Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Pedophilia is Just Acosta Doin' Business


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

Non-violence does NOT rely on an appeal to the empathy and sympathy of those in charge. It relies on how their demonstrated lack of same will play to everyone else over a long period. It takes an extraordinary amount of courage and patience. Gandhi’s movement in India began in 1920, and India achieved self-rule 27 years later. 

Liberal fetishization of non violence. Yea, and how much did India suffer in those 27 years? How many people died thanks to Ghandi's bullshit peace at all costs? We dont have the time to wait around for small amounts of changes to happen over nearly 30 years given climate change & the lives at stake in concentration camps.
 

Oh, and fuck Ghandi. I have zero use for the tactics of a racist.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bonnot OG said:

Liberal fetishization of non violence. Yea, and how much did India suffer in those 27 years? How many people died thanks to Ghandi's bullshit peace at all costs? We dont have the time to wait around for small amounts of changes to happen over nearly 30 years given climate change & the lives at stake in concentration camps.
 

Oh, and fuck Ghandi. I have zero use for the tactics of a racist.
 

I mean, it’s good that you agree with yourself with so much conviction, but in terms of suffering and costs, are you proposing anything that won’t come with a ton of both?

edit: for the sake of argument i’ll defer to your transported goalposts on non-violence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, James Arryn said:

I mean, it’s good that you agree with yourself with so much conviction, but in terms of suffering and costs, are you proposing anything that won’t come with a ton of both?

edit: for the sake of argument i’ll defer to your transported goalposts on non-violence. 

I guess as long as you get the suffering over and done with quickly you can pretend it never happened, or wasn't really that bad. One benefit of meeting violence with non-violence is everyone watching knows who the arsehole is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, James Arryn said:

I mean, it’s good that you agree with yourself with so much conviction, but in terms of suffering and costs, are you proposing anything that won’t come with a ton of both?

edit: for the sake of argument i’ll defer to your transported goalposts on non-violence. 

James,

Those of us not committed to violence are just too weak to accept that some innocents need to die to make sure the proper people have political power.  Clearly they will set aside their violence as soon as they have power over everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I guess as long as you get the suffering over and done with quickly you can pretend it never happened, or wasn't really that bad. One benefit of meeting violence with non-violence is everyone watching knows who the arsehole is.

Well, if you agree with Helmut von Moltke The Elder in principal

"The greatest good deed in war is the speedy ending of the war, and every means to that end, so long as it is not reprehensible, must remain open. In no way can I declare myself in agreement with the Declaration of St. Petersburg that the sole justifiable measure in war is "the weakening of the enemy's military power." No, all the sources of support for the hostile government must be considered, its finances, railroads, foodstuffs, even its prestige. "

Then I guess you can retroactively justify an armed revolution that would kill millions for the sake of a few dozen dead.

Shit, I actually do agree with Moltke myself on this matter but while I think an active revolution is the only way to 'fix' the American system by replacing it I don't think it would be even mildly justified at this point and would certainly be doomed to failure.

I know I said I was done on this topic, but I can never pass up an opportunity to quote a Moltke!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Well, if you agree with Helmut von Moltke The Elder in principal

"The greatest good deed in war is the speedy ending of the war, and every means to that end, so long as it is not reprehensible, must remain open. In no way can I declare myself in agreement with the Declaration of St. Petersburg that the sole justifiable measure in war is "the weakening of the enemy's military power." No, all the sources of support for the hostile government must be considered, its finances, railroads, foodstuffs, even its prestige. "

Then I guess you can retroactively justify an armed revolution that would kill millions for the sake of a few dozen dead.

Shit, I actually do agree with Moltke myself on this matter but while I think an active revolution is the only way to 'fix' the American system by replacing it I don't think it would be even mildly justified at this point and would certainly be doomed to failure.

I know I said I was done on this topic, but I can never pass up an opportunity to quote a Moltke!

That's war, and is probably right, for war. I don't know if this principle would apply when it's not a war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I guess as long as you get the suffering over and done with quickly you can pretend it never happened, or wasn't really that bad. One benefit of meeting violence with non-violence is everyone watching knows who the arsehole is.

I'm not sure "everyone" knows who the asshole is, given the number of people who make excuses whenever the police shoot or beat unarmed black people. Sometimes the non-violent are "asking for it" -- especially if they happen to be poor or non-white.

