|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 15 2017 04:43 Sermokala wrote:
When you say that the Tea party and conservatives in general want to repeal the 14th amendment you have to admit that the part about slavery is implied. Just say that the tea party wants to repeal birthright citizenship and naturalization.
And by that same note, it is impossible to ignore the racist subtext in any push to changing birthright citizenship. It is the unifying trait that almost all American share, that our families immigrated here or were granted citizenship after the civil war. There is no crisis that even comes close to justifying a push to remove it.
|
On August 15 2017 03:38 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 03:31 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:14 frazzle wrote:On August 15 2017 03:09 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:03 Wulfey_LA wrote:
"But there aren't many KKK/Nazis/out and out racist marchers" is not a defense here. The objects of all these rallies and debates and violence are Confederate monuments across the country. The questions about the legacy of the Civil War in this country affect everyone, even if only a relatively small population is being racist and violent about it. The Civil War cost ~500,000 American lives and brought about a complete rewriting of our Constitution (yes, those new amendments changed the whole thing). Should we have statues dedicated to treasonous slavers and white supremacists on government property? This is a universally important question. No complaining about scale gets you out of that question. What amendments and why was it a "complete rewriting of our constitution?" One of the more absurd assertions from you (yes yes it's true) that should rank with a Trump supporter's "he's delivered on all his campaign promises up to today." It may be an overstatement to say it was a complete rewrite, but I think it is generally understood to be more or less true. The 14th amendment changed a lot. The civil war changed society while the constitution hummed along, by and large. Right. The United States would not be a modern state without the 14th amendment. But I don't know, maybe it was just some words.
I'm just trying to counter this extreme notion that the document got a substantial rewrite from the war. It survived, we still elect presidents the same way, the first amendment didn't get a second-round edit, the means of passing amendments remains unchanged. Don't jettison everything we know about the constitution and substantial debatable areas because someone just claims 13-15 "changed the whole thing."
Also, it's the separation of powers and a state agreement of how to get along federally and with other countries from the 1780s, not the underlying society. I think that's an important distinction, even if you want to convolute the discussion with some notion of the "modern state."
|
Don't believe I've seen a peep about this.....
'Out for blood': Man arrested in plan to bomb Oklahoma bank
A 23-year-old man who was "out for blood" when attempted to detonate what he believed was an explosives-laden van outside an Oklahoma bank in a plot similar to the deadly 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building is expected to be formally charged Monday, authorities said.
Federal officials said Jerry Drake Varnell of Sayre, Oklahoma, was arrested early Saturday in connection with a plot to detonate a vehicle bomb in an alley adjacent to BancFirst in downtown Oklahoma City. Varnell was scheduled to appear in federal court later Monday on a charge of attempting to use explosives to destroy a building in interstate commerce. Court records do not indicate whether Varnell is represented by an attorney.
A federal complaint filed on Sunday says a confidential informant told the FBI in December that Varnell wanted to blow up a building and "that Varnell was upset with the government and was seeking retaliation."
....
The complaint also states that Varnell prepared a statement to be posted on Facebook after the explosion which reads in part that the attack was "retaliation against the freedoms that have been taken away from the American people" and "an act done to show the government what the people think of its actions."
If convicted, Varnell faces between five and 20 years in prison.
Source
We don't have an immigrant problem, we've got a white guy problem.
|
On August 15 2017 05:22 OuchyDathurts wrote:Don't believe I've seen a peep about this..... 'Out for blood': Man arrested in plan to bomb Oklahoma bankShow nested quote + A 23-year-old man who was "out for blood" when attempted to detonate what he believed was an explosives-laden van outside an Oklahoma bank in a plot similar to the deadly 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building is expected to be formally charged Monday, authorities said.
Federal officials said Jerry Drake Varnell of Sayre, Oklahoma, was arrested early Saturday in connection with a plot to detonate a vehicle bomb in an alley adjacent to BancFirst in downtown Oklahoma City. Varnell was scheduled to appear in federal court later Monday on a charge of attempting to use explosives to destroy a building in interstate commerce. Court records do not indicate whether Varnell is represented by an attorney.
A federal complaint filed on Sunday says a confidential informant told the FBI in December that Varnell wanted to blow up a building and "that Varnell was upset with the government and was seeking retaliation."
....
The complaint also states that Varnell prepared a statement to be posted on Facebook after the explosion which reads in part that the attack was "retaliation against the freedoms that have been taken away from the American people" and "an act done to show the government what the people think of its actions."
If convicted, Varnell faces between five and 20 years in prison.
SourceWe don't have an immigrant problem, we've got a white guy problem.
