Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 501614)

Given that I have generally changed my mind about what causes terror in the name of Islam, does anyone have thoughts on this?

The six attackers in Dhaka, Bangladesh "all in their late teens or early 20s, were products of Bangladesh’s elite, several having attended one of the country’s top English-medium private schools as well as universities both in the country and abroad.

Among them was the son of a former city leader in the prime minister’s own Awami League, the governing party.

“That’s what we’re absolutely riveted by,” said Kazi Anis Ahmed, a writer and publisher of the daily newspaper The Dhaka Tribune. “That these kids from very affluent families with no material want can still be turned to this kind of ideology, motivated not just to the point of killing but also want to be killed.”

That children of the country’s upper classes appear to have joined militant Islamists in an act of such brutality highlighted the radicalization among the largely moderate Muslim population here, a process that has accelerated in recent years."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/wo...=top-news&_r=0

TM

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 501615)

For me, the challenge is always to try to understand the causes of terrorism in Islamic countries as being as complex as the causes of native terrorism here in the US. Islam is clearly an important tool for terrorists, both ideologically and practically (the fact that it's easy to get everyone together once a year in Mecca, for example, has always helped internationalize what otherwise might be local movements). Are these folks like the Brandeis weatherman in the 60s, who killed to fuel a fairly romantic notion of themselves as leaders of the masses? Are they crazies who found each other? Did they react against the western education they received, perhaps getting too heavy a dose of anti-Islamic balderdash from their teachers or the media?

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 501616)

I'm fairly certain the many reasons why anyone (rich, poor, educated, ignorant, etc.) takes to terrorism are complex. We are (and maybe I more than I should am) constantly trying to reduce it to something fairly easy to understand.

There seems to be a true hatred for the West (which cannot be distilled into any one reason) and for Muslims who are looked upon as not true to Islam. Why people take to violence when it comes to the former, I feel like I understand, given all of the violence that comes from the West. The latter I do not understand at all (outside of extremists who are easily dismissed). But the idea that people should be put to death if they are against Islam (or worse, are seen as not fully committed) is something I cannot wrap my brain around.

That said, I don't understand why Indians hate Pakistanis, Hutus hate Tutsis, North Koreans hate South Koreans, Serbs hate Croats, etc.

The world is shit.

TM

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 501605)

So, I didn't really listen in macroeconomics. When someone says the economy really did well under President ____, what is the implication? Is it spending to stimulate jobs/ cash flowing, or cutting back to fight down inflation? Or is the economy really not under anyone's real control?

What does a president really do?

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 501616)

I'm fairly certain the many reasons why anyone (rich, poor, educated, ignorant, etc.) takes to terrorism are complex. We are (and maybe I more than I should am) constantly trying to reduce it to something fairly easy to understand.

There seems to be a true hatred for the West (which cannot be distilled into any one reason) and for Muslims who are looked upon as not true to Islam. Why people take to violence when it comes to the former, I feel like I understand, given all of the violence that comes from the West. The latter I do not understand at all (outside of extremists who are easily dismissed). But the idea that people should be put to death if they are against Islam (or worse, are seen as not fully committed) is something I cannot wrap my brain around.

That said, I don't understand why Indians hate Pakistanis, Hutus hate Tutsis, North Koreans hate South Koreans, Serbs hate Croats, etc.

The world is shit.

TM

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 501617)

Biology. People are hard wired for tribal thinking. The more enlightened we become, the more we correct for the remnant instincts which had served us well during the period in which we evolved from bands of cavemen to nascent states.

But it's going to take at least a few thousand more years to entirely breed out those instincts. And our economic and political systems don't help the situation.

It's all lizard brain stuff. The world isn't shit. Fifty percent of humans are.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 501625)

also, not looking to defend Trump, but on the Star of David/Hil issue, is there any reason to believe Trump would want to paint Hil as friendly to Israel or Jewish people in general? It seems more that he will say she/Obama were hostile to Israel.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 501628)

Isn't it more that someone in his camp is taking images from fucking neo-Nazi websites and using them in his campaign?

