Random Politics & Religion #00

So not standing for the national anthem is detrimental to society?

I don't stand for the national anthem either.

Between the Dream Act and a growing number of young immigrants coming of age, of course it's shifting toward those jobs, specifically technology jobs. It's even more difficult for people to immigrate here legally to fill niche jobs even when they have otherwise unavailable skillsets compared with their American counterparts. You'll notice, the places where people violate our immigration policies are where the legal alternative is prohibitively restricted or expensive.

President Obama is adding a special item to his Alaskan itinerary.

He is set to appear an upcoming episode of Running Wild With Bear Grylls, NBC announced Monday.

The President and host Bear Grylls will venture through the Alaskan wilderness for a special edition of the unscripted adventure series to air later this year.

President Obama will meet the famed survival expert while visiting the state to observe the effects of climate change on the area. President Obama departs for Anchorage on Monday, and is also set to visit the towns of Dillingham and Kotzebue, as well as tour Exit Glacier and Kenai Fjords National Park, during his three-day trip.

So who has better hair, Trump or Sanders?

The Islamic State group (IS) announced the launch of its own currency in a video posted online at the weekend, saying it would release Muslims from “enslavement by satanic banks”.

The jihadist group showcased its gold, silver and copper coins in an hour-long video released on Saturday, August 29, touting the “return of the Gold Dinar” – a currency originally used in the early days of Islam.

The announcement comes two months after IS first released pictures of the new currency it planned to use in the so-called “Caliphate”, a territory carved out of vast swathes of Iraq and Syria.

It marks another step in the group’s efforts to establish itself as a functioning state.

The IS group already boasts of its own territory, armed forces, services (including schools and hospitals), and judicial system. It also raises taxes – the “jizzieh, imposed on religious minorities – in the areas it controls.

FRANCE 24’s Wassim Nasr, an expert on jihadist networks, said the currency’s launch followed a double imperative for the IS group, which has amassed a war chest of millions of dollars through tax collection, seizing oil refineries, smuggling and kidnappings for ransom.

“The first imperative is religious: according to Islam’s precepts, only gold and silver should be used as exchange currencies,” Nasr said, noting that the IS group often referred to this precept in its propaganda videos.

“The second reason is to break away from an international monetary system they describe as unfair and enslaving, but which they were previously obliged to use in order to access Iraqi, Syrian and even US currencies,” Nasr said.

Gold standard

The video, which featured numerous illustrations and lengthy arguments, claimed international finance was incompatible with Islam because of its use of interest rates.

The wealth of detail, ranging from the introduction of gold coins in ancient Babylon to Western nations’ departure from the gold standard in the 20th century, suggested an economist had helped prepare the video.

Aside from religious considerations, the insistence on gold appears to make commercial sense for the jihadist group.

While traders are always likely to accept gold as a means of payment, nobody would have recognized the value of paper currency printed by the IS group.

But whether the jihadist group succeeds in imposing its currency, or even mint the coins in sufficient quantities, remains an open question.

The group has not yet distributed the new gold, silver and copper coins across the territory it controls. Nor has it banned the use of local currencies.

“There are two ways IS can go about imposing its currency,” said Nasr. “One is to impose the use of gold coins for all major transactions between businessmen and the government”.

“The other is to convert civil servants’ pay into the new currency, and force the population to buy their staples with silver and copper coins.”

I'd say Sanders because he looks like he has more important things to do. Trump's hair looks intentional, which says all manner of things about his decision making skills.

Idk about decision making skills, but I'd def agree Trump's hair is intentional vs. Sanders.

Lately I can't tell if Jassik is just being snarky or if his logical reasoning skills have gone off the deep end.

Mostly snarky, I haven't had the time to keep up on the news for the last month or so. However, anyone who goes and pays someone to cut their hair like that makes me question every decision they make. If you are hiring someone for a position where they have to make split second decisions with possibly massive consequences and that is the best they could do with no urgency and little consequence, wouldn't it make you question them?

Absolutely not. I'll look at their prior work history and ask their referrals for, you know, actual examples of decision making skills that actually apply to the job. I can't count the number of highly competent people that I've worked with who have had questionable fashion sense. I'm glad to know not all employers are so shallow, sheesh.

It's an indication of deeper deficiencies, like ignoring counsel, as well. Personally, I just don't trust him. He's been at the center of way too many shady deals and isn't particularly successful compared to contemporaries with similar initial wealth and connections. The most that can be said about him as a business man is that he is very good at branding.

First off, talking about the bolded part, that is an argument that could be used for practically everything about a person. If you're using such shallow nonsense as a haircut to determine decision making skills, I could say the exact same thing about your hair, your clothes, the car you drive, the state you live in, the phone you carry, etc. It's practically all over-judgmental bull crap.

Maybe, but I'm not asking for the silo keys. If you're asking people to vote for you to be the executive of their country, you are subject to EVERY manner of criticism, the 2008/2012 elections proved that without a doubt. Even down to the expressions on your kids' faces. The gloves are off on being "overly judgmental" of candidates.

If you want to open that Pandora's Box, though, I will absolutely be prepared to use it against you if you decide to fight against people who do the same to your candidates of choice.

Trump isn't a great businessman, he's preying on people's fears to generate press, he's massively unqualified, he makes unsubstantiated or blatantly false claims, and he goes out in public with a rodent stapled to his head.

So, he's like every other politician but with a bad hairpiece?

No, it's really dishonest to minimize the amount of damage his rhetoric can and already has caused.

If that were the case, though, it would boil down to "these two used cars are identical, same options, same price, but this one has a dent in the door".

Lol, you and your crazy analogies. I'll roll with it, though. The Democratic frontrunner is the equivalent of a car on blocks with the windows smashed in. There are plenty of opportunities on the other side to point things out, and if anyone on your side is capable of doing it, it's probably you. Trump has problems, but he's definitely not the only candidate with obvious ones.

What is this "my side" horsecrap? I've never voted for a Democrat in a national election and would never vote for a candidate by party affiliation. I've said I like Sanders, which I do, for his honesty and refusal to play with PACs, not for his sociopolitical views. Which are coincidentally the same reason I despise trump.

You have a very consistent record of defending claims made against Democrats and attacking Republicans. You claim there are legitimate problems with certain Democrat leaders, but only ever mention them when pressed. You freely insult Republican leaders on a regular basis. I can't go off of how you vote or how you see yourself, I can only go off of the dynamics of your posts in these forums. If you want to shake the stigma of partisanship, you have to actually try instead of making us take your word for it.

I am sorry, but the system without politicians was reserved for Mars 2030.

Three parties, 4 5 6 7, 69. It doesn't *** matter. The root of the cause is not the parties or the system, but people themselves.

Personally I think allowing the option for a third term for the President wouldn't be a bad thing.

Someone like Obama or Clinton if they won would certainly be a better president in their 3rd term than their first while getting to see out their plans that take years to yield fruit.

Personally I think allowing the option for a third term for the President wouldn't be a bad thing.

Someone like Obama or Clinton if they won would certainly be a better president in their 3rd term than their first while getting to see out their plans that take years to yield fruit.