It’s a Romney campaign ad. The thesis? Obama has declared war on religion, while Romney will defend it, with shots of the Pope (not the shadowy-eyed inquisitorial current pope, but the old fatherly one, John Paul II).
There are a couple of things wrong with that. Obama is no friend of atheism; he’s expanded faith-based charity programs, continues to support the right-wing Prayer Breakfast nonsense, and has openly expressed his Christianity. I’m certainly not enthused about voting for him (athough, to be sure, his continuation of policies of tyranny and violence abroad is a bigger issue for me than his faith).
For another, why doesn’t he show the Elders of the Mormon Church rather than Pope John Paul II? I can guess: because if there’s anything creepier than one geriatric manipulator of your sex life, it’s a whole assembly of creepy geriatric genital diddlers. I haven’t looked lately, but when I was living in Salt Lake I saw those Mormon leaders in the paper all the time, and seriously, the head guy looked like the Crypt Keeper.
And finally, have you ever heard about the Mormon perspective on Catholicism? It is the “great and abominable Church”! I really wonder if this ad will be played in Morridor…I don’t think having Romney suck up to the Catholic church would play well in the Mormon homeland.
It is spelled Mordor.
FWIW, I understand Romney – Mittens himself – used to be / still is (?) a mormon bishop.
Saw it in a 4Corners (Aussie ABC) TV doco on him and I think few other places too.
Not sure how Mormon and Catholic “ranks” compare (don’t mormons make allof their number “saints” or something whereas the catholics have to kinda qualify miraculously albiet often for that) but the religious rivalry aspect makes this seems a tad .. odd.
Hilariously enough, the odious Bill Donohue is currently being attacked by the absurd Michael Voris. Oh, if only they could destroy each other! Here is Voris whining about Donohue: ChurchMilitant.TV
Is there some legal reason why he couldn’t use the likeness of the current pope, and had to settle for a dead one? Or is the Ratzi brand so toxic now that even Romney doesn’t want to be linked to it?
Zeno: Awesome. Here’s hoping for a “Two Cats of Kilkenny” situation. :)
No one has to vote for Obama or any of those politicians. Lesser of 2 evils is evil in itself.
Here is an interesting article, probably too much for most folks.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2012/08/time-to-boycott-the-election/
Time to Boycott the Election
by Linh Dinh / August 14th, 2012
Here and now, voting is futile. Your vote doesn’t count, at least not for anything that you believe in and want done. Your vote is only an endorsement of an illegitimate system that persistently and viciously works against all of your interests.
Wonders :
Have the Mormons posthumously “converted” the rotting corpse of Pope John Paul II already then?
@StevoR
Being a Mormon Bishop is not as big a deal as a Catholic one. They are unpaid leaders of a single ward, and they switch them around now and again. Of course, if he did not toe the line pretty closely, he would never have been called, so it does tell us something interesting.
Mormon bishops are dime-a-dozen. Mormonism has a lay priesthood, so basically all you’ve got to do is be born with testicles and you’ve got a position in the hierarchy.
And no, #1, it’s the Mormon Corridor. It’s not just Utah, there’s a great swath of the country that praises Brigham Young.
Greg in Seattle,
“Morridor” is a term used to define the “Mormon corridor” of Utah, Idaho and Arizona.
It often also refers specifically to the “I-15 corridor” of cities along Interstate 15 in northern Utah. These are population centers on a north-south string from (traveling north-to-south) Weber County, Davis County, Salt Lake County and Utah County. Along that ~100 mile corridor of I-15 you’ll find >80% percent of Utah’s population.
The fact that this nickname for a heavily Mormon concentration of people sounds like “Mordor” is just a bonus.
So we have the Catholics, the evangelicals and the Mormons as allies, with each of the groups thinking that the other two are bound for hell. Politics truly does make for strange bedfellows. If Romney were to be elected, I don’t see the groups remaining unified: they will soon turn their guns on each other.
.
I agree with you 100%. Twice.
The Vatican and the popes are notoriously tetchy about having their images appropriated (they recently sued Bennetton for using a photo shopped Pope Image). Does this mean that the Vatican is ok with having a Mormon Bishop associate himself with JPII?
I guess the vatican can look past being called the “abominable church” and “whore of babylon” if they can make common cause to deny gay people the right to marry and women the right to contraception and bodily autonomy.
What’s a little theological difference when you can make a new ally in oppressing gay people and women?
Romney rose one level higher in the mormon hierarchy than Bishop. He was a Stake President (overseer of several Bishoprics).
Yes, Catholics and catholicism have been dissed by past mormon leaders. Current mormon leaders found out that they could hide mormon money behind Catholic leadership when it came to anti-gay campaigns (National Organization for Marriage on the national level, several state PACs), and they decided many years ago that at least a facade of interfaith friendliness would help them at all levels of politics.
They stopped repeating the “whore of Babylon” and other insults, and they started inviting Catholics to speak at various functions. They gave awards to Catholics and Jews. The prophets shook hands with the whores. Mormons signed declarations about the sanctity of marriage, against gay lifestyles, etc. They used so-called intellectuals like Robert P. George to bolster their anti-gay and other regressive politics (anti-abortion and contraception).
http://news.byu.edu/archive11-jan-george.aspx
Mormons have participated in or promoted questionable archaeology in concert with Jews, some of them fundamentalist. Sometimes they do good work, sometimes they do laughable work, and sometimes they just stretch the interpretation of good work to bend it to fit their theology.
http://news.byu.edu/archive12-jul-huqoqmosaic.aspx
Jews and Mormons: Two Houses of Israel
And Ryan is now ignoring that his monstrosity of a Randian nightmare budget does to Medicare what Ted Bundy did to young women. And why do they show Pope Grandfather instead of Pope Palpatine ?
The Catholic church has been upgraded by the current apostolic geezers to “noble.”
Link.
These guys are all about sounding tolerant, self-sacrificing etc. while their actions remain mostly coldly calculating. Follow the money. Follow the political influence.
@6: A vote for “none of the above” is a vote for Romney, unless you’re in a really solidly red or blue state. Just as a vote for Nader in Florida in 2000 was a vote for Bush. Less than 1000 of those got us eight disastrous years of the Shrub. And I am getting SO tired of posting this about once a week.
What I’m having a hard time understanding about the Romney campaign is that instead of moving a little towards the center, he’s still preaching to the choir as if he didn’t already have the nomination sewn up. Is he really that clueless?
“Great and Abominable Church” comes from 1 Nephi 12-14.
From an ex-mormon:
At least we now know why Romney went to Poland on his three country Olympic international tour.
@ Joed – the reason to not sit on the side lines no matter how much I’m not liking Obama is the Supreme Court. Romney would appoint another Scalia/Thomas. Our economy (let alone social justice, privacy and a host of other issues) can’t take too many more ‘pro’-business decisions.
Fuck the 3 post rule joed you’re a fucking idiot
Apologies to all who have memorized the Book of Mormon — I posted the wrong verse numbers for the “abominable church” stuff in Nephi. Here are the right verses:
This is one of the things that annoys me the most about having elected a centrist in liberal clothes. Obama ran unambiguously as a liberal, at least in the primary, but has governed to the right of the ideology he put forth in 2008.
The right, as a matter of reflex, tries – with some success – to paint everything Obama does as left-wing fringe extremist ultraliberal. Rather than welcoming their hatred and giving them something to cry about, Obama shifts to the right to try and appease under the false rubric of “post-partisanship.” In doing so, he actively enables the further rightward shift of the Overton Window.
I am however, despite evidence to the contrary, not stupid. I’ll be voting for Obama and every other Democrat on the ballot, though not with as much gusto as in 2008, because those are the choices we have and voting is the very least one can do to honor their civic responsibility.
In order to build a more progressive and representative government, which is what I am interested in, it is all the work long before the election that must be done to try to get better choices on the ballot that is most important. And it really sucks when members of the party you support, unintentionally or otherwise, make that work even harder (see: Overton Window).
Still, there is some cause for Democratic optimism this year down-ballot.
@6:
Very nice version of #2!
Orson Pratt, one of Mitt Romney’s distant relatives, identified as “whore of Babylon” both the Catholic and Protestant churches.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2020148/posts
PZ:
What are people basing this praise upon?
****
joed:
Many of Obama’s policies have been abominable, but under Romney, things would likely get worse. The attacks on women’s health in the last few years have been bad. Under Romney, they would get significantly worse.
In addition, as has been pointed out, whoever wins in November likely gets to choose the next Supreme Court Justice. That someone does *not* need to be Mitt Romney: Champion of the Rich.
Here’s a photo of the current mormon Prophet, Seer and Revelator — also President of LDS Inc.
http://thomasmonson.com/files/2012/03/mormon-Monson-conference.jpg
There’s no good reason not to start the infighting early since they’re all repellent and sickening. Does anyone know how many evangelicals and Catholics have been subjected to postmortem baptism, or how to figure this out? Perhaps this could be used by a third party to get them squabbling amongst each other to the point where they all end up looking bad and not being willing to support ROMney at least for the non-Mormons.
Obama and Romney are the same pretty much only from the perspective of a straight cis middle-class-or-higher (but not super-rich) man.
Also, the point about who they LISTEN to and are beholden to is very true. I have at least some faith that Obama will listen to Biden, who is a decent sort who Gets It in many important ways – but Ryan scares the bejeezus out of me.
Yes, mormons did necrodunk the Catholic Pope. Several times. They proxy baptized the Pope in Idaho Falls; confirmed that the Pope (presumably while wandering in the Outer Darkness) accepted the baptism (San Diego temple ceremony); and they also baptized the Pope in Ogden, Bountiful, Salt Lake City, etc.
http://famousdeadmormons.com/index.php?id=136
Name: Karol Jozef Wojtyla
Gender: Male
Birth: 18 May 1920 Poland
Death: 2 April 2005 Roma, Itália
Baptism 25 November 2009
Idaho Falls Idaho Temple
Confirmation 1 December 2009
San Diego California Temple
Initiatory In progress
Endowment On hold
PREVIOUS RECORDS:
Baptism: 20 APR 2006 JRIVE
Endowment: 20 APR 2006 JRIVE
Sealing to Parents: CLEARED
Baptism: 19 APR 2006 MADRI
Endowment: 19 APR 2006 MADRI
Baptism: 11 APR 2006 OGDEN
Endowment: 15 APR 2006 BOUNT
Sealing to Parents: 15 APR 2006 BOUNT
Baptism: 26 APR 2006 SLAKE
Endowment: 26 APR 2006 SLAKE
Sealing to Parents: 26 APR 2006 SLAKE
Picture: Mormon Monson
@29:
Did you come up with “necrodunk” or is that already part of the vernacular? Either way, I love it.
@ Tony
GAWD tm) sanctioned murder, rape and slavery. Mormon history reads like a tacky horror story.
ROTFL!
And therefore, ChristianityIsCatholic.
Every adult male Mormon is considered a priest; in Catholicism, priesthood is something very special. Consequently, there are a lot more Mormon bishops per number of faithful than there are Catholic ones.
If you don’t vote, but live in a swing state, you’re giving half a vote to Rmoney.
If you live in a safe state, spend all day wanking, or vote for good old Mickey Mouse, I don’t care!
(In fact, Mickey Mouse would make a pretty good president, I think.)
You just answered your own question!
While this could have been true, it wasn’t.
JAIL
TO THE
THIEF
What? No, he’s desperately trying to get his sympathizers to actually vote.
It’s not going to work, because there simply aren’t enough of those people.
@ Q.E.D
Hehehe… Teh Poster.
Forgot to close the blockquote.
What is that, Portuguese?
…WTF. That’s the same photo as in comment 26, only with lipstick and eyeshadow photoshopped in.
Trebuchet #17
Romney may have the Republican nomination in hand but he doesn’t have support from many Republicans. He’s the candidate of the moneyed GOP leadership, not the Religious Right and the social conservatives. He’s still trying to sell himself to James Dobson and Pat Robertson and their followers. Romney’s afraid he’ll lose the election not because he can’t swing independents to his banner but because a lot of Republicans won’t bother to vote for him. That’s why he got social conservative, fundamentalist Catholic Ryan as his running mate. It’s the same problem McCain had four years ago. Both McCain and Romney are too non-conservative for many conservatives.
Actually the senate and house allow a person to be a scotus judge. the prez only nominates. no one will sit on the bench that is not part of the elite ruling class. If you think there is no elite ruling class in amerika then you have your head up your fundament. if you think your vote counts then vote for obama or reagan or whatever. obama is a murderous thug no different that bush except obama hand picks which individual will die next. no evidence that they let bush do that.
tme elite ruling class doesn’t care about you, unless you are in their sights.
@ David Marjanović
Joking.
Citation needed. Your free form accusations appear to be that. Free of content and reality.
Gotta give credit to ex-mormons on exmormon.org for that one. I am guilty of providing wider distribution. Though Brownian once objected because it diminished his enjoyment of dunking doughnuts. He’s a sensitive fellow.
Do you have an ALTERNATIVE, joed?
Also, do you have anything to say to those who’ve pointed out the differences between the two camps?
This is sounding like the fuckwitted rhetoric I heard from the pseudo radicals back when I was in college. Total slogans devoid of content, reality, or any way to be meaningful. By-products of whacky-backy, etc.
I think that would count as the kind of joke not welcome here.
PZ about Obama:
The Independent today has a “nice” well-researched piece for you to fume over: Special report: ‘This is not a trial. It is an attempt to legitimise a death threat’. It’s about Guantanamo Bay and how well your government is doing there.
@39 Nerd of Redhead
i can’t cite at the moment but believe me the sneate confirms the scotus judges. and there are few requirements to be a justice–you don’t even have to be a lawyer or know any legal concepts. but the elite ruling class will determine who sits and who doesn’t. there are a million articles about the elite ruling class. A few are accurate. Every justice on the sc comes from corporate background. Where did John Roberts come from?
These people are part of the elite ruling class.
But they aren’t as batshit crazy as the Mormon religion.
Well, back in the day, popular uprising against the government, with them (the radicals) installed as government similar to the communists taking over after the Russian Revolution.
Fortunately, the radicals quickly ran into reality when they tried to talk to the people trying to organize the union, who they thought would welcome their help. The workers were interested in mundane things like health insurance and child care benefits, not revolution, and told them to fuck off.
Citation needed, or shut the fuck up. Why do you keep sounding like a revolutionary?
The House has nothing to do with it. As for the Senate, they merely confirm (or not) the President’s choice. Mostly they vote to confirm.
But anyway, that’s another reason to pay attention to the other races.
In further developments, no one has ever served in the Senate who wasn’t a legislator.
Tune in tomorrow for another edition of Tautology News!