TM

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 501629)

The star was from a Nazi site? Or something else was? David Duke actually called him out so I guess there is something going on.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 501629)

The star was from a Nazi site? Or something else was? David Duke actually called him out so I guess there is something going on.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 501631)

The whole incident is a clusterfuck. It was a tweet and might have been easily dismissed as the work of his proverbial much maligned intern with a quick apology and a pull down, but he managed instead to make it a three day story complete with details on it being pulled from a twitter user with five followers whose tweets included swastikas and other lovely stuff.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 501613)

Uh...it comes to bite you in the ass?

Unless you're now arguing that the increased costs associated with less frequently traveled routes should be spread across all airlines, I don't really understand your point. Air travel is very cheap to places that do not have the costs associated with connecting flights. It's not because there is a tremendous amount of competition. Competition helps, obviously. But the reason why it's cheap to fly to Chicago and not Cincinnati is because there is way more traffic to Chicago, resulting in larger planes and a bigger hub, etc.--all the economies of scale shit that make the per person costs lower.

From this string, your argument would be to force the bigger airlines to give up those economies of scale ("Then I guess we'll just have to outlaw loans that big") and spread costs from the crappy routes to consumers of the cheap routes.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 501632)

Wow. Sounds like he was really careless, about something of limited import, nothing top secret, but still careless.



TRANSLATION FOR THE SHORT TEMPERED (hi sidd!): I will vote against Trump, not for clinton. But the choice we have this year is by far the worst I have seen. When your party nominates someone as compromised as hillary you do not have space to goof on the other party. Your nominee will make me throw up a little when I vote for her. WTG!

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 501634)

Hillary is obviously compromised and has never been a great candidate. But if you don't see dramatic differences between her and Trump, well.....

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 501632)

Wow. Sounds like he was really careless, about something of limited import, nothing top secret, but still careless.



TRANSLATION FOR THE SHORT TEMPERED (hi sidd!): I will vote against Trump, not for clinton. But the choice we have this year is by far the worst I have seen. When your party nominates someone as compromised as hillary you do not have space to goof on the other party. Your nominee will make me throw up a little when I vote for her. WTG!

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 501636)

I feel your pain.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 501637)

So you agree sidd is a numbskull?

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 501605)

So, I didn't really listen in macroeconomics. When someone says the economy really did well under President ____, what is the implication? Is it spending to stimulate jobs/ cash flowing, or cutting back to fight down inflation? Or is the economy really not under anyone's real control?

What does a president really do?

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 501614)

Given that I have generally changed my mind about what causes terror in the name of Islam, does anyone have thoughts on this?

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 501616)

That said, I don't understand why Indians hate Pakistanis, Hutus hate Tutsis, North Koreans hate South Koreans, Serbs hate Croats, etc.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 501618)

Bush II papered over the economic malaise following the tech crash with a housing bubble.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 501632)

Wow. Sounds like he was really careless, about something of limited import, nothing top secret, but still careless.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 501639)

Anyway, I agree with your implied premise. A president has very little to do with the business cycle in relatively normal times, where monetary policy plays the key role in managing growth and inflation. Someone crediting a president for the economy he presided over is merely making a political argument.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 501640)

My thought: we play a very, very dangerous game when we buy into the jihadist worldview of cosmic warfare.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 501641)

It seems to be human nature to hate those who are most like you, but different in some way that might seem minor to an outside observer.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 501644)

Yes and no. The markets like stability. The markets will plummet if Trump wins. And they will surely fluctuate wildly during a Trump Presidency. Hell, I don't know where the fuck I'd put my money to keep it safe from that jackass. Under my mattress?

TM

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 501645)

But, at this point, given that ISIS is targeting Muslim civilians in places like Saudi Arabia, is it only a matter of time before the world teams up to crush these assholes?

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 501643)

And you wonder why people don't take you seriously. A long walk for a setup this fucking stupid and you get the treatment you deserve.

