Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

On the Armenian GenocideFollow

#252 May 25 2016 at 12:09 PM Rating: Good
***
1,012 posts
What about my posts

Are they also consistently rational
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#253 May 25 2016 at 7:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,653 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll toss the same response that I give to the usual "but they're being hypocritical!" claims. I suspect you're not grasping how the conservative and liberal agenda's are aligned. As a general rule, conservatives view the role of the federal government as primarily being externally focused. So spending on wars, foreign policy, foreign aid, immigration enforcement, etc, while wanting to reduce spending on domestic stuff, is not in any way hypocritical nor is it inconsistent. In the other direction, liberals tend to view the role of the federal government as being internally focused. so choosing to focus on things like health care, education, deciding who gets to use which bathrooms in public spaces, etc, while taking a minimal "let's just all get along" approach to foreign policy is also neither hypocritical nor inconsistent for them.


DHS, TSA, dozens more agencies and sub-agencies created by Bush. Billions to spend by government.


And? Are they internal or external facing? What threat are we dealing with in the cases of those two agencies you named? Where is that threat primarily coming from? Is this something that must be done at the Federal level, or could be parted out to the States? I have issues with both organizations, but to say that they don't follow the pattern I spoke of is laughable. The GOP believes that the federal government should be involved in things that need to be done by the federal government. Whether you agree or disagree with a Department of Homeland Security, that's most definitely something that falls squarely in the federal government's scope.

Funding school lunch programs in Montana does *not* fall in that scope. Deciding who should use what bathroom does not fall in that scope. See the difference?

Quote:
Real conservatives would balk at an unnecessary $2 trillion war.


Stop inserting your own subjective opinion into the question. "Real" Conservatives care about whether the thing being done properly belongs at the level it's being done at. Waging wars quite obviously belongs at the federal level, so one's support or opposition to the war in question is irrelevant to whether someone is a "Real" Conservative. There are plenty of conservatives who think that the war in Iraq was unnecessary, and plenty who think it was necessary. Their disagreement does not make either group *not* conservative. That's a completely different issue.

Quote:
A dozen new agencies. Massive expansion of government. DHS and TSA etc. are rather obviously only internally focused btw.


No, they're not. Just because an action occurs on US soil does not make the action itself "internally focused". You're getting caught up on the wrong aspects of things. Ultimately, both of those organizations were created to protect the citizens and residents of the US from what is primarily an external threat (certainly from an ideological perspective, it's external, right?). That differs dramatically from actions that seek to protect US citizens and residents from naturally occurring conditions like "hunger" and "poverty".

You're free to argue a moral case that we should be focusing our nations resources more on the latter set than the former, but then you would be arguing for a liberal view of the role of the federal government and *against* the conservative view. What you're trying to do instead is change what the conservative view actually is, so as to make it seem that our view should really be your view, and we're somehow bad conservatives for not taking your side (or something, not really sure what exactly you're arguing with this).

The point is that I see this form of argument all the time. And when it's used, it's almost always done so that the person using it can avoid actually arguing his position in a direct "X vs Y" manner. Instead you just argue that X doesn't really exists at all, so Y is the only option, thus avoiding the whole comparison. Which I happen to find to be a cheap cop out. I'm more than willing to argue why it's correct for the federal government to focus on one set of things and not another. It's somewhat less than helpful for you to just ignore those arguments and instead insist that my arguments should really be something else entirely. I get that you may think that, but I don't. So how about instead of you telling me what my position should be, you just take my word for it that it is what I say it is?

Quote:
You're how old that you aren't aware Korea was initiated by Democrat Truman, and Vietnam by Democrat Kennedy?


Lol! That's funny. Yeah, they were certainly initiated. Not very well concluded though. Want to know why? Because in both cases, the president in question was afraid of actually winning since it might... wait for it... rock the boat too much. You get how China and the fear of ******* it off too much dominated both conflicts, right? Or did you flunk out of your world history class?

Quote:
It's laughable that anyone would adhere to any sense of their party being less warmongering--both are. You should apparently be proud of Truman, JFK, etc. for "rocking boats". The ****. If you like "rocking boats" of the past century of war-mongering, you should champion Clinton for POTUS. She's likely to rock a lot more boats than Trump. You looove rocking boats (war!) My son. My child. My little gbaji suckling pig.


Wow. Um... Ok. It's not about liking or disliking. It's about doing what has to be done, when it has to be done, even when it's not a fun thing to do. I don't like cleaning the house, but I kinda have to do it, right? I think too many people attempt to apply motivation to these sorts of things, but that's not it at all. The broader point, if you're curious, is that modern liberals tend to look at foreign policy as an extension of domestic policy. They fight wars if they think they'll be popular (and boy did they mess a couple of them up), they avoid them if the think otherwise. They flap like a flag in the breeze of public opinion, because at the end of the day, they know they need it in order to pursue what they really care about: Their domestic social agenda.

Conservatives view foreign conflicts and actions as an end to themselves. Whether anyone "likes" it or not isn't the issue. Whether one is more or less "warmongering" isn't the point. It's why you do something, and what your objectives are while doing it. It's why, for example, the Obama administration spent so much effort trying to make Libya look much more successful than it was, even going so far as to ignore requests for additional security since that might make it look like it was dangerous there rather than safe (and we all know how that worked out). Why did he do this? Because he needed the public to approve of his approach to foreign policy, so his popularity would be high, so he could get other more important domestic things done. Whether Libya was actually a success or not doesn't even enter the liberal equation here. It's entirely about how the public perceives things.

Um... Which is also why it was so important to pin the Benghazi attacks on an offensive film rather than a planned attack. The former can be shifted into the social realm, where they like to operate. The latter challenges the success of Obama's foreign policy approach. This is how the two approaches are different. Saying they are the same is just plain wrong.

Quote:
Quote:
That he hasn't been asked to do so?


"asked"? He PROMISED. Has nothing to do with Israel or Micronesia or Deer Park, Texas or the Bahamas. Has to do with millions of Armenian corpses. Google such if you want!


Which doesn't change the fact that he was not asked to do or say anything about those other things, which is why he hasn't been criticized for failing to do or say anything about those other things. You're squirming. Stay on target!

Quote:
"Promise". Look up a word in a dictionary.


I know what it means. Do you get that politicians do not normally go out of their way to make promises about something, unless first asked to do so by some interest group?


Quote:
Also, have zero idea what you mean be "too moderate...Holocaust". What? I think it's obviously from this thread I don't like Obama, but just what do you mean by him being "moderate on the Holocaust"??


I said "moderate stance on Israel and the Holocaust", the words in the middle of that phrase actually do have meaning.


He's been criticized repeatedly for his tepid support for Israel, failing to condemn statements made by various Arab leaders denying the Holocaust even happened (often while basically calling for another one), and adopting an approach to negotiated agreements in the ME that treat all sides as though they were morally equal (which is problematic when one side repeatedly states that their objective is to wipe the state of Israel off the map, and drive all the Jews into the sea). Oh, when he's giving a speech, it all sounds great, but actions speak louder than words. His actions have been deplorable when it comes to Israel.

You specifically asked why he's not being criticized for other things, and I pointed out that he has been. I get that his silence on the Armenian genocide is hypocrisy, but it's not like this is abnormal for him. He pretty much has a pattern of promising everyone what they want when he needs them to support him, and then cherry picking which things he's actually going to do after the fact. One can argue this is what politicians do, but Obama does seem to take this to extremes. This is just one of many examples of this behavior by him. I guess my issue was with you seeming to want to single this out as the one case in which he's done this, and thus it means he has some particular hatred for Armenians or something. The reality is that he's done this sort of thing many times, in many different contexts.


Hope and Change though, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#254 May 25 2016 at 7:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,653 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
What about my posts

Are they also consistently rational


They consistently contain a couple too many k's.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#255 May 25 2016 at 9:54 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,092 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's why, for example, the Obama administration spent so much effort trying to make Libya look much more successful than it was, even going so far as to ignore requests for additional security since that might make it look like it was dangerous there rather than safe (and we all know how that worked out).
You might want to do a little research into exactly who denied the requested funding for increased security for diplomatic stations before you look any dumber.

Just sayin'.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#256 May 26 2016 at 3:17 AM Rating: Default
*
182 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
See you in two weeks.


And in two or six decades. You are all going to die here reading this thread. This is inevitable. I am Death. I am Kafka. I'll reply to a post of yours on your deathbed just to see you desire responding more than desiring to see the family gathered around you as you slip away. Unless a US President calls the Armenian Genocide a Genocide. Only that will save you from this fate.

...there should be more movies about Armenian vengeance btw. Can't think of any. Step up Tarentino, or Spielberg, or whoever in Hollywood willing...

Finally--too bad there wasn't an Armenian version of Wiesenthal's righteous squad.
#257 May 26 2016 at 7:42 AM Rating: Good
******
49,059 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
I'll reply to a post of yours
Okay.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#258 May 26 2016 at 8:11 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,121 posts
Quote:
...there should be more movies about Armenian vengeance btw. Can't think of any. Step up Tarentino, or Spielberg, or whoever in Hollywood willing...