And if you want to include foiled plots on the scale of your right-wing extremism, we also have a problem with home-grown Islamist-inspired terrorist plots.
|
On August 15 2017 05:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 03:38 frazzle wrote:On August 15 2017 03:31 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:14 frazzle wrote:On August 15 2017 03:09 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:03 Wulfey_LA wrote:
"But there aren't many KKK/Nazis/out and out racist marchers" is not a defense here. The objects of all these rallies and debates and violence are Confederate monuments across the country. The questions about the legacy of the Civil War in this country affect everyone, even if only a relatively small population is being racist and violent about it. The Civil War cost ~500,000 American lives and brought about a complete rewriting of our Constitution (yes, those new amendments changed the whole thing). Should we have statues dedicated to treasonous slavers and white supremacists on government property? This is a universally important question. No complaining about scale gets you out of that question. What amendments and why was it a "complete rewriting of our constitution?" One of the more absurd assertions from you (yes yes it's true) that should rank with a Trump supporter's "he's delivered on all his campaign promises up to today." It may be an overstatement to say it was a complete rewrite, but I think it is generally understood to be more or less true. The 14th amendment changed a lot. The civil war changed society while the constitution hummed along, by and large. Right. The United States would not be a modern state without the 14th amendment. But I don't know, maybe it was just some words. I'm just trying to counter this extreme notion that the document got a substantial rewrite from the war. It survived, we still elect presidents the same way, the first amendment didn't get a second-round edit, the means of passing amendments remains unchanged. Don't jettison everything we know about the constitution and substantial debatable areas because someone just claims 13-15 "changed the whole thing." Also, it's the separation of powers and a state agreement of how to get along federally and with other countries from the 1780s, not the underlying society. I think that's an important distinction, even if you want to convolute the discussion with some notion of the "modern state."
We should just do package deals. The 14th and 2nd amendments can be changed, but only together. Then we can relearn the concept of compromise.
On August 15 2017 05:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 05:22 OuchyDathurts wrote:Don't believe I've seen a peep about this..... 'Out for blood': Man arrested in plan to bomb Oklahoma bank A 23-year-old man who was "out for blood" when attempted to detonate what he believed was an explosives-laden van outside an Oklahoma bank in a plot similar to the deadly 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building is expected to be formally charged Monday, authorities said.
Federal officials said Jerry Drake Varnell of Sayre, Oklahoma, was arrested early Saturday in connection with a plot to detonate a vehicle bomb in an alley adjacent to BancFirst in downtown Oklahoma City. Varnell was scheduled to appear in federal court later Monday on a charge of attempting to use explosives to destroy a building in interstate commerce. Court records do not indicate whether Varnell is represented by an attorney.
A federal complaint filed on Sunday says a confidential informant told the FBI in December that Varnell wanted to blow up a building and "that Varnell was upset with the government and was seeking retaliation."
....
The complaint also states that Varnell prepared a statement to be posted on Facebook after the explosion which reads in part that the attack was "retaliation against the freedoms that have been taken away from the American people" and "an act done to show the government what the people think of its actions."
If convicted, Varnell faces between five and 20 years in prison.
SourceWe don't have an immigrant problem, we've got a white guy problem. And if you want to include foiled plots on the scale of your right-wing extremism, we also have a problem with home-grown Islamist-inspired terrorist plots.
And those are rarely immigrants. If ever. So his points still stands. Immigrants are not the problem.
|
On August 15 2017 05:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 05:18 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:38 frazzle wrote:On August 15 2017 03:31 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:14 frazzle wrote:On August 15 2017 03:09 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:03 Wulfey_LA wrote:
"But there aren't many KKK/Nazis/out and out racist marchers" is not a defense here. The objects of all these rallies and debates and violence are Confederate monuments across the country. The questions about the legacy of the Civil War in this country affect everyone, even if only a relatively small population is being racist and violent about it. The Civil War cost ~500,000 American lives and brought about a complete rewriting of our Constitution (yes, those new amendments changed the whole thing). Should we have statues dedicated to treasonous slavers and white supremacists on government property? This is a universally important question. No complaining about scale gets you out of that question. What amendments and why was it a "complete rewriting of our constitution?" One of the more absurd assertions from you (yes yes it's true) that should rank with a Trump supporter's "he's delivered on all his campaign promises up to today." It may be an overstatement to say it was a complete rewrite, but I think it is generally understood to be more or less true. The 14th amendment changed a lot. The civil war changed society while the constitution hummed along, by and large. Right. The United States would not be a modern state without the 14th amendment. But I don't know, maybe it was just some words. I'm just trying to counter this extreme notion that the document got a substantial rewrite from the war. It survived, we still elect presidents the same way, the first amendment didn't get a second-round edit, the means of passing amendments remains unchanged. Don't jettison everything we know about the constitution and substantial debatable areas because someone just claims 13-15 "changed the whole thing." Also, it's the separation of powers and a state agreement of how to get along federally and with other countries from the 1780s, not the underlying society. I think that's an important distinction, even if you want to convolute the discussion with some notion of the "modern state." We should just do package deals. The 14th and 2nd amendments can be changed, but only together. Then we can relearn the concept of compromise.
The amendment process is a high hurdle particularly because it should be an enormously popular and supported thing. I think compromise should start with smaller funding bills to bring Congressional oversight to government bureaucracy. All or nothing government shutdown shit hurts compromise, it's just brinkmanship. The funding of the defense department should be well-debated just like the rest.
