US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1265

On September 02 2014 15:24 IgnE wrote:
I'm not really sure what you are saying, or if you understand what I am saying. This isn't about what people call themselves.

On September 02 2014 13:08 Millitron wrote:
Cant we all agree that given the chance, both conservatives and liberals will pull authoritarian bullshit?

CROWLEY: Let me ask you about this, as you well know the president has not wanted to provide lethal weapons to Ukraine. He said, obviously, time after time this is not going to be solved in a military way.

Now, I think Russia probably thinks it can be solved in a military way. What do you think of the president's rationale right now for withholding weaponry and by that I mean lethal weaponry to Ukraine and can it stand?

MENENDEZ: Well, I think that was his initial assessment. And there are those in Europe and elsewhere who says, you know, we don't want to provoke Putin. Well, Putin doesn't need provocation. In this case weakness is a greater provocation for Putin act than strike.

And Putin only understands two things and that's strength either because of the economic consequences that we can levy upon Russia and hopefully the European Union will move with us into more significant sectoral sanctions. And also the costs to Russians as they send their sons and daughters back in body bags to Russia and Russian mothers say, what is happening here?

And that will come if the Ukrainians have the wherewithal - they are more than willing to fight and they've showed a tremendous resilience. They've also showed a lot of restraint but it's at a point where a - Russia has come, invaded with thousands of troops, with missiles, with tanks. This is no longer the question of some rebel separatists, this is a direct invasion by Russia. And we must recognize it as that. When I read the headlines back at home that suggests rebels are advancing in different parts of eastern Ukraine it's not rebels it's Russian soldiers.

Americans were thrilled by our decision to exit Iraq when we did, but support for that decision is dropping. In October 2011, Gallup asked poll respondents if they approved or disapproved of Obama’s decision that year to “withdraw nearly all United States troops from Iraq.” Seventy-five percent said they approved. In June of this year, the approval rate had fallen to 61 percent.

Yet 57 percent still believe that it was a mistake to send troops to fight in Iraq in the first place.

Now, Republicans are beginning to pull out the big gun — 9/11 — to further scare the public into supporting more action. Senator Lindsey Graham has said on Fox News that we must act to “stop another 9/11,” possibly a larger one, and Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen has warned, “Sadly, we’re getting back to a pre-9/11 mentality, and that’s very dangerous.”

Fear is in the air. The president is trying to take a deliberative approach, but he may be drowned out by the drums of war and the chants for blood.

On September 02 2014 16:18 IgnE wrote:
My assertion is in line with normal understanding of what a conservative impulse is. It's kind of bewildering that you are challenging the prima facie case actually. As if it were unusual for self-described conservatives (e.g. Alex Jones) to sometimes strongly value something like civil rights. Do you not think a preference for hierarchy and support for police is essentially a conservative impulse? That vengeance and security are more highly valued than abstract rights like freedom of movement and speech? I mean what are you even arguing about here? My original comment was directed to Danglars's and jonny's ridiculous assignation of a 9pm curfew to the encroachment of a "liberal" Nanny State that "knows best." As if it weren't motivated from a desire for order, but instead out of some tyrannically benevolent state prescription for good living.

And can we just give up the pretense that anyone who isn't a conservative can't truly have any insight into what conservatism is? It's tiresome.

On September 02 2014 16:53 Introvert wrote:


Oh, it's possible to have insight.

I've written out a couple ways to address this, but I don't find any of them satisfactory or clear, ugh.

I'll just say that the language you use in that paragraph displays that you do not, in fact really know a whole lot about conservatism outside of that narrow framework you're so often using. From the comment on civil rights to using the word "vengeance," it's abundantly clear that you view it from a distinct perspective, though not an uncommon one. Hence your confusion on "normal understanding."

Actually, I think picking Alex Jones as your example is demonstrative of what I'm saying. (Note: this isn't a denial of his "conservatism." The kind laced with the sweet conspiracy frosting!)

On September 02 2014 17:23 IgnE wrote:


Oh please. Now you take issue with my language because you don't actually have a sensical point to make. You can restate what I said if it makes you feel better, and I might even agree. Would you prefer that I had picked Charles Krauthammer or David Brooks or Ron Paul or Rothbard or someone else? I picked Alex Jones because he was an extreme example of someone who has anarchist tendencies that conflict with basic conservative impulses. It has nothing to do with his conspiracy nuttery. You know it's possible that the sense in which I have been using "conservative" in the last two pages isn't the same one that you might use for different purposes. Is that the problem here? Are you just being overzealous in defending true "conservatism" from alternate usages in overlapping domains? All that is clear to me is that you think unless someone speaks in reverential tones of the beliefs you hold dear he couldn't possibly understand them.