Finally--too bad there wasn't an Armenian version of Wiesenthal's righteous squad.


if you want to find more people to be mad at Turks with, you could always go to Germany. I believe the translation of the unpopular popular opinion is along the lines of "cockroaches who will never be a real part of the EU". But I may not be up to date on my knowledge of dead ideas.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#259 May 26 2016 at 12:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,097 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
And in two or six decades. You are all going to die here reading this thread.
You have way more optimism about the longevity of this forum than is reasonably advisable.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#260 May 26 2016 at 8:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,653 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's why, for example, the Obama administration spent so much effort trying to make Libya look much more successful than it was, even going so far as to ignore requests for additional security since that might make it look like it was dangerous there rather than safe (and we all know how that worked out).
You might want to do a little research into exactly who denied the requested funding for increased security for diplomatic stations before you look any dumber.


Might want to check that rhetoric. It's true that the Obama administration received less funding for State Department Embassy security than they asked for, but that had nothing to do with the security at that specific location. Note that the total cash in the accounts has zero bearing on how that money is spent. It's not like the GOP controlled congress was standing over the accountants and approving each expense. It's up to the State Department to choose how to allocate those funds.

The fact is that the funds had sufficient money in them to support the upgraded security that was requested in Libya. The State Department choose not to spend it on that requested security upgrade. I'm not aware of any statement by anyone in the State Department that their reason for denying the requests was due to a lack of funds (and in fact, they've officially stated the exact opposite). Politifact has a decent article on it, complete with numbers if you want to read more about it.

The lack of sufficient security at that facility had absolutely nothing at all to do with congressional funding. That's a BS line of rhetoric that many on the left have grasped on to, but it's just not true.

Quote:
Just sayin'.


Yup. Cause, you know, if one actually researches the subject and not just the assumed conclusion (as you suggest), you'll find that the facts are completely different than you think. Researching "exactly who denied the funding" doesn't actually tell us why the requests for upgraded security were ignored. Researching "why the requests were ignored", actually gets you a valid answer. Do you see why the first approach isn't a good one?

Edited, May 26th 2016 7:44pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#261 May 27 2016 at 12:00 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,092 posts
gbaji wrote:
stuff
Fair enough.

atricle from Politifact wrote:
How does this tie into the Benghazi attack? State Department officials and government experts lay more blame on decisions by upper management not to provide the temporary Benghazi facility with more officers and better protections than the availability of money.
If this is where the blame lies, I'd like some names; wouldn't you?
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#262 May 27 2016 at 3:13 AM Rating: Default
*
182 posts
Quote:
Wow. Um... Ok. It's not about liking or disliking. It's about doing what has to be done, when it has to be done, even when it's not a fun thing to do. I don't like cleaning the house, but I kinda have to do it, right?


Yep. I often clean my house by murdering my Arab housekeepers. Hey, whatcha gonna do?

And Oh my God, your entire post to my post is basically an Obama apologism. Even for the errors of your own conservativism. You really seem to like Obama.

And

Quote:
Stop inserting your own subjective opinion into the question. "Real" Conservatives care about whether the thing being done properly belongs at the level it's being done at. Waging wars quite obviously belongs at the federal level, so one's support or opposition to the war in question is irrelevant to whether someone is a "Real" Conservative. There are plenty of conservatives who think that the war in Iraq was unnecessary, and plenty who think it was necessary. Their disagreement does not make either group *not* conservative. That's a completely different issue.


I'm a fiscal conservative about Federal expenditures. Including DHS, the Iraq War, etc. I'm baffled why you think there's anything "subjective" about spending trillions on a needless war or billions on a needless agency, that is not against fiscal conservative values.

Please cite what non-"objective" conservative programs you've supported; obviously including the Iraq War. I mean unless you now disavow it.

Current state-wide anti-abortion laws? Trans bathroom laws? Clive Owen?

Please regale us with your objective conservative-born beliefs. Since you decry subjectivity. Should be remarkably easy for you to answer this.
#263 May 27 2016 at 3:50 AM Rating: Default
*
182 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
What about my posts

Are they also consistently rational


Yes but I can't remember much of them in this thread. Sorry late bloomer. You might be younger than even this thread and even now suckling on your mother's teat.

Not that I'm an ageist. For example I think there should be no voting age minimum. My little friend.

ETA: sorry that was kind of mean. But I don't know who you are.

Edited, May 27th 2016 6:16am by Palpitus1
#264 May 27 2016 at 3:51 AM Rating: Default
*
182 posts
kkkkk

Edited, May 27th 2016 5:53am by Palpitus1
#265 May 27 2016 at 7:49 AM Rating: Good
******
49,059 posts
gbaji wrote:
Cause, you know, if one actually researches the subject and not just the assumed conclusion (as you suggest), you'll find that the facts are completely different than you think.
Sometimes it's simply mind blowing how much you write and how little thought you put into it.

Edited, May 27th 2016 9:50am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#266 May 27 2016 at 10:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
You have way more optimism about the longevity of this forum than is reasonably advisable.
This is the smartest post in this thread.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#267 May 31 2016 at 5:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,653 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
atricle from Politifact wrote:
How does this tie into the Benghazi attack? State Department officials and government experts lay more blame on decisions by upper management not to provide the temporary Benghazi facility with more officers and better protections than the availability of money.
If this is where the blame lies, I'd like some names; wouldn't you?


Sure. It's the State Department. There's one obvious name that kinda sits right at the top of that upper management layer, right? This is why there have been hearings and investigations into this for the last couple years. And despite this, we still don't have those names. We don't actually know who made the decision and why. Which, well, led us to the revelation that there was missing communications in the initial requests. Which lead to where the communications were handled, which lead to "OMG! She was handing all her inter office communication where?".

See how this is all connected? The implication has been all along that the decision to deny upgraded security in Libya was politically motivated. Obama wanted desperately to be able to contrast his methodology in Libya to Bush's in Iraq. This was a major plank in his foreign policy platform for the 2012 presidential election. So it's not unreasonable to think he might not want increased security measures taken in Libya right as we went into the election year, since that could be used to show that things weren't going as well in Libya as advertised. Surely, you recall the massive hay made by liberals over the embassy in Iraq, and it's fortress like design, and how that proved that Iraq was a failure, right? The connection between "increased security level at an embassy" and "failure of foreign policy in the country said embassy is in" had already been established. So it's not unreasonable to speculate that the decision to not upgrade security came from very high up, perhaps directly out of the Oval Office.

I suppose it's possible that some unnamed middle manager at State made the decision, but it seems unlikely. And when we follow that up with the almost comical effort by the Obama administration to convince people that the attack in Benghazi was just some random protest that got violent, we start to see a clear pattern emerge. Is this proof? Of course not, but there's a very clear motivation on the part of the Obama administration to do every single thing that was done. It's consistent. It's logical. It makes sense. Occam's razor and all of that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#268 May 31 2016 at 5:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,653 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
And Oh my God, your entire post to my post is basically an Obama apologism. Even for the errors of your own conservativism. You really seem to like Obama.


I'm not sure how saying that Obama does the same sort of promise breaking on many other fronts is an "appology", but whatever. I'll also happily take this statement from you as proof of another successful round of Devils Advocate. Contrarians of the world unite!

Quote:
Quote:
Stop inserting your own subjective opinion into the question. "Real" Conservatives care about whether the thing being done properly belongs at the level it's being done at. Waging wars quite obviously belongs at the federal level, so one's support or opposition to the war in question is irrelevant to whether someone is a "Real" Conservative. There are plenty of conservatives who think that the war in Iraq was unnecessary, and plenty who think it was necessary. Their disagreement does not make either group *not* conservative. That's a completely different issue.


I'm a fiscal conservative about Federal expenditures. Including DHS, the Iraq War, etc. I'm baffled why you think there's anything "subjective" about spending trillions on a needless war or billions on a needless agency, that is not against fiscal conservative values.


Whether it's needed or needless is a separate question. That's what makes your statement subjective. If the war is necessary, then a fiscal conservative will support it and fund it. If unnecessary, he wont. You can't just declare someone to not be a good conservative because they support funding for an agency or action that *you* think is unnecessary. If *they* think it's necessary, then *they* can both support funding for it *and* still be a fiscal conservative. It's only your opinion that those things aren't necessary. That's subjective.

Quote:
Please cite what non-"objective" conservative programs you've supported; obviously including the Iraq War. I mean unless you now disavow it.


Huh? All spending choices are subjective. I'm not sure what your point is. What's "objective" (at least mostly) is a determination as to whether or not the proposed action best fits at the federal level or should be managed by the states. Most conservatives should oppose actions at the federal level that can be done at the state level. That's step number one. Once we've trimmed things down to just the set of things that belong at the federal level then we can make the much more subjective decision about whether to take that action. And yes, part of that choice will be the cost to the public for taking it.

You can't equate federal funding for a war with federal funding for food stamps. The latter 100% falls outside what conservatives consider appropriate federal action. The former is a matter of subjective determination of the need for the action itself. You kinda have to assume that if a conservative supports a war, it's because he thinks it's necessary. Declaring that he's a bad conservative because you think the war is unnecessary completely misses the point.

Quote:
Current state-wide anti-abortion laws? Trans bathroom laws? Clive Owen?


All state matters. Not sure what your question is.

Quote:
Please regale us with your objective conservative-born beliefs. Since you decry subjectivity. Should be remarkably easy for you to answer this.


I don't decry subjectivity. I'm saying that you can't assume that everyone else has arrived at the same subjective opinion as you have. Thus, you can't judge their choice based on that subjective opinion. At the risk of repeating this point again, if a conservative believes that a war is necessary, then it's not a violation of his conservative nature to support that war. Your problem is assuming that since you think a war isn't necessary, that the other guy must also think it's unnecessary, and thus his decision to support it must mean he's a bad conservative. What's bizarre is that this requires quite a bit of mental gyration just to avoid the far simpler explanation that he simply disagrees with you about the necessity of the war itself.


