|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 19 2019 11:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Dammit KwarK. That was my response.
To velr being banned...wtf? He's only saying (albeit rudely) what I've said previously.
When confronted with a question of how his supposed "revolution" plays out and the outcome, GH doesn't offer anything. He's challenged me and I've answered the call. Yet he still refuses to give people his details of his plan. Or at least a semblance of one.
Stop bitchin' and start producing. Sir.
You're one of the others who has had this explained to you by more than myself with examples that this isn't true and my sig is literally you taking the opposite position when you were pressed for your details (by another poster).
First step of the plan is decide whether you disagree that the beneficiaries of this system won't change it without a fight, or we must fight.
|
On July 19 2019 11:18 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2019 10:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 19 2019 08:10 RvB wrote:On July 19 2019 04:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 19 2019 04:34 NewSunshine wrote:On July 19 2019 04:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:About the point of those being American not loving America enough, what do you all say to this guy? Smedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940) was a United States Marine Corps major general, the highest rank authorized at that time, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. During his 34-year career as a Marine, he participated in military actions in the Philippines, China, in Central America and the Caribbean during the Banana Wars, and France in World War I. Butler later became an outspoken critic of U.S. wars and their consequences. He also exposed an alleged plan to overthrow the U.S. government.
By the end of his career, Butler had received 16 medals, five for heroism. He is one of 19 men to receive the Medal of Honor twice, one of three to be awarded both the Marine Corps Brevet Medal (along with Wendell Neville and David Porter) and the Medal of Honor, and the only Marine to be awarded the Brevet Medal and two Medals of Honor, all for separate actions.
In 1933, he became involved in a controversy known as the Business Plot, when he told a congressional committee that a group of wealthy industrialists were planning a military coup to overthrow Franklin D. Roosevelt, with Butler selected to lead a march of veterans to become dictator, similar to Fascist regimes at that time. The individuals involved all denied the existence of a plot and the media ridiculed the allegations, but a final report by a special House of Representatives Committee confirmed some of Butler's testimony.
In 1935, Butler wrote a book titled War Is a Racket, where he described and criticized the workings of the United States in its foreign actions and wars, such as those he was a part of, including the American corporations and other imperialist motivations behind them. After retiring from service, he became a popular advocate, speaking at meetings organized by veterans, pacifists, and church groups in the 1930s SourceI bring it up because you don't have to hate America to want better for the nation. There's nothing anti-American about criticizing America. If anything, it shows a willingness to see the defects and argue/fight for a better outcome. Also this is quite accurate. When you're creating anything, anything at all, if you want to make it better you have to get it criticized to hell first. A functioning nation is no exception. The problem is, with the "Democrats hate America" crowd, "America" is code for "America exactly as it was", and not actually America. First you have to decipher the code, then you can spot it for the dogwhistle that it is. Just like how "traditional family values" actually means subjecting women to a life of child-rearing and servitude to men. Precisely. This man operated on 3 continents and still came back to the US to criticize the government. Doesn't make him less American all of a sudden. And it doesn't make any of the women charged by trump any less American. How many F500 companies have foreign born CEOs? How many inventions are credited to foreign born Americans(and minority Americans) that we enjoy today? Once you get away from racist beliefs and start really seeing America, not what she is, but what she can be, you will also begin to criticize it. I personally believe that women are more than capable of running the world if given the chance better than men. And I'm hoping we get some AOC Speaker or Presidency out of this in the coming years (once we accept democratic socialism as the heir to democracy). I agree with the first part of your post. Some of the most famous inventors are actually immigrants (Einstein for example).Immigrants are also more likely to be an entrepreneur and usually make the economy more dynamic. The second part I find questionably though. Why would women be better than men? That seems to be as sexists as claiming men are better than women just the other way around. Notice I said "more than capable" Not "more capable". That little difference makes a world of difference when discussing whether or not women should hold power in the government at the highest levels. We have RBG, but other than that, we're sorely missing a woman in a high position that just rekts. "I personally believe that women are more than capable of running the world, if given the chance, better than men." As it reads, "I personally believe that women are more than capable of running the world [] better than men." I don't mean to align myself with anyone's reasoning, but I did want to point out that I -also- read it as "women could run world better than men"
Noted. To address that, I will offer this. I believe that women, if given the chance, would make much more sound judgment on going to war or escalating tensions, than men. If we take Hollywood and some anecdotes as evidence, they'd more than likely wait for the perfect moment to strike, than whipping out their weapons and going full bore on an "enemy". Of course, this doesn't hold much water, but the premise is that women should be seen as equal to men when it comes to directing national affairs. (so many examples, I don't want to get started that both support and contradict my stance).
