GTX0 Announcements | RoadmapFeedbackHelp | SandboxNewest Posts | Replies | Hottest
NIFE UpdatesRoadmapRequests | HelpDiscuss Game Worlds


Politics & Religion


World events, politics and whatever (especially whatever)
WARNING: Posts may contain offensive content and red wine
09/11/2001 WE REMEMBER

"Fear is the foundation of most governments." - John Adams

"My family is more important than my party." - Zell Miller


Duterte questioned in a televised speech Friday the Biblical story of man’s creation and asked why God created Adam and Eve only to allow them to succumb to temptation that destroyed their purity.

“Who is this stupid God? This son of a bitch is then really stupid,” said the 73-year-old leader, known for his rambling public statements. “How can you rationalize a God? Do you believe?”

Duterte lamented that Adam and Eve’s sin in Christian theology resulted in all the faithful falling from divine grace. “You were not involved but now you’re stained with an original sins … What kind of a religion is that? That’s what I can’t accept, very stupid proposition,” he said.
http://time.com/5321153/rodrigo-duterte-god-stupid/
This will not end well in the most Christian Asian country in the world. lol

settingsOptions
There are 26 Replies

I have gained a very slight amount of respect for him.

Posted June 25th by Cruinn-Annuin
Cruinn-Annuin

As an Agnostic, I think there are better ways to end his career. This is the one of the funniest.

Posted June 25th by ShadowFox08
ShadowFox08

i don't care about his religious beliefs or nonbeliefs. i care that he's a murdering son of a bitch

Posted June 25th by poptart!
poptart!
 

Fundies should be all over this as proof that nonbelief turns people into raving murderers.

Posted June 25th by pacman
pacman
 

To be honest Duerte was the next logical step in Filipino politics.



Posted June 25th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

He's a violent little brute of a leader. Populist leaders like him are a real problem.

Edited June 26th by Agis
Agis
 

Populism isn’t always bad. Depends how it manifests

Posted June 26th by pacman
pacman
 

To be honest Duerte was the next logical step in Filipino politics.

The same could be said of Trump. In fact, Chomsky predicted the rise of a populist leader who scapegoated brown immigrants and black Americans as the source of all economic problems, as well as the rise of white self-victimization.

Oh and he cited neoliberal Democrats as the primary cause of all this due to their complacency and complicity in the destruction of the middle and working classes these past few decades.

Edited June 26th by pacman
pacman
 

Good for Chomsky. I'm just going based on the Philippines rampant history of corrupt leaders.

Posted June 26th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

Again, something similar could be said of recent US history (post WW2).

Posted June 26th by pacman
pacman
 

I disagree both republicans and democrats were pretty much on the same side for a number of issues and rarely Deviated in the decades following world war 2.

I'm too tired to point out when then polarization of both sides happened and what caused it.

End of the day the American political system is a pendulum that switches to what ever populist leader the other side has to offer every 8-12 years.

Fortunately for us we have the power to curtail that influence to 4 years this time around. Unfortunately for us the democrats have not done anything to prepare for the 2020 election.

At this point they need to put all their eggs on one sure fire individual. Biden is their best bet.

Posted June 26th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

I disagree both republicans and democrats were pretty much on the same side for a number of issues and rarely Deviated in the decades following world war 2.

For starters. This is absolutely not a good thing when Dem and Repub politicians constantly agree.

Posted June 26th by pacman
pacman
 

When the alternative is the hyperpolarizarion of both sides that moves to kill the moderate middle and gets us nowhere as a society I respectively disagree.

Both sides were a lot more moderate back then . shifting to their respective left or right sides on certain issues but never failing to compromise.


Also we can't fully compare the republicans and democrats of yesterday to the buffoons we have today. Just pointing out that In the initial years following WW2 bipartisanship was highly favored by both sides.

Edited June 26th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

I guess I can concede when it comes to the pre-Reagan era. Things weren’t perfect but the overton window in the US had not yet shifted fully to the right and most Dems were still pro-New Deal, largely pro-working class and weren’t completely corrupt scumbags. After 1980 it got really bad.

Posted June 26th by pacman
pacman
 

It got bad for the democrats thats for sure. The republicans not so much (well in the initial years of Reagan's presidency)

The funny thing is the Clinton presidency would have been famovs wet dream if he had a big red R next to his name instead of a blue D.



Posted June 26th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

I meant bad for Americans in general (especially poor and minority Americans).