For the record, I happen to think that the war in Iraq, while certainly imperfectly executed, was necessary. Similarly, while I'm not happy with the specific implementation of the TSA, DHS, and several aspects of the Patriot Act, those were also "necessary" actions. The fact of 3000 dead civilians on US soil meant that a set of actions had to be done. Those actions had to be done at the federal level, and thus passed the first step mentioned above. The final assessment comes to a subjective judgement about each action. And that's a determination that is not as simple as "fiscal conservative means no". Because if that were true, we'd spend no money on anything at all. Which is kinda silly.

Edited, May 31st 2016 4:56pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#269 May 31 2016 at 7:15 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,092 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sure. It's the State Department. There's one obvious name that kinda sits right at the top of that upper management layer, right? This is why there have been hearings and investigations into this for the last couple years. And despite this, we still don't have those names. We don't actually know who made the decision and why.
But you'll just assume it was Hillary, right?

By that logic, Dubya knew of the Twin Towers attack ahead of time and let it happen.

Edited, May 31st 2016 7:15pm by Bijou
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#270 Jun 01 2016 at 2:36 AM Rating: Default
*
182 posts
gbaji wrote:
Current state-wide anti-abortion laws? Trans bathroom laws? Clive Owen?

All state matters. Not sure what your question is.


Do you think the Federal Government is subservient to states? Supremacy Clause doesn't exist? Or that trans people are not a protected class, ethically if not to-date legally? No idea why else you'd rail against the Feds having the audacity to protect an historically reviled people. Maybe you could clarify whether you agree or disagree with anti-Trans laws, maybe even morally justify such. No state or federal law forces anyone to have an opinion. So what is yours on this issue?

What if your state made a law to kill all babies? Would you stand by that as a state decision? Or instead be reviled by it and look to the Federal Government for help?

And just from this I suppose you were totally on Texas' side on Lawrence v. Texas. Christ, you are terrible. "State's rights! As long as I agree with the issue in question! Sodomy is against God and should be Illegal!"

Enough strawmanning of your likely awful morality and/or dismissing answering what you believe due to "State Law!!!!" though...

Quote:
Quote:
Please regale us with your objective conservative-born beliefs. Since you decry subjectivity. Should be remarkably easy for you to answer this.


I don't decry subjectivity. I'm saying that you can't assume that everyone else has arrived at the same subjective opinion as you have. Thus, you can't judge their choice based on that subjective opinion. At the risk of repeating this point again, if a conservative believes that a war is necessary, then it's not a violation of his conservative nature to support that war. Your problem is assuming that since you think a war isn't necessary, that the other guy must also think it's unnecessary, and thus his decision to support it must mean he's a bad conservative. What's bizarre is that this requires quite a bit of mental gyration just to avoid the far simpler explanation that he simply disagrees with you about the necessity of the war itself.


Well sure, there were a ton of incredibly stupid liberals and conservatives who supported the Iraq War. Stupid goes across that. If you supported the Iraq War you are stupid, in general, and in addition to the fiscal Conservative standard of small government/small spending. Liberals were stupid and against purported values of less war-mongering, valuing life. Both you and they were morons. All bad dumb ********.

Granted, supporting the Iraq War isn't a slam of objectivity. It's more a slam on intelligence. And please don't retrofit a narrative of "but no one knew what was going on!" Millions protested the War; the Bush Administrations' justifications changed monthly due to what was deemed popular/what was quickly mooted as casus belli, etc. Anyone paying attention at the time knew this was cooked, and ********* Atta in Czechoslovakia, protecting Kurds (doubly meta-laughable), Yellow-cake, WMDs, mobile chemtrucks/Powell's UN presentation etc. Didn't only not convince a lot of Americans to go along, but also the UN (US scrapped a final presentation), and a ton of sober countries. The US had to strongarm the coalition into being. Instead of others saying "Yeah, I'm convinced this is a real threat!!" that dozens more countries would've joined. How old are you? Did you only read Judith Miller articles at the time? LOL. You are a dumb as **** conservative if you hood-winked yourself that the Iraq War was necessary. For $2 trillion US dollars and counting. And to next point

Quote:
For the record, I happen to think that the war in Iraq, while certainly imperfectly executed, was necessary.


Again, that is an utterly ridiculous belief. Your happening to think that outs you as a ******* moron.

Quote:
Similarly, while I'm not happy with the specific implementation of the TSA, DHS, and several aspects of the Patriot Act, those were also "necessary" actions. The fact of 3000 dead civilians on US soil meant that a set of actions had to be done. Those actions had to be done at the federal level, and thus passed the first step mentioned above. The final assessment comes to a subjective judgement about each action. And that's a determination that is not as simple as "fiscal conservative means no". Because if that were true, we'd spend no money on anything at all. Which is kinda silly.


Sure, the action necessary was the Afghanistan War, which was completely justified since the Taliban didn't hand over the perpetrator. The Iraq War had literally nothing to do with 9/11 or the Taliban. May as well have invaded Australia for their treatment of Aboriginals. Or gosh, maybe you could imagine invading Rwanda and thus saving millions of Tutsis/Hutus from slaughter. I wonder what you think "necessary" means. Whether you think invasions are necessary for humanitarian purposes, or other... (economic? Hegemonic? Please do tell what your reason for necessary is).

But sure, stupid idiot Conservatives and stupid idiot Liberals can be equally stupid, and equally kill hundreds of thousands in unnecessary wars. Great job, warmonger typical US person, whether liberal or conservative. **** both of you idiots/amoralists. Liberals for liberal reasons, and Conservatives for fiscal reasons. Are you just daft? How many trillions should we now to spend bring the Sudan to order? Rhodesia? Burma? Now Yemen which we ensured was destroyed? Christ, dumb *** warmongers are so ******* stupid. That they pretend to care about anyone is just the final straw. You don't give a **** about humans not yourself--just admit it.

Edited, Jun 1st 2016 4:38am by Palpitus1

Edited, Jun 1st 2016 4:41am by Palpitus1
#271 Jun 01 2016 at 2:50 AM Rating: Default
*
182 posts
I keep forgetting this forum has a curse-word censor asterisk thing. Retro.
#272 Jun 01 2016 at 10:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,097 posts
Naw, it's the new thing these days. Welcome to the safe and friendly internet of the 21st century. Would you like a hug?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#273 Jun 01 2016 at 10:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Without the filter, there's a risk that this forum could die!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#274 Jun 01 2016 at 10:33 AM Rating: Good
******
49,059 posts
COCKMONGER
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#275 Jun 01 2016 at 2:21 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,653 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sure. It's the State Department. There's one obvious name that kinda sits right at the top of that upper management layer, right? This is why there have been hearings and investigations into this for the last couple years. And despite this, we still don't have those names. We don't actually know who made the decision and why.
But you'll just assume it was Hillary, right?

By that logic, Dubya knew of the Twin Towers attack ahead of time and let it happen.


Well. Except that one of those was an actual decision that was made by the State Department while she was in charge of it, and the other is a wild conspiracy theory, sure. Same logic applies... NOT!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#276 Jun 01 2016 at 3:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,653 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Current state-wide anti-abortion laws? Trans bathroom laws? Clive Owen?

All state matters. Not sure what your question is.


Do you think the Federal Government is subservient to states? Supremacy Clause doesn't exist? Or that trans people are not a protected class, ethically if not to-date legally? No idea why else you'd rail against the Feds having the audacity to protect an historically reviled people. Maybe you could clarify whether you agree or disagree with anti-Trans laws, maybe even morally justify such. No state or federal law forces anyone to have an opinion. So what is yours on this issue?


It's not about subservience, but balance of power and where that power shall lay. The supremacy clause only says that when there are conflicting laws, the federal law has supremacy. You'd have to look at Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution to find a complete list of what the US Congress is able to pass laws on. Could you please tell me where in that list the power to legislate Abortion or who can use which bathroom lies? It doesn't. Ergo, Congress can't pass such laws. Ergo, the supremacy clause is meaningless (well, except to the point of judicial rulings, which I'll talk about later).

Also, The Tenth amendment quite clearly states:

Quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Which is why, in any area of legislation in which the US congress is not granted power, the State legislatures have authority. That's how our government works.

Quote:
What if your state made a law to kill all babies? Would you stand by that as a state decision? Or instead be reviled by it and look to the Federal Government for help?


The 5th amendment prohibits the loss of life without due process by the Federal government. The 14th amendment extends that protection to all persons with regard to state actions as well (you get that someone thought of this stuff over the last few hundred years, right?). The specific protection applies to "persons", which quite clearly applies to babies. At a point in the past, blacks were not always considered "persons", and currently, the unborn are not either. Funny how we use linguistic manipulation to justify our actions.

Um... But "babies" are "persons", and thus protected from loss of life without due process. So, I suppose if a state law applied the death penalty to an infant, and that infant somehow managed to break a law for which that was the penalty, and a jury trial upheld that charge and applied that penalty, then that would meet the "due process" requirement (but, um... highly unlikely). Of course, since you said "all babies", you've already chucked due process out the window, so the answer would be that such a law would be in violation of the constitution.