On September 02 2014 13:08 Millitron wrote:
Cant we all agree that given the chance, both conservatives and liberals will pull authoritarian bullshit?

On September 02 2014 16:17 coverpunch wrote:
Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told CNN that Russia is invading and the US should provide defensive weapons to Ukraine:


Republicans are also stating publicly that they want the US to provide intelligence and support to Ukraine. John McCain, who has called for military action on every other foreign policy crisis, is predictably calling for military action here too.

On a more cautious note, Charles Blow has a NYT op-ed accusing hawks and right-wingers of pushing Obama into a war he doesn't want against ISIS. Given that there are over a thousand US soldiers in Iraq (in non-combat advisory or security roles, if you believe the White House's insistence) and the US has launched dozens of sorties against ISIS targets, it's pretty late to be saying the US shouldn't get involved.

On September 02 2014 07:13 Simberto wrote:
Also, i love how people have no problem with nuclear power when noone in the world has any idea where to store the waste yet "Yeah, we'll just put it into these boxes in a warehouse, someone else in 20 years is gonna have to solve the problem, but it's not me, so who cares."

On September 02 2014 23:12 BillGates wrote:
Here is a great documentary about Obama and for all of those who still believe that Obama is Jesus in the second coming, its created by Alex Jones a great American patriot and one of the most informed and well read people in all of the USA.

These are the type of Americana the USA needs more of, who don't just believe in unicorns that the government tells them are real.

http://youtu.be/lq4CcCOmlGA

On September 02 2014 20:48 Saryph wrote:
Reading the last few pages I feel that at any moment some of the posters will begin debating whether broccoli is a republican or democrat food.



It really is frustrating how few politicians or shows are willing to bring up the problem in the Ukraine. It has been going on for almost a year now. I guess it is too risky to discuss, so it will just be ignored in the public forum.

On September 02 2014 18:16 Danglars wrote:
With the left steaming further leftward, there will be widespread agreement between libertarians and conservatives.

On September 03 2014 00:12 sc2isnotdying wrote:


Great documentary?

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/alex-jones/the-obama-deception/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Obama_Deception

On September 02 2014 23:12 BillGates wrote:
Here is a great documentary about Obama and for all of those who still believe that Obama is Jesus in the second coming, its created by Alex Jones a great American patriot and one of the most informed and well read people in all of the USA.

These are the type of Americana the USA needs more of, who don't just believe in unicorns that the government tells them are real.

http://youtu.be/lq4CcCOmlGA

On September 02 2014 10:57 xDaunt wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out why people are discussing whether what the Bush administration did was "legal" as if it actually meant something. International law is a pretty big joke in the grand scheme of things. There are at least half a dozen active conflicts going on right now where atrocities or other "illegalities" are being committed. I don't see any of these perpetrators quaking with fear over the consequences of international law.

On September 03 2014 00:42 BillGates wrote:

I find it great and I think people can make their own minds up, without following your disinformation propaganda links.

If you still believe Obama is the second coming of Christ and that he's a great guy, that is your problem!

Two Tennessee state senators joined the conservative charge against the new framework for the AP U.S. History Exam last week, urging the state to review the new version of the test, The Tennessean reported.

Conservatives claim that the new framework for the exam leaves out key historical figures and events, such as the founding fathers and important military commanders.

The Republican National Committee in August voted to condemn the new framework and the College Board's "radically revisionist view of American history that emphasizes negative aspects of our nation's history while omitting or minimizing positive aspects."

From there, conservative pushback has snowballed. Last week, the National Review suggested that the new exam was the result of "a movement of left-leaning historians that aims to 'internationalize' the teaching of American history."

Republican state Senators Dolores Gresham (pictured above) and Mike Bell asked the Tennessee State Board of Education to review the materials required for the course and the new framework.

"There are many concerns with the new APUSH framework, not the least of which is that it pushes a revisionist interpretation of historical facts," Gresham said in a statement, according to The Tennessean. "The items listed as required knowledge have some inclusions which are agenda-driven, while leaving out basic facts that are very important to our nation's history."

The deputy director for the state board of education, David Sevier, said that the board will likely take up the review.