I hope that Obama IS the candidate of the secret “Powers that Be”–that means the incredibly depraved Romney/Ryan ticket won’t win!
Obama is certainly indebted to special interests (like most politicians), but at least he isn’t advocating raising taxes on the poor while cutting taxes on the rich! Or banning all abortion and most contraception. Or doing away with Medicare and social security. (All positions advocated by Ryan).
Romney/Ryan are the “We’ve got ours, so screw you” ticket, the “we’re really, really white and totally straight party, unlike those homosexual black democrats” ticket.
I’m not saying you have to be an idiot not to vote for Obama (though I might be thinking it), but you are an idiot if you think there is no difference between the candidates.
Yeah, so? Like this is a big revelation? Like that makes it okay to sit on your hands and piously proclaim a pox on both houses and whine about how there’s not “a dime’s worth of difference” between the two options (as third-party candidate George C. Wallace put it so elegantly)? Let us consider:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer
Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
You know, all of these people came from high-achievement elite backgrounds, but I like them anyway. And they tend to rule in favor of real people instead of just for the corporations that “own” us all.
John Roberts
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
Samuel Alito
Anthony Kennedy
Wow! Joed is right! These all come from elite backgrounds, too. And they scrupulously obey their corporate masters (reflexively, I’m sure; no needs to send them instructions).
Yep, all of the Supreme Court justices are just the same. No difference at all! No reason to care whether Obama appoints more people like the first group or Romney gets a chance to beef up the second group. Indistinguishable! (At least, until you open your eyes.)
@46 Nerd of Redhead
Do i have an alternative–yes I do!
Economic boycott and nonviolent civil disobedience is the only way to make moral change in a society.
Boycott is the only action the elite understand.
hardship and sacrifice are the dues to pay for civil justice.
the bad guys won. The u s is now a really shitty country for many people and the people of U S aren’t willing to pay their dues.
Boycott the election or at least vote against the incumbent by write-in vote.
That’s my alternative.
Spoken like a true Romney shill.
@51 Helpful suggestions only, please.
Economic boycott–against who?
Nonviolent civil disobedience–against which laws?
Please be specific.
Citation needed, or you have nothing but slogans and used whacky-backy breathe. Essentially, you have nothing but wishful thinking. Fine, but quit bothering those of us who arent’ deluded.
So your alternative is to ensure a victory for Romney/Ryan by not voting for Obama. Still delusional, as it won’t do what you think it will do. A defeat won’t in itself make the democrats become more progressive. In fact, the Romney administration will make the country far less progressive. You’ve had some interesting hallucinogens.
While this could have been true, it wasn’t.
Of course it’s true. Whether legal or illegal, only the official, certified tally matters. The fact is Bush won by 537 votes. I don’t blame the voters as much as I blame Nader and his monumental ego.
@48 What a Maroon,
Well, actually Thurogood Marshall sat and he was reasonable person. Probably not on your list.
Um, what? What list? What does this have to do with my comment?
@ joed:
I see you’re still sticking firmly with #2 and now you’re throwing a little #4 in there for good measure.
How many more do you think you can you fit in before the end of the thread?
As others have pointed out, Obama is a corporatist scumbag who is in many ways to the right of Nixon, but on the other hand Romney is blatantly malevolent and a religious fanatic to boot. I base these judgments on their policy positions since elected office, and in Romney’s case also his pre-politics career, rather than their speeches or public appearances. I never bother listening to those, because they typically contain no actual information, and most politicians come off as obnoxiously smarmy during them. I prefer to look at what they actually do.
@54, Nerd of Redhead
“So your alternative is to ensure a victory for Romney/Ryan by not voting for Obama.”
Well, that is my point. It matters not who is president because the ruling elite agenda will continue regardless. The system is broken all the way.
“Your vote doesn’t count, at least not for anything that you believe in and want done. Your vote is only an endorsement of an illegitimate system that persistently and viciously works against all of your interests.”
Nerd of Redhead your translation of what I said is not accurate. I don’t want either of them to be president and I will not vote for either.
My alternative, as I said is to write-in.
@joed
You’re right – this is a shitty country for many people. But boycott and nonviolent civil disobedience can be considered a luxury that many people don’t have. Your alternative would only be meaningful if the entire population were motivated to vote in the first place, and if the right to vote for certain segments of the population wasn’t being circumvented. Our electoral system isn’t the kind that can be easily swayed by boycott or write-ins on the national level. Your suggestion is impractical ideal.
@60, You didn’t answer my earlier questions, but here’s another one:
What is the ruling elite’s agenda? Be specific.
Y’know, I’m moderately amused that joed is responding to my posts, but attributing things that I said to Nerd.
I mean, I get that Nerd is much better looking than I am, but srsly.
Radical rhetoric, so citation needed for your inane argument. That is your problem. I think you will find the citation hard to come by. All you have is whacky-backy rhetoric I heard ad nauseum 40 years ago. It was stupid then, and it is stupid now. Won’t work. End of story. Stop pestering us with delusional unworkable ideas.
@61 mythbri
Thanks for a reasonable “reply”.
I don’t see any improvement in the social situation.
The system is taken over by the elite.
The ruling elite will not allow anyone to be elected that they don’t want to be president.
some choice!
Voting the lesser of 2 evils is a big part of the problem. There is more to politics that “social issues” but that is about all the voter is allowed to be concerned with.
@64, Nerd of Redhead, I’d love to see joed try to come up with a “ruling elite agenda” that applies to both Obama and Romney.
He can’t do it, of course, and he probably won’t try, but it would be amusing.
if you want to specifically make an insinuation about communism, you use the last pope, because that one (before he became a pope) was influential in ending communism in Poland, a fact rather well-known among Catholics AFAIK. (plus, a dead pope can’t critique Rmoney’s anti-social policies.)
so you’re blaming fraud on honest people?
brilliant. and you wonder why your country is going to shit.
@65, joed, ah c’mon, I’m asking you to share your political wisdom with us. What is the “ruling elite” that you are referring to? What is their agenda?
Enlighten us poor benighted dupes! Isn’t that part of your mission?
Translation: who gives a crap about the rights of women, LGBT people, or PoC? There’s no real difference in how TPTB (straight cis men with money) are treated, so there’s no point in voting! ZOMG. Only stupid people care about “social issues!”
@67, fraud, yes, and the Supreme Court’s outrageous decision in Bush v. Gore.
Control of the Supreme Court is one of the best reasons to vote for Obama.
Radical rhetoric, guess what is needed for your accusation, or *POOF* dismissed as fuckwittery.
I know. He’s letting the rhetoric get in the way of facts, which the pseudo-radicals (now their probably teabaggers after they returned to their roots) also made the same mistake.
So, joed, if Al Gore had been elected in 2000, all of the following would have occurred regardless, right?
Bush tax cuts
NCLB
invasion of Afghanistan
invasion of Iraq
use of Guantanamo to detain prisoners indefinitely
torturing of prisoners
continuation of DADT
lack of action on AGW
appointment of Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court
Citizens United decision
Please feel free to add to my list and tell me how nothing would have been different, how everything happened because it’s all part of the ruling elite agenda. And remind me why my vote doesn’t count.
Do you think those who fiddled the vote in Florida would have been deterred by an additional 1,000 votes for Gore?
joed,
NVDA – fine, I’ve done a fair bit of that myself, and expect to do more. But what possible good will either “boycotting the election” – aka not voting, or a write-in – aka voting for someone who’s not standing, do? Aside from making you feel virtuous, I suppose. The chance of an individual vote making a difference are, of course, tiny in any case; but if you manage to persuade enough other people to your view, you could end up handing the election to Romney. It’s as absurd to pretend that would not make things worse as it would be to pretend Obama is any kind of progressive (which no-one here is doing).
@68, Doug Hudson
No benighted dupes, sir, we are all in the same boat, aren’t we!
The ruling elite’s agenda is to use benighted dupes until they can’t be used any longer and then to flush them like used toilet paper. Regular people are basically useless feeders to the ruling elite.
That is their agenda but don’t take my word for it.
There are many arguments against what I say but if you can’t see it happening every day then, well, there you go.
The bad guys won and there is no going back.
it is. if you’re in a swing state (which also includes states that aren’t officially “swing states” but in which new voter-suppression laws will prevent many democratic/liberal/progressive voters from voting); if you aren’t, voting for Obama is a waste. votes in places like that should instead be used to pull the Overton window back in our direction.
@74, joed, no, really, enlighten me. What is “happening every day”? Who are “the bad guys”?
Or are you advocating some sort of gnostic thing where you can only share the truth with the chosen?
probably yes, actually. DADT was Clinton’s creation, after all.
@65:
There is a lot more to politics than voting. Voting is the end game. If simply voting (and whining on message boards) is the sum total of your involvement with politics, then you’re part of the problem.
Furthermore, you probably aren’t going to get much traction for your irrational and unrealistic “solutions” here or anywhere else that critical thinking is valued.
@73, KG
that’s my point, it doesn’t matter who is president.
Romney or Obama, the states end up with the same problems and the same nonsolutions.
Feeling virtuous is not of any value.
@75, I think at this point there aren’t many states that aren’t in play.
Romney has managed to alienate so many interest groups, and the tea party has scared off a lot of traditional Republicans, that even traditionally red states could be in play.
Plus, as you say, Obama is going to need extra votes to overcome Republican dirty tricks.
only true if you’re a white straight cis dude.
communists/anarchists who think classism is the sole problem in the world are useless.
Jadehawk,
To be sure, I think there’s more than one thing on my list that would have happened under Gore, but even if one of the things had been different, it would have belied this statement:
QFFT. This is the reason I’m not official a member of the US Socialist party.
mine isn’t. but then, mine is utterly worthless anyway (we get 3 electoral votes)
Citation needed, or you have no point. That is my point, as it has been all day waiting for you to pony up evidence instead of evidenceless radical rhetoric.
sorry folks but this doesn’t seem to be working.
(working for whom)
good luck with the election and may the best man win.
@72:
Al Gore was elected in 2000. The Supreme Court stopped the counting of votes to seat George Bush.
To correct your otherwise spot-on post, the first sentence should read: “So, joed, if Al Gore had been declared the winner after he was elected in 2000…”
@joed #65
Regardless of whether or not that’s true, those “social issues” you’re dismissively quoting are really damn important. You remind me of when John McCain put “health of the mother” in airquotes when he was talking about abortion in one of the Presidential debates.
I don’t care if you don’t see a difference between the two candidates that we have to choose from. I will choose the one who at least says things that make me believe he sees me as a person, not a walking womb. Obama isn’t perfect by any means, but he’s better than Romney, and that’s how I’m going to vote.
You keep saying that the “elites” will put whoever they want into office anyway. If that’s true, then what’s the point of a boycott?
@84, ok, yeah, at that point I might vote Green or something.
@85, its such pathetic rhetoric too. “Boycott the vote”, really? That’s the best he can do?
“Workers of the World Unite! All you have to lose is your chains! Rise up against your corporate masters! Shoot the running dogs of the Imperialist warmongers!”
See, that’s how you do it!
Seriously, are my posts invisible is thread?
*irritated*
@86, and joed slinks out of the thread without giving a single piece of evidence for his assertions.
Not unexpected, really, but boring.
well, I won’t be voting for anyone, what with being an Ebil Furriner. (but I’m betting the bf will be voting for assorted independent candidates)
indeed. 39% of the US “boycotted” the vote in 2008, to absolutely no positive effect whatsoever.
@86:
What doesn’t seem to be working, this?
No apology necessary, that would be a good thing.
This is complete hogwash. Obama has always been a centrist. He was a centrist in the Senate and a centrist on the campaign trail. That you took his deliberately ambiguous campaigning as being liberal is both an indictment of your critical thinking skills and a testament to the power of political advertising.
And we’re getting tired of hearing it. Maybe you could give it a rest.
The time when we have to abandon voting and go right to nonviolent revolution is coming fast. Joed sees it coming sooner than I do. I’m not sure he’s wrong.
@90:
Not invisible to me, I’ve been enjoying your posts.
@ “non-violent revolution”? Care to explain how that is going to happen?
*Blinks slowly a few times*
I will freely admit to not being the brightest or most educated poster on this forum, and my understanding of politics and economics may not be first-rate. However, is the suggestion being made that I should not care about the potential of my body being held hostage by the government via forced pregnant, nor should I care about the civil rights of minority groups, ie LGBTs and others? I especially should not give a flying fuck about the average person having access to medical care or having safety nets for homeless or starving children?
Um… if that’s the case, I really don’t want to be on this planet anymore. I must be soft in the head to even consider that basic human rights are more important than making a political stand against the ‘elite’. Or something.
Really? You don’t blame Gore for not reaching out to those voters?
You’ve never read Gene Sharp?
You didn’t see what happened in Tunisia and Egypt?
@100,
You are, of course, aware that most police forces in the US are essentially paramilitary organizations, with military supplied weapons and training? And that these police forces have already shown themselves willing to use unnecessary force against protestors.
And, of course, you are aware that vast numbers of Americans own guns, and that the radical right is particularly well-armed?
In the unlikely event that a revolution does occur in the US, it sure as hell isn’t going to be non-violent.
Protecting bankers at the expense of of those they’ve defrauded?
Giveaways of taxpayer money to campaign donors?
Suppression of civil rights and due process?
American imperialism?
Look, I’m going to vote for Obama, but at the same time I recognize that he is the enemy. Tactically I’m voting for one enemy to oppose another. But let’s be honest here: Romney and Obama differ on a few important things, but on other important things they are exactly the same.
Addendum: When a group of protestors occupied an abandoned building in Chapel Hill, NC, the Chapel Hill police scrambled their fucking TACTICAL RESPONSE SQUAD and forcibly arrested all of the protestors, as well as a reporter.
When Chapel Hill, NC, has a TACTICAL RESPONSE SQUAD and uses it to crush a peaceful (albeit illegal) demonstration, well…
Good luck with the “non-violent revolution” thing.
That is sadly probably true.
Also true in Tunisia, Egypt, etc.
Also true in Tunisia, Egypt, etc.
@94:
Read what I wrote carefully because you are misrepresenting what I wrote, and while that says something about your critical thinking skills, unlike you I prefer to leave the ad hominem insults out of the debate because they contribute precisely nothing but making the person doing the insulting look like an ass.
Note that I did not say that I thought Obama was a liberal. I pay attention and yes, I’ve always known he was a centrist. However, in 2008 and despite your protestations, he did not campaign as a centrist, he campaigned as a liberal. That a lot of liberal voters genuinely believed he was a liberal (and are now very disappointed in how he has governed) is a testament to the power of political advertising.
There are plenty of reasons why an Arab Spring-esque revolution in the US is unlikely, but srsly, the militarization of the police and an armed right-wing are not good reasons, especially by themselves.
