The Insane Rationalizations, Bigotry And Out Right Hypocrisy Of The Left

[Simon Tan]

Phil.....why do bankers have such a say in your life? Are you married to one?

[Phil]

Well I've already got my hands full with an MSc so I can't type up empirical evidence or develop a theory. They are just my ideas, I think I am in the right ballpark and I can see it anecdotally on the streets where I live at the micro level. Tensions run high in neighbourhoods where cultures are juxtaposed and one or often both, at the micro level, feel threatened or overly dominated by the other.

 

I personally think that culture shapes religion (although this debate is ancient and deep in the literature) and culture is determined to a large extent by environment. I see problems when cultures, or groups bearing that culture, move into different environments from whence the culture came and which no longer justifies what was perhaps an effective way of life in the original environment. One can understand the habit of hiding away women when one realises that it really helps small group survival in sparse, inhospitable environments if everyone is not worried or fighting or tearing each other apart over affairs and love triangles. But take that attitude or culture into the environment of a liberal democracy with rich resources of food, shelter and water and money and things go badly.

[Phil]

I was being a bit tongue in cheek about the bankers.

 

But bankers do have a large role to play in my life whether I like it or not. My wages are paid into a bank or otherwise at some point processed by a bank. Most people can't buy a house or car without a credit history or mortgage from a bank. My utilities structure their payment plans to bias payments by direct debit because its cheaper for them. Certain companies (hire car companies etc) insist on credit card payments, the cards of which are often provided by a bank at some level.

 

If you don't have a bank account of some sort, it is very difficult in this country to get on and not be penalised.

 

Then we can move on to the effects the banks have had on my standard of living as a result of the economic downturn. It doesn't have to be true, it just needs to be perceived that way. Just like we don't have to do harm to Islamic countries for them to believe we mean every evil toward them.

[Phil]

I think they look at us like a starving person would look upon a fat, gorged man. They are starving, they see a fat disgusting man with more than he could ever need to eat, and they think that the reason they are starving is because this man is fat, not because they can't provide for themselves. And so they get angry at this fat, disgusting man, and he becomes the reasons for all their problems, and so the slightest twitch by him sets them off on a righteous and indignant rage. I think (generalising) that their cultures are backward, out of date and become ever more conservative as they feel ever more threatened by the fat man and work ever harder to preserve their identities and fight for some of that food which they could have themselves if they lifted themselves out of their baseness and ignorance. But they just see the fat man throwing his weight around. Starve the fat man and feed the starving one and have them interact and I think you'd see the roles perfectly reversed and their religious and cultural artefacts and institutions would just as likely be vehicles for their rage or chippyness.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Phil

[DKTanker]

I was being a bit tongue in cheek about the bankers.

 

But bankers do have a large role to play in my life whether I like it or not. My wages are paid into a bank or otherwise at some point processed by a bank. Most people can't buy a house or car without a credit history or mortgage from a bank. My utilities structure their payment plans to bias payments by direct debit because its cheaper for them. Certain companies (hire car companies etc) insist on credit card payments, the cards of which are often provided by a bank at some level.

 

If you don't have a bank account of some sort, it is very difficult in this country to get on and not be penalised.

 

Then we can move on to the effects the banks have had on my standard of living as a result of the economic downturn. It doesn't have to be true, it just needs to be perceived that way. Just like we don't have to do harm to Islamic countries for them to believe we mean every evil toward them.

What is preventing you from saving money and paying cash for such things as automobiles? As for housing, you don't need a mortgage, you can always lease. Not many will turn down 1st and last month cash in advance. However, let us assume that you want to save your money in your mattress so you can buy a house. Here's a kicker for you, and it has absolutely nothing to do with banks. Big Brother demands that you provide an evidenturary trail for all cash sums of $10,000 and above. In other words, if you have diligently saved your money to buy that $200,000 dream house with cash, you can't. The federal government central planners won't let you because not one of them will believe you just happen to have $200,000 laying around that never made it into a bank. You'll be seen as an unindicted criminal of one sort or another. Been there, done that.

[DKTanker]

I think they look at us like a starving person would look upon a fat, gorged man. They are starving, they see a fat disgusting man with more than he could ever need to eat, and they think that the reason they are starving is because this man is fat, not because they can't provide for themselves. And so they get angry at this fat, disgusting man, and he becomes the reasons for all their problems, and so the slightest twitch by him sets them off on a righteous and indignant rage. I think (generalising) that their cultures are backward, out of date and become ever more conservative as they feel ever more threatened by the fat man and work ever harder to preserve their identities and fight for some of that food which they could have themselves if they lifted themselves out of their baseness and ignorance. But they just see the fat man throwing his weight around. Starve the fat man and feed the starving one and have them interact and I think you'd see the roles perfectly reversed and their religious and cultural artefacts and institutions would just as likely be vehicles for their rage or chippyness.

I'm confused. Are you talking about Islam and the Middle East, or the parasites and moochers that are a fairly large minority of the Western world?