On July 19 2019 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2019 11:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Dammit KwarK. That was my response.
To velr being banned...wtf? He's only saying (albeit rudely) what I've said previously.
When confronted with a question of how his supposed "revolution" plays out and the outcome, GH doesn't offer anything. He's challenged me and I've answered the call. Yet he still refuses to give people his details of his plan. Or at least a semblance of one.
Stop bitchin' and start producing. Sir. You're one of the others who has had this explained to you by more than myself with examples that this isn't true and my sig is literally you taking the opposite position when you were pressed for your details (by another poster). First step of the plan is decide whether you disagree that the beneficiaries of this system won't change it without a fight, or we must fight.
Ah, the quote that will live in infamy. I do wish to retract that just so that you can't use it.
Are you going to answer my or any questions about your "revolution"? The stated outcome of such which sees either authoritarianism or a dictatorship? How do you address the complete breakdown of policing? How do you address another sovereign nation coming and taking over while chaos reigns? Or, for light duty, who it is you plan to mobilize and how you get them to mobilize?
|
United States15275 Posts
On July 19 2019 11:00 KwarK wrote:
Also AOC is clearly a very driven and capable young woman.
Driven, yes. Capable? That's the odd part. A cursory look through her educational history suggests that her missteps in the political sphere are an aberration. The self-aggrandizing and overreaching in combination with a lack of common sense are probably to blame, not competence.
EDIT: In truth, I don't even attribute all of these as personal flaws. I think they arise from perverse incentives within the left that promote such behavior at the expense of alienating those on the fence and ideological opponents. Oftentimes a shift in presentation can convert skeptics more effectively than rational dialectic (e.g. ContraPoints).
On July 19 2019 11:00 KwarK wrote:
She didn’t get swept to where she is by forces outside of her control or rely upon nepotism and cronyism. She saw something she wanted and had the drive to earn it.
Everyone gets swept to where they are. A lack of access to silent evidence doesn't change that. Politics in particular suffers from this type of confirmation bias since it is a field with extraordinarily high variance in promotion.
On July 19 2019 11:00 KwarK wrote:
Whether or not you agree with her policies she’s certainly a high achiever. It’s not like her daddy was a senator or whatever.
That might be the issue in a nutshell. What works in academic institutions doesn't translate to real life.
|
On July 19 2019 11:28 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2019 11:00 KwarK wrote:
Also AOC is clearly a very driven and capable young woman. Driven, yes. Capable? That's the odd part. A cursory look through her educational history suggests that her missteps in the political sphere are an aberration. The self-aggrandizing and overreaching in combination with a lack of common sense are probably to blame, not competence. Show nested quote +On July 19 2019 11:00 KwarK wrote:
She didn’t get swept to where she is by forces outside of her control or rely upon nepotism and cronyism. She saw something she wanted and had the drive to earn it. Everyone gets swept to where they are. A lack of access to silent evidence doesn't change that. Politics in particular suffers from this type of confirmation bias since it is a field with extraordinarily high variance in promotion. Show nested quote +On July 19 2019 11:00 KwarK wrote:
Whether or not you agree with her policies she’s certainly a high achiever. It’s not like her daddy was a senator or whatever. That might be the issue in a nutshell. What works in academic institutions doesn't translate to real life.
