Politics - Episode 9: The Lurking Fear

[Gorgon]

The Breitbart twitter feed strikes again. 

[Malcador]

The Breitbart twitter feed strikes again.

Need to dress it up better. Maybe "What California is doing will SHOCK you.."

[Gorgon]

 

The Breitbart twitter feed strikes again. 

 

Smart people discuss substance, dumb people discuss sources. 

 

mmm. 

[Ben No.3]

 

The Breitbart twitter feed strikes again.

Smart people discuss substance, dumb people discuss sources.

Ever had a history class?

[Ben No.3]

 

he IS a Leninist after all

Bannon? He didn't strike me as being communist or leninist or <pick your variant of socialism>.

I think it's more about method rather than ideals

[Wrath of Dagon]

Timeline of the Charlottesville riots: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/16/timeline-leading-to-declaration-of-unlawful-assembly-at-emancipation-park-rally-in-charlottesville-virginia-on-august-12/

 

Law enforcement officers in full riot gear then began forming a line at the rear of Emancipation Park, slowly moving forward to push people out of the park and toward the counter-protesters, many of whom were acting aggressively. Police warned anyone who remained in the park, on the street or in the sidewalk that they would be arrested.

The police did little to stop the bloodshed. Several times, a group of assault-rifle-toting militia members from New York State, wearing body armor and desert camo, played a more active role in breaking up fights.

Edit: More on this: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/17/charlottesville-law-enforcement-failed-protect-first-amendment-rights-robert-shibley-column/573719001/

 

I don't think the violence was allowed by the state and local governments so much to suppress speech, but to score political points.

Edited August 17, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon

[Malcador]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-twitter-charlottesville-1.4250824

 

 

 

You'd think history lessons derive from monuments in the US, based on this.

[injurai]

Just out of laziness, how much of this is true?

 

I'd say what you get there is basically all true. However it doesn't necessarily capture all the factors and arguments that would be part of it's context. Just as we are seeing now with the political polarization, the War in Iraq was marred by public opinion. Forget just the average American and their potentially highly flawed takes on everything, look to the political and media class. The Democrats will forever hold blood on their hands for their opportunistic reversal. They became tepid of addressing they responsibilities that our Nation held, in fact the tepidity had existed long before the 2000's media circuits. We really should have gone in during the Clinton years, but they cared more about domestic optics and legacy. Unlike the stock market crash of 2008 which I think objectively hurt the US more than the War economically, it wasn't the previous administrations fault that Obama had to inherit that mess. W. Bush however did inherit the grid lock and increasing inaction against terror that plagued the Clinton administration. Speaking domestically, the war took a toll on our economy, but no doubt we had been biding our time with regards to Saddam. We were already deployed in Afghanistan, if there was a time to handle Iraq then the time was also then.

 

Obama's decision to pull out still may have been the right decision, given the turn our economy took. It certainly was wrong strategically. For all the mess that surrounded the war, I think it was ultimately service the American people owed to the region. The GOP should never have gone in under the false pretenses that they did, and the dems should never have played their dangerous virtue games. I think you can clearly see the ineptitude of the democratic parties foreign policy ideology under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But that is a whole other thing. At least the War in Iraq is more or less tied up, and any further activity in the region can be launched under a new campaign with hopefully better pretenses. I have a feeling we aren't out of the woods yet. Especially with regards to Russia. The ground Hillary Clinton ceded is appalling. Now look where we are with Russia... I can't help shake the feeling the dems wanted all the GOPs efforts to be for naught. I'm constantly reminded of their hubris in that era and how Iraq was such an easy topic for them to use for puff pieces with little regard for the Iraqi people.

[smjjames]

 

Just out of laziness, how much of this is true?

 

I'd say what you get there is basically all true. However it doesn't necessarily capture all the factors and arguments that would be part of it's context. Just as we are seeing now with the political polarization, the War in Iraq was marred by public opinion. Forget just the average American and their potentially highly flawed takes on everything, look to the political and media class. The Democrats will forever hold blood on their hands for their opportunistic reversal. They became tepid of addressing they responsibilities that our Nation held, in fact the tepidity had existed long before the 2000's media circuits. We really should have gone in during the Clinton years, but they cared more about domestic optics and legacy. Unlike the stock market crash of 2008 which I think objectively hurt the US more than the War economically, it wasn't the previous administrations fault that Obama had to inherit that mess. W. Bush however did inherit the grid lock and increasing inaction against terror that plagued the Clinton administration. Speaking domestically, the war took a toll on our economy, but no doubt we had been biding our time with regards to Saddam. We were already deployed in Afghanistan, if there was a time to handle Iraq then the time was also then.