And yeah, you might be right about Famov and Clinton lol. He REALLY seems to hate the Clintons though along with Trump, so I would assume he has to have some sort of principles that transcend party.

Posted June 26th by pacman
pacman
 

Oh and he cited neoliberal Democrats as the primary cause of all this due to their complacency and complicity in the destruction of the middle and working classes these past few decades.

This is pretty insightful. The left is supposed to be the champion of the working / middle class -- they've utterly failed at that. At best we have an abomination of a healthcare update.

Posted June 26th by Xhin
Xhin
 

I'll wait for a second opinion from Idi Amin

Posted June 26th by GC/MS
GC/MS
 

Much of that failure can be attributed to the republicans refusing to play ball. We can bitch and moan all we want about the dems but the truth of the matter is they are the ones responsible for our low unemployment rate .

Posted June 26th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

The funny thing is the Clinton presidency would have been famovs wet dream if he had a big red R next to his name instead of a blue D.

Here's the thing about Willy. To the extent that he represented the Democrats unspoken admission that the Great Society was well and truly over he was absolutely terrific. I'd vote for Bill over Trump every time. But he should have been removed from office for the infidelity and perjury. We'd have been stuck with the inferior Al Gore for a while but perhaps he would have burned less in fossil fuels as President than he ultimately did as an environmental activist.

When Republicans insisted that the personal conduct of our elected leaders mattered I believed they meant it. I meant it. The reality is I don't disagree with everything the Trump Administration does. The budget is a travesty, but that's mostly on the Republicans in Congress. On policy I'm about 40/60 with the president, but that's not all there is to consider. He is man without character. He finds new ways to demean the office every week. The damage he's doing to the Republicans is severe, but who cares about them? What's really unforgivable are the endless lies, the total ignorance of everything, and the absence of dignity. On matters of character alone Bill Clinton didn't belong anywhere near the presidency, but at least he wasn't Donald Trump.

Posted June 26th by Famov
Famov

Infidelity


I can understand perjury but infidelity? Really? By that logic the vast majority of presidents should have been removed.

Posted June 26th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

By that logic the vast majority of presidents should have been removed.

The majority of Democrats from the second half of the 20th century? Well, yes. But to the best of our knowledge a majority of presidents have been faithful to their wives. I don't know how strong a majority that is in reality, and there's a part of me that doesn't want to know, but I'll assume that anything we don't know about didn't happen. To that end, if we start with FDR (because that's the start of the "modern" presidency and it makes things easier) we can say that Truman, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, W, and Obama all maintained the appearance of fidelity.

You know, I once had the great misfortune of watching Chris Rock's 2003 film Head of State. In it, there is a scene where President Rock is offered the services of a beautiful escort, courtesy of the taxpayer. The joke was, in order to avoid any potential for scandal, it was now commonplace for the president to have his "needs" met discretely with access to high class prostitutes that are carefully kept from the public eye by Secret Service, or something like that. All I really remember about it is how disgusted I was by the cynicism underlying the joke. And I know what you're thinking: I must be fun at parties. But mostly I reject the idea that all powerful men are scumbags. It just isn't true.

Edited June 26th by Famov
Famov

Like I said the vast majority of American presidents regardless of party were unfaithful. Its not fair to just lable them by their political party as there are times in our history where both parties shared similiar views.


Infidelity should not be grounds for impeachment. That's a stupid reason for impeachment. Not that I would vote for an unfaithful bastarda.

Posted June 26th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

Getting back to Duterte's comment, I offer this quote:

Peterson's First Rule for the Study of Other Religions: “If a substantial number of sane and intelligent people believe something that seems to you utterly without sense, the problem probably lies with you, for not grasping what it is about that belief that a lucid and reasonable person might find plausible and satisfying.”

Posted July 7th by GC/MS
GC/MS
 

the problem probably lies with you, for not grasping what it is about that belief that a lucid and reasonable person might find plausible and satisfying.”

Sort of like how most everyone has a smart phone and are constantly using it for social media and I gave mine away after a short time? Sounds like a form of addiction to me.

Posted July 8th by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

Psygnosis, Psygnosis, Psygnosis. Always thinking he can change reality and erase evidence if he throws enough sarcasm and denial at them. How pitiful.

No, that analogy does not fit. Religion is not addiction no matter how many times you put your foot down about it.

Edited Thursday by GC/MS
GC/MS
 
Reply to: Philippines President Duterte calls God stupid

Enter your message here


Site Rules | Complaints Process | Register Complaint Facebook Page
GTX0 © 2009-2017 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on