On your edit: And neither are white people. Which was part of his point.
|
On August 15 2017 05:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 05:22 OuchyDathurts wrote:Don't believe I've seen a peep about this..... 'Out for blood': Man arrested in plan to bomb Oklahoma bank A 23-year-old man who was "out for blood" when attempted to detonate what he believed was an explosives-laden van outside an Oklahoma bank in a plot similar to the deadly 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building is expected to be formally charged Monday, authorities said.
Federal officials said Jerry Drake Varnell of Sayre, Oklahoma, was arrested early Saturday in connection with a plot to detonate a vehicle bomb in an alley adjacent to BancFirst in downtown Oklahoma City. Varnell was scheduled to appear in federal court later Monday on a charge of attempting to use explosives to destroy a building in interstate commerce. Court records do not indicate whether Varnell is represented by an attorney.
A federal complaint filed on Sunday says a confidential informant told the FBI in December that Varnell wanted to blow up a building and "that Varnell was upset with the government and was seeking retaliation."
....
The complaint also states that Varnell prepared a statement to be posted on Facebook after the explosion which reads in part that the attack was "retaliation against the freedoms that have been taken away from the American people" and "an act done to show the government what the people think of its actions."
If convicted, Varnell faces between five and 20 years in prison.
SourceWe don't have an immigrant problem, we've got a white guy problem. And if you want to include foiled plots on the scale of your right-wing extremism, we also have a problem with home-grown Islamist-inspired terrorist plots.
Right wing terrorism is the significant majority of terrorism committed since 9/11 in this country. They managed 3 deaths and an attempted bombing in a weekend. Time to start taking the real problem seriously and stop pointing the finger at the outsider.
|
On August 15 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 05:28 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 05:18 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:38 frazzle wrote:On August 15 2017 03:31 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:14 frazzle wrote:On August 15 2017 03:09 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:03 Wulfey_LA wrote:
"But there aren't many KKK/Nazis/out and out racist marchers" is not a defense here. The objects of all these rallies and debates and violence are Confederate monuments across the country. The questions about the legacy of the Civil War in this country affect everyone, even if only a relatively small population is being racist and violent about it. The Civil War cost ~500,000 American lives and brought about a complete rewriting of our Constitution (yes, those new amendments changed the whole thing). Should we have statues dedicated to treasonous slavers and white supremacists on government property? This is a universally important question. No complaining about scale gets you out of that question. What amendments and why was it a "complete rewriting of our constitution?" One of the more absurd assertions from you (yes yes it's true) that should rank with a Trump supporter's "he's delivered on all his campaign promises up to today." It may be an overstatement to say it was a complete rewrite, but I think it is generally understood to be more or less true. The 14th amendment changed a lot. The civil war changed society while the constitution hummed along, by and large. Right. The United States would not be a modern state without the 14th amendment. But I don't know, maybe it was just some words. I'm just trying to counter this extreme notion that the document got a substantial rewrite from the war. It survived, we still elect presidents the same way, the first amendment didn't get a second-round edit, the means of passing amendments remains unchanged. Don't jettison everything we know about the constitution and substantial debatable areas because someone just claims 13-15 "changed the whole thing." Also, it's the separation of powers and a state agreement of how to get along federally and with other countries from the 1780s, not the underlying society. I think that's an important distinction, even if you want to convolute the discussion with some notion of the "modern state." We should just do package deals. The 14th and 2nd amendments can be changed, but only together. Then we can relearn the concept of compromise. The amendment process is a high hurdle particularly because it should be an enormously popular and supported thing. I think compromise should start with smaller funding bills to bring Congressional oversight to government bureaucracy. All or nothing government shutdown shit hurts compromise, it's just brinkmanship. The funding of the defense department should be well-debated just like the rest. On your edit: And neither are white people. Which was part of his point.
Yeah, but we haven’t really had a protracted 16+ year discussion about white terrorist like we have about Islamic terrorism. Maybe we need to wait until after a massive attack succeeds and then we can get serious.
|
On August 15 2017 05:35 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 05:28 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 05:22 OuchyDathurts wrote:Don't believe I've seen a peep about this..... 'Out for blood': Man arrested in plan to bomb Oklahoma bank A 23-year-old man who was "out for blood" when attempted to detonate what he believed was an explosives-laden van outside an Oklahoma bank in a plot similar to the deadly 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building is expected to be formally charged Monday, authorities said.
Federal officials said Jerry Drake Varnell of Sayre, Oklahoma, was arrested early Saturday in connection with a plot to detonate a vehicle bomb in an alley adjacent to BancFirst in downtown Oklahoma City. Varnell was scheduled to appear in federal court later Monday on a charge of attempting to use explosives to destroy a building in interstate commerce. Court records do not indicate whether Varnell is represented by an attorney.
A federal complaint filed on Sunday says a confidential informant told the FBI in December that Varnell wanted to blow up a building and "that Varnell was upset with the government and was seeking retaliation."
....