And yes. I'd look to the Federal government to enforce that. Because that's very specifically a required duty. Legislating bathrooms is not. Please tell me you can tell the difference?

Quote:
And just from this I suppose you were totally on Texas' side on Lawrence v. Texas. Christ, you are terrible. "State's rights! As long as I agree with the issue in question! Sodomy is against God and should be Illegal!"


Kinda leaped ahead of the facts. No. I was not on Texas' side, and frankly neither was the state of Texas. It was an old law, and sometimes we have to go through the legal process to clearly establish that such laws are unconstitutional. In this case though, it was because the activity was taking place in a private residence, and the court ruled (correctly) that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is their own business.

Again. Please explain how this has relevance to the use of a public bathroom facility? I have no problem if a trans person wants to declare his/her bathroom to be suitable for whatever gender he/she wants. There's kind of a whole different issue when something is a publicly accessible facility though.

Quote:
Enough strawmanning of your likely awful morality and/or dismissing answering what you believe due to "State Law!!!!" though...


Huh? Silly me. I'm actually reading the constitution and applying it. It's quite clear what areas of our law fall under federal legislative jurisdiction, and which do not. It's also quite clear what sorts of laws are *not* allowed, and thus aren't allowed at any level. You're kinda spinning from one concept to another and flailing around wildly while failing to make a coherent point.

What *is* your point? Do you think that the federal government should have the authority to tell a restaurant owner that he must allow people who have penises to use the women's restroom because they feel like women? Isn't that something that maybe the owner of the restaurant can decide?

Quote:
Well sure, there were a ton of incredibly stupid liberals and conservatives who supported the Iraq War. Stupid goes across that. If you supported the Iraq War you are stupid, in general, and in addition to the fiscal Conservative standard of small government/small spending. Liberals were stupid and against purported values of less war-mongering, valuing life. Both you and they were morons. All bad dumb ********.


Again. Whether someone supported or opposed the war in Iraq has absolutely zero bearing on the fact that declaring and executing wars falls completely within the purview of the federal government. It's in the list in section 8 that I linked earlier. Deciding who can use which bathroom does not. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

You're trying to inject some kind of moral outrage into this. But the question isn't "was the war in Iraq a good idea?", but "does power to declare war in Iraq rest at the federal level of our government?". And yes, it does.

Quote:
Granted, supporting the Iraq War isn't a slam of objectivity. It's more a slam on intelligence. And please don't retrofit a narrative of "but no one knew what was going on!" Millions protested the War; the Bush Administrations' justifications changed monthly due to what was deemed popular/what was quickly mooted as casus belli, etc. Anyone paying attention at the time knew this was cooked, and ********* Atta in Czechoslovakia, protecting Kurds (doubly meta-laughable), Yellow-cake, WMDs, mobile chemtrucks/Powell's UN presentation etc. Didn't only not convince a lot of Americans to go along, but also the UN (US scrapped a final presentation), and a ton of sober countries. The US had to strongarm the coalition into being. Instead of others saying "Yeah, I'm convinced this is a real threat!!" that dozens more countries would've joined. How old are you? Did you only read Judith Miller articles at the time? LOL. You are a dumb as **** conservative if you hood-winked yourself that the Iraq War was necessary. For $2 trillion US dollars and counting. And to next point


Again though. That's utterly irrelevant to the question of whether declaring, executing, and funding a war falls at the federal level of government. It does. Period. End of story. What the heck are you arguing?

I would assume that one's reasons for supporting or opposing a decision to go to war would not be based on whether one is or is not a fiscal conservative. It should be based on other things specific to that choice. If one decides to support the action for war, then he should support funding for it, regardless of whether he is a fiscal conservative or not. You'd certainly not want wasteful spending along the way, but having decided that the war is something that needs to be done, the choice to fund it kinda has to follow right along with that.

The point you're missing is that I might think that public education (for example) is something that should be provided by the government to the people, while *also* opposing funding it at the federal level. Because, as a fiscal conservative, I believe that actions should be taken at the lowest level appropriate, and funding public education isn't on the list of things that I mentioned earlier. So, if we're going to spend money on something, it should be done at the level where "the people" have the most control over it, and the most ability to minimize over spending. That's kind of the root of fiscal conservatism.

Again, you're kinda confusing two different axis of the issue. The decision to do or not do something is one thing. The decision of what level of our government to do that thing, is another.

Quote:
Quote:
For the record, I happen to think that the war in Iraq, while certainly imperfectly executed, was necessary.


Again, that is an utterly ridiculous belief. Your happening to think that outs you as a ******* moron.


And that's a subjective opinion. Which has nothing at all to do with fiscal conservatism. Get how that works?


Quote:
Sure, the action necessary was the Afghanistan War, which was completely justified since the Taliban didn't hand over the perpetrator. The Iraq War had literally nothing to do with 9/11 or the Taliban.


Wrong. Let's let OBL tell us exactly why 9/11 happened:

OBL wrote:
The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. These are the reasons behind the singling out of America as a target.


The land of the two Holy Mosques is Saudi Arabia. We had troops stationed there because we were maintaining the southern no-fly zone in Iraq. Bill Clinton sat on this status quo in Iraq for the entire 8 years of his presidency, never moving towards a formal truce, even while radicals like OBL got more and more ****** off that we were basically sitting with troops in their holiest country. This interview was in 1998.

That's how Iraq and 9/11 are connected. The attacks literally happened because of Clinton's failure to resolve the conflict in Iraq in a timely manner. We can debate the decision, post 9/11, to resolve it via invasion and removal of Saddam from power, but to say that one had nothing to do with the other is absurd.

Quote:
May as well have invaded Australia for their treatment of Aboriginals. Or gosh, maybe you could imagine invading Rwanda and thus saving millions of Tutsis/Hutus from slaughter. I wonder what you think "necessary" means. Whether you think invasions are necessary for humanitarian purposes, or other... (economic? Hegemonic? Please do tell what your reason for necessary is).

But sure, stupid idiot Conservatives and stupid idiot Liberals can be equally stupid, and equally kill hundreds of thousands in unnecessary wars. Great job, warmonger typical US person, whether liberal or conservative. **** both of you idiots/amoralists. Liberals for liberal reasons, and Conservatives for fiscal reasons. Are you just daft? How many trillions should we now to spend bring the Sudan to order? Rhodesia? Burma? Now Yemen which we ensured was destroyed? Christ, dumb *** warmongers are so ******* stupid. That they pretend to care about anyone is just the final straw. You don't give a **** about humans not yourself--just admit it.


More likely, you are ignorant of the actual reasons for such things, and rail about them rather than spending some effort informing yourself about the subject. It's terrifically easy to label a decision you don't understand at "stupid". But often, you find that when you gain that understanding, it's not nearly as stupid a decision as you first thought.

And btw, there's actually a lot more history to the whole OBL and Iraq thing than you are probably aware of. OBL was tiffed off at the US and SA because when Iraq first invaded Kuwait back in 1990, OBL offered the use of his Mujahadeem warriors to defend Saudi Arabia from possible Iraq attack. The Saudis chose instead to go with a US lead UN coalition to defend the nation. Which is somewhat of a problem for fundamentalist Muslims since by Islamic law, the sovereignty of the ruling state defending Mecca and Medina is determined by that states ability to defend it within the Muslim world. So using outside forces to defend the nation of SA sent a bad message that OBL (and others) were not happy with. So he left SA and went to Afghanistan to basically fume for a while until everything was over. Sadly, after the initial conflict a cease fire was signed and nothing was resolved. Initially an 18 month cease fire agreement existed, with a set of conditions for Iraq to meet for a formal truce to be signed (at which point, all our troops would leave, right?). But this agreement began in summer of 1991, and expired late in 1992. Sadly, Bush lost re-election to Clinton, which meant that nothing was done when the cease fire agreement expired, and the terms were not met. Much like Obama and his continuing resolutions to push budget choices back further and further, Clinton just let the can get kicked down the road further and further, with no end in sight. Worse, Iraq chose to punish the Kurds in the norther region and the Shiites in the Southern region in retaliation, which lead to the establishment and continual use of no-fly zones to prevent air strikes against the people living there. This began 10 years of stalemate in the region which ended only when Bush 43 finally took action over the eternal failure of Iraq to comply with the terms of the cease fire (which btw, had to do with far more then whether there "were WMDs" in the country), and invaded in 2003.

This stalemate was the straw that broke the camel's back, and OBL began a series of increasingly violent and well planned attacks on US targets as a result. The final result was the 9/11 attacks.


So yes, there is a direct and straight line causal relationship between the failure to resolve the initial gulf war in Iraq and the eventual 9/11 attacks. Lots of choices were made along the way, of course, and we can certainly debate them at length. But again, to just deny that one had anything at all to do with the other is to more or less declare your complete ignorance of the subject.

Edited, Jun 1st 2016 2:54pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#277 Jun 01 2016 at 11:16 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,092 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sure. It's the State Department. There's one obvious name that kinda sits right at the top of that upper management layer, right? This is why there have been hearings and investigations into this for the last couple years. And despite this, we still don't have those names. We don't actually know who made the decision and why.
But you'll just assume it was Hillary, right?

By that logic, Dubya knew of the Twin Towers attack ahead of time and let it happen.


Well. Except that one of those was an actual decision that was made by the State Department while she was in charge of it, and the other is a wild conspiracy theory, sure. Same logic applies... NOT!
Yes, gbaji; poor old GW had never, not even once, been told ahead of 9/11 that a radical group of Muslims were gonna do something nutty with a plane an no Federal agency had the slightest clue about any such thing at all, like, ever.

