kimmy

Not to worry, I am sure there'll still be plenty of zany hijinx to enjoy! -k

Interesting factoid: Sanders is the first non-Christian in history to win a US presidential primary, in either party. When I watch Republican candidates during the primaries I sometimes wonder if they're politicians or televangelists. There's a widespread belief among Republicans that if you can't win the Evangelicals, you can't win the nomination or the Presidency. But there's another side to this too... if you go too far trying to win over the Evangelicals, you could alienate everybody else. Romney's campaign chief Eric Fehrnstrom addressed this in the 2012 primaries. Asked whether Romney's newfound conservatism would hurt his chances with moderate voters in the general election campaign, Fehrnstrom said that when the general election rolled around the would just "shake the Etch-A-Sketch" and start over again. Except "shaking the Etch-A-Sketch" didn't really work for Romney. In the 2012 election, Romney got slaughtered among the non-religious almost as badly as he got slaughtered among non-whites and non-old-people. As the non-religious become a larger portion of the US voting public with each passing year, pandering to religious Americans or insulting non-religious Americans will become a less successful strategy. -k

And I have raised the same complaint against those who try to deflect criticism of Islam by saying "yeah but look what Israel does" or "yeah but the Crusades" or so on. I can't imagine what reason you have to believe this is a "hate thread". Legitimate criticism isn't hate, and people who try to silence legitimate criticism by by crying "this is hateful!" or "this is racist!" or "this is ___phobic!" are doing themselves and their causes no favors. You think that it's ridiculous that I'm always involved in these threads... I think it's ridiculous that you always show up in these threads complaining that people want to talk about these things. -k

There are numerous ongoing threads full of discussion of the shortcomings of Islam, like the "This week in Islam" thread immediately below this one, or the massive 250+ page "Islamophobia" thread in the Federal politics section. As well as much discussion of Muslim attitudes and issues in many of the ongoing threads on Syrian refugees and Muslim migrants. That's not "crap", that's the truth. If you can't find enough criticism of Islam here to suit your tastes, you're just not looking very hard. And I think it's ridiculous that every time somebody wants to discuss Christian over-reach, this same "why do people pick on Christians? Look at what Muslims do!" complaint is raised. It's not a reasonable criticism, it's a deflectionary tactic from thin-skinned Christians and conservatives who would rather derail the thread than address the topic. -k

It sounds as if the phone was tampered with after it was already in federal possession to make it inaccessible. Does this seem suspicious? -k

That would be my hope as well... but to me it sounds to me as if the feds are using this case to pressure Apple to provide a skeleton key that they can use any time they want, at their own convenience. "With proper judicial oversight, of course!"* * actual oversight may vary. -k

Obviously "we expect better" from the United States, as they've set the bar for achievement in every area of human achievement for the past century or more. If Boges is asking why the United States is held to a different standard than the likes of Saudi Arabia, then I think the reason is obvious. We know those guys are dumb, and we know you guys are smart. The astronauts on Apollo 8 might have been Christians, and the scientists and engineers that planned the mission and designed the equipment that made it possible might have been Christians too. But I strongly doubt any of them were under the impression that the Bible is a science textbook. -k

And it probably would, but the law was just intended to allow teachers to bring "supplemental material" (for example, the Bible) into their lessons. Theoretically, the law could be used responsibly... but if you think that's how it's being used in practice, you have a lot more faith in the rural public-school teachers this law was intended to protect than I do. The Idaho bill that Slick referred to doesn't even have that fig-leaf of respectability to cover its dangly-bits. It's full-frontal. -k

How could an 80-year old fat-guy have a heart attack!? There must be something mysterious going on here! Glenn Beck proposes that Scalia was murdered... by GOD! Beck's theory is that God decided that Scalia should die at this time as a wake-up call to Americans to understand how important it is that they elect Ted Cruz to be the next President. -k

Well, we saw how well bringing a million migrants into a country the size of Germany has worked out. If we bring a half-million into Canada, expect the biggest beneficiaries will be those who sell bear repellent spray. -k

It was never about global warming. It was about providing creationists a backdoor into the classroom. The Louisiana law was based on boilerplate "intelligent design" legislation written by the Discovery Institute. Its intent was always to pander to religious fundamentalists. That it might pander to those who share your particular fetish as well doesn't change the intent. -k

Nonsense, August. There's no shortage of criticism of Islam and its beliefs here on the forum. This thread isn't making fun of the Bible, it's asking how religious fundies have attained such political influence in the US. Why talk about the US when Middle Eastern countries are way dumber? Because we expect better from the US, the most scientifically advanced nation on earth. A law asserting that the sacred scripture is actually a Science Textbook is something that would not be very surprising if it came from the poorly educated religious fundamentalist nations of the Middle East, but we hold the United States in much higher esteem. "Not as bad as Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc", as Boges put it earlier, is setting the bar so low that ants can hurdle it. -k

The Idaho bill mentioned by Slick in the opening post sounds pretty similar to the hilariously-named Louisiana Science Education Act, enacted by the Bobby Jindal administration to make sure that Louisiana retains its ranking as the dumbest state in the nation. The LSEA likewise provides legal means for nutbar teachers to teach religious views in science class, and was instigated at the behest of the "Louisiana Family Forum" religious group. Other states have since attempted to pass similar laws. -k

Ms Shams was certainly not discussing a small minority of Saudis, she was discussing the country at large. The practices and policies she was condemning aren't the views of a small group of zealots, they're the law of the land. She's renouncing her citizenship there because, in not so many words, that country sucks. -k

Can you elaborate on "provocative"? Do you mean something that provokes thought or further dialogue? Or do you mean "provocative" in the sense of provoking an aggressive response? By referencing Trump, it seems as if you're hoping for the latter sense. -k