The complaint also states that Varnell prepared a statement to be posted on Facebook after the explosion which reads in part that the attack was "retaliation against the freedoms that have been taken away from the American people" and "an act done to show the government what the people think of its actions."
If convicted, Varnell faces between five and 20 years in prison.
SourceWe don't have an immigrant problem, we've got a white guy problem. And if you want to include foiled plots on the scale of your right-wing extremism, we also have a problem with home-grown Islamist-inspired terrorist plots. Right wing terrorism is the significant majority of terrorism committed since 9/11 in this country. They managed 3 deaths and an attempted bombing in a weekend. Time to start taking the real problem seriously and stop pointing the finger at the outsider.
Funny how you should pick post-9/11 as a starting point.
Islamic terrorism still has higher body counts even with your humorous selection bias. So if you're wondering what's more likely to kill you, it's the kind that generally gets reported along with "Allahu Akbar." And if you're a politician, you've lately got more cause for fear from deranged Bernie supporters than the right wing.
And as I was reading on NPR, black nationalists have eight deaths to their name since 2016, and generalized left-wing terrorism is on the rise. Terribly unfortunate for united narratives, I'm afraid.
|
The Free Speech rally in Boston has been canceled. My wife doesn’t need to cancel her plans. Woot.
|
On August 15 2017 05:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 05:28 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 05:18 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:38 frazzle wrote:On August 15 2017 03:31 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:14 frazzle wrote:On August 15 2017 03:09 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:03 Wulfey_LA wrote:
"But there aren't many KKK/Nazis/out and out racist marchers" is not a defense here. The objects of all these rallies and debates and violence are Confederate monuments across the country. The questions about the legacy of the Civil War in this country affect everyone, even if only a relatively small population is being racist and violent about it. The Civil War cost ~500,000 American lives and brought about a complete rewriting of our Constitution (yes, those new amendments changed the whole thing). Should we have statues dedicated to treasonous slavers and white supremacists on government property? This is a universally important question. No complaining about scale gets you out of that question. What amendments and why was it a "complete rewriting of our constitution?" One of the more absurd assertions from you (yes yes it's true) that should rank with a Trump supporter's "he's delivered on all his campaign promises up to today." It may be an overstatement to say it was a complete rewrite, but I think it is generally understood to be more or less true. The 14th amendment changed a lot. The civil war changed society while the constitution hummed along, by and large. Right. The United States would not be a modern state without the 14th amendment. But I don't know, maybe it was just some words. I'm just trying to counter this extreme notion that the document got a substantial rewrite from the war. It survived, we still elect presidents the same way, the first amendment didn't get a second-round edit, the means of passing amendments remains unchanged. Don't jettison everything we know about the constitution and substantial debatable areas because someone just claims 13-15 "changed the whole thing." Also, it's the separation of powers and a state agreement of how to get along federally and with other countries from the 1780s, not the underlying society. I think that's an important distinction, even if you want to convolute the discussion with some notion of the "modern state." We should just do package deals. The 14th and 2nd amendments can be changed, but only together. Then we can relearn the concept of compromise. The amendment process is a high hurdle particularly because it should be an enormously popular and supported thing. I think compromise should start with smaller funding bills to bring Congressional oversight to government bureaucracy. All or nothing government shutdown shit hurts compromise, it's just brinkmanship. The funding of the defense department should be well-debated just like the rest. On your edit: And neither are white people. Which was part of his point. Yeah, but we haven’t really had a protracted 16+ year discussion about white terrorist like we have about Islamic terrorism. Maybe we need to wait until after a massive attack succeeds and then we can get serious.
I think America's more serious about opposing your "white terrorist" angle than Islamic terrorism just in general. The media's in an uproar and there's significant pressure on Trump to more harshly condemn this attacks. If a radical Islamic terrorist did it, you would be talking about how the deaths fit in to overall deaths from drowning in your own bathtub.