How deep down the rabbit hole are you, anyway?
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#278 Jun 01 2016 at 11:40 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,092 posts
gbaji wrote:
The 5th amendment prohibits the loss of life without due process by the Federal government. The 14th amendment extends that protection to all persons with regard to state actions as well (you get that someone thought of this stuff over the last few hundred years, right?).
Given that police kill people all the time without due process that argument is kind of, well, weak.
gbaji wrote:
Um... But "babies" are "persons", and thus protected from loss of life without due process.
Seems to me that if states get to regulate themselves that each state is free to decide if a fetus is a "person", no?

ALSO: Given that you and your ilk do not belive that babies (once born) need any federal assistance for food, housing or medicine once their born, do you begin to comprehend why so many think your stance on abortion is such a total pile of hypocrisy? oooooooof course you don't.
gbaji wrote:
In this case though, it was because the activity was taking place in a private residence, and the court ruled (correctly) that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is their own business.
But the interior of a woman body is not private? Interesting train of thought, there, Liberty-man.
gbaji wrote:
I would assume that one's reasons for supporting or opposing a decision to go to war would not be based on whether one is or is not a fiscal conservative. It should be based on other things specific to that choice. If one decides to support the action for war, then he should support funding for it, regardless of whether he is a fiscal conservative or not. You'd certainly not want wasteful spending along the way, but having decided that the war is something that needs to be done, the choice to fund it kinda has to follow right along with that.
Which didn't happen, which is his his point. You're as blind as Bijou.

*EDIT: "Funding" meaning "raising taxes".

gbaji wrote:
The point you're missing is that I might think that public education (for example) is something that should be provided by the government to the people, while *also* opposing funding it at the federal level. Because, as a fiscal conservative, I believe that actions should be taken at the lowest level appropriate, and funding public education isn't on the list of things that I mentioned earlier. So, if we're going to spend money on something, it should be done at the level where "the people" have the most control over it, and the most ability to minimize over spending. That's kind of the root of fiscal conservatism.
So rich local areas get great schools and poor ones get crap schools with no money sharing from the first to the second because...liberty? Is liberty the right answer?

gabji wrote:
A bunch if stuff about Iraq which is mostly correct.
If Bush Sr and his cronies had got it right on the first go-round it's unlikely the rest would have followed. Frankly I blame not him (Bush Sr) so much as the assholes advising him and the businessmen manipulating the situation...incidentally the same advisors and businessmen manipulating Bush Jr. Funny that last bit, eh?


Edited, Jun 2nd 2016 12:59am by Bijou
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#279 Jun 02 2016 at 6:42 AM Rating: Good
***
1,012 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
if you want to find more people to be mad at Turks with, you could always go to Germany. I believe the translation of the unpopular popular opinion is along the lines of "cockroaches who will never be a real part of the EU". But I may not be up to date on my knowledge of dead ideas.


In related news, the Bundestag has voted to recognise the Armenian genocide. Good news for our crusading friend here.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#280 Jun 02 2016 at 8:27 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,121 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
if you want to find more people to be mad at Turks with, you could always go to Germany. I believe the translation of the unpopular popular opinion is along the lines of "cockroaches who will never be a real part of the EU". But I may not be up to date on my knowledge of dead ideas.


In related news, the Bundestag has voted to recognise the Armenian genocide. Good news for our crusading friend here.


Looks like I had an pretty accurate temperature reading. The vote spread is particularly damning, as it appears even the pro genocide politicians thought themselves secure in this vote with their constituents. That's nationalism for you, I guess.

____________________________
Just as Planned.
#281 Jun 02 2016 at 10:19 AM Rating: Good
******
49,059 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Seems to me that if states get to regulate themselves that each state is free to decide if a fetus is a "person", no?
It's not big government intervention if it's something my party wants.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#282 Jun 02 2016 at 10:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,097 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
if you want to find more people to be mad at Turks with, you could always go to Germany. I believe the translation of the unpopular popular opinion is along the lines of "cockroaches who will never be a real part of the EU". But I may not be up to date on my knowledge of dead ideas.


In related news, the Bundestag has voted to recognise the Armenian genocide. Good news for our crusading friend here.
Just as well if we're going to be reading about this for the next 2-6 decades anyway.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#283 Jun 02 2016 at 5:37 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,222 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Seems to me that if states get to regulate themselves that each state is free to decide if a fetus is a "person", no?
It's not big government intervention if it's something my party wants.


Screenshot
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#284 Jun 02 2016 at 6:04 PM Rating: Good
***
1,012 posts
That's some great use of the clone tool, there. A =4 classic.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#285 Jun 03 2016 at 3:47 AM Rating: Default
*
182 posts
I'm sorry that I'm too drunk and lazy to properly reply. You did make or coincidence upon some cogent points. But anyway just on disagreements:

Quote:
The land of the two Holy Mosques is Saudi Arabia. We had troops stationed there because we were maintaining the southern no-fly zone in Iraq. Bill Clinton sat on this status quo in Iraq for the entire 8 years of his presidency, never moving towards a formal truce, even while radicals like OBL got more and more ****** off that we were basically sitting with troops in their holiest country. This interview was in 1998.

That's how Iraq and 9/11 are connected. The attacks literally happened because of Clinton's failure to resolve the conflict in Iraq in a timely manner. We can debate the decision, post 9/11, to resolve it via invasion and removal of Saddam from power, but to say that one had nothing to do with the other is absurd.


OBL/Zawahiri/Al Qaeda didn't give one tin **** about the no-fly zone, or Iraq, or Palestinians (except as leverage or machinating point to potential followers--they are not stupid). Failing to regime-change Iraq had nothing to do with OBL's reasons for being an *******. (you imagine him cheering if that happened and forgetting everything else????) Your conflation here should grant you first prize at a Twister competition.

Quote:
What *is* your point? Do you think that the federal government should have the authority to tell a restaurant owner that he must allow people who have penises to use the women's restroom because they feel like women? Isn't that something that maybe the owner of the restaurant can decide?


Um, no? You're obviously young enough to not remember separate restrooms for blacks and whites (I'm old enough to have only as a young-un just experienced desegregation in Virginia, and I was a lot better for that). Or really care about it, or compare it to today. And I assume if a young female teen showed up to a prom in a tuxedo you'd be all aghast and Oh No. With your fucking plantation monocle.

Neither of us are old enough to have seen say, the Arkansas National Guard forcing segregation. Or the Alabama National Guard forcing integration despite George Wallace. And ever heard of James Meredith? Ever ask yourself whether illogical hatred/scaredy-cat of trans is akin to hatred of black people, or where you might've fit in 60 years ago? About this? Trans allowance may seem silly to you now...would integration have seemed to it you then? I mean obviously you're more likely than most posters here to have seen it silly/no big deal then too. Maybe backed up by beatings and lynchings. Check your ******* self.

Anyway, um, yes, the government should require equal treatment of protected classes. Which trans people are slowly gaining as such by proper court decisions...must be weird to always be behind on progress. I can't even imagine it. I mean, you might be a decent Conservative, but also seem to be an aweul Regressive.

And/or not why only the latest/safest. Why aren't you even now crying against miscegenation? Too long ago and too settled? Might too expose you as a racist? Not enough other ******** like you make this a slightly disputed issue? Jesus. Have you ever been ahead of fellow conservatives on any social issues/rights? If so, please list?


P.S. A LOT of women have transitioned to very butch and scary (to you) men, for example. In your insistence by law, these hairy now-men would only be able to use the female-born restroom. You want Buck Angel to be forced to use a female restroom rather than a male restroom? So much ignorance and "why are you hitting yourself". Not that Buck is a threat to anyone at all, but you and your ilk are just flailing around, without any idea of what a trans person is, even in your oh-so concern.

This trans bathroom kerfuffle is sooooo silly. That you've grabbed onto it is astonishing. You are one kind of conservative, sure. Maybe "lowest hanging fruit"/most ridiculous problem. Not the good kind. Nor with your Iraq War Was Justified. Heh. Oh tell anyone here one single Conservative position of yours that we should all recognize as valuable, logically and ethically. There are a lot, I'm a Conservative on some. But I'm not sure we overlap on which.

P.P.S. the Supremacy Clause also means all Treaties the US enters are binding, no choice. Of which we often ignore, such as the requirement (by various treaties) to prosecute torturers. If you're such a fan of that Clause, then you must demand the prosecution of Bush, and/or anyone in his Admin. You should demand Obama to do so. BOTH. Not one or the other.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2016 5:49am by Palpitus1
#286 Jun 03 2016 at 3:55 AM Rating: Default
*
182 posts
I just managed to fit a proper "fuc*i*g" to Gbaji but I did it wrong. And lord, I used to fit curse words non-stop into Rotten Tomatoes with [ ] stuff. But I think I have alzheimers. That wasn't a good ******************* here. Too much obvious italics. Maybe I should just leave the next computers to the young people.

:heavily weeps:

:while maybe *************
#287 Jun 03 2016 at 4:13 AM Rating: Default
*
182 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
if you want to find more people to be mad at Turks with, you could always go to Germany. I believe the translation of the unpopular popular opinion is along the lines of "cockroaches who will never be a real part of the EU". But I may not be up to date on my knowledge of dead ideas.