I've noticed that when this criticism comes from "the inside" those offering it are often accused of being traitors-- as this lady is in this interview. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been accused of self-promotion... that she's just criticizing Islam to advance her own career and raise her profile. Tarek Fatah is another example... he's been accused of being an Uncle Tom, of pandering to "the west" when he speaks out against conservative Islam. I get your point... but it seems that even when the criticism comes within the community it's still convenient for apologists to dismiss it away by questioning the motive rather than confront the substance of it. -k

Well that's kind of what I was getting at. "Islamophobia" has been thrown around with such abandon of late. And now throwing "nationalists" at the people who aren't all "sunny ways" on the issue of Muslim immigration. At least he didn't say "white nationalists"... I guess that's something. If people are going to engage like that, then maybe they should expect to get "Team Islam" in return. -k

I won't comment on the notion that Swift or other female megastars are "hard done by" by any stretch of the imagination, because it's pretty ridiculous. It seems kind of like the controversy about when the Sony email leaks revealed that Jennifer Lawrence got $6 million for American Hustle while her male co-stars got $10 million. I have little doubt that she put more butts in seats than her co-stars, but she got paid $6 million, and it's hard to feel sorry for somebody who got paid $6 million. But as for the attempt to lump her in with the likes of Bieber, or Britney Spears, or The Monkees, or stuff like that, I think that's completely off the mark. I assume it's a comment based on an assumption or a stereotype. I gather you're of the belief that some middle-aged dude in an LA high-rise dreamed up the whole Taylor Swift phenomenon. I've never read anything to suggest that the creative force behind Taylor Swift is anybody other than Taylor Swift. If it's a factory, she's the one who designed the product, markets the product, and manages every aspect of the product. I don't get the comment that it's "artificial". What would make it "real"? Are you one of those guys who thinks that a "real" musical auteur is some haggard-looking deadbeat with a beat-up guitar and bad fashion sense? -k

Ezra Levant is a journalist in the same sense that dog crap is a pizza topping. Sure, you could theoretically put dog crap on top of a pizza and call it a pizza topping, and you might even be correct in a semantic sense, but everybody knows that canine fecal matter isn't a pizza topping in the sense that any sane person would use the term. Same with calling Levant a journalist. He could call himself that and perhaps even be correct, in a semantic sense, but everybody knows that Levant is a propagandist and not a journalist. Yeah, better watch out before Rebel Media catches fire like Levant's other ventures like The Western Standard or Sun TV. -k

Don't underestimate her. Like her music or not (I really don't listen to her music, so I don't really have an opinion...) she's an extremely smart businesswoman. She might be a product of a production company, but she owns that production company. The whole thing, everything, since very early in her career. She's the CEO of a very successful corporation whose main product happens to be herself. She's somewhat Madonna-like in that respect. -k

Well, I suppose I'm one of the "forum nationalists", so I ought to respond. ("nationalists"? Come on, cyber, no need to sugar-coat it. Why not Nativists or Know-Nothings? Tell us how you really feel.) First off, let me point out that me and the other "nationalists" here are aware that people like Ms Shams exist. I just don't think she's representative of the typical Saudi. No, it's not "people like her" that I'd keep out. Sadly, that part of the world has an awful lot of people well-deserving of being kept out. Personally I think it would be great if we could smuggle the few worth having out of the Kingdom... but I don't see how. Second, I agree with what she's saying. Myself and the other Know-Nothings here at the forum have been saying similar things. The "Team Islam" members here at the forum, on the other hand, vehemently disagree with her, particularly the part where she says "we've been fighting for 1400 years... why do we blame everything on the West?" When the Nativists here ask "why can't the other Arab countries take the refugees instead?" or "why do they blame everything on the West?" or "why do these countries suck so much?" it draws howls of outrage from the Team Islam posters... yet you guys are holding Ms Shams up as an example of how we Nationalists ought to appreciate Muslims more. How come you guys aren't tearing her apart for her anti-Muslim views? -k

That refutes Trump's claim about donors, but doesn't do anything to dispute the fact that the audience was heavily stacked with party officials and party workers. I guess the truth hurts. -k

That's a good one. I pulled this CD out on Friday and played it... her voice gives me chills. -k

Much has been made of the Democrats "putting their finger on the scale" to stack the odds against the "insurgent" candidate. The Republicans may not be completely innocent of that either. It seems that the audience last night was heavily stacked with Party people. Of 1900 seats available, the vast majority were given to Party officials and workers. That may have something to do with why people were booing Trump as soon as he started talking. I only caught some of the tail end of the debate, but it seemed like a not-very-good format. Posing a new unrelated question to each candidate in turn left candidates simultaneously reaching back to address points from previous questions, while also either missing the opportunity to address key issues, or depending on the topic, letting them duck key issues. "Dr Carson, do you think financial executives should be prosecuted for bad behavior?" "Well first I want to address that topic from two questions ago. Read my immigration policy at BenCarsonDotCom. On the financial thing, I think we just need to get rid of all these regulations." "Ok. Now to Senator Rubio: if you could talk to any former President, who would it be, and what would you ask Mr Reagan?" Wait, what? First off what a stupid softball question, and second, why couldn't we hear what other candidates had to say about that previous question, which matters a lot more than some hypothetical seance with the ghost of Ronald Reagan. -k

The 2016 Razzie nominations are out, and Pixel will be a contender in many major categories, including: Worst Picture! Worst Actor! (Adam Sandler) Worst Supporting Actor! (Kevin James) Worst Supporting Actress! (Michelle Monaghan) Worst Screenplay! -k