|
On August 15 2017 05:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 05:39 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 05:28 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 05:18 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:38 frazzle wrote:On August 15 2017 03:31 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:14 frazzle wrote:On August 15 2017 03:09 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:03 Wulfey_LA wrote:
"But there aren't many KKK/Nazis/out and out racist marchers" is not a defense here. The objects of all these rallies and debates and violence are Confederate monuments across the country. The questions about the legacy of the Civil War in this country affect everyone, even if only a relatively small population is being racist and violent about it. The Civil War cost ~500,000 American lives and brought about a complete rewriting of our Constitution (yes, those new amendments changed the whole thing). Should we have statues dedicated to treasonous slavers and white supremacists on government property? This is a universally important question. No complaining about scale gets you out of that question. What amendments and why was it a "complete rewriting of our constitution?" One of the more absurd assertions from you (yes yes it's true) that should rank with a Trump supporter's "he's delivered on all his campaign promises up to today." It may be an overstatement to say it was a complete rewrite, but I think it is generally understood to be more or less true. The 14th amendment changed a lot. The civil war changed society while the constitution hummed along, by and large. Right. The United States would not be a modern state without the 14th amendment. But I don't know, maybe it was just some words. I'm just trying to counter this extreme notion that the document got a substantial rewrite from the war. It survived, we still elect presidents the same way, the first amendment didn't get a second-round edit, the means of passing amendments remains unchanged. Don't jettison everything we know about the constitution and substantial debatable areas because someone just claims 13-15 "changed the whole thing." Also, it's the separation of powers and a state agreement of how to get along federally and with other countries from the 1780s, not the underlying society. I think that's an important distinction, even if you want to convolute the discussion with some notion of the "modern state." We should just do package deals. The 14th and 2nd amendments can be changed, but only together. Then we can relearn the concept of compromise. The amendment process is a high hurdle particularly because it should be an enormously popular and supported thing. I think compromise should start with smaller funding bills to bring Congressional oversight to government bureaucracy. All or nothing government shutdown shit hurts compromise, it's just brinkmanship. The funding of the defense department should be well-debated just like the rest. On your edit: And neither are white people. Which was part of his point. Yeah, but we haven’t really had a protracted 16+ year discussion about white terrorist like we have about Islamic terrorism. Maybe we need to wait until after a massive attack succeeds and then we can get serious. I think America's more serious about opposing your "white terrorist" angle than Islamic terrorism just in general. The media's in an uproar and there's significant pressure on Trump to more harshly condemn this attacks. If a radical Islamic terrorist did it, you would be talking about how the deaths fit in to overall deaths from drowning in your own bathtub.
Let me know when they spend trillions of dollars on stopping white terrorists then I might think this isn't the dumbest thing posted recently.
|
On August 15 2017 05:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 05:39 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 05:28 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 05:18 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:38 frazzle wrote:On August 15 2017 03:31 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:14 frazzle wrote:On August 15 2017 03:09 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:03 Wulfey_LA wrote:
"But there aren't many KKK/Nazis/out and out racist marchers" is not a defense here. The objects of all these rallies and debates and violence are Confederate monuments across the country. The questions about the legacy of the Civil War in this country affect everyone, even if only a relatively small population is being racist and violent about it. The Civil War cost ~500,000 American lives and brought about a complete rewriting of our Constitution (yes, those new amendments changed the whole thing). Should we have statues dedicated to treasonous slavers and white supremacists on government property? This is a universally important question. No complaining about scale gets you out of that question. What amendments and why was it a "complete rewriting of our constitution?" One of the more absurd assertions from you (yes yes it's true) that should rank with a Trump supporter's "he's delivered on all his campaign promises up to today." It may be an overstatement to say it was a complete rewrite, but I think it is generally understood to be more or less true. The 14th amendment changed a lot. The civil war changed society while the constitution hummed along, by and large. Right. The United States would not be a modern state without the 14th amendment. But I don't know, maybe it was just some words. I'm just trying to counter this extreme notion that the document got a substantial rewrite from the war. It survived, we still elect presidents the same way, the first amendment didn't get a second-round edit, the means of passing amendments remains unchanged. Don't jettison everything we know about the constitution and substantial debatable areas because someone just claims 13-15 "changed the whole thing." Also, it's the separation of powers and a state agreement of how to get along federally and with other countries from the 1780s, not the underlying society. I think that's an important distinction, even if you want to convolute the discussion with some notion of the "modern state." We should just do package deals. The 14th and 2nd amendments can be changed, but only together. Then we can relearn the concept of compromise. The amendment process is a high hurdle particularly because it should be an enormously popular and supported thing. I think compromise should start with smaller funding bills to bring Congressional oversight to government bureaucracy. All or nothing government shutdown shit hurts compromise, it's just brinkmanship. The funding of the defense department should be well-debated just like the rest. On your edit: And neither are white people. Which was part of his point. Yeah, but we haven’t really had a protracted 16+ year discussion about white terrorist like we have about Islamic terrorism. Maybe we need to wait until after a massive attack succeeds and then we can get serious. I think America's more serious about opposing your "white terrorist" angle than Islamic terrorism just in general. The media's in an uproar and there's significant pressure on Trump to more harshly condemn this attacks. If a radical Islamic terrorist did it, you would be talking about how the deaths fit in to overall deaths from drowning in your own bathtub.
Poor right wingers.
Can't even go and Nazi it up for a weekend driving a car into innocents without the media ganging up on them.
|
On August 15 2017 04:47 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 04:43 Sermokala wrote:
When you say that the Tea party and conservatives in general want to repeal the 14th amendment you have to admit that the part about slavery is implied. Just say that the tea party wants to repeal birthright citizenship and naturalization. Wasn't that the 13th amendment though? 14th just made sure about the citizenship part.
It was made in the post civil war landscape to ensure the rights of former slaves during reconstruction and to clarify their position. Distancing the two too much is dishonest at best.
On August 15 2017 04:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 04:43 Sermokala wrote:
When you say that the Tea party and conservatives in general want to repeal the 14th amendment you have to admit that the part about slavery is implied. Just say that the tea party wants to repeal birthright citizenship and naturalization. And by that same note, it is impossible to ignore the racist subtext in any push to changing birthright citizenship. It is the unifying trait that almost all American share, that our families immigrated here or were granted citizenship after the civil war. There is no crisis that even comes close to justifying a push to remove it.