She's in CONGRESS. That's a pretty high achievement man.
|
On July 19 2019 11:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2019 11:18 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 19 2019 10:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 19 2019 08:10 RvB wrote:On July 19 2019 04:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 19 2019 04:34 NewSunshine wrote:On July 19 2019 04:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:About the point of those being American not loving America enough, what do you all say to this guy? Smedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940) was a United States Marine Corps major general, the highest rank authorized at that time, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. During his 34-year career as a Marine, he participated in military actions in the Philippines, China, in Central America and the Caribbean during the Banana Wars, and France in World War I. Butler later became an outspoken critic of U.S. wars and their consequences. He also exposed an alleged plan to overthrow the U.S. government.
By the end of his career, Butler had received 16 medals, five for heroism. He is one of 19 men to receive the Medal of Honor twice, one of three to be awarded both the Marine Corps Brevet Medal (along with Wendell Neville and David Porter) and the Medal of Honor, and the only Marine to be awarded the Brevet Medal and two Medals of Honor, all for separate actions.
In 1933, he became involved in a controversy known as the Business Plot, when he told a congressional committee that a group of wealthy industrialists were planning a military coup to overthrow Franklin D. Roosevelt, with Butler selected to lead a march of veterans to become dictator, similar to Fascist regimes at that time. The individuals involved all denied the existence of a plot and the media ridiculed the allegations, but a final report by a special House of Representatives Committee confirmed some of Butler's testimony.
In 1935, Butler wrote a book titled War Is a Racket, where he described and criticized the workings of the United States in its foreign actions and wars, such as those he was a part of, including the American corporations and other imperialist motivations behind them. After retiring from service, he became a popular advocate, speaking at meetings organized by veterans, pacifists, and church groups in the 1930s SourceI bring it up because you don't have to hate America to want better for the nation. There's nothing anti-American about criticizing America. If anything, it shows a willingness to see the defects and argue/fight for a better outcome. Also this is quite accurate. When you're creating anything, anything at all, if you want to make it better you have to get it criticized to hell first. A functioning nation is no exception. The problem is, with the "Democrats hate America" crowd, "America" is code for "America exactly as it was", and not actually America. First you have to decipher the code, then you can spot it for the dogwhistle that it is. Just like how "traditional family values" actually means subjecting women to a life of child-rearing and servitude to men. Precisely. This man operated on 3 continents and still came back to the US to criticize the government. Doesn't make him less American all of a sudden. And it doesn't make any of the women charged by trump any less American. How many F500 companies have foreign born CEOs? How many inventions are credited to foreign born Americans(and minority Americans) that we enjoy today? Once you get away from racist beliefs and start really seeing America, not what she is, but what she can be, you will also begin to criticize it. I personally believe that women are more than capable of running the world if given the chance better than men. And I'm hoping we get some AOC Speaker or Presidency out of this in the coming years (once we accept democratic socialism as the heir to democracy). I agree with the first part of your post. Some of the most famous inventors are actually immigrants (Einstein for example).Immigrants are also more likely to be an entrepreneur and usually make the economy more dynamic. The second part I find questionably though. Why would women be better than men? That seems to be as sexists as claiming men are better than women just the other way around. Notice I said "more than capable" Not "more capable". That little difference makes a world of difference when discussing whether or not women should hold power in the government at the highest levels. We have RBG, but other than that, we're sorely missing a woman in a high position that just rekts. "I personally believe that women are more than capable of running the world, if given the chance, better than men." As it reads, "I personally believe that women are more than capable of running the world [] better than men." I don't mean to align myself with anyone's reasoning, but I did want to point out that I -also- read it as "women could run world better than men" Noted. To address that, I will offer this. I believe that women, if given the chance, would make much more sound judgment on going to war or escalating tensions, than men. If we take Hollywood and some anecdotes as evidence, they'd more than likely wait for the perfect moment to strike, than whipping out their weapons and going full bore on an "enemy". Of course, this doesn't hold much water, but the premise is that women should be seen as equal to men when it comes to directing national affairs. (so many examples, I don't want to get started that both support and contradict my stance). Show nested quote +On July 19 2019 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 19 2019 11:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Dammit KwarK. That was my response.
To velr being banned...wtf? He's only saying (albeit rudely) what I've said previously.