As to the general efficacy of non-violent vs violent movements... Maybe you need both. MLK provided a peaceful alternative to the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam. But in general I don't believe entrenched power gives up anything without a shove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

That's war, and is probably right, for war. I don't know if this principle would apply when it's not a war.

Totes, I was just taking advantage of an opportunity to deploy my prodigious quoting ability. Repeating things more important folks have said is like my primary contribution to society.

2 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I'm not sure "everyone" knows who the asshole is, given the number of people who make excuses whenever the police shoot or beat unarmed black people. Sometimes the non-violent are "asking for it" -- especially if they happen to be poor or non-white.

As to the general efficacy of non-violent vs violent movements... Maybe you need both. MLK provided a peaceful alternative to the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam. But in general I don't believe entrenched power gives up anything without a shove.

There's a lot of truth to this statement, I believe. However what our friend Bonnot is advocating is stupid and short sighted expressions of violence without a unifying ideological movement. Personally I find that kind of activity as shameful as what the Bundys did. Now you get hundreds of thousands of people at your back and you've got a nice little army, that is real power. Whether you do violence with it or not you can draw others to the cause by displaying a sustainable movement.

Torching cars alone tends to make you look like a jackass crazy person though, even more so if you get shot and people like Jace can't even in good conscience condemn fucking ICE agents of all things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Totes, I was just taking advantage of an opportunity to deploy my prodigious quoting ability. Repeating things more important folks have said is like my primary contribution to society.

There's a lot of truth to this statement, I believe. However what our friend Bonnot is advocating is stupid and short sighted expressions of violence without a unifying ideological movement. Personally I find that kind of activity as shameful as what the Bundys did. Now you get hundreds of thousands of people at your back and you've got a nice little army, that is real power. Whether you do violence with it or not you can draw others to the cause by displaying a sustainable movement.

Torching cars alone tends to make you look like a jackass crazy person though, even more so if you get shot and people like Jace can't even in good conscience condemn fucking ICE agents of all things.

I agree with you.

I get being angry and wanting action. But if it's all about retribution and giving back as good as you got, then it's not about finding solutions, good solutions that make things better all around at least.

If exacting retribution is the most important thing to someone, then they aren't really for making the world as a whole just a little bit better. Revenge isn't noble. People need to be held accountable for their actions but to paraphrase what the great man said, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, you end up with a blind and toothless society."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Non-violence does NOT rely on an appeal to the empathy and sympathy of those in charge. It relies on how their demonstrated lack of same will play to everyone else over a long period. It takes an extraordinary amount of courage and patience. Gandhi’s movement in India began in 1920, and India achieved self-rule 27 years later. 

There were many factors involving India's independence, however Gandhi's Non-violence was a failure as a ideology. He was begging Sikhs and Hindus to not retaliate even as Muslims were rioting all over Punjab and Bengal. Gandhi's philosophy failed while he was alive and the sheer number of deaths in riots is proof to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bonnot OG said:

Oh, and fuck Ghandi. I have zero use for the tactics of a racist.
 

Good, then you’ll agree to drop the awful tactics you’re advocating for.

Seriously dude, if you’re for achieving progress, and actually want those ends, you’ll sit these affairs out so that the adults can accomplish them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

James,

Those of us not committed to violence are just too weak to accept that some innocents need to die to make sure the proper people have political power.  Clearly they will set aside their violence as soon as they have power over everyone.

Of course... but what if the people vote in some fascist again we'll need someone to stop that, maybe a vanguard party? Only to protect us from people like Trump who have abandoned democracy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Good, then you’ll agree to drop the awful tactics you’re advocating for.

Seriously dude, if you’re for achieving progress, and actually want those ends, you’ll sit these affairs out so that the adults can accomplish them.

When will they be starting? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also can this board tell me if ICE agents are evil or not? Because in the last thread I was told that of course the democrats will enforce border regulation and yet I don't see a lot of people here disagreeing with the idea ICE is evil just whether they should be killed or not? Deportation is on of the necessary functions of government no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Darzin said:

Also can this board tell me if ICE agents are evil or not? Because in the last thread I was told that of course the democrats will enforce border regulation and yet I don't see a lot of people here disagreeing with the idea ICE is evil just whether they should be killed or not? Deportation is on of the necessary functions of government no?

