The Evangelical Universalist Forum

How To Live Under An Unqualified President by John Piper

Practices Christian Living
#3779

For clarity - I wasn’t confused as to what you called me, but as to why you called me that. Steve was the only person who seems to have understood what I meant (and I think I said what I meant?) - That is, is the deal good for the USA or UK? While Steve is correct, if both parties want something different, they can both win. However, I don’t believe that is really the case in these type of trade deals. I honestly don’t think that USA needs anything from the UK. Before you react - I am not a nationalist. Yes, I am an American of the United States (That was for Paidion, so he doesn’t get annoyed at me calling myself merely an American).

The long way around my question was this: People were cheering for Brexit. USA gets a better trade deal with them. Just who did Brexit benefit in that case? Their own nation, or the USA?

I have no real vested interested in Britain, but they are such a small country in comparison to the EU trade partnership that if they think they can go it alone… They might be in trouble, someday. In many ways, it is like they are seceding from the union. It isn’t a lot different than one of our states saying “See ya later”. Of course, there is a bit more glue to the USA in regards to Federal Vs State Level - But still.

1 Like
#3780

If the world is ever going to improve, people need to stop thinking at a National level. As long as there are nations, there will be war. If one country has “plenty” and the rest of the world has few, war will be a natural result to obtain that which is disproportionate.

The real future is trying to see how we can increase the quality of life for everyone on earth, not just a particular nation. I know, baby steps and I know we are not yet ready for it. But we won’t ever be ready for it if we don’t at least consider what the rest of the world needs.

1 Like
#3781

This is what we should all strive for! :wink:

image
image500×522 154 KB

Just keep your hands, away from the cookie jar! :crazy_face:

image
image1700×1250 758 KB

1 Like
#3782

Let me offer an alternative viewpoint. President Trump is patriotic, nationalistic, and anti-globalist. Furthermore, he went into the lions’ den of the 74th Session of the UN General Assembly Sep 24, 2019 and countered their globalist agenda, by, get this, promoting patriotism! (Transcription of speech. Video of speech.)

A few excerpts (with my emphases):

…Like my beloved country, each nation represented in this hall has a cherished history, culture, and heritage that is worth defending and celebrating, and which gives us our singular potential and strength.

The free world must embrace its national foundations. It must not attempt to erase them or replace them.

Looking around and all over this large, magnificent planet, the truth is plain to see: If you want freedom, take pride in your country. If you want democracy, hold on to your sovereignty. And if you want peace, love your nation. WISE leaders always put the good of their own people and their own country first.

The future does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots. The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors, and honor the differences that make each country special and unique.

It is why we in the United States have embarked on an exciting program of national renewal. In everything we do, we are focused on empowering the dreams and aspirations of our citizens.

The true good of a nation can only be pursued by those who love it: by citizens who are rooted in its history, who are nourished by its culture, committed to its values, attached to its people, and who know that its future is theirs to build or theirs to lose. Patriots see a nation and its destiny in ways no one else can.

Liberty is only preserved, sovereignty is only secured, democracy is only sustained, greatness is only realized, by the will and devotion of patriots. In their spirit is found the strength to resist oppression, the inspiration to forge legacy, the goodwill to seek friendship, and the bravery to reach for peace. Love of our nations makes the world better for all nations.

So to all the leaders here today, join us in the most fulfilling mission a person could have, the most profound contribution anyone can make: Lift up your nations. Cherish your culture. Honor your histories. Treasure your citizens. Make your countries strong, and prosperous, and righteous. Honor the dignity of your people, and nothing will be outside of your reach.

When our nations are greater, the future will be brighter, our people will be happier, and our partnerships will be stronger.

With God’s help, together we will cast off the enemies of liberty and overcome the oppressors of dignity. We will set new standards of living and reach new heights of human achievement.

3 Likes
#3783

The “world’s” quality of life will improve when they adopt responsible capitalism economic systems instead of these seductive but destructive socialistic or semi socialistic systems.

1 Like
#3784

Norm, I tend to think that we have some things in common, but the damp squib… You might want to re think this. Just a bit.

#3785

Here are some interesting - but related - Got Questions articles. :wink:


image

#3786

I THINK he just meant party-pooper. I’d just mentioned a trade deal with the UK, and it sounded good for both parties. Gabe was being a hard-nosed realist, and pointing out that things don’t always go that smoothly. I’ll stay positive and hope it works out well for both sides.
I also think an Earth with a number of prosperous and happy Nations would be delightful. I read a sci-fi story about humans returning to Earth in the far future and finding that humanity had homogenized into a single color - brown - and very similar, somewhat Oriental face-shapes and body-shapes. Sounded boring to me. I like the variety.

#3787

Well, I’ll talk to Norm, as to the meaning of squib I find it interesting. Let’s leave it at that. And peace to all in this Christmas season.

1 Like
#3788

Well, we can’t say this …about the recent UK election, can we now? :crazy_face:

image

1 Like
#3789

Chad, I’m ready and willing to rethink anything. I have actually been wrong before - once :smile:

But, and this is a big but, I have no idea what you are asking me to re-think. Maybe think something nice, like Maria in Sound of Music?: “Whenever I’m feeling unhappy, I just try to think of nice things” . So, please enlighten me.