When confronted with a question of how his supposed "revolution" plays out and the outcome, GH doesn't offer anything. He's challenged me and I've answered the call. Yet he still refuses to give people his details of his plan. Or at least a semblance of one.
Stop bitchin' and start producing. Sir. You're one of the others who has had this explained to you by more than myself with examples that this isn't true and my sig is literally you taking the opposite position when you were pressed for your details (by another poster). First step of the plan is decide whether you disagree that the beneficiaries of this system won't change it without a fight, or we must fight. Ah, the quote that will live in infamy. I do wish to retract that just so that you can't use it. Are you going to answer my or any questions about your "revolution"? The stated outcome of such which sees either authoritarianism or a dictatorship? How do you address the complete breakdown of policing? How do you address another sovereign nation coming and taking over while chaos reigns? Or, for light duty, who it is you plan to mobilize and how you get them to mobilize?
Thanks for clarification 
I'd agree that women should be given equal opportunity to be powerful figures in politics, but don't expect them to perform any better or worse than men do. I do expect the first few of them to be engaged in heavy criticism based on gender before the general public gets over the fear that they're going to spontaneously give birth and/or get all emotional and menstruate everywhere.
|
On July 19 2019 11:36 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2019 11:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 19 2019 11:18 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 19 2019 10:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 19 2019 08:10 RvB wrote:On July 19 2019 04:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 19 2019 04:34 NewSunshine wrote:On July 19 2019 04:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:About the point of those being American not loving America enough, what do you all say to this guy? Smedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940) was a United States Marine Corps major general, the highest rank authorized at that time, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. During his 34-year career as a Marine, he participated in military actions in the Philippines, China, in Central America and the Caribbean during the Banana Wars, and France in World War I. Butler later became an outspoken critic of U.S. wars and their consequences. He also exposed an alleged plan to overthrow the U.S. government.
By the end of his career, Butler had received 16 medals, five for heroism. He is one of 19 men to receive the Medal of Honor twice, one of three to be awarded both the Marine Corps Brevet Medal (along with Wendell Neville and David Porter) and the Medal of Honor, and the only Marine to be awarded the Brevet Medal and two Medals of Honor, all for separate actions.
In 1933, he became involved in a controversy known as the Business Plot, when he told a congressional committee that a group of wealthy industrialists were planning a military coup to overthrow Franklin D. Roosevelt, with Butler selected to lead a march of veterans to become dictator, similar to Fascist regimes at that time. The individuals involved all denied the existence of a plot and the media ridiculed the allegations, but a final report by a special House of Representatives Committee confirmed some of Butler's testimony.
In 1935, Butler wrote a book titled War Is a Racket, where he described and criticized the workings of the United States in its foreign actions and wars, such as those he was a part of, including the American corporations and other imperialist motivations behind them. After retiring from service, he became a popular advocate, speaking at meetings organized by veterans, pacifists, and church groups in the 1930s SourceI bring it up because you don't have to hate America to want better for the nation. There's nothing anti-American about criticizing America. If anything, it shows a willingness to see the defects and argue/fight for a better outcome. Also this is quite accurate. When you're creating anything, anything at all, if you want to make it better you have to get it criticized to hell first. A functioning nation is no exception. The problem is, with the "Democrats hate America" crowd, "America" is code for "America exactly as it was", and not actually America. First you have to decipher the code, then you can spot it for the dogwhistle that it is. Just like how "traditional family values" actually means subjecting women to a life of child-rearing and servitude to men. Precisely. This man operated on 3 continents and still came back to the US to criticize the government. Doesn't make him less American all of a sudden. And it doesn't make any of the women charged by trump any less American. How many F500 companies have foreign born CEOs? How many inventions are credited to foreign born Americans(and minority Americans) that we enjoy today? Once you get away from racist beliefs and start really seeing America, not what she is, but what she can be, you will also begin to criticize it. I personally believe that women are more than capable of running the world if given the chance better than men. And I'm hoping we get some AOC Speaker or Presidency out of this in the coming years (once we accept democratic socialism as the heir to democracy). I agree with the first part of your post. Some of the most famous inventors are actually immigrants (Einstein for example).Immigrants are also more likely to be an entrepreneur and usually make the economy more dynamic. The second part I find questionably though. Why would women be better than men? That seems to be as sexists as claiming men are better than women just the other way around. Notice I said "more than capable" Not "more capable". That little difference makes a world of difference when discussing whether or not women should hold power in the government at the highest levels. We have RBG, but other than that, we're sorely missing a woman in a high position that just rekts. "I personally believe that women are more than capable of running the world, if given the chance, better than men." As it reads, "I personally believe that women are more than capable of running the world [] better than men." I don't mean to align myself with anyone's reasoning, but I did want to point out that I -also- read it as "women could run world better than men" Noted. To address that, I will offer this. I believe that women, if given the chance, would make much more sound judgment on going to war or escalating tensions, than men. If we take Hollywood and some anecdotes as evidence, they'd more than likely wait for the perfect moment to strike, than whipping out their weapons and going full bore on an "enemy". Of course, this doesn't hold much water, but the premise is that women should be seen as equal to men when it comes to directing national affairs. (so many examples, I don't want to get started that both support and contradict my stance). On July 19 2019 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 19 2019 11:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Dammit KwarK. That was my response.