In related news, the Bundestag has voted to recognise the Armenian genocide. Good news for our crusading friend here.


Yes, that is good news, as a key member of NATO to do so... but not the most powerful country in the world, whose President as a nominee promised to do so yet never did.

Timeless Lord seems to think this is only done due to German racism against Turks or something (???) [not sure which denial of calling a Genocide a Genocide he's now all about realpolitk or whatever. Glad he's not a council of Merkel though! Or maybe that was just about German films, if so sorry]

Anyway, a positive step.

Hopefully other European nations can call the Armenian Genocide an actual Genocide, without being tainting by doing so by random sub-forum internet people as only doing so due to racism against Turkey. Or cowed by the US-Turkey relation. Maybe also this is a sign that, well, Turkey isn't really a great partner, so no more need to realpolitik? Maybe you can suss us in to that Time Master (you do seem to offer sobering insights). Not every nation is as much a cowardly ***** to their partners as the US is hi btw Saudi Arabia.

Two first ideally kicked out of the EU: Greece, Turkey?

Edited, Jun 3rd 2016 6:25am by Palpitus1
#288 Jun 03 2016 at 4:42 AM Rating: Default
*
182 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
COCKMONGER


NOOICE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQnYi3z56RE
#289 Jun 03 2016 at 6:27 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,121 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
Kavekkk wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
if you want to find more people to be mad at Turks with, you could always go to Germany. I believe the translation of the unpopular popular opinion is along the lines of "cockroaches who will never be a real part of the EU". But I may not be up to date on my knowledge of dead ideas.


In related news, the Bundestag has voted to recognise the Armenian genocide. Good news for our crusading friend here.


Yes, that is good news, as a key member of NATO to do so... but not the most powerful country in the world, whose President as a nominee promised to do so yet never did.

Timeless Lord seems to think this is only done due to German racism against Turks or something (???) [not sure which denial of calling a Genocide a Genocide he's now all about realpolitk or whatever. Glad he's not a council of Merkel though! Or maybe that was just about German films, if so sorry]

Anyway, a positive step.

Hopefully other European nations can call the Armenian Genocide an actual Genocide, without being tainting by doing so by random sub-forum internet people as only doing so due to racism against Turkey. Or cowed by the US-Turkey relation. Maybe also this is a sign that, well, Turkey isn't really a great partner, so no more need to realpolitik? Maybe you can suss us in to that Time Master (you do seem to offer sobering insights). Not every nation is as much a cowardly ***** to their partners as the US is hi btw Saudi Arabia.

Two first ideally kicked out of the EU: Greece, Turkey?

Edited, Jun 3rd 2016 6:25am by Palpitus1


It's not just racism. But racism helps provide political cover for the less progressive politicians. The recognition of the genocide is absolutely the right moral call, I mean it is part of the reason that the word was created (and Germany has been trying regain moral standing ever since WW2). Part of my point though is that there is pragmatic calculus that must be done, If the US waits for conditions to change, what are the negative effects of that ie. the cost of waiting 5, 10, or 20 years on the declaration until there is a more friendly Turkish state, and less strain upon the relationship due to regional conflict and strategic needs.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#291 Jun 03 2016 at 8:09 AM Rating: Good
******
49,059 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
A LOT of women have transitioned to very butch and scary (to you) men
Ha ha, yeah the new Ghostbusters movie does look horrible.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2016 10:10am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#292 Jun 03 2016 at 8:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I always thought those "Do you really want [trans-male person] in the bathroom with your daughter?" images were kind of poorly done. I get what they're trying to say but my first thought is "Are you saying I don't? What do you know about that person that I don't?"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#293 Jun 03 2016 at 8:43 AM Rating: Good
******
49,059 posts
It's okay if the person has made some progress in their transition from one to the other. At least wear a skirt and uncomfortable shoes.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#294 Jun 04 2016 at 1:47 AM Rating: Default
*
182 posts
5, 10, 20.. it's already been 100. And as I insinuated, Turkey is kind of a **** ally. Their current bombing on Syria for example is also half of bombing PKK or any random much more innocent Kurds. Who we've fucked over several times over the last 3 decades despite being more in line with us than Turkey. I may have mentioned that in a prior post, still drunk right now. Also those swamp Iraqis in the first Gulf War. Fucked them over good.

So, sure, all US actions can be seen through the prism of pragmatism, including our horrid support of Saudi Arabia, as (imo) our worst realpolitik partner (well I'd call them that if sowing strife/perpetual war wasn't one our main desires. They're a fantastic ally in that sense, including 9/11.)

But if Hope and Change Obama can't even fulfill an election promise to call it a Genocide, we may be waiting a lot longer still than 20 years. And this isn't just a silly "well if they weren't massacred by Turkey they're dead anyway of old age, so whatev". There are a lot of refugees from that Genocide, and also still some first and second generation descendants. Whose lives were horribly changed. Should we also stop acknowledging slavery, since it ended even 50+ years prior to the Armenian Genocide?

Finally: Sure, I know my hope is idealistic, since all US Presidents are craven. But there are also 500,000-1,500,000 Armenian-Americans, a lot of whom may have voted for Obama in at least a small part due to that promise. Because it's important to them...them whose grandparents may have been killed, them whose parents may have had to escape and rebuild here. Little Armenian children in 2007, eyes above, to a television or an Obama rally, eyes wet from Hope as their mommy and daddy also tear up. "My child, yes, finally".

But now maybe long-haired teens, using drugs and promiscuous, not believing in anything. Have you ever met an Armenian in a crack house? If so ask him or her why they are there. 90% likely it's due to Obama and his lies.

I've met a lot of Armenians in crack houses. I know what's up. Do you dare to take that trip, Time Master?
#295 Jun 04 2016 at 2:01 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,121 posts
We've all been disappointed by Obama. But uh, it would take a very special sort of revanchism to land in a crack house.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#296 Jun 04 2016 at 4:19 AM Rating: Default
*
182 posts
Yeah, sorry about that order for you to visit an Armenian crack house. But that was kind of a funny segue I went with. My only two purposes in life is to bring joy. And second to make POTUS's acknowledge the Armenian Genocide.

The Guarda Revanche is a kickass weapon in Betrayal at Krondor, a computer game. That is the only Revanche I have known. Written by Raymond Feist. I don't know why you want to devalue that sense of the word? Why do you hate computer games? "Revanchism"? Maybe "Galon Griefmaker"-ism your *** too, you sumbich!!

[thanks for the good replies, and new word known]

And those hard to find secret chests, with riddles! Surely that was a good game. You hater.

But seriously, you are a sociopath.
#297 Jun 06 2016 at 3:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,653 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:

By that logic, Dubya knew of the Twin Towers attack ahead of time and let it happen.


Well. Except that one of those was an actual decision that was made by the State Department while she was in charge of it, and the other is a wild conspiracy theory, sure. Same logic applies... NOT!
Yes, gbaji; poor old GW had never, not even once, been told ahead of 9/11 that a radical group of Muslims were gonna do something nutty with a plane an no Federal agency had the slightest clue about any such thing at all, like, ever.


There's an absolutely massive gap between those two things.

In the case of Benghazi, the staff in Libya specifically requested additional security because they believed they were in danger of an attack, and that request was denied. There's nothing remotely close to that level of specificity with regard to the 9/11 attacks.

Quote:
How deep down the rabbit hole are you, anyway?


Um... I'm not the one spouting crazy conspiracy theories about 9/11.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#298 Jun 06 2016 at 5:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,653 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The 5th amendment prohibits the loss of life without due process by the Federal government. The 14th amendment extends that protection to all persons with regard to state actions as well (you get that someone thought of this stuff over the last few hundred years, right?).
Given that police kill people all the time without due process that argument is kind of, well, weak.


You're pivoting from the point though. The question was about a state having a law making it legal to kill babies and whether the federal government should intervene and override that law, and more to the point whether the federal government has the authority to do so. The amendments I listed give the federal government that authority. The decisions of a police officer in the midst of an encounter with someone is an entirely different scenario that has zero bearing on that question.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... But "babies" are "persons", and thus protected from loss of life without due process.
Seems to me that if states get to regulate themselves that each state is free to decide if a fetus is a "person", no?


Sure. Why not? Again, I think we're arguing different things. You're arguing based on outcomes you agree or disagree with. I'm arguing about the legal process by which those outcomes are derived. Currently, there is no constitutional definition of "person". The closest we have is the Fourteenth amendment, which speaks of "persons born or naturalized within the United States ... are citizens of the United States", and thus establishes that someone is a person if they have been born. The law does not technically state if personhood begins prior to that point and only citizenship occurs when a "person" is born. That's honestly a subject for the courts to manage though.

But yes, in the absence of clear federal law establishing this, then it falls to the states to do so legislatively. Of course, the court system can decide that said law isn't constitutional, but that's a matter of interpretation of the law, and not something clearly stated within. I'll point out again that you seem to be thinking that I have some personal stake in the outcome and am arguing a position for that reason. I'm not. I'm looking at what the law actually says and applying it. You might actually want to read the Roe v. Wade decision and gain some insights as to what the court thinks in terms of rights and fetuses though. You would find it educational I think.

Quote:
ALSO: Given that you and your ilk do not belive that babies (once born) need any federal assistance for food, housing or medicine once their born, do you begin to comprehend why so many think your stance on abortion is such a total pile of hypocrisy? oooooooof course you don't.