With the exception of the appointments of Robert and Alito, every single one of those things would have happened under a Gore administration.
#106, And I’m saying, he did not campaign as a liberal. He campaigned like every politician – by being as vague as possible and letting the voters read in what they wanted to hear. And it worked on a lot of people.
@105, Esteleth, as I recall, the police forces were ambivalent about the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, and the overthrow of Mubarek in particular was largely the result of the military choosing to remove him.
There has never been a successful revolution in the history of the United States. (Save perhaps the first, but most historians don’t consider that a true revolution.)
Sounds good to me.
@107, Esteleth, whoops, I didn’t see your 107 before finishing my 110.
I see what you are saying, but I would argue that the militarization of the police and the right wing in the US has specifically occurred in the context of preventing “non-Americans” from seizing control of the country. In this context, any left wing revolution would be met with violence. And a right wing revolution would start with violence.
@111, it IS tasty rhetoric, isn’t it? Can’t go wrong with the classics.
Of course, I’m comfortably white, straight, and middle class, so I’m sure as hell not leading the revolution. I might wave a little flag in support, though.
Jadehawk, you chose Door #3. You win – the INTERNETs!
Even if you are in a solidly blue state, a vote for “none of the above” is a vote for Mitch “One Term” McConnell and the rest of the republican’s obstructionism strategy. One of the goals of that strategy is to disillusion progressive voters into not voting democrat (as the Repubs know they’ll never vote republican anyways). If the coming election shows a substantial drop off in blue support even in safely blue states, even if the dens still win safely, it will be seen as a vindication of obstructionism as a political strategy, and they will double down on it, as well as voter suppression – they’re going to see the potential over the next 20 years of flipping blue states into purple states.
And if that happens you can kiss functional democracy goodbye in America for the next 20 years.
It is not just obstructionist politicians that need to be repudiated, it is obstructionism itself. And to do that voters have punish not just the politicians who introduced the strategy, but the strategy itself. They have to demonstrate that it doesn’t work by actively voting BOTH against the obstructers AND FOR the obstructees.
In 2012, you do not have the luxury of voting third party anywhere. To truly discredit the odious obstructionist target, voters need to reward Obama for being the victim of the strategy, thereby demonstrating that the strategy is counterproductive. Obama must win 2012 by as big a landslide as possible, as widely as possible.
If Obama wins by a small margin, we’ll just see a doubling down on republican obstructionism in Washington and voter suppression in the red states for the rest of his second term.
Only after obstructionism is safely discredited and some semblance of a functioning democratic system is restored will it be even possible to push the Overton window back to the center (can’t even dream about pushing it left without another 20 years of work) by progressive primary strategies within the democratic party plus third party challenges.
Only then.
Doug Hudson @ 112, you are not wrong there. At the same time, the right wing is so fractured along lines of race, religion (those are the biggies) lines that I’m skeptical of the probability of a right-wing revolution getting started. Also, the different sub-groups hate each other WAY too much to be able to work well together.
Fundamentalist Christianity, IMO, comes closest to potentially being able to pull it off.
The biggest thing necessary for a revolution that is not (yet) met in the US is widespread desperation. For a widespread revolt – required for a revolution – to occur, the feeling that the possible benefit (i.e. change) is greater than the benefit of not revolting (i.e. the status quo). So long that people have hope that the status quo will improve without a revolution, or feel that the status quo, while not great, is good enough, a revolution (right or left) will not get off the ground.
I know that’s your point, and it’s a fucking stupid one. You remind me of those idiot Stalinists in the 1930s who said that social democrats and fascists were indistinguishable. Quite apart from the effects of a Romney victory on women, gays, and those who would be unable to afford medical care – about which you don’t appear to give a shit – Romney has already made clear his support for an Israeli attack on Iran.
@119:
So you admit that Obama did not campaign as a centrist but campaigned “ambiguously” such that liberals might read into his campaign that he was liberal.
I agree, and it worked. I disagree that he was “as vague as possible” because there were no right-wingers that thought he was one of them. He was, however, vague about how liberal he was and most liberals did think he was one of them.
My point, that you ostensibly agree with, is that he did not campaign as what he is: a centrist.
Furthermore @108:
Without the appointments of Robers and Alito, we wouldn’t have gotten Citizens United. Gore wouldn’t have invaded Iraq and would never have authorized torture. It is doubtful that 9/11 would have ever happened under a Gore presidency because Gore understood the importance of counter-terrorism and wouldn’t have slashed funding for it as soon as he entered office as Bush did. Gore wouldn’t have ignored a memo about an imminent terrorist attack to go on vacation.
Without 9/11, there is no Afghanistan invasion, no need for Guantanamo. NCLB was Bush’s policy, Gore wouldn’t have considered it.
To say that “every single one of those things would have happened under a Gore administration” strains credulity, and that’s putting it nicely.
Esteleth @116, I agree completely with your post. Well said.
Meant “@109” in the previous comment, I cannot read the future…
The only other case in which revolutions happen seems to be a split in the ruling elite deep enough for one side to attempt a coup, secession, or radical reform, which is resisted; one or both sides may then try to recruit social forces outside the elite. This happened in the American Revolution, the Spanish Civil War, and arguably the French Revolution. It is perhaps marginally more likely in present-day US than a revolution or desperation.
Also, if people feel that the possible worst case scenario of revolting is no worse than the possible outcome of revolting, then a revolution is possible. But basically, the benefit of revolting must outweigh the benefit of not revolting, either positively (change = good) or negatively (no change = more bad).
I’m also going to point out that this is one way that the corrosive effects of race and sectarianism show up again. A person can be fed up and desperate and vehemently seek change. But if that change means that one of those people has a (greater) chance of getting a (bigger) piece of the pie? Many people will swallow quite a lot of abuse when the alternative is someone that they hate getting a perk, even if that perk is quite hollow.
Er, the first sentence in my 122 should read:
Communists who think classism is the sole problem in the world are bad communists.
Good communists:
http://cpusa.org/gop-aims-to-divide-and-conquer-with-racism-red-baiting/
http://cpusa.org/is-the-gop-sabotaging-recovery/
Not really a fair characterization. More like Sam Nun’s creation. It turned into Clinton’s fall-back position when the Congress when nuts over his initial proposal to just junk the no-gays rule for the military. Remember Sen. Nun’s showcase visit to a Navy submarine so that he could gaze in horror at the close proximity of the bunks in the sleeping quarters? Why, innocent straight sailors could accidentally touch perverted gays just by rolling over in their sleep! (Could rape be far behind??) If Clinton hadn’t himself rolled over by accepting DADT, he would have been faced with a legislative continuation of the outright ban. It was one of the administration’s first defeats (healthcare came later).
Esteleth @122, rather than quoting your entire post, I’ll just say, “QFFT”. The second paragraph is particularly relevant, in that the Republicans are using race to try to keep poor whites voting Republican, even when it isn’t in their best interest.
FFS, even Marx (y’know that Marx) believed that there was more to it than class.
I’m smelling a straw communist…
One difference between Romney and Obama is that Romney is a much more accomplished liar.
Romney is also no good at math, surprising for a businessman, but true. Link that explains how Obamacare cuts the deficit. Romney has said several times that Obamacare will explode the deficit.
Link for excerpt above.
They’ve been doing this for 40 years.
@124, are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party? :P
Joking aside, no party actually calling itself communist will ever be successful in the US, that well has been poisoned to hell and gone.
Same is true of the socialist party, most Americans think socialists ARE communists.
@129, and ironically, the Democrats did it in the 1850s and 1960s, to try to keep poor whites from voting Republican (even though the Republican platform was pretty darn good for the poor, what with the homestead act, the intercontinental railroad, and other improvements).
That was my reason for conscientiously abstaining from voting in provincial elections here in Alberta for a number of elections (notably, during the King Ralph years. At the time, I was working part time for the Alberta government, and had been given a politically sensitive report (on the self-reported impact to seniors of cuts to seniors programs), which the premier had shredded, rather than released. That the report had been commissioned and then shredded was leaked to the press about a month before the election, with neglible impact on the election results. Le sigh.)
Now I vote, and send emails to MPs and MLAs, with predictable results.
@131, obviously that should be “1860s” not “1960s”. Hail Tpyos!
The Democratic rhetoric of the 1850s and 60s is stunningly, jaw-droppingly racist. Makes today’s Republicans look subtle by comparison.
And both parties did it in the 1880’s and beyond (including today), stirring up fear and hatred about immigration. Who gives a shit that you’re living on pennies a day and are literally risking life and limb (and with no pension or benefit to those you live behind) for those pennies? At least those damn [insert slur here, applicable to time period/group] are being kept in line!
@134, again, very well said. Fear of and antipathy towards immigrants is one of the constants of American society, going back to the pre-revolutionary times (try being a Quaker in Puritan Massachusetts). But on the other hand, acceptance and welcome for immigrants has also been an American tradition…there is an odd paradox at the heart of American society.
Doug:
But on the other hand, acceptance and welcome for the right kind of immigrants who knew their place has also been an American tradition.
Fixed that for you.
@136, I dunno, I think there is a tradition of being genuinely welcoming of different groups…Rhode Island, established as a sanctuary for those who dissented from religious norms; Pennsylvania, established as a state for anyone who wanted to come; George Washington’s elegant letter to the Jews of New York…
Granted, the tradition of saying nasty things about each wave of immigrants until they assimilated is probably a stronger tradition, but I think there are still traces of the other one. At least, that’s the tradition I try to follow :)
I think those are the exceptions, not the rule.
But yeah, they are things to emulate.
New York or Newport, Rhode Island?
I’m too cheap, but ask me again in a few years.
I dunno. Look at ages 18-29.
But what I wanted to point out with those earlier links — here’s another one — is that the Communist Party wants Obama to win. Whatever makes people’s lives better, that’s what the CPUSA wants. They don’t run candidates against the Democrats anymore.
The New Colossus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Emma Lazarus, 1883
Despite the, shall we say, “white-washed” view of America in this poem, I have always loved it, as an ideal. Just as I love America, as an ideal, recognizing that Americans rarely (ever?) live up to that ideal.
@139, yknow, I had a feeling New York was wrong, but I didn’t bother to Google it…my mistake. Quite right, it was Rhode Island.
@140, interesting point.
I’ve always been fond of the Flushing Remonstrance.
One of the first documents to take an unabashed stance about religious liberty (in 1657).
Emphasis mine, on the best damn part.
If you truly feel that both sides are equally bad, and that voting is an endorsement of a corrupt and hopelessly broken system that consistently and viciously works against your interest, do not forget that your SILENCE, your refusal to participate is STILL an acquiescence to the continuation of the system that you do not endorse, unchanged. Passive refusal to participate is an implicit consent to be continued to be exploited.
So if you truly feel this, then put your sweat, tears, treasure, and BLOOD behind your otherwise hypocritical words and start an armed insurrection to overthrow this irredeemably corrupt system you so abhor and replace it with the system you think it should be instead.
No worries. I had to google it, and I could only find reference to the RI one. It was good to learn about.
@141, Doug Hudson
Tribalism is not healthy. It is a major cause of human suffering. The U S is very sick and the white male privilege you allude to is tribalism at it’s worse.
@143, oooh, I like that! My study of colonial American history was mostly limited to the English settlements, I’m not too familiar with the Dutch part.
It’s odd how so many groups feared and persecuted the Quakers, they were (and are) such an innocuous group.
@145, it is a great letter. Washington, for all his flaws, was a damn good leader/president. Probably our best, ‘cept maybe Lincoln.
I challenge you to provide a cogent description of this ‘tribalism’.
@141, Doug Hudson
Actually the richer a country is the fewer refugees are allowed in that country. Seems nations like the U S doesn’t want refugees but only wants cheap labour to displace the union workers. and that is what amerika is getting–isn’t it!
Australia knows, “… Paradise is under siege, and those haphazard boats with human cargo are to blame.”
http://dissidentvoice.org/2012/08/reviving-the-pacific-solution-the-houston-panel-recommendations/#more-45536
@146, You still haven’t answered my questions in 53, 62, 68, or 76, so I’m not going to bother asking how my fondness for the ideals on which American was founded count as “tribalism”.
Well, speaking as someone whose last religious affiliation was as a Friend (and who still occasionally runs with Friends, as one of those batshit “nontheistic Friends”), the persecution of the Quakers was largely a response to how extreme Quaker theology actually is. I mean, a theology and religious group that actually believes in equality fo the races and sexes? Rants about societal oppression and privilege? Scary fucking shit.
(the above should not be taken as an endorsement of Quakerism – Quakers, being goddists, are just as prone to being stupid, irrational, and bigots as any other religious group).
@148, Brownian
“I challenge you to provide a cogent description of this ‘tribalism’.”
“characterized by a strong sense of loyalty to one’s group” is from 1951 (Arendt).
@149, refugees =/= immigrants.
Also, the US is tenth in the world in the number of refugees accepted in 2011, according to the UNHCR. Not as good as it should be, but not terrible (http://www.unhcr.org/4fd6f87f9.html).
@151, Esteleth, that makes a lot of sense, thanks. Even though the Friends were non-violent, their theology threatens a lot of entrenched power structures.
so that’s “never” then, since the only way to discredit obstructionism and restore some semblance of a functioning democratic system is to yank the Overton Window back into reality.
Have fun with your ratchet government.
You know how Google works, right? Meaning that when you fucking cut ‘n’ paste from the web, it’s exceptionally easy to track?
So, is it the ‘loyalty’ in this ‘definition’ of yours that’s the problem? Or is it ‘group’?
Is that different than ‘family’?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”
Change men to [humans], and cut out the Creator line, and this is one of the most perfect expressions of human rights ever designed.
Of course, it’s never actually been true of the United States, but it’s a great idea.
@150, Doug Hudson
If you would read 74 you will see I answered you question…
Here it is again, probably not the answer you want.
“The ruling elite’s agenda is to use benighted dupes until they can’t be used any longer and then to flush them like used toilet paper. Regular people are basically useless feeders to the ruling elite.
That is their agenda but don’t take my word for it.
There are many arguments against what I say but if you can’t see it happening every day then, well, there you go.
The bad guys won and there is no going back.”
Tribalism is not healthy. It is a major cause of human suffering.
not desperation; desperation can be easily soothed by one metaphorical opiate or another (otherwise, civilizations wouldn’t fall, they’d just have revolutions to restore themselves to new and/or former glory). What’s required is righteous, well-directed, and well-organized anger, which is why a revolution in the US will never be a progressive one; it will be a teabagger one.
@154 Doug, yep. There is of course more to it than that, but that’s probably a large part of it. Class may also have something to do with it – the Friends tend (historically and today) to be middle-class-and-up people of WASP heritage, but vote and act like poorer people who are not WASPs. This is class/race treason and must be opposed.