You're mythologizing the immigration process pre WW2 a lot. No one was counting on their children being born in america and that being their way to stay in the country. Immigration turned away tons of people because they were sick or undesirable in some way. And that was well before anyone though of black people as people. I agree there is no crisis to remove it other then the immigration system we have now. getting it changed through ratification is a non angle though getting these same people to agree to a better immigration system is difficult to say the least.
|
Also the institutional threat is on a different level. I mean, Steve Bannon self-described culture warrior and "leninist trying to bring the government down" is basically advising the president of the United States.
The potential for white supremacy is a different one than minority extremism. Islamic terrorism is a security threat and not a political one. I'm not sure if there's a single politically extremist muslim organisation in the US.
|
On August 15 2017 05:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 05:39 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 05:28 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 05:18 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:38 frazzle wrote:On August 15 2017 03:31 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:14 frazzle wrote:On August 15 2017 03:09 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:03 Wulfey_LA wrote:
"But there aren't many KKK/Nazis/out and out racist marchers" is not a defense here. The objects of all these rallies and debates and violence are Confederate monuments across the country. The questions about the legacy of the Civil War in this country affect everyone, even if only a relatively small population is being racist and violent about it. The Civil War cost ~500,000 American lives and brought about a complete rewriting of our Constitution (yes, those new amendments changed the whole thing). Should we have statues dedicated to treasonous slavers and white supremacists on government property? This is a universally important question. No complaining about scale gets you out of that question. What amendments and why was it a "complete rewriting of our constitution?" One of the more absurd assertions from you (yes yes it's true) that should rank with a Trump supporter's "he's delivered on all his campaign promises up to today." It may be an overstatement to say it was a complete rewrite, but I think it is generally understood to be more or less true. The 14th amendment changed a lot. The civil war changed society while the constitution hummed along, by and large. Right. The United States would not be a modern state without the 14th amendment. But I don't know, maybe it was just some words. I'm just trying to counter this extreme notion that the document got a substantial rewrite from the war. It survived, we still elect presidents the same way, the first amendment didn't get a second-round edit, the means of passing amendments remains unchanged. Don't jettison everything we know about the constitution and substantial debatable areas because someone just claims 13-15 "changed the whole thing." Also, it's the separation of powers and a state agreement of how to get along federally and with other countries from the 1780s, not the underlying society. I think that's an important distinction, even if you want to convolute the discussion with some notion of the "modern state." We should just do package deals. The 14th and 2nd amendments can be changed, but only together. Then we can relearn the concept of compromise. The amendment process is a high hurdle particularly because it should be an enormously popular and supported thing. I think compromise should start with smaller funding bills to bring Congressional oversight to government bureaucracy. All or nothing government shutdown shit hurts compromise, it's just brinkmanship. The funding of the defense department should be well-debated just like the rest. On your edit: And neither are white people. Which was part of his point. Yeah, but we haven’t really had a protracted 16+ year discussion about white terrorist like we have about Islamic terrorism. Maybe we need to wait until after a massive attack succeeds and then we can get serious. I think America's more serious about opposing your "white terrorist" angle than Islamic terrorism just in general. The media's in an uproar and there's significant pressure on Trump to more harshly condemn this attacks. If a radical Islamic terrorist did it, you would be talking about how the deaths fit in to overall deaths from drowning in your own bathtub.
It isn’t my “white terrorism”. I didn’t decide that we were going to start dividing up terrorist into categories to be sorted by religion and skin color. That narrative belongs solely to the people who demanded we use Islamic Terrorism, because simple terrorism wasn’t good enough. But now I have to do it, so I’m doing it.
And the difference here is that I am white. I get to talk as much yang about my own race as I want. I gain nothing by attacking my own race or religion. You know how conservatives are always asking “where are the Muslims condemning these acts and being critical about their culture.” I’m getting ahead of the criticism us all. Making sure its clear we white people know our culture is some hot garbage right now.