I think you don't have a clue what my stance on abortion is. I think you're also still applying the outcome based logic rather than methodological based. You want babies to be fed, thus anything that prevents something which might feed babies is "anti-baby". You also view abortion as "anti-baby", thus you see hypocrisy on the part of a conservatives who opposes abortion but also opposes federal food stamp programs. You're mistake is in thinking that conservatives view this as being "for or against" a given group (babies in this case).

That's not how we look at things. I know for a fact I've explained this to you like a dozen times in the past, but it seems as though you still don't understand what I'm talking about. A conservative does not oppose federal funding for food stamp programs because he wants people to go hungry. He opposes it because he believes that's the wrong part of our system in which such things should be funded. Period. I get that you don't want to believe this and would rather paint everything in the context of a simplistic moral "for/against" narrative, but that's why you will eternally fail to understand the conservative mind.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
In this case though, it was because the activity was taking place in a private residence, and the court ruled (correctly) that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is their own business.
But the interior of a woman body is not private? Interesting train of thought, there, Liberty-man.


Huh? You missed the forest there. Could you please show me where the fetus is consenting to being aborted? No? Then it's not as simple as two adults engaging in consensual activities in a private residence.

Quote:
Which didn't happen, which is his his point. You're as blind as Bijou.

*EDIT: "Funding" meaning "raising taxes".


No. Funding means funding. As in paying for the thing you're doing. Which absolutely did happen. How the money used to pay for it is obtained is a whole different question. I do find it odd that you seem to think that the only way is to "raise taxes". We could have an entire discussion just on what that one phrase actually means though. So. If I don't raise the tax rates at all, but due to economic growth, the total amount of tax revenue increases, did I "raise taxes"? I got more money to pay for things (that's "funding" in case you're confused), but I didn't "raise taxes".

You do get that conservatives believe that low tax rates tend to increase economic growth and thus generate more tax revenue over time, right? It's that whole Laffer curve thing. So it's not hypocritical when conservatives do not raise tax rates even when increasing spending on something (as long as spending is moderate). It is, in fact, completely consistent with conservative economic theory. You're free to disagree with that theory, but you can't call someone a hypocrite for consistently following their own ideology.

The fact is that despite spending money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the total public debt of the US as a percentage of GDP stayed quite steady within a few percentage points for the first 7 years of Bush's administration (which, in case you weren't paying attention was when we were spending the most money on those wars). It was only because of the housing bubble crash that our debt started to skyrocket. And that got much much worse when Obama got into office and started spending money like a kid with his parents credit card.

The claim that the wars were "unfunded" is a complete and utter myth.

Quote:
So rich local areas get great schools and poor ones get crap schools with no money sharing from the first to the second because...liberty? Is liberty the right answer?


Um... That's how it is right now. Go take a gander at the difference between a public school in the rich neighborhood of your town and one in the poor neighborhood. Huge difference, right? So all the big state and federal education programs and shuffling around of dollars hasn't corrected this problem at all. You know what might? Maybe if the principles in those poor neighborhoods had more decision making power? Maybe if so many of the dollars they receive didn't come with strings attached that require them to spend those dollars in ways that are completely absurd and counter productive for the specific conditions of his school, he could make better choices and make the school better? And maybe, if dollars weren't attached to such "one size fits all" programs and were instead attached to vouchers spent by the parents of the children attending the school, he'd have his hands untied and a massive incentive to actually make his school work. And maybe those parents would actually have some say in the decisions made at the school their children attend. You know, like how the parents in the wealthy areas do? Heaven forbid we actually even the playing field a bit here.

So yeah. Liberty. When you give people the power to make their own choices and then hold them responsible for those choices, they tend to actually make better choices than when they are forced to do what some other authority thinks is best. I know, this flies in the face of the liberal mindset, but oddly enough, it's actually true most of the time. Some people will make poor choices no matter what, but here's the funny thing. That group will tend to find ways to make poor choices no matter how much you try to force them otherwise. But along the way to attempting to use increasingly authoritarian methods to force positive outcomes, you totally hose over a much larger group of people.

Classic example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Quote:
If Bush Sr and his cronies had got it right on the first go-round it's unlikely the rest would have followed. Frankly I blame not him (Bush Sr) so much as the assholes advising him and the businessmen manipulating the situation...incidentally the same advisors and businessmen manipulating Bush Jr. Funny that last bit, eh?


I'm not sure what sort of conspiracy theory you're spinning now, but do you honestly think those factors and forces are any less present under any other administration and in the context of any other decision? Obsessing over "manipulation by big business" only in one aspect of government is myopic to the extreme. You don't honestly think the same sort of corrupt influence doesn't occur in say health care, or housing, or education, or frankly anything that government might be involved in? I would hope you can see that this is a constant in anything that government does. So its presence should not be a consideration when looking at what level of government should be doing what.

Specifically, in the context of a discussion about federal spending on the military versus federal spending on foodstamps or public education or health care, that factor is a wash. We should only consider the earlier point I made about whether said spending *must* be done at the federal level. And, as I mentioned earlier, maintaining a military is actually one of the few things that our federal government is required to do. Providing people with food, education, health care, or housing is *not*. Countering that with vague comments about possible business influence is meaningless to that question.


Oh. And I'll also point out that the biggest mistake Bush made with regard to Iraq was failing to win reelection. Had he done so, it's almost certain he would have continued the process with Iraq. It was Clinton taking office and not really caring about the middle east that put the whole thing on the back burner for 8 years. And I would argue that was the single largest contributing factor to the rise of Al Queda as a major terrorist organization and the 9/11 attacks specifically. You kinda can't blame Bush for failing to enforce the terms of a cease fire agreement which were not yet violated when he lost reelection. It was up to whomever won the 1992 election to decide what to do about Iraq's lack of compliance. And Bush didn't win that election. Clinton did. Thus, the blame for the resulting lack of action falls squarely on his shoulders.

To be fair, we could also talk about his decision not to topple Iraq at the time. But that's a whole topic of itself. Again though, the rise of OBL as an opponent of the US didn't come about because of that decision, but the later decision to keep troops in SA for a decade or so with no end in sight. There was plenty of time to have made a correction in our policy with regard to Iraq which would have averted 9/11. But that "time" occurred during Clinton's administration, not Bush's.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#299 Jun 06 2016 at 6:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,653 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
Quote:
The land of the two Holy Mosques is Saudi Arabia. We had troops stationed there because we were maintaining the southern no-fly zone in Iraq. Bill Clinton sat on this status quo in Iraq for the entire 8 years of his presidency, never moving towards a formal truce, even while radicals like OBL got more and more ****** off that we were basically sitting with troops in their holiest country. This interview was in 1998.

That's how Iraq and 9/11 are connected. The attacks literally happened because of Clinton's failure to resolve the conflict in Iraq in a timely manner. We can debate the decision, post 9/11, to resolve it via invasion and removal of Saddam from power, but to say that one had nothing to do with the other is absurd.


OBL/Zawahiri/Al Qaeda didn't give one tin **** about the no-fly zone, or Iraq, or Palestinians (except as leverage or machinating point to potential followers--they are not stupid). Failing to regime-change Iraq had nothing to do with OBL's reasons for being an *******. (you imagine him cheering if that happened and forgetting everything else????) Your conflation here should grant you first prize at a Twister competition.


Did you even bother to read what you just quoted? You're correct that OBL didn't care about the no-fly zones, but he did care that the personnel operating them were stationed in Saudi Arabia and stayed stationed there with no clear end to what he considered a condition that grossly violated his beliefs. That's why 9/11 happened. Period. The US had troops stationed in SA.

Why did we have troops stationed in SA? Because, instead of resolving the situation in Iraq, Clinton chose to just ignore it and maintain a status quo of inspections and no-fly zones, complete with said troops stationed in SA. And sure, we could speculate a ton of possible choices which could have maintained said status quo while also not requiring troops in SA, and thus removing the connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, but those weren't things that actually happened. In the real history of the world, those troops remained there, that ****** off OBL, and that caused 9/11 to happen.

Quote:
Quote:
What *is* your point? Do you think that the federal government should have the authority to tell a restaurant owner that he must allow people who have penises to use the women's restroom because they feel like women? Isn't that something that maybe the owner of the restaurant can decide?


... <ridiculous comparison of trans use of a bathroom to racial segregation> ...

Anyway, um, yes, the government should require equal treatment of protected classes. Which trans people are slowly gaining as such by proper court decisions...must be weird to always be behind on progress. I can't even imagine it. I mean, you might be a decent Conservative, but also seem to be an aweul Regressive.


Great. What exactly does "equal treatment" mean though? Heck. Let's ask another question: Why do we have separate bathrooms at all? What purpose does this serve? Now, ask yourself why, in that context, it might make zero sense to have bathrooms segregated based on skin color, while making perfect sense to segregate them based on the genitalia of the people using them.

Quote:
And/or not why only the latest/safest. Why aren't you even now crying against miscegenation? Too long ago and too settled? Might too expose you as a racist? Not enough other ******** like you make this a slightly disputed issue? Jesus. Have you ever been ahead of fellow conservatives on any social issues/rights? If so, please list?


Huh? I honestly have no clue what you're rambling on about. For me, this is incredibly simple. We have two bathrooms. One of them is for people who have penises. The other is for people who have vaginas. It's literally why there are two different bathrooms in the first place. I don't care how someone is dressed, or what they feel like on the inside. They should use the bathroom that corresponds to their equipment. Period.

