer than ten minutes is a justification for war.
This is a far more horrifying statement than I've seen anyone give it credit for. We justified assassination because they were "stringing us along". At the most generous interpretation, it means that the Iranians were negotiating without intending to keep their word. At worst, the US just decided that any negotiation that wasn't an immediate "We'll do whatever you say" was an acceptable reason to destroy them. Think about the narcissists in power. Which do you think it was?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxB-5yu5Hqw
Near his grave. His actual grave will be too busy being used as a public restroom.
Invisible cheeseburger
Go look up the Paradox of Tolerance. Then come back and let us know if you understand or if you're just being disingenuous.
If your political affiliation is actively hurting people, fuck you.
To be perfectly frank, no historian will go out and claim "There definitely was no such person." First, there isn't any evidence of that, as I noted above. Second, it would absolutely blow up. If you have a university position, there WILL be calls to have you removed. Even if they don't succeed, that's all you'll ever talk about again. All your other research now has that over your head. It isn't worth it, especially since it cannot be proven. That still isn't proof he definitely existed.
I have. Because, you see, I am a religious historian. So let me be very clear about what I am saying here. I am NOT saying that there definitively was no historical Jesus. I'm saying that the writings of Josephus are not proof that there was. They're a secondhand source written nearly 70 years after his supposed death. There are NO primary sources about the life of Jesus. That is not unusual for that time period. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I mean, we have no contemporary mentions of him. The closest we get, as the article notes, is Josephus, who writes about him a full lifetime after his supposed death. I'm not saying that it is impossible that there was an actual person behind the myths, but claiming that there is definite evidence of it is a stretch.
He wrote the song in 1967, when trans issues were a LOT less known. He updated the lyrics to be more inclusive later, and likely would have continued to do so as understanding developed.
I am very dubious about the phrases "removing unnecessary federal requirements" and "increasing local flexibility over housing decisions". Warren being a cosponsor gives me some hope that it isn't complete trash, but those phrases still give me pause.
Knowing several people of the extreme evangelical persuasion, they consider theirs the only "religion". Everything else is "a cult". So when they hear "freedom of religion", their brains hear "freedom for me, but not for them because that isn't a religion. It's a dangerous cult and should be outlawed." Some of them will allow for other flavours of Christianity ("They're wrong, but they're close enough" with an unspoken "for now"), but they believe that freedom only REALLY applies to them.
You know you fucked up when the bloody Cato Institute is like "This does not make financial sense."
It's not going to be a mystery. We have more than enough documentation about why it happens. We'll say something to the effect of "late-stage capitalism was so concerned with the monetization of literally everything that people chose to censor themselves out of fear of losing any avenue for monetary gain they might have."
This is also true for people who get hot. I basically never get hot. I went to Disney World in August wearing jeans and a leather jacket. People were getting so mad at me for walking around all day like that while they were sweating to death in shorts and t-shirts.
My boss called us into his office to see it happening on TV. By the next day, one of our Republican coworkers was denying the thing we had all watched happen the day before.
Your comment scared the hell out of me. I was afraid something had happened to Alan Tudyk. He's still alive, in case anyone else was concerned.
I mean, The Art of War is that old, and still has some useful things to say.
The antichrist is supposed to be universally beloved, only able to be seen through by the most devout of believers. There is no possible interpretation of his approval rating that fits that criteria.
A key component of Egyptian religion is the belief that you could not go to the afterlife if you were not buried in Egypt. So sending out a direct envoy to rule over a captured territory was VERY rare, and only done when absolutely necessary. So yes, while Egypt held nominal control over the Levant in that period, it would not be accurate to call the New Kingdom an "empire" as we use the word today. It would DEFINITELY not be accurate to use it in relation to the Old Kingdom.
The New Kingdom did involve more expeditions of conquest than previous times in Egyptian history, but it was not an empire in the traditional sense. Egypt rarely took on direct control over the territories, instead preferring to demand tribute from those they conquered. For a while the tribute would flow, and eventually the people would say "Hey, they're not even here, why do we keep paying them?" So they'd stop paying, and then Egypt would come back.
1, Egypt was never an empire. 2, the Jews, as a people, didn't even exist when the pyramids were being built. 3, the pyramids were not built with slave labour.