 

Obama's decision to pull out still may have been the right decision, given the turn our economy took. It certainly was wrong strategically. For all the mess that surrounded the war, I think it was ultimately service the American people owed to the region. The GOP should never have gone in under the false pretenses that they did, and the dems should never have played their dangerous virtue games. I think you can clearly see the ineptitude of the democratic parties foreign policy ideology under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But that is a whole other thing. At least the War in Iraq is more or less tied up, and any further activity in the region can be launched under a new campaign with hopefully better pretenses. I have a feeling we aren't out of the woods yet. Especially with regards to Russia. The ground Hillary Clinton ceded is appalling. Now look where we are with Russia... I can't help shake the feeling the dems wanted all the GOPs efforts to be for naught. I'm constantly reminded of their hubris in that era and how Iraq was such an easy topic for them to use for puff pieces with little regard for the Iraqi people.

 

 

Basically it's complicated and it depends on how you define what 'disaster' is in this case. Determing whether it truly was a disaster will be up to future historians to make.

[injurai]

Basically it's complicated and it depends on how you define what 'disaster' is in this case. Determing whether it truly was a disaster will be up to future historians to make.

 

Kind of. It's no more of a disaster than many things that came before or after it. I think historians will defer any verdict and will focus on sorting out the facts and complications. I personally think geo-politically it was a net positive. The major sin to come out of it was the patriot act and everything apropos to it. But the question will remain whether that sin would have just came later had we never gone into Iraq. I'm inclined to think so.

[Raithe]

For the slight detour on American Politics.. but what's going on in Texas?

 

Texas women will now be forced to take out Rape insurance for abortion

 

 

Gov. Greg Abbott has signed a law banning all insurance coverage for abortion, requiring women to take out separate policies if they want the procedure covered—even in cases of rape, incest, and fatal fetal abnormalities.

[Guard Dog]

I read George W Bush's memoir and I believe he really thought there was a little American, pining away for a republican democracy inside every Iraqi just waiting to get out. He really believed that these different ethnic groups who have hated each other for reasons not one of them remember since before the time of the Renaissance would just work together and form an egalitarian western style republic if we just got rid of Hussien.  He never reckoned the fact that Iraq as a nation state was only ever held together at gunpoint.  First by the British and their chosen leader Faisal, then by the army general whose name I forget, then Huissen and the Baathists. The moment the threat of being shot dead for stepping out of line was removed all these groups who hated each other started going their own way.

 

We should have left that mess well enough alone. It was stable, predictable, and a counterweight to Iran prior to the invasion. Now it's none of those things. At the very least they should have divided it into three different countries.

 

If Iraq did nothing else it proved the wisdom of the non-interventionist foreign policy school of thought. But so did Vietnam. That lesson wasn't learned either. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

For the slight detour on American Politics.. but what's going on in Texas? Texas women will now be forced to take out Rape insurance for abortion 

Gov. Greg Abbott has signed a law banning all insurance coverage for abortion, requiring women to take out separate policies if they want the procedure covered—even in cases of rape, incest, and fatal fetal abnormalities.

Freedom is a beautiful thing.

[Raithe]

 

Read about the Reign of Terror in France during the French Revolution. If you don't really recall what the Reign of Terror was about, during the French Revolution, the Committee of Public Safety was formed to govern without any of the old-fashioned constraints of government. The Committee was established on 6 April; by mid-July, Marat was assassinated, and Danton, one of the original leaders of the Revolution, was removed from the Committee. By the end of the month, Maximilien Robespierre was added to the Committee. During the Reign of Terror, tens of thousands were executed, died in prison, or died by suicide.

 

This is what happens when these movements get out of hand. So, everyone who is thinking "heads on spikes" are a good idea? Remember that in 1793 Robespierre was taking the heads of his political opposition; in 1794, he lost his own.

[smjjames]

 

For the slight detour on American Politics.. but what's going on in Texas?