|
On August 15 2017 05:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 05:46 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 05:39 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 05:28 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 05:18 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:38 frazzle wrote:On August 15 2017 03:31 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:14 frazzle wrote:On August 15 2017 03:09 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
What amendments and why was it a "complete rewriting of our constitution?" One of the more absurd assertions from you (yes yes it's true) that should rank with a Trump supporter's "he's delivered on all his campaign promises up to today." It may be an overstatement to say it was a complete rewrite, but I think it is generally understood to be more or less true. The 14th amendment changed a lot. The civil war changed society while the constitution hummed along, by and large. Right. The United States would not be a modern state without the 14th amendment. But I don't know, maybe it was just some words. I'm just trying to counter this extreme notion that the document got a substantial rewrite from the war. It survived, we still elect presidents the same way, the first amendment didn't get a second-round edit, the means of passing amendments remains unchanged. Don't jettison everything we know about the constitution and substantial debatable areas because someone just claims 13-15 "changed the whole thing." Also, it's the separation of powers and a state agreement of how to get along federally and with other countries from the 1780s, not the underlying society. I think that's an important distinction, even if you want to convolute the discussion with some notion of the "modern state." We should just do package deals. The 14th and 2nd amendments can be changed, but only together. Then we can relearn the concept of compromise. The amendment process is a high hurdle particularly because it should be an enormously popular and supported thing. I think compromise should start with smaller funding bills to bring Congressional oversight to government bureaucracy. All or nothing government shutdown shit hurts compromise, it's just brinkmanship. The funding of the defense department should be well-debated just like the rest. On your edit: And neither are white people. Which was part of his point. Yeah, but we haven’t really had a protracted 16+ year discussion about white terrorist like we have about Islamic terrorism. Maybe we need to wait until after a massive attack succeeds and then we can get serious. I think America's more serious about opposing your "white terrorist" angle than Islamic terrorism just in general. The media's in an uproar and there's significant pressure on Trump to more harshly condemn this attacks. If a radical Islamic terrorist did it, you would be talking about how the deaths fit in to overall deaths from drowning in your own bathtub. It isn’t my “white terrorism”. I didn’t decide that we were going to start dividing up terrorist into categories to be sorted by religion and skin color. That narrative belongs solely to the people who demanded we use Islamic Terrorism, because simple terrorism wasn’t good enough. But now I have to do it, so I’m doing it. And the difference here is that I am white. I get to talk as much yang about my own race as I want. I gain nothing by attacking my own race or religion. You know how conservatives are always asking “where are the Muslims condemning these acts and being critical about their culture.” I’m getting ahead of the criticism us all. Making sure its clear we white people know our culture is some hot garbage right now.
If this isn't tongue in cheek then this is utter bullshit.
Its not my culture that is hot garbage, and it isn't yours. Culture isn't determined by skin colour alone, we don't fit into neat colour based categories like that.
|
On August 15 2017 05:57 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 05:53 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 05:46 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 05:39 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 05:28 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 05:18 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:38 frazzle wrote:On August 15 2017 03:31 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:14 frazzle wrote:
[quote]
It may be an overstatement to say it was a complete rewrite, but I think it is generally understood to be more or less true. The 14th amendment changed a lot. The civil war changed society while the constitution hummed along, by and large. Right. The United States would not be a modern state without the 14th amendment. But I don't know, maybe it was just some words. I'm just trying to counter this extreme notion that the document got a substantial rewrite from the war. It survived, we still elect presidents the same way, the first amendment didn't get a second-round edit, the means of passing amendments remains unchanged. Don't jettison everything we know about the constitution and substantial debatable areas because someone just claims 13-15 "changed the whole thing." Also, it's the separation of powers and a state agreement of how to get along federally and with other countries from the 1780s, not the underlying society. I think that's an important distinction, even if you want to convolute the discussion with some notion of the "modern state." We should just do package deals. The 14th and 2nd amendments can be changed, but only together. Then we can relearn the concept of compromise. The amendment process is a high hurdle particularly because it should be an enormously popular and supported thing. I think compromise should start with smaller funding bills to bring Congressional oversight to government bureaucracy. All or nothing government shutdown shit hurts compromise, it's just brinkmanship. The funding of the defense department should be well-debated just like the rest. On your edit: And neither are white people. Which was part of his point. Yeah, but we haven’t really had a protracted 16+ year discussion about white terrorist like we have about Islamic terrorism. Maybe we need to wait until after a massive attack succeeds and then we can get serious. I think America's more serious about opposing your "white terrorist" angle than Islamic terrorism just in general. The media's in an uproar and there's significant pressure on Trump to more harshly condemn this attacks. If a radical Islamic terrorist did it, you would be talking about how the deaths fit in to overall deaths from drowning in your own bathtub. It isn’t my “white terrorism”. I didn’t decide that we were going to start dividing up terrorist into categories to be sorted by religion and skin color. That narrative belongs solely to the people who demanded we use Islamic Terrorism, because simple terrorism wasn’t good enough. But now I have to do it, so I’m doing it. And the difference here is that I am white. I get to talk as much yang about my own race as I want. I gain nothing by attacking my own race or religion. You know how conservatives are always asking “where are the Muslims condemning these acts and being critical about their culture.” I’m getting ahead of the criticism us all. Making sure its clear we white people know our culture is some hot garbage right now. If this isn't tongue in cheek then this is utter bullshit. Its not my culture that is hot garbage, and it isn't yours. Culture isn't determined by skin colour alone, we don't fit into neat colour based categories like that.