To velr being banned...wtf? He's only saying (albeit rudely) what I've said previously.
When confronted with a question of how his supposed "revolution" plays out and the outcome, GH doesn't offer anything. He's challenged me and I've answered the call. Yet he still refuses to give people his details of his plan. Or at least a semblance of one.
Stop bitchin' and start producing. Sir. You're one of the others who has had this explained to you by more than myself with examples that this isn't true and my sig is literally you taking the opposite position when you were pressed for your details (by another poster). First step of the plan is decide whether you disagree that the beneficiaries of this system won't change it without a fight, or we must fight. Ah, the quote that will live in infamy. I do wish to retract that just so that you can't use it. Are you going to answer my or any questions about your "revolution"? The stated outcome of such which sees either authoritarianism or a dictatorship? How do you address the complete breakdown of policing? How do you address another sovereign nation coming and taking over while chaos reigns? Or, for light duty, who it is you plan to mobilize and how you get them to mobilize? Thanks for clarification I'd agree that women should be given equal opportunity to be powerful figures in politics, but don't expect them to perform any better or worse than men do. I do expect the first few of them to be engaged in heavy criticism based on gender before the general public gets over the fear that they're going to spontaneously give birth and/or get all emotional and menstruate everywhere.
Welcome to the world of black Americans and Obama. Like sex, we needed to get the first one out of the way to give people an understanding of what we are capable of on the national stage. We just didn't know that it would be, probably, the best shot we had.
|
On July 19 2019 11:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2019 11:18 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 19 2019 10:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 19 2019 08:10 RvB wrote:On July 19 2019 04:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 19 2019 04:34 NewSunshine wrote:On July 19 2019 04:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:About the point of those being American not loving America enough, what do you all say to this guy? Smedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940) was a United States Marine Corps major general, the highest rank authorized at that time, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. During his 34-year career as a Marine, he participated in military actions in the Philippines, China, in Central America and the Caribbean during the Banana Wars, and France in World War I. Butler later became an outspoken critic of U.S. wars and their consequences. He also exposed an alleged plan to overthrow the U.S. government.
By the end of his career, Butler had received 16 medals, five for heroism. He is one of 19 men to receive the Medal of Honor twice, one of three to be awarded both the Marine Corps Brevet Medal (along with Wendell Neville and David Porter) and the Medal of Honor, and the only Marine to be awarded the Brevet Medal and two Medals of Honor, all for separate actions.
In 1933, he became involved in a controversy known as the Business Plot, when he told a congressional committee that a group of wealthy industrialists were planning a military coup to overthrow Franklin D. Roosevelt, with Butler selected to lead a march of veterans to become dictator, similar to Fascist regimes at that time. The individuals involved all denied the existence of a plot and the media ridiculed the allegations, but a final report by a special House of Representatives Committee confirmed some of Butler's testimony.
