Namutree

There can be a balance you know. It's not like we need to from spending more on military than the rest of the world combined straight to spending barely anything at all. I don't see for example, why we need things like the F35 Joint Strike Fighter. It costed like $400,000,000, and they don't even work for crap. Oh, and we barely even have any of them. It's friggin' stupid. We need to stop the BS. No more blank checks for idiotic pet programs in the military.

To be honest imo the big travesty is the amount the US spends on defense and the military. Realistically speaking, no one in their right mind would ever attack the USA. First off, we have ****ing nukes. Second, we live in the middle of ****ing nowhere, meaning anyone that attacks the USA has logistics issues with fuel and food and supply lines. Third, because we live in the middle of ****ing nowhere, ALL our neighbors would probably prefer status quo over a questionable and unpredictable change in politics; attacking the USA is likely to also function as an attack on Canada, Mexico, and the bulk of South America. Fourth, even in the face of a country such as Russia that CAN go toe-to-toe with our firepower, Russia would absolutely refrain from attacking us because of #1 and #2. Even if for some reason we agree to a war without nukes, the attacking nation would automatically lose due to the strain of resources and supply lines, thus both Russia and the USA would opt to fight on their home turf. The idea of anyone in their right mind attempting to attack the USA, yet despite this the amount that the USA spends on defense is absolutely insane. I personally hold the stance that yes, USA should stop playing world police force, let everyone fend for themselves (I mean wtf people bitch at the USA for intervening in foreign wars anyways), and leave the defense budget strictly for defense. Freeing up those funds would do worlds to help EVERY other aspect of the USA, from healthcare to study costs to the economy. (though of course the government would want to develop a plan to create new jobs in advance as understandably a loss of spending also means a loss of jobs) I guess my point is that if we REALLY wanna save money, target the US military and the richest 1%. Anything else is legit peanuts compared to these two. While you're 100% right that we spend way too much on the military. The amount we spend on other stuff is not, "peanuts". WoD still has a valid point.

This was more than an attack LGBT people. The guy declared his allegiance to ISIS (a terrorist group) before he died. LGBT were targeted as the killer had a special hatred of them, but this was also an attack on America at large. Respect - We need to call this what it is: a targeted hate crime. We must not allow this story (as Sky News and The Sun already seem to have done in the UK) to become subverted into a story about terror, ISIS and general American safety. We should call out the harmful idea that this could have been any nightclub; it just happened to be a gay one. This was no coincidence, and suggesting that it was only increases the pain and sense of injustice that the LGBT community is feeling. No one is suggesting it's just a coincidence, but pretending that this man was not a part of a larger Islamist movement determined to bring down our society is flat out dishonest. It is also about terrorism, ISIS, and American safety. This guy was not just a homophobic lunatic that would be less common if only we were less homophobic; he was an Islamist radical bent on all of our deaths. This represents a threat to us all; not just LGBT. We all have cause for concern. Does this clown seriously believe an ally of ISIS wouldn't be willing to kill ordinary Americans? Welcome - For years campaigners within the church have been pointing to the number of gay Christian teenagers who've committed or attempted suicide because they were unable to reconcile their faith and their sexuality. That in itself hasn't been enough to help many churches become welcoming to and accepting of LGBT people, although of course, many are. There is no argument for churches actively rejecting any people on the basis of their sexuality or gender, and perhaps that is even clearer in the light of this attack upon those who don't fit the neat heterosexual male/female mould. Of course 'welcome' and 'acceptance' will look vastly different between different churches, but we need to get better at managing the tension between strong and respectfully held theological beliefs on certain behaviours, and unconditional love. And the love must come first. I don't have a problem with any of this, but none of this is relevant to the situation. How does Christian churches being less homophobic stop radical Islamist groups from committing acts of violence against LGBT citizens or beyond? THE ANSWER: It doesn't, and would make the situation no better. There is NOTHING socially that Christian churches can do to pacify Islamist radicals from wreaking havoc. The Islamist is the problem, not Christian attitudes towards gays. Rethink. It's time to change the narrative on Gun Control. Christians – who still represent a huge and awesomely powerful political lobby in the US – simply have to take the lead on cutting back, and perhaps eventually stamping out personal gun ownership. Most of the arguments against that are wounded every time America suffers another of these regular gun massacres; the rest are simply pragmatic (the bad guys already have guns, so we must have them too), but Jesus was an idealist who called people to a better way of living. I do not underestimate how hard this is, or how entrenched this right and value feels for my American cousins. But incidents like this should act as a prompt to offer every area of our thinking to God and ask: is it possible that I could be wrong on this? Because a radical Islamist can't possibly get any guns illegally right? Maybe just make a bomb instead? An Islamist radical will find a way to kill people; that's a given. No amount of gun control, even magic gun control that made all guns in the universe disappear could make a meaningful difference. The Islamist is the problem; not guns. It seems like the author wants to deal with everything but what actually matters: Islamist radicals. "An Islamist radical committed a terrorist attack, it must be CHRISTIAN'S fault." That's his logic. some Christians have been at the forefront of promoting a Donald Trump-esque ideology of segregation and fear. Do you guys remember when Donald Trump suggested anything akin to segregation? Me neither. It's almost like this guy is an idiot.