@158, I read 74, it lacks details.
Who are the bad guys?
What does the ruling elite want?
And how does anything I’ve said support tribalism?
Do something better than cutting and pasting from online dictionaries, or stop asserting this, dipshit.
Jadehawk @159, I trust you mean “self-righteous anger”, because there is nothing righteous about the teabaggers.
Righteous, directed anger is required, Jadehawk, but sufficient people have to be desperate enough to throw their lot in with them to push a revolution over the top.
Like I said before, the one group (right or left) who I actually see as having the largest chance of pulling this off are fundamentalist Christians – they have the numbers, or nearly so. What they need is a single leader or a unifying organization.
When religious freedom is threatened, who do you want to stand with?… PZ of course!
they’re angry and believe themselves to be righteous. whether this is actually so is irrelevant to whether it can cause a revolution.
I don’t know that that’s true. quiet desperation is a permanent feature of the world, and revolutions don’t seem to follow from that at all.
@166, I probably should’ve included a smiley or something, I knew what you meant.
Amazing! This vid says asolutely nothing and exploits a very tenuous connection between Romney and JP2 via a handshake with Lech Walesa decades after Walesa met the pope. Bizarre!
@ 67
I’m blaming Bush’s victory on Ralph Nader, if that’s what you’re talking about.
so that’s a “yes”. like I said: with attitudes like this, it’s no fucking wonder your country is going to shit
Desperation is not necessary.
Solidary is necessary. Education is necessary. Organization is necessary.
Without these things, democratic revolution is unimaginable.
With these things, vision and opportunity supersede any desperation.
Aww, joed the troll left before I could really get my fangs into him. Too bad.
@173, Doug Hudson
“If you get in a pissin’ contest with a skunk you’re gonna’ lose”
RE 173:
He said he was leaving a while ago and showed back up again, you might get lucky yet.
Your strong loyalty to the group of people who’ve written the things you copy and paste would be admirable, were it not egregious tribalism.
Doug Hudson,
I see no evidence joed is trolling – i.e. saying things just to annoy; he’s just plain wrong.
Damn it, joed. I want to like you. And I want you to be an effective contributor here.
I wish you would try harder to avoid thinking in platitudes and thought-terminating clichés.
I’ll retract my insinuation of ‘dipshit’ and agree.
Also, joed, try not to be so tribal.
@ 171
so that’s a “yes”. like I said:
As you see it. I see them as separate issues. What possible benefit resulted from Nader’s candidacy, other than to make Nader feel important. Remove Nader from the election equation and Gore would have won. The fact that he could have won if the Court had acted differently, or if other things had changed, doesn’t alter the fact that without Nader in the mix Gore would have won.
I’m doing the best I can.
It’s just the Pecking party” atmosphere that I get caught up in. There is a certain excitement isn’t there The banter, the pecking order, the pecking itself, the metaphorical blood and feathers. It’s like Randle McMurphy, a recidivist let loose on the nets.
But I mean what I say about the ruling elite and all that.
Try being less poetic, and more coherent. The above quoted bit is nothing but bullshit.
@177, I dunno, he continues to post meaningless babble without supporting his statements with specifics and/or evidence, that seems like a troll to me. Intent isn’t magic after all; he may not intend to troll, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
@174, you seem to be in a pissing contest with yourself. I’m just asking you to explain what the hell you are talking about.
video of Obama setting the record straight on Medicare today — took him all of two minutes. Contains details. Is not a personal attack. Is not a war on religion.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/15/13300632-thats-the-difference-between-our-plans-on-medicare
And so do I.
On January 20, either Barack Obama will be reinaugerated, or Willard Mitt Romney will be inaugerated as president. One or the other of these events will occur; in the next five months, there is no third option.
The Democrats are demonstrably a better option — reelecting Obama will mean less human suffering. Do you want to dispute this fact?
Actually his responses remind me of liberturds, who remind me of the radicals from my college days. It’s all programmed, and any deviation or challenge of assertions is derailing the response program. *TILT* *REBOOT* *EVADE*
Tone-trolling the campaign:
So, we know Romney is lying about the “War on Religion,” and we know he thinks Obama is mean for pointing out the lies (and the other Romney lies), and we know that Faux News is riding the “Obama is mean” bandwagon.
That right there ought to tell you something.
— journalist Alec MacGillis on covering Romney’s remarks in which he lies about Obama taking the work requirement out of welfare.
Time to be mean and start holding Romney responsible for lying. Alec MacGillis points out that many of his colleagues in the press seem to be untroubled by Romney’s lies.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/15/13301203-blatant-dishonesty-matters-more-than-whos-mean
Blatant dishonest should matter more than who is being mean.
RE 180:
Gore did win. The Supreme Court interfered in Florida to stop the counting of votes in order to seat Bush. That line should read:
RE 187:
I would argue that it is more mean to lie than it is to expose a lie. Not to mention how mean it is to buy a company, leverage it to the hilt with debt and raid the employers’ pensions to pay yourself a big fat bonus and then sit by and watch as the company collapses along with the livelihoods of all the former employees who are then forced into destitution, but now I’m splitting hairs…
Gore did win.
I was talking about the actual results. In the real world.
@185 Strange Gods
“The Democrats are demonstrably a better option”
Well Obama is a murderous thug more brazen than bush. Hillary is right up there with him. death destruction, chaos is what Obama represents to most of the world. He is not your friend
http://lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory241.html
Let that sink in. The U.S. presidency, supposed leader of the free world, has a clandestine committee that chooses American citizens to assassinate.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005
Joed thinks Lew Rockwell is the voice of reason.
Nerd called it, joed is one of those idiot liberturds.
RE 190:
So was I. I’m not talking about who actually took office, I’m talking about who won the election, i.e., got the most votes. Had the Supreme Court not interfered to stop the votes from being counted, who actually took office would have been different.
You know what’s always been fucked up about this?
That the term “American citizens” is included under the assumption that that matters.
How come that matters? Oh, yeah, manifest destiny, American imperialism and all that other bullshit. One American life (as long as the life ain’t black, female, gay, etc.) is worth any number of others.
Listen up, Yanks, and listen fucking well: nobody, but nofuckingbody outside the US thinks of you as “leader of the free world.”
You’re not. Stop using the fucking term.
joed.
For the purposes of this discussion, assume I am omniscient concerning US policy, both foreign and domestic. I could cite http://wsws.org/ to show you the same thing — that is, without citing a white nationalist site like Lew Rockwell’s. Remember Ron Paul’s racist newsletters? Lew Rockwell was the ghostwriter.
Now, there is no reason to believe that Romney will kill fewer people than Obama. Clinton is not on the ballot. Bush is not on the ballot. On January 20, either Barack Obama will be reinaugerated, or Willard Mitt Romney will be inaugerated as president. One or the other of these events will occur; in the next five months, there is no third option.
There is no reason to believe that Romney will end assassinations. There is no reason to believe that Romney will improve US foreign policy in any way. There is good reason to believe that Romney will initiate a war with Iran, because he is already threatening to do so.
So far you’ve only cited issues on which Romney will be as bad or worse than Obama. Again, the Democrats are demonstrably a better option — reelecting Obama will mean less human suffering. Click on the link, and answer me on this issue, the Affordable Care Act. Will you acknowledge that the ACA will mean less human suffering?
@192, Tethys
I don’t know who Lew rockwell is but it came up on the google. Point is “The List” Obama uses to kill U S Citizens. If reelecting Obama will mean less human suffering then certainly vote for him. Sounds like he will mean more and more human suffering.
Not exactly. I’ve seen enough, over several months, to know what joed’s about.
His major talking point is racism and white privilege. Not a libertarian theme. He’s probably been drawn to some libertarian sites because they talk a good anti-imperialist game.
Let’s see how he responds to being informed that Lew Rockwell is a white nationalist.
Than what? Than Mitt Romney?
Once again, you need to contemplate this fact:
On January 20, either Barack Obama will be reinaugerated, or Willard Mitt Romney will be inaugerated as president. One or the other of these events will occur; in the next five months, there is no third option.
RE 192:
Heh, Lew Rockwell is allegedly the guy that wrote all of Ron Paul’s old racist newsletters that he got in trouble for during the GOP primaries.
In other words, not someone it would be a good idea to link in your posts as a legitimate source of information if you hope to retain any credibility.
Does Obama have more ‘tribalism’ than Romney?
Answer carefully, because in 146 you wrote: “Tribalism is not healthy. It is a major cause of human suffering. The U S is very sick and the white male privilege you allude to is tribalism at it’s worse.”
I didn’t call joed a liberturd. My remark was that his way of arguing reminded me of the way liberturds argue. But then creobots, RWAs, the radicals of my college days, religidiots, and other authoritarians tend to argue the same way. Which is “take my opinion as the WORD, ignore reality”.
They may have used JPII instead of Benedict simply on the assumption the average voter would be more likely to recognise him than Benedict.
Being largely ignorant of history and all, can I ask:
In the case of revolution, where is it written that the progressives win?
I can think of a few revolutions (especially recently) in which a corrupt elite-serving, power-hungry government was toppled… to be replaced with regressive, reactive, bigoted, (usually religious) despots.
In other words, were we to take to the streets, why are we just sort of presuming the Right won’t do so far more effectively? Why the eternal presumption that the rule of law only ever protects them from us?
(And before anyone suggests it, I’m being neither ironic nor disingenuous here – I am honestly asking. OTOH, if you think my question is dumb, well, that’s a different story, you may very well be correct there. Won’t be the first time…)
197, strange gods
I don’t know who this Lew Rockwell is but I am not prepared to “kill the messenger”. It seems his article on Obama’s death list is common knowledge. The white house acknowledging the death list is on of the items the repubs seemed so bothered by: making public state secrets or some such nonsense.
this death list is not a secret any more. Obama is a murderous thug and should be in prison with all the senate, 99% of the house and most of the scotus.
I didn’t make the death list up, honest.
I am probably on your side in the social battles of Amerika.
Not if you spell it that way….
FIFY. So you are saying you didn’t actually read, or bother to fact-check the links you provided?
Oooo, scare quotes! The list you speak of is not a new thing. The CIA does maintain a kill list, and it does so regardless of who currently is elected President.
If you had read the second link you might have noticed the following sentences.
If this is your concern, you should lobby for ending the war.
The POTUS as Commander-in-Chief of the worlds most formidible military has greatly expanded wartime powers.
Your example doesn’t support your premise that Obama is causing human suffering.
How many US citizens on the list have actually been killed? The answer is in your link.
One. One who was allegedly actively with al Qaeda at the time he was killed by a drone strike.
I think you should spend more time worrying what horrors Romney would unleash, should he win.
@ 193
Fine. I’ll reword it. If Nader hadn’t run Gore would have taken office. Of course, none of this matters anymore, except to point out the futility and possible harm of encouraging and voting for a third party candidate.
@203 Anri
there is a video,
http://www.aforcemorepowerful.org/films/index.php
It tell us that economic boycott and nonviolent civil disobedience is the key to social change.
violent change will not get the change needed.
anyway, the vid is from PBS.
Make that actively involved with al Qaeda.
@206 Tethys
I am saying what I said. I don’t know who Lew Rockwell is. There is much info about the list and 3 U S citizens that I know of have been assassinated by the authorization of Obama.
Probably more like 300. This is public knowledge eric Holder was called to the congress because the list was made public by the white house. this is common knowledge for crying out loud.
joed,
I gave you a link. He is a white nationalist. He hates black people. He wanted a segregated south.
You can cite Glenn Greenwald for all the shit you want to say about Obama. Greenwald isn’t a white nationalist.
Do not approvingly cite white nationalists, joed. That is a racist action, and you should apologize for it.
No platform for racists. Do you hear me? Do you understand what is wrong with promoting white nationalists?
For all the bluster you talk about racism and white privilege it is astonishing that you won’t apologize for promoting a racist hate cite.
Do you think it’s okay to approvingly link to the Ku Klux Klan if they say something you agree with?
That’s why you could have sourced it from a non-racist site, joed.
Again.
For the purposes of this discussion, assume I am omniscient concerning US policy, both foreign and domestic.
joed. What do you think this means:
“For the purposes of this discussion, assume I am omniscient concerning US policy, both foreign and domestic. I could cite http://wsws.org/ to show you the same thing”
Why do you think you are informing me of something, joed? I know everything. I am omniscient concerning US policy.
Not when you cite a white nationalist and won’t apologize for it, joed. Do not cite white nationalists. (Unlike Nerd I don’t give a shit about your spelling. But don’t fucking cite white nationalists. You have made a racist action. You should apologize for your racist action, and stop yourself from doing it again.)
+++++
Now, there is no reason to believe that Romney will kill fewer people than Obama. Clinton is not on the ballot. Bush is not on the ballot. On January 20, either Barack Obama will be reinaugerated, or Willard Mitt Romney will be inaugerated as president. One or the other of these events will occur; in the next five months, there is no third option.
There is no reason to believe that Romney will end assassinations. There is no reason to believe that Romney will improve US foreign policy in any way. There is good reason to believe that Romney will initiate a war with Iran, because he is already threatening to do so.
So far you’ve only cited issues on which Romney will be as bad or worse than Obama. Again, the Democrats are demonstrably a better option — reelecting Obama will mean less human suffering. Click on the link, and answer me on this issue, the Affordable Care Act. Will you acknowledge that the ACA will mean less human suffering?
YOU DO NOW
for the 3rd fucking time: Nader didn’t cause this.
You keep blaming honest people for fraud. I keep on pointing this out because what you’re basically doing is that you cannot attack the actual problem, so you attack an easier target, but one that isn’t actually causing your problems. You are scapegoating, instead of focusing on the problem.
Joed, please answer this question:
You mentioned upthread somewhere that voters should vote against incumbents with a write in vote; who would your write in candidate be?
A) Ron Paul
B) Ron Paul
C) Ron Paul
D) All of the above
Under Obama we have targeting killings. Under Romney we will have the SAME degree of targeted killings AND war with Iran. So tell me again which choice results in less human suffering in this world?
The whole targeted killing issue is of no relevance to 2012. It may be relevant to 2016, of those vying to be the next president have a policy for ending it.
If you really care about ending targeted killings you work to MAKE SURE it is an issue in 2016. But that will only be at all possible if Obama is the outgoing incumbent in 2016. If Romney is the incumbent, then the issue will be ending the quagmire in Iran, and the compromise alternative will be keeping targeted killing while ending the war in Iran, and there will be no viable option of ending targeted killings in 2016.
If you really care about ending targeted killings and are not just using it as a hypocritical club to beat Obama uselessly with like a toddler throwing a tantrum, then you will vote Obama in 2012.