TM

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 501644)

Yes and no. The markets like stability. The markets will plummet if Trump wins. And they will surely fluctuate wildly during a Trump Presidency. Hell, I don't know where the fuck I'd put my money to keep it safe from that jackass. Under my mattress?

TM

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 501645)

Yes.

But, at this point, given that ISIS is targeting Muslim civilians in places like Saudi Arabia, is it only a matter of time before the world teams up to crush these assholes?

TM

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 501651)

Has Russia or China said/done anything? Or do you mean a coalition of the middle east countries (w/o Israel of course)? I think too many of the governments hate each other. And if the West steps in with troops, even if asked, we end up generating more hate, don't we?

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 501635)

Confidential to RT: if me and some of other socks donate, you know, anon, could you arrange for Sidd to have a remedial reading comprehension course?

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 501603)

I'm a bigger pile o' crap'n you.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 501653)

There's a course that teaches people how to understand what you write? Interesting.

That said -- no need for me to take it. Your shit has gone past tiresome. Cutting you off on Facebook wasn't enough.

I admire the others for their greater tolerance of trolls. See you around, elsewhere. Let me know if Hank disappears.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 501608)

What do any of us really do? Mix Bloody Marys at a nearby parade and post holiday-appropriate funk? Yes. A special Daily Dose for the 4th. Parliament with Gloryhallastoopid (Pin the tail on the funny):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gZtmBZuNMc

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 501610)

Good point.

It also ignores the fact that not every credit is one which every bank wants. But that doesn't matter. Do the smaller banks get to opt out of the shittier credits?

I think for the right deal, in the right situation, it could work. But there's no way it works if you force it on every deal.

TM

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 501611)

Because there isn't more or less risk! You're forcing a pricing model based on nothing other than what you think should happen.

If I were a bank that could take more than $300 million, why the hell would I agree to take a slice of a loan at a lower interest rate on a credit I think requires a higher interest rate? Because it's good for smaller banks? Because you said so?

In all those instances, you did the deal because there was a market for it. You're trying to force a market for a product when it doesn't necessarily have one.

I'm sure you're the most sophisticated of attorneys. But that doesn't make your idea a good one.

TM

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 501613)

Uh...it comes to bite you in the ass?

Unless you're now arguing that the increased costs associated with less frequently traveled routes should be spread across all airlines, I don't really understand your point. Air travel is very cheap to places that do not have the costs associated with connecting flights. It's not because there is a tremendous amount of competition. Competition helps, obviously. But the reason why it's cheap to fly to Chicago and not Cincinnati is because there is way more traffic to Chicago, resulting in larger planes and a bigger hub, etc.--all the economies of scale shit that make the per person costs lower.

From this string, your argument would be to force the bigger airlines to give up those economies of scale ("Then I guess we'll just have to outlaw loans that big") and spread costs from the crappy routes to consumers of the cheap routes.

You want to reduce loan size to help smaller banks compete. But all you're saying is that bigger banks must subsidize smaller banks. Just say that. Don't act like you have a market-based solution to the problem.

TM

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 501614)

Given that I have generally changed my mind about what causes terror in the name of Islam, does anyone have thoughts on this?

The six attackers in Dhaka, Bangladesh "all in their late teens or early 20s, were products of Bangladesh’s elite, several having attended one of the country’s top English-medium private schools as well as universities both in the country and abroad.

Among them was the son of a former city leader in the prime minister’s own Awami League, the governing party.

“That’s what we’re absolutely riveted by,” said Kazi Anis Ahmed, a writer and publisher of the daily newspaper The Dhaka Tribune. “That these kids from very affluent families with no material want can still be turned to this kind of ideology, motivated not just to the point of killing but also want to be killed.”

That children of the country’s upper classes appear to have joined militant Islamists in an act of such brutality highlighted the radicalization among the largely moderate Muslim population here, a process that has accelerated in recent years."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/wo...=top-news&_r=0

TM