Bit of a confusion of ideas there. ICE has existed for less than 20 years. Presumably we did immigration enforcement before that. Certainly we need to regulate immigration, but perhaps we can hire people to do it who don't believe in concentration camps. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

If only so as not to be rude, I will speak my last on this.

Far as I know, homeslice didn't have anyone behind them, so your question is leading and insalient. As far as how many people I'd consider viable, about two million under arms and popular support for dissolution of the union in at least enough states required to reach one-hundred-fifty million potential separatists. But even then that's tough because I think it's illegal to leave the union. So I'd actually be most comfortable with a coalition of states banding together and declaring the federal government to be integrally malfeasant and unrepresentative of democratic principals, therefore calling for its disbandment and a constitutional convention with proportional representation per population of the fifty states as well as U.S. territories (representatives should be able to withdraw their state/territory from involvement in the formation of a new federal government with a popular support referendum subject to the determination of the remaining states/territories at the conclusion of the convention). You get that and I've got great ideas on how to disable an M1A2 Abrams Main Battle tank with an etch-a-sketch and the rims off a '72 Ford Pinto. Until then, this is wild extremism and counterproductive.

See, when I even consider the thought of some kind of second American revolution, I actually put in the mental energy to think about how it would play out and what would be required for success. That's well before I get to where my moral authority would be derived from in taking such a stance against my countrymen.

But I don't live in Wiemar Germany and although we're definitely on the road to fascism there's still a viable peaceful means to removing the directly authoritarian elements that doesn't involve me condoning acts of random terror.

Thank you for your time.

 

Puerto Ricans rose up and demonstrated around the governor's mansion -- he has been revealed to not only be corrupt, stealing all the fema funds and much else, but racist, a fellow right up the TVillain's alley.  What do you think of them?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/14/us/puerto-rico-rossello.html

My opinion is this is what we should be doing at the White House, every single day, 24/7.  As they are doing in Hong Kong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some Media Outlets Still Refuse To Call Trump What He Is: Racist
Trump’s tweets calling on four women of color in Congress to “go back” to other countries were racist, full stop. Not “racially charged.” Racist.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-racist-media-euphemisms-racially-charged_n_5d2c7377e4b0bd7d1e1fd73c

Quote

 

But many media outlets, as they’ve done time and again, failed to call President Donald Trump’s comments what they were: racist.

Several, including the The Wall Street Journal and NPR, resorted to the tired euphemism of “racially charged.” 

These kinds of phrases fail to make logical sense, and they falsely suggest that racism is on some kind of spectrum. Something or someone is either racist or not.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nancy Pelosi walked right into that one.  Her attacks on these women was something he seized upon with his full racist glee, knowing how much more division he would be creating.

Pelosi is always given so much credit for her astute political intelligence.  She blew it badly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Inigima said:

When will they be starting? 

You know better than this. Pointing your finger and screaming racist just because you dislike someone only enables the president to get away with basically telling four minority women in Congress to go back to Africa.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Meghan McCain Goes After ‘Uncle’ Lindsey Graham: ‘Not the Person I Used to Know’
“I can’t do this right now,” an exasperated McCain said while describing her family friend’s defense of Trump’s xenophobic tweets.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/meghan-mccain-goes-after-uncle-lindsey-graham-not-the-person-i-used-to-know?ref=home1

Quote

 

Hours after Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) backed President Trump’s recent racist attacks on Democratic congresswomen of color, The View’s Meghan McCain lamented that the man she once saw as an “uncle” and close family friend was no longer the person she knew while growing up.

During his Monday morning appearance on Fox & Friends, the South Carolina senator called on Trump to “aim higher” when criticizing the group of progressive lawmakers known as The Squad, calling the group a “bunch of communists” and anti-Semites who hate America. Trump, obviously impressed with Graham’s on-air remarks, quickly quoted the Republican lawmaker on Twitter.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

 

Later on, they aired a clip of Graham in 2015 calling Trump a “race-baiting xenophobic, religious bigot” who doesn’t represent the Republican Party nor the “values that the men and women who wear the uniform are fighting for.”

McCain reacted by noting that Khizr Khan’s son died in uniform and wasn’t born in this country before taking one more shot at Graham.

“I can’t do this right now, and whatever is happening to Lindsey, this is not the person I used to know,” she said.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...