[Phil]

I think they look at us like a starving person would look upon a fat, gorged man. They are starving, they see a fat disgusting man with more than he could ever need to eat, and they think that the reason they are starving is because this man is fat, not because they can't provide for themselves. And so they get angry at this fat, disgusting man, and he becomes the reasons for all their problems, and so the slightest twitch by him sets them off on a righteous and indignant rage. I think (generalising) that their cultures are backward, out of date and become ever more conservative as they feel ever more threatened by the fat man and work ever harder to preserve their identities and fight for some of that food which they could have themselves if they lifted themselves out of their baseness and ignorance. But they just see the fat man throwing his weight around. Starve the fat man and feed the starving one and have them interact and I think you'd see the roles perfectly reversed and their religious and cultural artefacts and institutions would just as likely be vehicles for their rage or chippyness.

I'm confused. Are you talking about Islam and the Middle East, or the parasites and moochers that are a fairly large minority of the Western world?

 

If the cap fits old boy. Don't get me started on the Welfare State.

[Phil]

I was being a bit tongue in cheek about the bankers.

 

But bankers do have a large role to play in my life whether I like it or not. My wages are paid into a bank or otherwise at some point processed by a bank. Most people can't buy a house or car without a credit history or mortgage from a bank. My utilities structure their payment plans to bias payments by direct debit because its cheaper for them. Certain companies (hire car companies etc) insist on credit card payments, the cards of which are often provided by a bank at some level.

 

If you don't have a bank account of some sort, it is very difficult in this country to get on and not be penalised.

 

Then we can move on to the effects the banks have had on my standard of living as a result of the economic downturn. It doesn't have to be true, it just needs to be perceived that way. Just like we don't have to do harm to Islamic countries for them to believe we mean every evil toward them.

What is preventing you from saving money and paying cash for such things as automobiles? As for housing, you don't need a mortgage, you can always lease. Not many will turn down 1st and last month cash in advance. However, let us assume that you want to save your money in your mattress so you can buy a house. Here's a kicker for you, and it has absolutely nothing to do with banks. Big Brother demands that you provide an evidenturary trail for all cash sums of $10,000 and above. In other words, if you have diligently saved your money to buy that $200,000 dream house with cash, you can't. The federal government central planners won't let you because not one of them will believe you just happen to have $200,000 laying around that never made it into a bank. You'll be seen as an unindicted criminal of one sort or another. Been there, done that.

 

Well I live in the UK, and the entire financial system for lay persons is biased toward using banks. Now I admit that you can get around that, but the more you try and get around it the harder and riskier it becomes to enjoy a decent standard of living. My employer will not pay cash, money has to go to my bank. Even if they paid cheques, a bank would have to be involved at some point as my employer uses one. If I don't have a bank account I have no credit history, and that means I can't buy so much as a contract mobile phone or even rent a bloody apartment as letting agents like to imagine they are the fucking Stasi and like background checks on their tenants that involve a credit check. No credit history, no letting. I could indeed save cash but obviously that's a lot riskier than having the money in binary format on a computer somewhere and inflation eats away at your sum more than it might otherwise in a bond etc. Pension pots, benefits, insurance, all rely on banks in some manner.

 

Cash is almost becoming a dirty word in this country. Cash in hand payments were the subject of a politician shooting his mouth off over here a little while ago. I'd love to see the person who would sell their house to man brandishing £230,000 in notes too.

 

So yes, one can, if you REALLY wanted to, get around not having a bank account. You could use cash, you could pay more for your utilities, you'd have to have social housing and you'd have no telephone or internet. In short you'd find it very hard to participate in modern life. And not having a bank account correlates very highly with social deprivation in this country, and so the government is now pushing for everyone to have a bank account and from Apr 2013 onwards, all welfare payments will now go into your bank account so you can involve yourself in modern life.

 

As I said, cash is a dirty word now. And I don't really have much of choice in the matter if I want to enjoy a certain standard of living.

[DKTanker]

As I said, cash is a dirty word now. And I don't really have much of choice in the matter if I want to enjoy a certain standard of living.

So it really isn't banks that are the problem, it is living in the current modern civilization. Yes?

[Phil]

My point about hating bankers was a tongue in cheek one. You can have your win. It's modern civilisation I hate then. Or is it Apple?

[X-Files]

My point about hating bankers was a tongue in cheek one. You can have your win. It's modern civilisation I hate then. Or is it Apple?

 

Hate is such a strong word. Unless you're prepared to go in with naked bayonets and turn their intestines to goo, how about we just agree that Jon Corzine and his ilk are really big douchebags and then go have a beer.

 

At least until it's pitchforksandtorches time...

[Old Tanker]

I think the word is leery or at least don't be naive but never be paranoid.

[Simon Tan]

You are just not rich enough. When you achieve exalted status, you do not sully yourself with banking.

[X-Files]

Chris Matthews was on Hardball tonight covering the Republican National Convention with guests Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post and John Heilemann of New York Magazine. In what is seemingly the natural progression of things these days with Matthews, the subject of the 'otherization' of the President was being discussed. Because, if you weren't aware already, Barack Obama is black, and any time a Republican chooses to discuss the failure that is his administration, the media will be there to quickly remind you that they only feel that way because of his skin color.