@221 strange gods
now just calm down a bit!
I dont have any interest in white supremacists or what ever you say they are. Lew Rockwell was the site that had an article about the very common knowledge Obama Kill List and I linked that and Reuters News service article about the Obama Kill List.
So yelling at me is of no value and I am not about to kill the messinger, OK!
But I will say again that Obama is a murderous thug that belongs in prison for many years.
I will not vote for him. I will not vote for Romney. Either of them will continue to create human suffering and chaos and destruction. I will not pretend otherwise and will vote for someone I would love to see as president. It doesn’t matter if Obama or Romney is president the human suffering will continue and probably get worse because of them.
@215, Amphiox
“The whole targeted killing issue is of no relevance to 2012.”
Fuck you.
That’s why I’m telling you you need to apologize for citing a white nationalist site.
That’s why I’m telling you you need to remember not to cite this white nationalist site again.
That’s why I’m telling you you could have cited Glenn Greenwald for all the shit you want to say about Obama. Greenwald isn’t a white nationalist.
Wrong. Yelling at you demonstrates that it is unacceptable to cite white nationalists. It is a racist action which you must apologize for.
You don’t need to hunt down Lew Rockwell and put a bullet in his neck and dump him in a quarry.
You just need to apologize for citing his website, and promise not to cite his website again. In the future you can cite other websites to make your point.
Now, apologize for citing a white nationalist site, and assure me you’re not going to cite them again.
joed @208, I ask you (again):
boycott: against who?
civil disobedience: against which laws?
Please be specific. Name targets for boycott and laws to disobey.
@217, how do you propose to stop the United States from engaging in targeted killings?
Please present a specific plan of action to accomplish this goal.
Who is…?
@221, I’m guessing Ron Paul.
@218, strange gods
If you get in a pissin’ contest with a skunk you will lose!
And who made you blog-cop anyway?
joed, you stupid fuck, I was trying to help you.
You won’t apologize for your racist action?
Then I was my hands of you.
Who made you fuckwitted idjit who nobody cares to hear the OPINION of? Right, you opened your mouth…
lol. wash.
/pilate
joed @223, you calling out strange gods? Lemme get some plastic sheeting, gonna need it when SG shreds you.
You should probably take it to the Thunderdome, though.
@214, r3a50n
Sir or Madam, in Amerika, who a person votes for is their business and the business of FBI, HomeLand Sec, CIA,etc.
No one else need know. So please respect the Amerikan way.
@224, strange gods
“I was trying to help you.”
Well, now you tell me!
joed @228, its so cruel of you to drop hints of your brilliance, but then deny us your full political genius. Please, tell us how to overthrow the elites! You will be the next Gandhi!
Doug, nah, fuck joed. I have no interest. I wanted him to be learn to contribute here instead of being so goddamned irrelevant. I can tell he always wants to say something almost worthwhile, but nobody takes him seriously. He’s pure reactance, though. He can’t flourish here if he can’t respond rationally to constructive criticism. Fuck him. I tried. At least now I won’t have to wince when I see him getting pounded on.
SG @231, I dunno, look at his 228 and 229 and tell me he’s not trying to troll. Granted, he’s doing a piss-poor job of it…
Amerika – Jaco
No, fuck you, joed. I did tell you. But if you can’t accept that it’s a problem, to be apologized for, when you link approvingly to a white nationalist site, then you’re not worth helping.
+++++
Doug, he’s definitely trolling by this point, I agree. It’s reactance. He was half-heartedly trying earlier — trust me, I’ve seen him try consistently in dozens of other threads — but some people just become reactionary when they’re told that they’ve done something wrong and socially destructive.
+++++
joed, you’re prioritizing your ego over what’s morally right. That’s a problem.
And you expect to be taken seriously when you spell American with a K? That says you are a radical of some stripe. What stripe, it doesn’t say. But it does say “fuckwitted idjit speaking”, which has been my point.
SG @234, I applaud your efforts to educate. I tried to engage him in a reasonable conversation by asking him to be more specific with his arguments, but he refused to explain what the hell he was talking about. One might wonder if he even knows what his arguments are…
@230, Doug Hudson
“Please, tell us how to overthrow the elites!”
actually the PBS video at http://www.aforcemorepowerful.org/films/index.php
really details how the lunch counters in Nashville Tennessee were integrated. The sacrifice and hardship, the planning and training needed to create a continuum of integration. and Gandhi’s South Africa and India leadership for Justice.
Denmark during the NAZI occupation.
The video tells what is needed to create change.
Unfortunately, in U S all the social gains made in the last 60 or so years seem to be fading.
Anyway the A Force More Powerful video is a start.
If you really want to know, or did I detect a note sarcasm in your request.
I do everything videos tell me I need to do. Would you save me some time and give the timestamp when it says “don’t vote”?
joed @237, finally, specifics! Thank you!
Hmm, let’s see–
civil disobedience against Jim Crow laws. Okay, sounds good, but which laws are you suggesting we use civil disobedience against?
Gandhi isn’t a terribly good example, because the British pulled out of India due to lack of resources more than anything else. The American elite hardly lack resources.
Danish resistance to the Nazis, while admirable, did not lead to the removal of the Nazis from Denmark–that required overwhelming military might. So, not a good example.
Do you have any examples where a ruthless regime backed by a powerful military and paramilitary forces was overthrown peacefully? I’m not aware of any, but there may be something I’m missing.
Come to think of it, the failed Iranian “Spring” of a few years ago is an excellent example of the limits of popular resistance. The regime was just too strong to be overthrown by civil disobedience and boycotts.
stupid joed
I ignore your poor attempt to move the goal posts, and I’m still waiting for you to provide supporting evidence for your assertions.
Murderous thug? Because he has a list of enemies of the US during wartime? Because he authorized known US citizens who were members of al Qaeda to be targeted? Please link your proof of his thuggishness.
I think a reasonable assessment of Obama’s record as CIC, vs Bush’s record would show that Obama is carrying out his duties far more effectively than shrub.
So when they gave Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, it was for his extraordinary death, destruction, and chaos inducing ways?
Please provide evidence that Hillary Clinton is also a warmongering thug.
Some people are never satisfied.
I did the best I could to tell you what you asked.
I am just a person with no special knowledge or talents and what I say in comment is sincere and honest. If that’s not enough then oh well.
One thing I will try to not do is get in a pissin’ contest with a skunk and you know why.
See you folks in the funny papers.
Lynna #18
You quoted:
I really hate that crap. There are nice tyrants? Who build habitats for humanity?
Sorry, your word is worthless, which is why you needed to supply third party evidence for all your claims. You failed miserably to do so. Your word is worthless.
Sincere and honest, no. Why do folks like you have trouble with the simple of concept of “this is what I believe, and this (link to academic evidence, not videos) is the evidence to back it up.” You failed the evidence part of that statement. Your sincerity is irrelevant compared to the evidence.
It’s is not enough. To paraphrase Asimov; Your ignorance is not just as good as our knowledge.
We are trying to teach you, but you seem resistant to the idea that evidence trumps opinion. In fact, you seem to have a poor grasp of what constitutes evidence in the first place.
You are the only damn tedious idiot who is pissing on the thread.
May bedbugs bite you while you sleep.
strange gods before me
And I’m thinking, strange gods is against exercise programs? then I checked the spelling.
@8. Chris A :
&
@9. PZ Myers says:
Ah. Okay. Thanks.
@29. Lynna, OM :
Thanks for that info too.
Ewww. Fucking creepy and disrespectful to the dead and other people and religions practice you have there Mormons.
“Necrodunk” good term for a sick albeit ridiculous idea.
Lynna, that is a chocolate-dipped, bacon-wrapped word of awesome. I have stolen it.
Tethys @ 206
In most courts of law, I only committed murder once is not a valid defense. al-Awlaki is also not the only american citizen Obama has ordered killed. He also had al-Awlaki’s 16-year old son killed.
In addition,
Obama has ordered attacks on:
1) Mourners at funerals ; and
2) Unarmed rescuers
The ACLU and Amnesty International have vociferously condemned the president for his use of military force outside of war zones as well as the continued treatment of detainees. Despite promising to close Guantanamo, he has failed to do so. Obama hasn’t just continued Bush’s crimes, he has expanded upon them.
And there’s no evidence that Romney will act any differently on such matters.
Why do folks think Romney won’t use drones like Obama, or rather Obama’s security people have. I would expect it only to get worse with a rethuglican administration, and nobody has shown evidence it wouldn’t.
Of course not. Romney would probably continue and expand on Obama’s policies. I was responding to Tethys’s repeated posts characterizing war crimes as “expanded war time powers.”
Quinn
I was attempting to get joed to support his assertions about voting for Obama versus Romney.
The ethics of drones and warfare are beyond the scope of the OP.
@Nerd, you cannot seriously be suggesting that Obama isn’t responsible for the worldwide campaign of assassination the US is engaged in. Do you not remember this speech? Obama has clearly embraced his role as anti-terrorist in chief.
Fuckwitted idjit, the problem isn’t with Obama, but rather that Romney is better. Why aren’t you showing Romney would be better, not justd what Obama is doing? That was my challenge,and you failed it. Still voting for Obama….try reading for comprehension…
Um, one thing here :
There is a war situation at present between the West esp. the USA but also us Aussies, Israel, Great Britain and others and the Jihadist terrorists of Al Quaida, the Taliban, Hamas, Jemaah Islamiya, Hezbollah and sundry other murderous groups others often sponsered, supported and aided by Iran, Syria, Pakistan and other Arab dictatorships.
In these circumstances when we’re fighting a war it is NOT a crime to kill the enemy to jail and threaten them and their supporters with severe consequences for their waging war aimed at destroying us.
Because, y’know, war.
Obama isn’t committing a crime by fighting the enemy using military force and decapitating their leadership. Drones is the mechanism today just as bombers and battleships were the mechanism of WWII and swords, spears and chariots the mechanism of past eras.
Romney – for all else that is dreadful and unethical about him isn’t wrong to threaten Iran and other sponsers and supporters of Jihadist terrorism.
War is an awful thing but sometimes it cannot be avoided.
Sometimes it is necessary to protect all that we do belive in and our nations and our way of life.
Winning the war in those cases as quickly and as effectively and as conclusively as we possibly can is the best course of action.
Prima facie fuckwittery.
StevoR please just do us all a favor and kill yourself. Sometimes for the good of the many we must remove the few after all
@257.strange gods before me ॐ :
No just the sad reality.
Wish we weren’t at war but that isn’t up tome. Ask the Taliban or Al Quaeda or Hamas why the situation is as it is if youthink you could survive the encounter with them.
***
Back on the topic or approaching a bit closer again at least folks may be interested in this link :
http://www.care2.com/causes/dispatches-from-the-war-on-women-paul-ryan-meet-the-on-line-feminist-army.html
Plenty of good reasons not toviote Romney-Ryan without getting into geopolitical distractions & foreign policy.
StevoR, next time you want to talk about how it’s right and good and necessary to threaten the lives of my friends and their families please reconsider. hard. with a hammer. sideways
@258. Ing: The World is Dying says:
Charming and compassionate and understanding a salwatys isee Ing. Good thing I’m not suicidal and treat your evil, bullying insulting of me with the disgusted disdain it deserves.
Oh & btw. how would you really feel, honestly if one day your words like that really did cause someone’s death? Would you really be proud of yourself?
Even people who disagree with you on everything can be and often are perfectly good and reasonable people you know. Or don’t you?
StevoR, we’re not at war with Iran.
We don’t need to start a war with Iran.
And in any case we can’t afford to go to war with Iran.
@260. Ing :
I. Am> NOT. repeat *NOT* doing that okay.
Not unless your friends belong support or are living with Al Quaida, the Taliban and Co. Do they?
@SGBM
Also all the moral reasons why it’s wrong to blow the shit out of country sides for giggles?
@262. strange gods before me ॐ :
What if *they* are the one’s starting a war with us?
It may not be our choice. Affordable or not, desirable or not, it might well be a case of them attacking us.
Would you like and let that happen? Would you have the West surrender to Jihadist or Iranian theocratic Sharia rule?
Dammit, I didn’t want to argue this here but some of you are just so fucking blind to reality and think we live in some kind of wonderful ideal world that, sorry, we just don’t live in.
Research Al Quaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the like. How would deal with them? Be realistic. They don’t *want* peace – and nor does Iran. They and Iran want us all gone. Dead or converted. They won’t settle for less. They aren’t prepared to give up violence. How do you deal with that reality.
Some situations are binary / zero sum :
Romney or Obama. (As pointed out by commenters here – and I pick Obama btw not that I can vote being non-American but anyhow)
Preganat or not pregant
One or zero on computer code.
Fight or surrender.
Which would you choose – Jihadist victory and conversion living under their control or fighting them?
Ing, them’s my primary reasons, but StevoR doesn’t have nonracist morals, so I didn’t bother trying. You’re right, though.
+++++
StevoR,
They aren’t.
@264. Ing: The World is Dying says:
NOT for “giggles” but for survival.
Do you really think the Israelis are joking when they talk about an existential threat?
Do you know what that word means?
Can you imagine how many people who knows where would be killed if the Jihadists got their hands on WMDs such as nukes?
Do you realise the Iranians are quite possibly religiously mad enough to do it – look up Ahmadinejad’s “hidden imaim” idea and apocalpytic delusions.
Joking? No. (Well, maybe; I haven’t been to any comedy clubs in Tel Aviv.)
Some of them are mistaken, and some of them are lying.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/report-barak-says-iran-is-not-existential-threat-to-israel-1.7710
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/mossad-chief-nuclear-iran-not-necessarily-existential-threat-to-israel-1.404227
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4172169,00.html
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-israel-nuclear-threat-557/
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/01/do-israeli-leaders-really-think-iran-is-an-existential-threat/252093/
stevoR doesn’t have morals period and in fact seems baffled and confused by them judging by his “how do your Arab friends treat you” wide eyed questioning he harassed me with.
@266.strange gods before me ॐ :
That is an offensive lie and utterly false statement on your part there. You owe me an apology.
Yet. Officially.
Give them the time to build their Bomb and they will. You’ll see.
As it is they’re already de facto arming, funding and backing the Jihadists (eg. Hamas and Hezbollahand have been for decades. That’s well known fact. It also makes them <ide facto at war with us. Unofficially.
If Iran disarmed, accepted the existence of israel and the rights of the Western world and made peace properly no one would be happier than me. (Well okay a few people living directly under Irans’ threat probably would be but anyhow.) Don’t expect that to happen though. Wish it would but realistically – which too many here aren’t – it won’t.