Culture, at least in the US, kinda is. Black culture. White culture. We put race labels on them to separate them from other nationalities (African culture is different from black culture. Swedish culture is different from white culture.)
|
On August 15 2017 05:57 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 05:53 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 05:46 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 05:39 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 05:28 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 05:18 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:38 frazzle wrote:On August 15 2017 03:31 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:14 frazzle wrote:
[quote]
It may be an overstatement to say it was a complete rewrite, but I think it is generally understood to be more or less true. The 14th amendment changed a lot. The civil war changed society while the constitution hummed along, by and large. Right. The United States would not be a modern state without the 14th amendment. But I don't know, maybe it was just some words. I'm just trying to counter this extreme notion that the document got a substantial rewrite from the war. It survived, we still elect presidents the same way, the first amendment didn't get a second-round edit, the means of passing amendments remains unchanged. Don't jettison everything we know about the constitution and substantial debatable areas because someone just claims 13-15 "changed the whole thing." Also, it's the separation of powers and a state agreement of how to get along federally and with other countries from the 1780s, not the underlying society. I think that's an important distinction, even if you want to convolute the discussion with some notion of the "modern state." We should just do package deals. The 14th and 2nd amendments can be changed, but only together. Then we can relearn the concept of compromise. The amendment process is a high hurdle particularly because it should be an enormously popular and supported thing. I think compromise should start with smaller funding bills to bring Congressional oversight to government bureaucracy. All or nothing government shutdown shit hurts compromise, it's just brinkmanship. The funding of the defense department should be well-debated just like the rest. On your edit: And neither are white people. Which was part of his point. Yeah, but we haven’t really had a protracted 16+ year discussion about white terrorist like we have about Islamic terrorism. Maybe we need to wait until after a massive attack succeeds and then we can get serious. I think America's more serious about opposing your "white terrorist" angle than Islamic terrorism just in general. The media's in an uproar and there's significant pressure on Trump to more harshly condemn this attacks. If a radical Islamic terrorist did it, you would be talking about how the deaths fit in to overall deaths from drowning in your own bathtub. It isn’t my “white terrorism”. I didn’t decide that we were going to start dividing up terrorist into categories to be sorted by religion and skin color. That narrative belongs solely to the people who demanded we use Islamic Terrorism, because simple terrorism wasn’t good enough. But now I have to do it, so I’m doing it. And the difference here is that I am white. I get to talk as much yang about my own race as I want. I gain nothing by attacking my own race or religion. You know how conservatives are always asking “where are the Muslims condemning these acts and being critical about their culture.” I’m getting ahead of the criticism us all. Making sure its clear we white people know our culture is some hot garbage right now. If this isn't tongue in cheek then this is utter bullshit. Its not my culture that is hot garbage, and it isn't yours. Culture isn't determined by skin colour alone, we don't fit into neat colour based categories like that.
You clearly don’t know me very well. US whites have about as unified a culture as Muslims.
|
On August 15 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 05:28 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 05:18 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:38 frazzle wrote:On August 15 2017 03:31 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:14 frazzle wrote:On August 15 2017 03:09 Danglars wrote:On August 15 2017 03:03 Wulfey_LA wrote:
"But there aren't many KKK/Nazis/out and out racist marchers" is not a defense here. The objects of all these rallies and debates and violence are Confederate monuments across the country. The questions about the legacy of the Civil War in this country affect everyone, even if only a relatively small population is being racist and violent about it. The Civil War cost ~500,000 American lives and brought about a complete rewriting of our Constitution (yes, those new amendments changed the whole thing). Should we have statues dedicated to treasonous slavers and white supremacists on government property? This is a universally important question. No complaining about scale gets you out of that question. What amendments and why was it a "complete rewriting of our constitution?" One of the more absurd assertions from you (yes yes it's true) that should rank with a Trump supporter's "he's delivered on all his campaign promises up to today." It may be an overstatement to say it was a complete rewrite, but I think it is generally understood to be more or less true. The 14th amendment changed a lot. The civil war changed society while the constitution hummed along, by and large. Right. The United States would not be a modern state without the 14th amendment. But I don't know, maybe it was just some words. I'm just trying to counter this extreme notion that the document got a substantial rewrite from the war. It survived, we still elect presidents the same way, the first amendment didn't get a second-round edit, the means of passing amendments remains unchanged. Don't jettison everything we know about the constitution and substantial debatable areas because someone just claims 13-15 "changed the whole thing." Also, it's the separation of powers and a state agreement of how to get along federally and with other countries from the 1780s, not the underlying society. I think that's an important distinction, even if you want to convolute the discussion with some notion of the "modern state." We should just do package deals. The 14th and 2nd amendments can be changed, but only together. Then we can relearn the concept of compromise. The amendment process is a high hurdle particularly because it should be an enormously popular and supported thing. I think compromise should start with smaller funding bills to bring Congressional oversight to government bureaucracy. All or nothing government shutdown shit hurts compromise, it's just brinkmanship. The funding of the defense department should be well-debated just like the rest. On your edit: And neither are white people. Which was part of his point.
congress already has plent yof oversight authority over the bureaucracy.
they simply chose not to use it and/or exercise it in a poor fashion.
it's also sadly the case that congress is in general worse than the bureaucracy; so their oversight isn't that helpful, and is often more harmful. having terrible people oversee half-bad people just doesn't help much. oversight works far better when it's decent people doing the oversight.
what we need is to fix congress itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