100% confident this had NOTHING to do with the christian right. So you got that right.

Well... no. I said that American culture has a weird obsession with guns, seeing them as symbols of freedom and rugged individualism, and given that mass shootings are a uniquely American phenomena, Wut? Didn't a mass shooting happen in Paris not too long ago?

It's objectively beneficial to his interests. It's reasonable for him to think it's good news for him; it's not the same as being glad it happened.

This will help Trump in the coming election. Good news for him.

Trump supporters make memes that are too dank to be beaten.

HAHAHAHAHA! Get pwned Gawker.

GD if you dont think Hilary Clinton cares about the well being of USA citizens do you agree Trump also doesn't care? Completely agree. I believe each may have one or two principles they believe in but at the end of the day they are all about themselves. In a sense this is true, but Trump's particular brand of narcissism will have a very different result than Hillary's. IMO Trump will see America in a similar way as he sees his golf courses. He'll want America to prosper because it will be a reflection of himself. America's prosperity is not a concern of Hillary's, as she has a much more global mindset than Trump. Their presidencies will be worlds apart, and America will be far better off with competent ego maniac than the incompetent globalist who'd sell the country out to virtue signal to her "progressive" friends.

That's the exact opposite of what should be done. In 2008 and 2012 voting for Gary Johnson would be a great idea. Neither John McCain or Romney are better than Obama (I'd argue that McCain is actually worse). Can't imagine why you thought these clowns were lesser evils. This time is different however, Hillary is worse than Obama and Trump while VERY flawed is far better than McCain or Romney. Not to mention that supreme court justices will be getting picked this time around. The kind of judges Hillary would appoint are MUCH worse than the kind we would get with Trump. All your libertarian party shilling will get us is president Hillary, and you're delusional if you don't think that's a hell of a lot worse than president Trump.

The Signal and the Noise... Talking about creative interpretation of data. But hey, the Golden State Warriors broke the all time wins record at 73 this past season. But you know what, they won 22 games where they didn't blow out their opponent by 10 points. Let's move those victories into the tie column since they were so close. So in essence, the Warriors only won 51 games this year... Here are the facts and my noteworthy interpretation of the data. Hillary Clinton currently has 2,203 pledged delegates to Bernie Sanders's 1,828. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 400. Clinton won 33 contests. Sanders won 23. It's worth noting that this is a double digit victory. Clinton received 16,015,681 votes. Sanders 12,287,030 votes. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 4 million votes. Clinton won 55.6% of the vote. Sanders won 42.7%. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 13%. Guys these are the facts, can we focus on the Clinton victory and at least try to recognize the historical victory? Very few people on this forum have celebrated the fact the Clinton nomination has set a historical precedent. This is the first time a women has been nominated for a major US political party, I may need to repeat this for maximum emphasis " This is the first time a women has been nominated for the US president " ..... :dancing: This is a huge and visible step for gender equality amongst other things, I can't speak for other white males but I have to say when I look at who represents us in the current US system and I see Trump I get embarrassed that Trump somehow has become the person who is " going to make the US great again " .. Anyway I would be supporting Hilary anyway even if I was a US citizen and I look forward to her 4 years as president But guys back to the original point...can we show a little enthusiasm for the Clinton nomination and what its represents for the positive social changes we are seeing throughout the USA? Greens have nominated a woman twice before. This is only historically significant for the Democrats. Third parties don't count.

The Signal and the Noise... Talking about creative interpretation of data. But hey, the Golden State Warriors broke the all time wins record at 73 this past season. But you know what, they won 22 games where they didn't blow out their opponent by 10 points. Let's move those victories into the tie column since they were so close. So in essence, the Warriors only won 51 games this year... Here are the facts and my noteworthy interpretation of the data. Hillary Clinton currently has 2,203 pledged delegates to Bernie Sanders's 1,828. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 400. Clinton won 33 contests. Sanders won 23. It's worth noting that this is a double digit victory. Clinton received 16,015,681 votes. Sanders 12,287,030 votes. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 4 million votes. Clinton won 55.6% of the vote. Sanders won 42.7%. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 13%. Guys these are the facts, can we focus on the Clinton victory and at least try to recognize the historical victory? Very few people on this forum have celebrated the fact the Clinton nomination has set a historical precedent. This is the first time a women has been nominated for a major US political party, I may need to repeat this for maximum emphasis " This is the first time a women has been nominated for the US president " ..... This is a huge and visible step for gender equality amongst other things, I can't speak for other white males but I have to say when I look at who represents us in the current US system and I see Trump I get embarrassed that Trump somehow has become the person who is " going to make the US great again " .. Anyway I would be supporting Hilary anyway even if I was a US citizen and I look forward to her 4 years as president But guys back to the original point...can we show a little enthusiasm for the Clinton nomination and what its represents for the positive social changes we are seeing throughout the USA? Hillary being a nominee isn't symbolic of any burgeoning social changes in the US. We've been socially ready for a female president for at least 16 years. There just wasn't a female candidate until now due to happenstance.