StevoR it’s not like everything you say wasn’t already addressed, with citation before. You don’t listen. You’re not rational. You’re a nazi with delusions of decency.
And for reference no I’m not being hyperbolic, I really do think that little of you that I think you’re of that ilk. Given the chance you clearly would gleefully turn people in for execution as you ate up the master race propaganda. monsters like you were supposed to be relics of the last century.
No, I mean we’re not at war with them at all.
We’re not officially at war in Afghanistan. We were never officially at war in Iraq. Yet we were at war in those countries.
A difference between Iran and Afghanistan is that we are at war in Afghanistan, see. We are not at war with Iran.
Unlikely, as my links above tell.
The Persian is a rat right, STevor?
IF.
Suppose they do.
And?
Given current and foreseeable future Jihadist capabilities to actually effectively deploy WMDs, including nukes?
Fewer than would be killed if the US went to war with Iran.
By a LOT.
Oh, I forgot.
In StevoR’s calculations, Iranian people dying in Iran don’t count as much as white people dying elsewhere.
@Amphiox
Well he does need living space
An potential existential threat to Israel does justify Israel going to war.
But it does not mean that going to war is Israel’s best or safest option for dealing with the existential threat.
An existential threat to Israel does NOT automatically justify the US going to war. It may, but it does not necessarily do so.
And it CERTAINLY does not mean that going to war is the US’s best of safest option for dealing with an existential threat to Israel.
At the moment, Israel is a far greater potential existential threat to Iran than Iran is to Israel. Israel actually has enough WMDs to pave Iran into a parking lot at will.
[meta]
I want to explicitly note (obvious as it may be) that StevoR may be Australian, but he certainly doesn’t speak for us Aussies.
(Though yes, our government has a history of being lickspittles to the USA in these matters, alas)
Exactly the same thing was said about North Korea.
And they did.
And we saw.
So what did we see? What happened to the stability of the region, to the existential danger to South Korea and Japan, to the tone and tenor of US relations with North Korea and with China?
What in all that changed between before and after North Korea built their bomb?
NOTHING.
South Korea’s still there. Japan’s not been nuked a third time. North Korea’s still blustering. China’s still trading with the US.
Just for him?
How much land does a man require?
Brownian
Can I get a “Hell yeah.” It’s nauseating. Tell your countryfolk to knock it the fuck off.
Can I get a “Hell yeah.” It’s nauseating. Tell your countryfolk to knock it the fuck off.
Ayup. On it, to the best of my limited ability.
Like Pakistan?
@269. Ing: The World is Dying :
Bullshit.
I wasn’t harrassing you I was asking you nicely in an attempt to understand how someone who supports feminist left-wing values could have friends with such extremely opposite views which btw I still don’t get.
@271. Ing: The World is Dying says:
Ing, if I was one of the moderators that would so be drawn to PZ’s attention as an unwarranted, unbased, offensive bullying lie on your part.
Hell if I was rich enough to have a lawyer you’d be in court for defamation for that pronto.
Also GODWIN! You lose. Thankyou for conceeding defeat so spectacularly.
You may want to apologise now and you sure as fuck owe me that.
@272. Ing: The World is Dying :
If you aren’t being hyperbolic there you are totally in the wrong – ethically and I’d think legally – even more than you already were assuming you were being hyperbolic.
First rule of holes Ing, stop digging.
@271. Ing: The World is Dying :
Also Ing, you know I think we share about 80% of political beliefs in common right?
I’m :
a feminist,
pro-equal marriage,
accept the science on Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating (HIRGO)
support trans rights & oppose rcaism and disriminationbased on gender and religion
I’m atheist, skeptical, pro-science,
& vote left-wing.
Where we disagree is only on a couple of issues.
I think we have to fight back against prople who want to kill us all. (ie Jihadists.)
I support Israel’s right to exist and defend itself as it needs to and believe in Western culture and values such as liberty, equality , egalitie and giving everyone the right to pursue happiness equally.
I’m not a cultural relativist, not post-modernist and philo-semitic not anti-Semitic.
I put the rights of victims of crime over the rights of criminals and the rights of the attacked over the rights of the attackers when these things clash.
That insulting automatic Godwin failing word you so freely and abusively and wrongly used, Ing?
It doesn’t mean what you seem to “think” it does.
Now fuck off and think about that befroe you try to bully and abuse me any further.
@276. Amphiox says:
Are you willing to risk the lives of everyone in Israel and Iran and, fuck, the rest of the world which will quitel likely be plunged into WWIII based on wishful thinking that the anti-Semitic anti-American anti-Western Arab and Iranian rhetoric *isn’t* to be taken seriously?
That the nations that have repeatedly attempted to commit genocide upon the Jews and others won’t do so this time?
That Ahmadinejad is n’t reallyas crazy and fanatical as he and the rest of the Iranian Mullahs & the Jihadists seem?
Anyone who thinks the sort of “wipe Israel off the map” rhetoric of Iran and the Jihadists should be ignored and isn’t tobe taken seriously needs to take a good long look at the history of the Jewish people.
That path has been tried before and led to the Shoah.
Those who don’t learn from history..
@282. Amphiox :
Iran and the Jihadists aren’t the North Koreans. The former aren’t even semi-sane. Religion, don’t we all know here how crazy that make speopel especially on the extreme fringes – as the Jihadists and Iranians are?
Btw. I haven’t got much but its more than enough land to keep me happy, thanks, and I don’t think “persians” are rats – just brain-washed fanatics who I wouldn’t trust with the Bomb or other WMDs and I’d rather they lived at peace and let us do likewise. The reality that the Iranians and Jihadists are not happy to do that and insist on attacking us instead is hardly *my* fault!
@284. Amblebury :
Not from me and I don’t think so.
The United States of America isn’t perfect, it has a lot of flaws and faults for sure, but it is an influential superpower that usually acts for good and is a fuck of lot better than its alternatives and rivals.
I’d far rather the Americans ruled the globe than the Chinese or Russians or, FSM forbid, the Jihadists.
Personally, its the ungrateful, unthinking anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism here that I find nauseating.
When “a couple of issues” include your support of war crimes and genocide (I know, I know the great and mighty US only defend themselves even when they drop bombs on civilians in their homes a continent away) there is no only about it.
You are defending the indefensible. I’m glad Ing and SGBM don’t let you get away with it.
anti-Americanism?!
US scare me. And you know who is more scared of it than me*?
Americans.
And if that’s not evidence that US is a seriously fucked up country, I don’t know what is.
*well, besides all the people being currently bombed or under the threat of being bombed by US
You’re the one regular around here convinced of your special insights, but unable to distinguish between the quite distinct and in many cases opposed aims, policies and practices of (for example) Iran, Pakistan, al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas and Hezbollah.
You’re the one who thinks he knows better than the several senior Israeli security experts who have stated that they do not think Iran is an existential threat to Israel, and sides instead with expansionist racist scum like Netanyahu.
You’re the only warmongering genocidal shitbag around here. Do us all a favour and fuck off.
StevoR It seems you’re making the assumption that there’s a requirement for some nation to “rule the globe.” That there’s a need for this.
That’s diplomatic suicide. It’s playground dynamics, (and that’s unfair to any number of perceptive, capable school-age people.) Anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism (?) wouldn’t exist if the perceived domination of that nation/ that ideology weren’t so baseless and subsequently galling. As a Westerner, (along with many USAnians represented here, I’m guessing) I wince in embarrassment at “America, fuck yeah!” sentiment.
It doesn’t matter if there exist other nations which pose a military/ an ideological (with a drive to geographical dominance) threats. Beating a Really Big Drum and claiming it’s the Drum of Righteousness is a really stupid idea.
How are you defining “rule”? Economic, military? Best dog in show? It strikes me as being simplistic to the point of banality.
I’m not so naïve as to think we’ll all just hold hands and sing Kumbaya. But pugnacious nationalism is a recipe for making things worse, not better. Diplomacy and international relations are complex and difficult. They often fail. It’s the alternatives and rivals to those, though, that nauseate me.
This is the ignorant fuckwit who accuses others of naivity. Great power elites, as an almost invariable rule, act to maintain their power – sometimes intelligently, sometimes stupidly. The USA is no different from any other great power in history in that respect, neither markedly better than average, nor markedly worse. If StevoR were not so invincibly ignorant and convinced of his own rectitude, I would suggest a course of reading about US genocidal expansion at the expense of native Americans, relations with Latin America, and the long, long list of tyrants, terrorists and torturers it supported and aided during the Cold War and the “War on Terror”.
I see the deranged Islamophobic bigot is back trying to defend its genocidal tendencies. Why is fuckwitted bigot still here is the real question.
StevoR:
You know, it looks like the regulars are willing to engage, so I’ll let my betters make you look generally foolish and just concentrate on this one particular bit of Internet Tough Guy BS here:
Plenty of lawyers do free initial consultations. I promise you, someone in your circle of family or friends knows a lawyer who would be willing to hear a potential case.
If you ask around, you’ll find them.
Do so. Call them. Ask them “Hey, look, while I was posting under a pseudonym on a board you’ve never heard of, another person posting under a pseudonym called me a name. How much can I sue them for?”
…get back to us with the reaction, ok?
Except, of course, you know and I know that you won’t do this, and that you were just doing the slightly-more-intelligent version of “If I wuz there, I’d knock yer teeth out, ya (term/s denigrating physical might/gender/sexual preference)!”
@ StevoR
Linky: Iran 101:
Please buy and read the above before you drone on, erroneously, about Iran.
what a bunch of shit. No one has the military budget of the USA, no one is even fucking close. No matter how fucked up the other countries/groups you named are they simply don’t have the means to do as much damage as the USA. As someone else pointed out the idea that the world needs a boss is an idea worth re-examining in the first place, not something to take for granted.
/lurk
@Anri #297
A sniny new Internetz will be delivered to your address. You can choose from every color you can imagine (Limited time offer: now available in invisible pink, no extra charge)
lurk
[meta + OT]
I dunno why StevoR doesn’t just emigrate to the USA and be done with it.
@ Manu
StevoR is not the first to pull such wankery. Check out Michael Kingsford Gray:
Link here (though there are many similar examples strewn across the interwebz. The whole pretence is rather jaded.)
*snicker
@ Manu
[StevoR’s legal “threat”]
My comment to you got blocked, perhaps on the name of the legalistic troll who posted this:
Linky.
Funny how the truth says otherwise. StevoR, you and the facts are divorced from one another. StevoR still hasn’t presented realistic a scenario of how it is forced to join Islam. Because there is no scenario outside of its irrational and fuckwitted paranoia.
No, StevoR. You do not get to invoke Godwin’s law after making excuses for fucking genocide. Because, you know, it doesn’t apply when the comparison is appropriate, and in your case it fucking is.
And stop going on about how We must get rid of Them because They are a threat to Us and everything We hold dear, and We are so much better than Them so it’s justified, and oh it makes Us so sad and upset that such drastic measures are necessary but it’s a dirty job that someone’s gotta do so better get it done quickly and effectively, with nukes preferably. It’s making me sick, and it’s also making Ing right about you. Fuck off.
I note StevoR totally ignored the information from Israeli leaders saying Iran is not an existential threat and still would not be even with a nuclear weapon.
This is a sure sign of anti-Semitism. Every non-Jew I’ve encountered who described himself as a philo-Semite was in fact a racist.
Just like when some guy says “I LOVE WOMEN” you know he’s sexist; or if it’s “I LOVE BLACK PEOPLE” then obviously racist. Nobody can love a whole people. You necessarily must be essentializing Jews in order to declare yourself philo-Semitic, and that is necessarily racist.
You recently linked, in the Lounge, to a 2009 thread where you conflated “the Jews” with Israel and denied that anti-Semitism was a legitimate term for hatred of Jews.
Dollars to donuts your newly found philo-Semitism amounts to now hating Palestinians where once you “loved” them, yet you still conflate the Jewish people with Israel. You’ve never used critical thinking one way or the other — still absolutely binary thinking, but with the switch flipped.
You are terrible at having opinions, StevoR. Maybe you ought to try to just stop having opinions at all. I rarely say this to anyone, but maybe you’d be better off just going with the flow; pursue your hobbies, spend more time with your family, and drop out of the polis. You can’t do nuance, so you aren’t capable of being a decent citizen of the world anyway.
One of the forgotten stories of the post-9/11 reaction is that Iran saw it as an opportunity to reconcile with the US, and in fact the two countries were cooperating in Afghanistan. Then Bush had to throw it all in the shitter with his “Axis of Evil” speech (and as the article shows, as late as May 2003 Iran wanted to talk).
But yeah, all them Eye-ranians and A-rabs are evil and we need to wipe them off the face of the earth before they destroy us with their evilness .
One of the forgotten stories of the 9/11 aftermath was that Iran was cooperating with the US in Afghanistan and was ready to restore relations until Bush threw everything into the shitter with the “Axis of Evil” speech. But even as late as May 2003 they were ready to talk about “being completely open about its nuclear programme, helping to stabilise Iraq, ending its support for Palestinian militant groups and help in disarming Hezbollah.”
But yeah, it’s the I-ranians who are the evil ones hell bent on destruction.
@ What a Maroon
It is interesting (though disconcerting) reading of how appallingly the Iranians have been treated by the Americans and British (especially wrt the forerunner of British Petroleum = Anglo-Persian Oil Company). They essentially destroyed Iranian democracy (Dr Mosaddegh was voted in by the Iranian people and overthrown by the USA) in order to have them ruled by a dictator (The “Shah”, Pahlavi), all the better to get their claws on the Iranian oil.
We can only imagine how much better everyone in the region would sleep (not least the Iranians themselves) had the USA not destroyed their democracy for its own short-sighted and self-serving ends.
Maroon, why you harshing SteveOR’s buzz with your silly facts? Everyone knows that Iran is Evil. What are you doing, bringing up facts, and evidence? It is almost as if you believe that the Iranians are *gasp* human
True enough, but then the Persians/Iranians have been the west’s whipping post for close to 3000 years.
Esteleth, sorry, you’re right. We all know that the Persians are evil and shifty and, worst of all, feline.
Oh, apologies for the double post above. The first one didn’t show up immediately, so I reconstructed it.
Hey, THEY started it! They attacked “us” first!
It’s all Xerxes’ fault…..
If you were, you wouldn’t be for long. Your wealth would transfer rapidly to your lawyer and Ing’s lawyer, as you would quickly lose and have to pay both sides’ legal fees.
So, Iran starting a war with Israel and the US will “quite likely” plunge the world into WWIII, but by some magic the US and Israel starting a war with Iran won’t?
You do know what history’s judgment on World Wars has always been, don’t you? The side that fires the first shot is always remembered as the bad guy. And the side that fires the first shot has so far, ALWAYS ended up being heavily outnumbered against the rest of the world, and has ALWAYS lost.