We can debate why this is the case if you want, but it really does have nothing at all to do with an active desire to oppress trans people. It has a lot more to do with established norms in our society with regard to allowing people with different equipment to be in close proximity to each other whilst engaged in certain activities like showering, dressing, urinating, etc. You can't really make the trans argument here without more or less challenging that entire social norm. Trying to distill it down to that one trans kid feeling uncomfortable or unsafe is a gross simplification of the issue. How about how uncomfortable or unsafe the other 99.9% of girls will feel if they have to shower in a room with a guy? What about gym class? So everyone changes into their gym shorts and t-shirts in the same room now? Do you get that barring the construction of private dressing rooms and bathrooms and showers for every single student in a school, you can't ever accommodate the needs of a trans student.

And as to a semi-public place, like a restaurant, why is this any business of the government's? Again, the safety of the restaurants costumers lies far more in making sure that someone isn't concerned about someone of the opposite *** walking in on them while they're doing their business than making a trans person feel a bit better about themselves.

I'll ask, because I always do and no one seems to have a good answer. Assuming two shared use restrooms, how exactly should the restaurant change it's use policy which will make a trans person more comfortable? Isn't that the problem here? Other than creating the issue to use to attack the "heartless and unfeeling" conservatives, what exactly do you propose we do? Remember that not all transsexuals are also transvestites. Most aren't, in fact. Do you honestly think that the trans boy, who has the equipment of a girl and looks like a girl to everyone around him/her is going to be more comfortable using the men's restroom? How about the trans girl in the other direction?

It's a problem that doesn't have a solution. We conservatives are just smart enough to realize this right off the bat and thus not spend much time trying to "solve" it.

Quote:
P.S. A LOT of women have transitioned to very butch and scary (to you) men, for example. In your insistence by law, these hairy now-men would only be able to use the female-born restroom. You want Buck Angel to be forced to use a female restroom rather than a male restroom? So much ignorance and "why are you hitting yourself". Not that Buck is a threat to anyone at all, but you and your ilk are just flailing around, without any idea of what a trans person is, even in your oh-so concern.


Huh? Yeah. I know a number of butch women. They tend to think of themselves as women though and would never in a million years use the men's room. Not because of a desire to conform but because they're, you know... women. Might be lesbians. Might just like the style. I'm not sure what your point is here. Is it hurting a butch woman to use the women's restroom at all? I'm not sure how.

Quote:
This trans bathroom kerfuffle is sooooo silly. That you've grabbed onto it is astonishing. You are one kind of conservative, sure. Maybe "lowest hanging fruit"/most ridiculous problem. Not the good kind. Nor with your Iraq War Was Justified. Heh. Oh tell anyone here one single Conservative position of yours that we should all recognize as valuable, logically and ethically. There are a lot, I'm a Conservative on some. But I'm not sure we overlap on which.


Um... It's not we conservatives who have grabbed onto it. We think it's silly. We think it's a non-issue. But that hasn't stopped liberals from pushing the issue, filing lawsuits for discrimination, trying to force schools to change policies, etc. We're the ones saying "this is dumb", and being bashed for apparently not caring enough about the needs of trans people. Again, I'm still waiting for someone to provide a solution which would solve the problem though. This is a totally made up issue. Made up entirely to be as absurd as possible, knowing conservatives will point out how absurd it is, and knowing that they can use this to paint conservatives in a poor light.

Give me a solution. Don't just blame me for not caring about the problem. Can you do this? Can anyone?

Quote:
P.P.S. the Supremacy Clause also means all Treaties the US enters are binding, no choice. Of which we often ignore, such as the requirement (by various treaties) to prosecute torturers. If you're such a fan of that Clause, then you must demand the prosecution of Bush, and/or anyone in his Admin. You should demand Obama to do so. BOTH. Not one or the other.


And? What's your point? Are you aware that the UN has a commission that determines what things are and are not torture? Are you aware that the US has complied with the findings of said commission? So you're basically arguing that we should prosecute someone for violating a law that they didn't actually violate, but because you are ignorant of the law, of the actions taken, and more or less just want an outcome and are ignoring the facts of the issue in order to demand it.

Maybe actually educate yourself on the issue first. Laws and court systems exist for a reason. They exist so that we don't just rush out and condemn people to mob justice, but rather have a consistent and objective means to determine what is and isn't legal, and then to determine whether some action taken violates that law. You just want the "law" to be whatever you want it to be to punish people you don't like.

Um... Which is a really terrible system if you stop and think about it.

Edited, Jun 6th 2016 5:21pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#300 Jun 06 2016 at 6:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,653 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
It's okay if the person has made some progress in their transition from one to the other. At least wear a skirt and uncomfortable shoes.


The problem is that transsexual and transgender are not the same thing. The second term exists specifically to define people who are not externally any different from others with the same equipment (well, not much usually), but feel different "on the inside". Which is frankly ridiculous in the context of bathroom use, which concerns itself solely with the equipment and nothing else.

A coworker of mine has a 15 year old niece who just recently announced that she was transgender, complete with wanting to be called "him/he" and a new male name. I asked my coworker what this meant exactly. Does she (he?) dress like a guy? No. Is she dating girls? No, but apparently, she's bi, but then again, doesn't have a boyfriend or girlfriend, so no one's really sure how that's shaking out (I have no issues with that to be honest). Um... So what exactly is she declaring? No one really had an answer for this question. It's an identity thing, I guess, but it almost seems more like a trend that teens think will make them special snowflakes or something, but didn't seem to have any real purpose or meaning.

Is there any reason why she should be using the boys restroom in school? Assuming we think she should, what about all the boys in said restroom? What about the girls in the girls restroom forced to allow a boy, who appears to be male, acts male, does male things, but has declared himself to be female to use the same restroom with them? How about showers? Gym class?

I'm not sure how we solve this problem. Heck. I'm not even sure what the problem is. I also think it's a step backwards in our gender identity. I thought the point was that we should not apply arbitrary social pressures to force people into different molds based on their equipment. A woman should be free to do what she wants, pursue whatever career she wants, wear what she wants, be the breadwinner instead of the childcare provider, etc and the same for men in reverse. But this whole thing seems aimed at enforcing those gender roles, and instead saying that you must change your gender identity to match your role. So if you like to run around and play sports, well, I guess you're a boy and not a girl. If you like to play with dolls, you're a girl and not a boy.

Can't we just be ok with girls who like to play sports and boys who like to play with dolls? Just seems like this is the totally wrong way to go with this. The whole thing depends on firm social gender roles, which is something we should be moving away from. Heck. Way back in the 40s women put on work clothes and gloves and built tanks and planes for the war effort. No one thought they had to cease to be women in order to do that. Yet now? We've "progressed" backwards IMO.

It's just a really really really dumb issue.

Edited, Jun 6th 2016 5:40pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#301 Jun 06 2016 at 8:21 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,092 posts
gbaji wrote:
You're arguing based on outcomes you agree or disagree with.
Seems you forgot my stance on abortion, there, buddy-roo.
gbaji wrote:
A conservative does not oppose federal funding for food stamp programs because he wants people to go hungry. He opposes it because he believes that's the wrong part of our system in which such things should be funded.
Yes, I get your position. It's "money is more important than people". It's a morally bankrupt stance, but you are consistent about it.
gbaji wrote:
No. Funding means funding. As in paying for the thing you're doing. Which absolutely did happen. How the money used to pay for it is obtained is a whole different question. I do find it odd that you seem to think that the only way is to "raise taxes". We could have an entire discussion just on what that one phrase actually means though. So. If I don't raise the tax rates at all, but due to economic growth, the total amount of tax revenue increases, did I "raise taxes"? I got more money to pay for things (that's "funding" in case you're confused), but I didn't "raise taxes".
Robbing from Peter to pay Paul is fiscally unsound.
gbaji wrote:
So it's not hypocritical when conservatives do not raise tax rates even when increasing spending on something (as long as spending is moderate). It is, in fact, completely consistent with conservative economic theory. You're free to disagree with that theory, but you can't call someone a hypocrite for consistently following their own ideology.
You clearly don't really understand traditional GOP fiscal theory.
gbaji wrote:
The claim that the wars were "unfunded" is a complete and utter myth.
Not "unfunded"...improperly funded.
gbaji wrote:
bijou wrote:
]So rich local areas get great schools and poor ones get crap schools with no money sharing from the first to the second because...liberty? Is liberty the right answer?
Um... That's how it is right now.
Not where I live.
gbaji wrote:
So yeah. Liberty. When you give people the power to make their own choices and then hold them responsible for those choices, they tend to actually make better choices than when they are forced to do what some other authority thinks is best.
Unless that choice is abortion, then interference from authority is justified.Smiley: rolleyes
gbaji wrote:
I'm not sure what sort of conspiracy theory you're spinning now, but do you honestly think those factors and forces are any less present under any other administration
I'll give you a few minutes (or hours or days) to take a look at the staffs of all US GOP presidents going back to Nixon ans see if a few faces keep reappearing. I'll wait.
gbaji wrote:
To be fair, we could also talk about his decision not to topple Iraq at the time. But that's a whole topic of itself..
Since everything else followed, it kind of is the topic.

I honestly thought your grasp of history could not slip anymore than it has in the past. I admit I was wrong on that assumption.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 62 All times are in CDT
Jophiel, Samira, stupidmonkey, Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (58)