r'hllor's red lobster

u.s. politics: a cruel and unusual government

409 posts in this topic

3 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Well, there are some circumstances in which "setting off low grade explosives" can be legal.  And "smashing property" can be legal in some circumstances, especially if the property you smash is your own.  I did not get the impression that this is what they had in mind, but if you want to quibble, I don't care to argue.

Of course you care to argue. That's all you care to. What you don't care to do is actually get beaten. 

Because your argument that someone is 'innocent until proven guilty' runs smack into the idea of classifying all violence done by people as criminal violence. It cannot be criminal violence without a crime. So either, we are advocating violence against nazis (which may or may not be criminal) and you oppose that, or you believe that everyone is innocent in which case it cannot be criminal violence. Which is it? Can't be both. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who speak in talking points should shampoo my crotch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Of course you care to argue. That's all you care to.

Maybe, but this argument is pretty boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, aceluby said:

What illegal violence on this board has occurred that you're opposing?  

What we do to @briantw's Browns might qualify. If so, go straight to jail, @Kalbear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Maybe, but this argument is pretty boring.

That's usually what losers of arguments say, yes.

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What we do to @briantw's Browns might qualify. If so, go straight to jail, @Kalbear.

I'm not sure we do things to the Browns so much as we point out the violence done to them, but we are certainly not good samaritans in stopping it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That's usually what losers of arguments say, yes.

Sure man.  You win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lew Theobald said:

So you're going to try to smear me as a Nazi sympathizer because I oppose illegal violence. 

I love the way these Trump-Train clowns try to use legal and illegal as synonymous for right and wrong.

To put this in perspective, most of what the actual Nazis did was legal and state-sanctioned at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders lays down marker with ambitious single-payer bid
More Democratic lawmakers than ever support the progressive idea, but it comes with risks for 2018.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/13/bernie-sanders-single-payer-health-medicare-bill-242674

House GOP leaders unveil game plan for tax reform
Republicans say they’ll release more details on the still-vague tax overhaul on Sept. 25.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/13/kevin-brady-tax-reform-242654

Trump: Rich people won't benefit 'at all' from tax plan

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/13/trump-rich-people-tax-plan-242671

 

What a liar. Yeah, rich people won't benefit off a 15% corporate tax rate. That would never happen. And that's without even getting to them cutting the estate tax, which is bound be in there.

 

 

Edited by Martell Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

I love the way these Trump-Train clowns try to use legal and illegal as synonymous for right and wrong.

To put this in perspective, most of what the actual Nazis did was legal and state-sanctioned at the time.

Yea. They're completely ignorant of history.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

I love the way these Trump-Train clowns try to use legal and illegal as synonymous for right and wrong.

I don't equate legality and morality.  But, generally speaking, a good citizen has a duty to obey the laws that were created to protect us all.  Generally speaking, running around attacking people and destroying property is not the way to win over ordinary decent people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with @Triskan on being reticent about Bernie's single-payer push.  I think it's a great aspirational goal, but it's not even clear how to pay for it.  Granted, Sanders details some options here, but putting out a white paper instead of specifying sounds a lot more like a trial balloon than a true legislative push (which, again, goes back to the aspirational thing).  More importantly, I haven't heard any reasoning for how you're basically going to abolish the health insurance industry, which, ya know, has been a huge obstacle for reform time and time again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

I'm with @Triskan on being reticent about Bernie's single-payer push.  I think it's a great aspirational goal, but it's not even clear how to pay for it.  Granted, Sanders details some options here, but putting out a white paper instead of specifying sounds a lot more like a trial balloon than a true legislative push (which, again, goes back to the aspirational thing).  More importantly, I haven't heard any reasoning for how you're basically going to abolish the health insurance industry, which, ya know, has been a huge obstacle for reform time and time again.

Not to mention the AMA, Big Pharma, SEIU, etc, etc, etc, Lots of money behind the other side of this issue. Maybe a fight that should be had after taking back the House and The Oval Office though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The medicare for all thing feels like the progressive wing's version of the ACA repeal. It has no chance of passing, might not be even particularly good policy and is a political stunt that sets back actual policy in the future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Not to mention the AMA, Big Pharma, SEIU, etc, etc, etc, Lots of money behind the other side of this issue. Maybe a fight that should be had after taking back the House and The Oval Office though.

Yup.  A good rule of thumb for politics is to do what's possible and exploit what isn't.  Not only is this not remotely possible, it may well be quite unpopular - which means you're gifting the other side the opportunity to exploit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sword of Doom said:

Law and order white people are so funny. Slavery was legal at one point, so was the Holocaust. Helping Jews and people of color in both instances were considered illegal. So tell me, would your law and order selves be perpetuating oppression and listening to the law? Because from where I stand, you wouldn't be the ally and would be on the side of the oppressor given how you are reacting to standing up to Nazis and white supremacists. Just because something is illegal does not mean it is unethical. And just because something is legal does not mean it is ethical. 
 

I don't know anyone who is claiming all civil disobedience is wrong. But civil disobedience doesn't need to be or end up being uncivil disobedience. There are plenty of good arguments to support the approach of refusing to obey an unjust law. It is not necessary to refuse to obey an unjust law with violence.

The only way to prevent Nazism and Fascism from taking over is for the vast majority of people to speak out in opposition to it. Arguably, violence by anti-fascists creates inertia for the masses to get fully on board with the anti-fascist perspective.

The advocates for violence need to stop misrepresenting the perspectives of those who advocate non-violent opposition to fascism. You are isolating, alienating and threatening people who are ideologically aligned or sympathetic, but divergent on method. Which is counterproductive to the aim of keeping fascism, white supremacy and general hatred of "the other" on the social and political fringes.

On freedom of speech, absolutists fail to see the paradox that exists in absolutist approaches to freedom of speech. Someone's speech, especially if it comes from the socially and politically dominant group, ends up suppressing the speech of others. It does seem like absolutists only concern themselves with the ability of people from one group being able to say whatever they want without considering the suppressing effect such speech has on others and whether that creates an imbalance and an injustice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Yup.  A good rule of thumb for politics is to do what's possible and exploit what isn't.  Not only is this not remotely possible, it may well be quite unpopular - which means you're gifting the other side the opportunity to exploit it.

ok, but what if (as polling seems to indicate) its actually quite popular, especially with the base? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

ok, but what if (as polling seems to indicate) its actually quite popular, especially with the base? 

Well that's all well and good, but when it realistically doesn't pass, the left in the US will whine. Then more shit flinging at the Dems. 

At least that is how I see it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

On freedom of speech, absolutists fail to see the paradox that exists in absolutist approaches to freedom of speech. Someone's speech, especially if it comes from the socially and politically dominant group, ends up suppressing the speech of others. It does seem like absolutists only concern themselves with the ability of people from one group being able to say whatever they want without considering the suppressing effect such speech has on others and whether that creates an imbalance and an injustice.

Free speech exists precisely for the protection of those who are NOT socially or politically dominant.  

I am old enough to remember when progressives seemed to be very strong in favor of free speech, and naive as I was, I thought they meant it.  Oh how things have changed.  What's the difference?  They (or their politically dominant incarnation) are no longer marginal.  They now wield significant power, have substantial corporate and media and government backing.

I agree that we should all be considerate of the effects that our words have on others.  But no way should the government have the power to suppress speech merely because others find their words offensive.  When you give governments such power, that power is always abused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.