It is not a Godwin when the comparison is appropriate.
Back on topic for this thread — sort of on topic.
Romney and Ryan have started a War on Reason.
Consider this series of remarkable events outlined by Maddow blogger, Steve Benen:
1. President Obama extends new benefits to seniors on Medicare and finds savings in the system to strengthen Medicare’s finances.
2. Paul Ryan approves of Obama’s Medicare savings and incorporates them into his own budget plan.
3. Mitt Romney endorses Ryan’s plan, which includes Obama’s Medicare savings.
4. Romney changes his mind, and tries to argue he’s for and against the Medicare savings at the same time (for them in Ryan’s plan, against then in Obama’s law).
And finally
5. Ryan denounces the Medicare savings he supports.
Romney and Ryan contain multitudes. Do they contradict themselves? Very well, they contradict themselves.
Wasn’t Walt Whitman a Republican?
More salvos from our side, Steve Benen is fighting to stop the Romney/Ryan War on Reason. (“War on Reason” is my take, not Benen’s.)
And I believe that Romney and Ryan (and some of their staff members) are idiots in some ways. Signs of cognitive impairment are everywhere.
I admire the AP explanation above. It’s like they figured out that they have to explain the situation to elementary school children. Well done.
The only way a conflict between Israel and the US against Iran will balloon into WWIII is if Russia and/or China decide to come into a shooting war on Iran’s side.
Now, in which scenario is that more likely:
1) Iran, unprovoked, launches a single nuke attack on an Israeli city.
or
2) The US and Israel preemptively attack Iran?
Scenario one means Israel gets seriously damaged, but will win the sympathy of the entire world to help it rebuild, and Iran will cease to exist as a nation-state within a few months at most. The cascade effect will probably completely discredit radical Islam as a political force and knock out pretty much ALL the radical Islamist regimes in the middle east and end in their replacement. All the major powers in the world will either sit out or support the US and Israel.
In scenario two? All bets are off.
Mitt Romney has taken six different positions on Paul Ryan’s budget within the last 72 hours. He needs to get his act in gear. I expect one different position per hour. He’s falling way short.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/14/1120011/-Mitt-s-Medicare-Muddle
From Steve Benen:
Both Romney and Ryan have also said during interviews that we should stop talking about the Ryan budget and start discussing the Romney budget. I will do that as soon as they figure out what the hell the Romney budget is.
Flap-Flep-Flip-Flop-Flup-Flyp, then?
Oh good, one TV new show actually went back to Jonathan Gruber, Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and John McDonough of the Harvard School of Public Health, the Director of the Center for Public Health Leadership to get an analysis of RomneyCare, Paul Ryan’s medicare plan, and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).
Best presentation I’ve seen. I recommend this video. 7:54 minutes that make sense.
Gruber and McDonough are the guys behind both Romneycare and Obamacare.
As a bonus, they point out a few of Romney’s and Ryan’s lies.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-ed-show/48683432/#48683432
I think we’re going to need more of these.
Phlap-Phlep-Phlip-Phlop-Phlup-Phlyp-Phlounder …. plop.
RE 323:
You’re forgetting fleep, floop, fleap, floup, floip, fluip and a few more…
RE 325:
Great minds… ;)
The woman who recently tried, and failed, to get Ryan to answer a question about Medicare during his visit to Iowa has written an excellent essay for Salon.
http://www.salon.com/2012/08/15/ryans_policies_arent_iowa_nice/
I like the way she calls Ryan out for tone trolling her.
Excerpts below:
Excellent. We now have enough to cover almost a week of Romneyisms.
RE 329:
I don’t know, a week might be stretching it but it should cover a few days for sure…
Cross-posted from the “Lounge”:
Paul Ryan’s catholic relatives may have been necrodunked by mormons. What would be really interesting would be to see if some of Mitt Romney’s living relatives have necrodunked Ryan’s relatives. I mean, mormons proxy-baptized the Pope, why not all the other Catholics as well?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/16/mormon-proxy-baptism_n_1778904.html
They could save a lot of trouble in the debates this year if they just left Obama out and had Romney debate himself.
Romney must be pretty desperate if he’s taking one out of Rick Perry’s old playbook.
I still like Obama. At least he fucking THINKS about what he does, even if he does stupid things sometimes.
@291. Beatrice says:
They don’t.
I have do NOT support or advocate war crimes and /or genocide.
I oppose and reject those war crimes and genocide and want to see those things prevented.
I differ from Ing, fuckwit KG and others here in acknowledging the reality that Jihadists and their supporters need to fought vigourously.
Bullshit. That would be what those arguing against me are doing whether they realise and acknowledge that or not.
@307. strange gods before me ॐ : You do NOT know or understand me at all and thus unsurprisingly you are wrong. I made mistakes when I was younger, no doubt I’m making some today, I’m not and have never claimed to be perfect but I’m no racist.
@315. Amphiox :
Sounds like our legal system. The lawyers always win. [Wry smile.] That’s why I said rich enough and wasn’t acually making a threat merely pointing out that technically actionable or not Ing’s statement was a defamatory bullying lie.
For Ing’s information; Nazis are the people who *oppose* Jews and Israel NOT those who support them.
@317. Amphiox :
The comparison – as noted – was utterly inappropriate so therefore yeah, Ing lost the argument automatically right there.
@311. Esteleth, Who Knows How to Use Google :
I have never denied that the Iranians were and remain human beings. I don’t think all Iranians are evil either although some of them and their policies are as evil as the Westborough hate clan or more.
Humans are capable of some pretty horrific things to each other. Especially when motivated by hateful religions and ideologies.
I do NOT want Iran destroyed and its people killed. I just want to avoid them doing that to Israel and others as the Iranian leadership has declared it wants to do.
@305. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls :
Nonsense. Nerd of Redhead the facts are NOT as you seem to think identical to your opinions. What Ing said was NOT true and was clearly intended to hurt, insult and bully me.
Well it’s ‘he’ first thankyou not ‘it’.
Secondly, I’m never personally joining islam and have never claimed that would happen. You seem to be badly misunderstanding and failing to properly comprehend what I’m actually saying and substituting your own imagined ideas of what I’ve said for what I’ve actually written. You certainly aren’t alone here in that reading failure either.
Thirdly, I think I’ve put my case pretty rationally actually and whilst I’m not neurotypical I’m not paranoid. Nor if you knew me in meatspace would you think I was a “fuckwit” I’m sure.
@298. theophontes (坏蛋) :
16 August 2012 at 6:55 am
Thanks for that link, I will check that out.
Yes, Persia and later Iran has a very long rich history and hasn’t always been a negative force on the world. I’m not disuputing this. Modern day post Iranian revolution 1979 Iran though has been pretty awful in somany ways though especially in its state sponsirship of terrorism. This is just the sad, well-known reality as is Ahmadinejad’s public Holocaust denial, homophobia and existence of gays denial, threats to the region and more. Today’s Iran ain’t ancient persia or even the Persia of the Shah.
@268. strange gods before me ॐ :
In your view. Yes there’s a range of opinion in Isreal too. There are many Isreal’s who share my view including those who know most.
@301. John Morales :
I’m quite happy where I am thanks. Admiring something – say the rings of Saturn or geysers of Triton doesn’t necessarily mean you want to live there!
StevoR,
So are you saying you were a Nazi in 2009?
StevoR you are blocked for the sake of my amusement so I only read responses to you. It’s a good filter, it means I only read what people I respect think are important enough to respond to so I don’t have to be subject to your racist rantings. You seem to be under the missimpression that I should feel bad about insulting you. I’m sorry if I gave you the misconception that we are on friendly terms. I’m not sure how you got that idea.
As to your legal threat; wanting to use such strong armed dishonest tactics to silence someone isn’t exactly proving me wrong. I’d almost welcome your silly little case if it wouldn’t be thrown out in summery judgement because I would be amused by having the chance to have a lawyer cite in court the exact parallels of you to Hitler and other race baiter’s rants, and the specifics of the degree of hateful panic you spew and how similar it is from Nazi propaganda.
You know if you don’t want to hear me chew you out due to your absulute failure as a human being on the only real merit that matters IMO, all you have to do is shut up about the topic. I will play by the rules, you would be protected by the veil of ignorance. But no, I don’t have to worry because there’s not a single opportunity that you won’t open your stupid stupid pie hole about it. You’re not just evil and stupid, you act like fucking monologue villain
nice to know that Germany would have been AOK in StevoR’s book if they just had slaughtered Slavs and queers and brown people and roma.
Like I said, you are of their ilk. If you don’t like me reminding you of that, sorry but I was taught that “never again” and “never forget” were more than empty slogans for jingoistic masturbation.
It’s not the most typical position, but some modern Nazis do support Israel.
William Daniel Johnson, for instance.
I don’t see any difference between him and StevoR.
Since StevoR considers himself to have been a Nazi in 2009, and since his 2012 views are not incompatible with Nazism, I must assume StevoR is still a Nazi today.
Hey StevoR what’s your opinion on these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_immigration_detention_facilities
[Romney]
They do this, but why?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Answer: Fap-fap-fap-fap-fap-fap-fap-fap-fap-fap-*sigh*-fap-fap-fap-fap-fap-fap-*sigh*-fap-fap-fap ……..
(The sound of one hand clapping, the ultimate Rethuglican goal.)
@ Stevor
You missed that part in the title: … to the Present Day.
Why pontificate on a subject that you essentially know nothing of?
Er … “know most”? Who the fuck are you to adjudicate this? Rmoney said this?
[meta]
StevoR @336:
So, you admire the USA, but you don’t want to live there.
(Nice admission!)
Therefore, we should murder them!
The irrefutable logic of Herr Stevor
Hey, just because the target, the ingroup you identify with and think should be protected from any potential threat at all costs (including genocide), and the mechanism by which you’d like to get rid of a huge number of human beings aren’t the same, it doesn’t mean the comparison is not appropriate. It is.
@ ^ Nightjar : No it absolutely isn’t appropriate.
I have stated repeatedly that I do NOT advocate genocide.
I am NOT a member of the Nazi party, not a follower of its policies and beliefs.
Quite the reverse – I oppose Nazism and think Hitler was perhaps the most evil human being in human history along with the likes of Mao, Stalin and Osama bin Laden.
To claim otherwise is to tell a lie.
Ing lost an argument by (among other things) Godwin.
Ing lost a rational argument to me and xer response, rather than person up and admit xe was wrong was to lie.
Ing lied about me the worst possible way then ran away.
Ing is wrong both in terms of xer long since lost debate here and xer ethcial behaviour, Ing is a liar and xe owes me an apology
Ing (and some others here) made up insulting nonsense caricaturing (straw-manning if you require simpler terminology) my position and defaming my character. Hiding behind a username and not technically being legally actionable doesn’t mean Ing or anyone else taking this vilely fallacious line of attack is correct. They are not. Ing is not correct. You are not correct.
I see from xer #338 that Ing knows xe’s beaten and owes me an abject apology but Ing is too scared or ashamed to face me further choosing instead to flee and hide and sulk. Unable to handle the truth or people disagreeing with xer rationally Ing appears to be. Though Ing will no doubt pose not to care and doesn’t wish to know xe has lost all respect and made xerself look even more of a dishonest, lying, feeble minded and weak opponent than xe already did.
1. @Ing: The World is Dying :
Of who? Not content with imagining I’m arguing something completely opposite and utterly different to what I actually *am* arguing are you now renaming this strawman in your head with a whole new name to illustrate how utterly divorced from all reality you indeed are?
Having fun arguing with yourself and losing Ing?
PS. Ing won’t listen to me but if someone who respects xer cares to advise xer to seek immediate mental health treatment it may be a good idea.
(See how compassionate I am even unto someone who’s insulted me so disgustingly having xer welfare at heart!)
@341. strange gods before me ॐ : Utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand and an attempt to change the subject.
StevoR, tell me more about this imminent existential threat to Australia from the Muslim Hordes, and how pre-emptive genocide is the only possible solution.
(I could use a good chuckle)
PS. @341. strange gods before me ॐ : Oh & worthy of a separate thread in itself. No I do not think we should persecute legitimate refugees and make them suffer more.
@343. John Morales :
Why so? It doesn’t reflect badly on the USA at all and I’d be very happy to live there although I’d rather be close to my family who live here. There are plenty of great places around the world to live where I’d happily live but I am satisfied living where I am. I’m sure this is also true of most people.
@342. theophontes (坏蛋) :
No, I’m pointing out the reality that the ancient Persian civilisation ruled by non-Muslims isn’t all that relevant to the modern no.1 sponsor of Jihadist terrorism ruled by a whackjob who believes his nation has no gays, denies the Holocaust and has an apocalyptic cult belief that makes him a major global threat.
Why make false claims about people you don’t know claiming they know less than you do simply because you disagree with them?
You claim I don’t know anything about this subject. I disagree. Me being me, I’d know more about what *I* know than you do!
Not as far as I know nor do I care about Rmoneys opinion overly. I’m NOT a fan of his as I’ve already stated in this very thread.
OTOH, who are you – or Ing or Nightjar or anyone else here – to tell Israel what it may or may not do to defend itself and its people’s lives?
No, I’m not one of those who knows most here – nor is Rmoney nor are any of us.
The people who *do* know most are those recieving the best most accurate information and whose lives are quite literally at stake here – the Israeli military and political leadership with those highest up being those best informed and placed. Its *their* choice not ours. and we should support them because they are the experts here.
If they decide not to attack Iran I’ll respect that decision.
If they decide they have to then I’ll support that decision as well and I hope you and everyone else here will do likewise.
@John Morales :
Well you could get someone to tickle your feet. Or watch Monty Python, Tina Fey or some other comedian of your choice.
I see you are badly confused over what I’m actually talking about here.
Maybe you could try reading my actual words rather than listening to lies being told about me and imaging what I’m saying based on those?
No, I’m not in favour of genocide. How many times do I have to say that before some here get it?
Here’s some of other key points you (& others who share your confusions about my views) have to get clear :
1. I am talking about the whole Western world not just Australia.
2. I am talking about the threat posed by Jihadist terrorist extremists and the extremist ideology of Islam.
3. Islam isn’t a race or anything like it any more than Christianity is. If I’m “racist” for criticisng Islam then logically PZ Myers is even more “racist” for the whole cracker attack on catholicism. Religion isn’t a skin colour.
4. Irrelevant anyhow but almost certainly more “brown people” are actually more Hindu (India- population 1 billion plus and elsewhere around the globe) and Catholic (South America, central America, Latinos in the USA and elsewhere) rather than Islamic. Conflating “brown peopel” with equalling Muslims then is not also false but insulting to non-Muslim “brown people” and in itself racist stereotyping and making false assumptions.