 

Texas women will now be forced to take out Rape insurance for abortion

 

 

Gov. Greg Abbott has signed a law banning all insurance coverage for abortion, requiring women to take out separate policies if they want the procedure covered—even in cases of rape, incest, and fatal fetal abnormalities.

 

 

It's Texas. *shrug*

[injurai]

I read George W Bush's memoir and I believe he really thought there was a little American, pining away for a republican democracy inside every Iraqi just waiting to get out. He really believed that these different ethnic groups who have hated each other for reasons not one of them remember since before the time of the Renaissance would just work together and form an egalitarian western style republic if we just got rid of Hussien.  He never reckoned the fact that Iraq as a nation state was only ever held together at gunpoint.  First by the British and their chosen leader Faisal, then by the army general whose name I forget, then Huissen and the Baathists. The moment the threat of being shot dead for stepping out of line was removed all these groups who hated each other started going their own way.

 

We should have left that mess well enough alone. It was stable, predictable, and a counterweight to Iran prior to the invasion. Now it's none of those things. At the very least they should have divided it into three different countries.

 

If Iraq did nothing else it proved the wisdom of the non-interventionist foreign policy school of thought. But so did Vietnam. That lesson wasn't learned either. 

 

I wouldn't put too much stock into that. Saddam was uncooperative to do anything about terror cells that he shrouded. Unlike Pakistan, we could do something about it. The real counter-weight to Iran in the region was always the Saudis anyways. We went in really to dispose of Al-Qaeda, and dispose of one of the axis of evil that H. W. and Clinton failed to ever follow through with. More than anything I think W. was trying to follow through on his father's legacy. It's a region that had long bleed refugees into the west with a long history of human rights violations; At some point you have to justifying taking things to the source. At least today it's a republic, even if it hasn't secularized.

[Raithe]

Of course, you have to remember the way history rolls...

 

[Ben No.3]

Of course, you have to remember the way history rolls...

 

Sorry but that's nonsense. Every schoolbook, every decent history book has explanations on why Germans voted for Hitler, no one who has spend some time with the topic genuinely thinks that every German who voted for them or even was a member of the party was a full blown nazi.

[injurai]

Ordinary Men

 

If you willfully refuse to understand it, you are willfully complacent in it's allowance to occur again.

[Raithe]

 

Of course, you have to remember the way history rolls...

 

 

Sorry but that's nonsense. Every schoolbook, every decent history book has explanations on why Germans voted for Hitler, no one who has spend some time with the topic genuinely thinks that every German who voted for them or even was a member of the party was a full blown nazi.

 

 

So so. It's more the way history is remembered, not always in the details but with that easy overview that sets in the public consensus.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Of course, you have to remember the way history rolls...

 

The true nazis are the ones who call their political opponents nazis because they disagree with them.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

Of course, you have to remember the way history rolls...

 

 

Sorry but that's nonsense. Every schoolbook, every decent history book has explanations on why Germans voted for Hitler, no one who has spend some time with the topic genuinely thinks that every German who voted for them or even was a member of the party was a full blown nazi.

So so. It's more the way history is remembered, not always in the details but with that easy overview that sets in the public consensus.

Oh, but you have to remember that there is no topic anywhere near to the amount of detail in which we handle that topic in school. The details are part of the public consensus.

[Elerond]

 

Of course, you have to remember the way history rolls...

 

The true nazis are the ones who call their political opponents nazis because they disagree with them.

 

 

Or communists, libtards and so on.

 

[Ben No.3]

 

Of course, you have to remember the way history rolls...

 

The true nazis are the ones who call their political opponents nazis because they disagree with them.

A true nazi is someone who:

-Genuinely believes Hitler was a good guy

-Denies that the holocaust happened

-But secretly wishes it did

[Rosbjerg]

The true nazis are the ones who call their political opponents nazis because they disagree with them.

 

I understand it's annoying that your favorite political spectrum hosted such barbarism - and the word gets thrown around too much. But this not pointed towards the average voter to the right, just like 'commie' and 'SJ warrior' should not be pointed towards anyone, simply because they are to the left of you.

 

But we are seeing a rise of nationalistic fueled racism, with some pretty scary undertones - calling people Nazi who advocates segregation, racial profiling, internment of political adversaries, curtailing basic liberties, censorship and hardcore spinning of news .. is not out of the line.