But tonight's episode of race-baiting with Chris Matthews was a bit odd in that the panelists somehow came to the conclusion that reminding people of the President's roots in Chicago politics is racist. In fact, simply saying Chicago is racist.

 

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rusty-weiss/2012/08/30/chris-matthews-and-msnbc-now-claim-word-chicago-racist#ixzz255s81Jeq

[Jeff]

Chris Matthews was on Hardball tonight covering the Republican National Convention with guests Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post and John Heilemann of New York Magazine. In what is seemingly the natural progression of things these days with Matthews, the subject of the 'otherization' of the President was being discussed. Because, if you weren't aware already, Barack Obama is black, and any time a Republican chooses to discuss the failure that is his administration, the media will be there to quickly remind you that they only feel that way because of his skin color.

But tonight's episode of race-baiting with Chris Matthews was a bit odd in that the panelists somehow came to the conclusion that reminding people of the President's roots in Chicago politics is racist. In fact, simply saying Chicago is racist.

 

Read more: http://newsbusters.o...t#ixzz255s81Jeq

Sure because Chicago has had a long history of corrupt black leadership....wait, what?

[EchoFiveMike]

We actually do Jeff, but it's at the largely redundant county level, as well as offices other than mayor. Crook county is notorious for our morgue full of stacked dead indigent minorities leaking all over as well as outrageous nepotism and other 3rd world disfunction. S/F....Ken M

[Mobius]

I see problems when cultures, or groups bearing that culture, move into different environments from whence the culture came and which no longer justifies what was perhaps an effective way of life in the original environment. One can understand the habit of hiding away women when one realises that it really helps small group survival in sparse, inhospitable environments if everyone is not worried or fighting or tearing each other apart over affairs and love triangles. But take that attitude or culture into the environment of a liberal democracy with rich resources of food, shelter and water and money and things go badly.

This is completely different than what you seemed to be saying before. Here you seem saying that one group is being occupied by another. Well, that of course will spark resentment. I thought you were saying one group way over there was mad at another group way over here. Not that one was crowding into the other.

[Phil]

No, I'm saying what works in one context is seen as odd / distasteful / offensive / primitive in another context. It was a general musing.

 

I thought my point was very clear but I guess not. Islam is more sensitive to sleights than Christianity because Islam is the religion of a lot of people in failed and poor states who feel culturally, economically and politically under the kosh from the West. If it was the West feeling under the kosh from another "culture" I argue we'd see Christians being as sensitive about Christianity as a lot of Muslims are about Islam. It is not because Christianity is more "mature" it's simply the societies on which most of Christendom is based on are perceived as doing a hell of a lot better than the societies that most of Islam is based on.

[Mike Steele]

No, I'm saying what works in one context is seen as odd / distasteful / offensive / primitive in another context. It was a general musing.

 

I thought my point was very clear but I guess not. Islam is more sensitive to sleights than Christianity because Islam is the religion of a lot of people in failed and poor states who feel culturally, economically and politically under the kosh from the West. If it was the West feeling under the kosh from another "culture" I argue we'd see Christians being as sensitive about Christianity as a lot of Muslims are about Islam. It is not because Christianity is more "mature" it's simply the societies on which most of Christendom is based on are perceived as doing a hell of a lot better than the societies that most of Islam is based on.

 

And who's fault is that? Theirs maybe?

[Phil]

Well that's another question in my mind. I'm not sure how to apportion the blame. Or even if one needs to apportion blame. It's a competition really, for resources and living standards, and we're winning and they've been loosing. We're not wrong to compete, they're not being unnatural by being sensitive about it. Neither side has much choice in the matter.

[BillB]

I see problems when cultures, or groups bearing that culture, move into different environments from whence the culture came and which no longer justifies what was perhaps an effective way of life in the original environment. One can understand the habit of hiding away women when one realises that it really helps small group survival in sparse, inhospitable environments if everyone is not worried or fighting or tearing each other apart over affairs and love triangles. But take that attitude or culture into the environment of a liberal democracy with rich resources of food, shelter and water and money and things go badly.

This is completely different than what you seemed to be saying before. Here you seem saying that one group is being occupied by another. Well, that of course will spark resentment. I thought you were saying one group way over there was mad at another group way over here. Not that one was crowding into the other.

 

He does that but if you call him on it he'll wriggle for a bit and then start calling you names.

 

BillB

[Phil]

Couldn't help yourself I see.

[m1a1mg]

This video was made for this thread:

 

[m1a1mg]

Oops, forget the Daily Show hilarity also:

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/09/06/jon_stewart_shows_democrats_arent_really_interested_in_tolerance

[DKTanker]

Oops, forget the Daily Show hilarity also:

 

http://townhall.com/...ed_in_tolerance

Already on the 2012 thread. Still a LOL falling out of the chair video. Edited September 7, 2012 by DKTanker