5. Iran is the world’s worst sponsor of terrorism and is trying to get WMDs especially the Bomb. Many people – not just Israel; but, as wikileaks revealed, also many Arab nations in the region are seriosuly afriad that Iran will use these WMDs and should be prevented from aquiring them.
6. Saying that Iran should have its regime changed and be prevented from triggering WWIII and among other things its own destruction anyhow is NOT the same as calling for genocide.
7. Acknowledging the reality that Iran is on the path towards triggering WWIII and that diplomacy has failed to deliver anything more than Iran getting closer to that end and iniating official war on its own terms rather than ours is not the ame as calling for genocide.
8. Stating that Israel deserves to exist in peace without constant attempts to wipe it off the map is not the same as calling for genocide. Not giving the terrorist palestinians (or even the non-terrorist ones) a nation of their own is also NOT genocide merely the reasonable and foreseeable result of the palestinians own poor decisions and missed opportunities and unwillingness to behave rationally. Not having a state doesn’t actually kill people y’know! (Just ask the Tibetans, the Kurds or for many centuries the Jewish people too!)
9. Israel aserting its right to defend itself isn’t genocide and neither is advocating for, affirming and supporting Israel’s right to protect its civilians from enemy armies, rocket fire and homicide-suicide bomber Jihadists.
10. Lying about me and bullying me and insulting me does NOT win your argument or answer my case. It seems a lot of people here don’t understand what I’m saying here (eg. all the above ten points) either deliberatley from malice or from genuine failure of comprehensionon their part. That does them no credit and reflects badly on those arguing against me here.
Hope you can reflect better on yourself through your conduct here John Morales and if you want a laugh, well I’ll try to add the odd bit of humour where I can. Can’t guarantee any comedy though but,who knows, maybe Ing will turn up and lose another argument with her imaginary foe to make us both snicker?
SteveoR,
You show your characteristic tendency to ignorant blather here. the great majority of jihadi terrorists are Sunni extremists, who regard the Shiite beliefs of the Iranian theocrats as heretics, and regularly murder Shiites in Iraq and Pakistan. You are also clearly referring to Ahmadinejad, showing your ignorance again, since he is not the leader of Iran.
So according to you, we can’t accuse creationists of being ignorant of evolution, since they know more about what they know than we do. What a fuckwit you are.
And here you show that you are simply a liar. The dispute is not about Israel defending itself, but about it launching an attack on Iran.
The Israeli political and military leadership is quite clearly split on the question of whether to attack Iran, and it has become an issue in domestic politics.
I will certainly not support an illegal attack on Iran by a racist, expansionist shitbag like Netanyahu.
You can bold that all you want, it won’t make your actual words go away. You don’t get to go all “nuke ’em” on us and then hope we forget it, or try to convince us that nuking a bunch of countries isn’t genocide.
And no, it doesn’t matter how sad you claim to be about it, or how necessary you think it is and how much you wish it weren’t. Genocide is genocide. People who advocate it are usually convinced that it’s necessary and that they’re being rational and fighting for the greater good. You are too, big deal, I’m not impressed.
No, Ing didn’t. Mike Godwin came up with that internet law to discourage people from making comparisons that trivialise the horror of the Holocaust, not to make any and every comparison impossible. I suspect he wouldn’t approve of your use of that law to get away with the horrible stuff you’re advocating here.
“When I saw the photographs from Abu Ghraib, for example, I understood instantly the connection between the humiliations inflicted there and the ones the Nazis imposed upon death camp inmates—but I am the one person in the world least able to draw attention to that valid comparison.”
If that’s a valid comparison (so much for “western values”, btw), so is Ing’s.
Fuck you. There doesn’t have to be anything wrong with the mental health of someone who finds genocide advocacy abhorrent. And you’re not being compassionate, you’re being an asshole.
At least he doesn’t want Ing murdered. I guess that counts as compassion in StevoR’s world.
@ 348. John Morales :
Short version : That’s a complete strawperson of my position.
Like so very much else that been thrown up against me by some prominent commenters here.
It would be great if those who are guilty of such offensive ridiculous straw-personning here finally woke up to themselves, recognised that and then had the decency to apologise. They owe me that whether they see it and are good enough to do it or not.
StevoR:
Is Islam an existential threat to western civilization? What evidence do you have that it is an existential threat? What evidence do you have that a pre-emptive war against Iran will not do more damage to the west than anything Islam could do on its own (oil at $200 to $400 per barrel, for example)? What evidence can you provide to show that a pre-emptive war is the most cost-effective, most effective, and least damaging way to derail Iran? And why, if a majority of Islamic radicals are Sunni who hat the Shia with a purple passion, do you insist that Iran is the single biggest supporter of terrorism in the world?
And All Hail Tpyos! ‘hat’ should be ‘hate’. Sorry.
@KG :
Tell that to the people murdered fighting him in their failed attempt to be liberated from the Iranian theocracy a year or two ago.
Whether “Imadinnerjacket” is really the dictator in charge or the figurehead of Mullahs who think exactly like he does doesn’t matter that much really. Same evil shit is thought and done under the same ugly death cult’s rule.
Yeesh KG, I knew you were a dense, horrible, fuckwitted little turd but I didn’t think even *you* were quite that dense.
Get a clue dumbdfuck :
Everyone knows that Iran is very probably planning to attack Israel. With nukes.
Iran is also already sponsoring and arming and supporting terrorists groups like Hamas and Hizbollah that are actively fighting wars to destroy Israel.
Attacking Iran is absolutely self defense on Israel’s part. It is amazing how restrained Israel has been so far under its circumstances faced with the many threats it faces.
Who says Israel defending itself is illegal? It isn’t.
Who says Netanyahu is a racist shitbag? Certainly not the voters of Israel who democratically elected him to power as opposed to taking power by coups of force like, say, most of the Arab leaders and Jihadist gangs.
But, no, I guess KG (“who’s xe?”) sitting one-handed at his computer on blogs knows a lot more about a war situation than the people and democratic leaders of the main nation actually coming under attack. Oh wait, you don’t!
@352. Nightjar :
What, the words that are up there quoted there in bold that I’ve stated repeatedly many, many times that I do NOT support genocide? Those words?
Oh those long past angry words you mean? Well, I’ve already apologised for and admitted that I was drunk and tired and emotional at the time. I’m human, I shouldn’t have said that and take that back.
No, we shouldn’t nuke all Muslims.
Dropping particular nukes on particular targets under particular extreme circumstances *maybe* but that’s a different thing and NOT genocide. Heard it this time? Happy now?
No, not always. In Iran’s case it would be suicide – but that may not be enough to stop them. Which is one good reason among many why Iran shouldn’t be allowed nukes.
Nor am I. Because once again you seem to have missed the bolded sentence at the top here – I do NOT support genocide.
Which is what Ing did by calling me a Nazi – in addition to lying because she’s claiming I’m something and someone I’m manifestly not.
Yes, Ing did indeed lose by Godwin. The comparison is, as I’ve already noted wrong. Godwins law is there to stop people abusing others and X situations by falsely comparing them to nazis which is *exactly*what Ing did to me. And, yes, I deserve an apology for that vile act not apologetics for xer.
Not something I’m talking about or defending here. What happened at Abu Ghraib was wrong. I think we all agree on that right?
So wait, its okay for Ing to call me a nazi and all sorts of other false and vile names but I’m not allowed just a little snark back mocking her most extreme and comically absurd of strawpeople? For fucks sake! I am allowed to defend myself here right?
Plus it’s not like Ing’s going to read it anyhow now is it? Xe’s already conceded xer defeat in this argument and run away refusing to consider anything I say after leaving that last abusive shit of a comment having a go at me. Or this monster she thinks is me but isn’t.
Fine, but when you say these words:
it’s hard to not to wonder to what extent you’re willing to go with this “quickly, effectively, conclusively”, anything goes rhetoric and not to think back to your past words. Do you understand why? Those two paragraphs read like a summed up and edited version of those past angry words. Yeah, you’re not quite as explicit when you’re sober. Again, I’m not impressed.
You’re missing the point. I’m not saying you’re defending anything, I’m giving you an example of a comparison that the creator of Godwin’s law himself feels can be made validly.
And we (you) are talking about pre-emptive war, subtle and not-so-subtle attempts to vilify Muslims in general so the idea of killing large numbers of them doesn’t seem as repugnant any more, and calls to quickly, effectively and conclusively end the, uh, “problem”. In these situations, “Godwin, you lose” doesn’t and shouldn’t work.
“Hahahaha, mental health, so funny!”
That‘s why I said you were being an asshole. I couldn’t care less who you mock, just leave people with mental health problems out of it, OK?
I am terribly tired of having to say this over and over, but here it goes again for those hard of thinking –
For racist read bigot.
No, Islam isn’t a race. (Although, of course, many in the west, in the US in particular, associate Islam with ‘funny-talkin’ brown people’ but I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt you don’t.)
Judaism isn’t a race either, but someone who claimed that Jews posed a threat to western civilization might not be called a racist, but would certainly be a bigot.
Female isn’t a race, but someone who thought that women were inherently inferior to men would not be a racist, but rather a bigot.
Please stop trying to play word games with the difference between racist and bigot. I wish people would be more careful with their terms when being critical, but pretending you don’t know what’s actually being said about you is playing dumb.
Stop it.
Lastly, PZ’s little cracker stunt hurt not a single Catholic. What he did had no victims, only volunteers.
StevoR, lying advocate of genocide
It shows your invincible ignorance that you keep referring to Ahmadinejad as the leader of Iran when he’s not. Does the title Khamanei has, invariably translated as “Supreme Leader”, not give you a clue?
No they don’t, you lying scumbag bigot. Senior members of Israel’s military establishment have made clear that they do not believe any such thing.
And Israel has for years carried out terrorist attacks both against Iran and against other targets.
No it is not, you lying scumbag bigot. There has probably not been an aggressor in a war in the last century that didn’t claim “self-defence”.
International law is quite clear: the concept of pre-emptive attack in self-defence is not recognised, and such an attack is illegal. Self-defence is permitted under Article 51 of the UN Charter, but it is quite explicit that this is not permitted unless an armed attack has occurred:
If you’re going to claim that Iran’s sponsorship of Hizbollah and Hamas counts as an armed attack and so legitimises an attack on Iran by Israel, it is almost certainly the case that Mossad has sponsored killings of Iranian nuclear scientists, thus legitimising an Iranian attack on Israel. It is certain that Syria would be equally justified in an armed attack on all those countries that have given aid to the Syrian rebels, which includes the USA, Britain, France and Germany. Do you support Syria’s right to bomb those countries? Under the same terms, Iran would certainly have been justified in attacking the USA during Saddam Hussein’s attack on Iran, as the USA was supplying Iraq with weapons. Would you have supported their right to launch such an attack? In fact, Iraq would similarly have been justified in attacking the US, and Israel, as they supplied arms to Iran for use against Iraq as part of the Iran-Contra deal – which of course would also have justified Nicaragua in attacking the USA (and probably Israel, as an accessory).
But you did say it. Most of us don’t advocate genocide even when we are drunk and tired and emotional. Until you demonstrate a real change in the attitude that gave rise to those unguarded words, you’re going to keep being reminded of them. Why should we believe your disowning of them is anything more than a dislike of the consequences you brought on yourself, you lying scumbag bigot?
Yes.
I’m also tired of atheists who seem to think that if they play the “but it’s not a race, it’s a religion!” card all the other atheists in the room will suddenly go all “OMG, you’re right, go ahead then, be your bigoted self all you want, fuck them over, everything’s permitted!” Uh, no.
@ ^ Nightjar & #359. Anri :
To say that it is “bigotry” to politically oppose and argue against a group whose agenda is to kill or convert everyone who is not them is simply ridiculous. I’m no bigot.
KG (#360 & generally) OTOH, is a liar. Xe keeps lying about me and who I am and saying things that are offensively false. Xe lies in xer very first line there and keeps doing it.
Isn’t it time someone else pulled KG up for that bullying, abusive lying behaviour.
KG you are a bully, aliar and a disgrace to this blog.
Corrections :
Isn’t it time someone else pulled KG up for that bullying, abusive lying behaviour?
KG you are a bully, a liar and a disgrace to this blog.
@298. theophontes (坏蛋) :
Well I’ve looked at the link now and see it contains nothing but a plug for some book when I thought it might’ve contained much more information and and facts than that.
I can’t afford to buy it and I’ll have to see if my local libraries have a copy. If they do I’ll borrow and read it. Promise. It may take me quite awhile but I will. if I can find a copy somewhere. (& what’s the the Chinese or whatever too, btw?)
There are, of course, many alternative and up to date sources of information on the threat Iran poses to the world.
Including, natch, the secret reports and intelligence that the Israeli generals and political leaders will be getting.
What the Israelis decide to do based on the facts they know is up them. Entirely.
Not me. Not you. Not Romeny or Obama or anybody else. The Israeli political and military leadership (including most of all their duly elected Prime minister) are speaking from a position of knowledge and they have facts that we don’t – until they choose to reveal them to us – or not.
I don’t know for sure whether Israel – with or without the rest of the Western nations who are Israel’s allies and have so many common values with the tiny, beleagured Jewish nation (Eg. democracy, human rights, good and equal treatment of women, freedom of expression, etc,..) – will ultimately defend itself against Iran by taking out the Iranian nuclear sites and perhaps regime change too or not.
I do think Israel deserves our support if it does decide to act against the existential threat it faces.
You disagree? If so that’s your choice and your perogative. You have the right to your opinuion. I have the right to mine.
@364. StevoR – correcting :
@360. KG :
To be clearer now than I possibly was at the time I was meaning nuke the bad guys who are threatening everyone on the planet. Which – though admittedly may be going a bit far – still isn’t quite the same thing as specifically advocating genocide.
Yes, KG, I’m drunk and like to stay that way, how sad for you then that I can still thrash you intellectually and indebates like this anyday! Is that why you hate me so much maybe? :-P
@358.Nightjar :
Okay. Actually I did. I wasn’t referring at all to people with mental health issues merely sarcastically highlighting how silly and out of touch with reality Ing’s specific comment and behaviour was.
Not every Moslem you met has this agenda. In fact, most don’t. Have you noticed that?
You are assuming individual people have agenda you associate with other specific members of that group, in a negative manner.
That is bigotry.
It’s exactly the same as assuming that all blacks are gang members because some blacks are gang members.
It’s exactly the same as assuming that all Catholics are rapists because some Catholics are rapists.
It’s exactly the same as assuming that all atheists are genocidal madmen because some atheists are genocidal madmen.
It makes you look stupid and small-minded. If you don’t wish to appear this way, stop doing it.