#3790

squib, just for fun and kicks, explain what that means.

#3791

Chad, eons ago, when I was a small boy in Scotland, I used to stock up every fall with penny “bangers”, i.e. explosive fireworks. They actually cost a penny (equivalent to two cents American). We would light them, then chuck them at each other. If you held on too long they would explode in your hand and hurt, even burn or seriously damage your hand. Some bad boys - not me - would tie them to a dog’s tail. Trust me, these are facts.

We called them “bangers” for obvious reasons. We also called them, and other fireworks such as “doggy barkers”, squibs. A damp squib was obviously hopeless because it couldn’t be set off.

Got it? Or do I have to expand upon the history lesson about boys growing up in Scotland 70 years ago?

#3792

No Norm, no need to expand. A squib was a firework not set off… Ya Hoo!

#3793

Whew, I’m glad you clarified this, Norm! I was afraid you were comparing Gabe to ‘a non-magical person born of magical parents’ (as per the Harry Potter use of “squib’”)—which some might consider worse than being compared to a wet firecracker!

Squibs
(Mr. Filch and Mrs. Figg–squibs.)

#3794

Never read Harry Potter. Did he make ceramic pottery? Whatever, he obviously didn’t know what he was talking about.

#3797

Now, this might be interesting! :crazy_face:

#3798

Apparently the bias of the BBC - a publicly-funded thing - has been apparent for so long that BoJo might do something about it. If what he does makes for a more balanced organization - seeing as how it is funded by the public i.e. taxes - it will be a good thing.

" The Sunday Rumble: 15.12.19

Where to begin? That, I suspect, is what Boris must be asking himself. Fortunately, he has a small coterie of ‘smart-arse’ advisors around him who seem capable of thinking ‘outside the box’. According to the ’ media ’ this morning, high on the list is the smug, metropolitan, Left-wing BBC. Apparently, Boris & Co., have it as a priority. Goody! Now those smug, fat-arsed mandarins who have lived off my legally enforced licence fee will have to learn how to make a living out in a rough, tough and highly competitive market place. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of ‘toss-pots’!
https://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/2019/12/the-sunday-rumble-151219.html

1 Like
#3799

We just need to examine a Quora discussion…to see that opinion is divided. :crazy_face:

For example:

It isn’t. The BBC’s culture is establishment-progressive, which directly reflects the values of the people it employs, and most of their political bosses. It actively promotes a compassionate and inclusive worldview, but that worldview is officially endorsed by all sides of the mainstream political spectrum in the UK, left and right. It’s avowedly, and successfully, apolitical from a party-political perspective, and either centrist, or maybe even a little right of centrist, in its presentation of economic affairs.

Just going by your question’s wording (BBC is left wing), I would say anything to the left of Fox News and Breitbart is probably left wing to you and that would be 80% of the networks in the world.

They are probably also left wing because they have journalistic integrity and not report on every snippet they read from some guy’s conspiracy blog as news. They report facts and truth which are probably concepts not popular on the right wing.

Truth be told, I’ve heard the same gripe from people in Britain and usually they turn out to be way to the right of Tory party.

BBC is more balanced and fair than any network in the United States as they are not owned by any ‘For Profit’ multinational corporation and well respected throughout the World except fringe ideology people .

I personally think this perception problem with the bbc is the result of effective propaganda. The BBC is run by people with a clear bias towards the conservative right, for example - Nick Robinson who was, prior to working for the bbc, president of the Oxford Conservative Association, there are others who the real left are very concerned about like news anchor - Laura Kuenssberg. There are other issues too, it has a huge establishment bias and so the kind of news tends to favour moneyed interests most of the time, since those who are actual capitalists are over represented on its platform. It is also in trouble a lot for mis-characterizing the left, and by that I mean they are known to be portraying Corbyn and his shadow Chancellor in a negative light (to the extent possible) and their political opponents (i.e. the Conservatives) in a positive light (to the extent possible). They basically operate as damage control for the right and centre right and damage amplifiers for the left and perhaps to a lesser degree the center left. I almost forgot to mention that the BBC has been in trouble for misrepresenting the effects of man-made climate change too which climate denial is typically a right of centre problem.

Or take

A study by Cardiff University academics, funded by the BBC Trust, was published in August 2013, examining the BBC’s coverage of a broad range of issues. One of the findings was the dominance of party political sources. In coverage of immigration, the EU and religion, these accounted for 49.4% of all source appearances in 2007 and 54.8% in 2012. The data also showed that the Conservative Party received significantly more airtime than the Labour Party. In 2012 Conservative leader David Cameron outnumbered Labour leader Ed Miliband in appearances by a factor of nearly four to one (53 to 15), while Conservative cabinet members and ministers outnumbered their Labour counterparts by more than four to one (67 to 15).[16]

Or

#3800

I’m sorry, I thought I answered. Can you restate what you desire answered?

What “actions” of “discrimination” do you want practiced toward transgender persons?