Yeah, but she repented. Mitt Romney double downed IIRC.

Mitt Romney would have been utterly crushed. The absolute last thing the GOP needed was another Bush style republican. All Hillary would have to do is say, "You think the Iraq war was a good idea." Election over, she wins in a landslide. Any candidate that defends that war has ZERO chance to win. EDIT: Rand Paul was easily the best choice, but he ruined it for himself with a terrible primary and debate strategy. He has no one to blame but himself.

You should try stand-up. Edit: Is GOPe planning a coup? http://ace.mu.nu/archives/363918.php Nah. They're not that dumb.

That isn't entirely true. I consider the DPRK to be ruled by right-wingers. They'll go to any lengths to defend their crappy system. They are ultra-conservative, but are extremely opposed to property rights.

I'd say the left-right dichotomy has evolved past it's origin, particularly concerning ideology. It's not very clear outside of philosophy circlejerks and would probably make more sense labeled as pro/anti property, but I don't have the means to change that. It probably would. Nah. Plenty of right wing movements have pushed for centralized government. Heck the original right-wingers were freaking monarchists. Can't get much more centralized than that.

Left = anti-property/right = pro-property. It makes sense because it is a binary quality you can't waffle on. The issue with your interpretation of the left/right dichotomy, aside from what constitutes adherence to tradition, is that anything from insurrectionary anarchism to Keynesian reformism to monarchism would be considered left-wing in liberal republics. It doesn't convey anything about the goals of said ideologies other than they weren't the prevailing ideology of the founding powers of a state, where as the property distinction has a more universal meaning and doesn't require context of current states founding ideologies to label an ideology. It seems to me that you're making the case that is what the left-right conflict should be rather than what it is. Being a conservative does not make some one pro-property; merely a traditionalist. Being a revolutionary does not make some one anti-property; merely some one who seeks to destroy the current system in favor of a new one. Yet these terms are associated with the left and right. Why do you think that is? Again, the notion comes from the French revolution and some of the people associated with the left were more pro-property than the monarchists were. The uniting factor for the "right" was not being pro-property. It was their support of monarchy, and the "left"'s ideas on property varied wildly. To label the left as strictly anti-property is just silly, to me at least. I think the left-right conflict was more meant to represent a state of mind than any specific positions. Conservatives want today to be like yesterday, and tomorrow to be like today. Or are notions of conservatives and radicals irrelevant to the left-right dichotomy?

That has to be the most special snowflake version of the left-right dichotomy I've heard. It is? But if the country was established as a break in tradition(from monarchism to republicanism), wouldn't that mean it was (your conception) of leftist from the beginning? It was. Revolutionaries (which they were, obviously) are leftists in my mind. Here's the definition of a conservative: con·serv·a·tive kənˈsərvədiv/ adjective 1. holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion. It's all about tradition. Here's the definition of a revolution: rev·o·lu·tion ˌrevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/ noun 1. a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system. It's an old system being thrown out in favor of a new one. On the left-to-right scale ultra-far leftists are usually regarded as revolutionaries, are they not? IIRC the left-right concept comes from the French revolution. The people who supported the traditional system of monarchy sat to the king's right, and those who wanted to overthrow the traditional order sat to his left. Some of those on his left were classical liberals. Others were ardent socialists. What made them all leftist was their opposition to the traditional system of monarchy. Heck, you're a leftist, you should know better than anyone that there is no set ideology for the left. It's whole slew of contradicting and mutually exclusive ideologies. Anyway, what does the notion of left-right seem to mean to you?

That's probably because it is leftist. Perhaps not as radical or even having the same ultimate goals as your leftist variant, but it's not in-line with America's founding principles. That is for certain. Leftism is not socialism, it's anti-traditionalism. Socialism isn't traditional so it's leftist by default, but not all leftists are socialists. A right-winger in the US would have a philosophy akin to Benjamin Franklin, Adam Smith, or John Locke. Any other way of thinking is not right-wing, because those are idealists who established the country's entire premise and those are the values that are the foundation of this society.

Interesting, but this line in particular caught my attention. Despite popular belief, America has been pulled to the right for the past 30 years. That has to change. On what planet has America been pulled to the right? WTF is this guy talking about? We haven't had a genuinely right wing president since Coolidge; just moderates and a few leftists. All policies have been moving to the left as well. We got the interventionist foreign policy the left wanted and we went from a capitalist economy to a mixed one. In what area, any at all; have the right won anything in not only the 30 years, but even the last 60? Pretty much ever since FDR got elected it's either the left getting what it wants, or a compromise that slightly favors the left.

About time. I'm not a fan of moderates blurring the lines. Makes it harder to tell what's to blame when socialism makes it's usual nose dive into failure. Either be capitalist all-the-way or don't bother being capitalist at all.

What are your thoughts on this guy? If he had only removed his shirt it would have been funny. Removing his pants too is where he went too far.

People really seem to be drawn to him Never underestimate the power of left-wing populism and a likable personality He's consistent and principled; that's what I like about him. He doesn't spend years trying to fight gay rights; then pretend that he cares about gay people.