In 1935, Butler wrote a book titled War Is a Racket, where he described and criticized the workings of the United States in its foreign actions and wars, such as those he was a part of, including the American corporations and other imperialist motivations behind them. After retiring from service, he became a popular advocate, speaking at meetings organized by veterans, pacifists, and church groups in the 1930s SourceI bring it up because you don't have to hate America to want better for the nation. There's nothing anti-American about criticizing America. If anything, it shows a willingness to see the defects and argue/fight for a better outcome. Also this is quite accurate. When you're creating anything, anything at all, if you want to make it better you have to get it criticized to hell first. A functioning nation is no exception. The problem is, with the "Democrats hate America" crowd, "America" is code for "America exactly as it was", and not actually America. First you have to decipher the code, then you can spot it for the dogwhistle that it is. Just like how "traditional family values" actually means subjecting women to a life of child-rearing and servitude to men. Precisely. This man operated on 3 continents and still came back to the US to criticize the government. Doesn't make him less American all of a sudden. And it doesn't make any of the women charged by trump any less American. How many F500 companies have foreign born CEOs? How many inventions are credited to foreign born Americans(and minority Americans) that we enjoy today? Once you get away from racist beliefs and start really seeing America, not what she is, but what she can be, you will also begin to criticize it. I personally believe that women are more than capable of running the world if given the chance better than men. And I'm hoping we get some AOC Speaker or Presidency out of this in the coming years (once we accept democratic socialism as the heir to democracy). I agree with the first part of your post. Some of the most famous inventors are actually immigrants (Einstein for example).Immigrants are also more likely to be an entrepreneur and usually make the economy more dynamic. The second part I find questionably though. Why would women be better than men? That seems to be as sexists as claiming men are better than women just the other way around. Notice I said "more than capable" Not "more capable". That little difference makes a world of difference when discussing whether or not women should hold power in the government at the highest levels. We have RBG, but other than that, we're sorely missing a woman in a high position that just rekts. "I personally believe that women are more than capable of running the world, if given the chance, better than men." As it reads, "I personally believe that women are more than capable of running the world [] better than men." I don't mean to align myself with anyone's reasoning, but I did want to point out that I -also- read it as "women could run world better than men" Show nested quote +On July 19 2019 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 19 2019 11:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Dammit KwarK. That was my response.
To velr being banned...wtf? He's only saying (albeit rudely) what I've said previously.
When confronted with a question of how his supposed "revolution" plays out and the outcome, GH doesn't offer anything. He's challenged me and I've answered the call. Yet he still refuses to give people his details of his plan. Or at least a semblance of one.
Stop bitchin' and start producing. Sir. You're one of the others who has had this explained to you by more than myself with examples that this isn't true and my sig is literally you taking the opposite position when you were pressed for your details (by another poster). First step of the plan is decide whether you disagree that the beneficiaries of this system won't change it without a fight, or we must fight. Ah, the quote that will live in infamy. I do wish to retract that just so that you can't use it. Are you going to answer my or any questions about your "revolution"? The stated outcome of such which sees either authoritarianism or a dictatorship? How do you address the complete breakdown of policing? How do you address another sovereign nation coming and taking over while chaos reigns? Or, for light duty, who it is you plan to mobilize and how you get them to mobilize?
Unfortunately you can't just retract it if it's still your position?
Before I can address your (ill-conceived imo) questions we have to address the premise at hand. What to do about the currently failing (to avoid catastrophic climate collapse)/wildly-successful (for some people) system. The one Kwark summed up well with this:
Your presumption that Democrats are working against white club is false, as GH and MLK will tell you. Democrat strongholds are often the worst offenders when it comes to shit like school segregation which is a classic symptom of limiting access to education to club members. Democrats want all the social credibility of acknowledging privilege without any of the sweeping societal revolution needed to address it because at the end of the day being in the club is great and we'd all much rather feel bad about being in the club than close the club.
My assertion (though practically everyone's made it in describing why third parties are hopeless) is that those beneficiaries of that system will not concede those benefits willingly and will fight to keep them. That leaves two options, 1 fight, 2 continue to concede to them.
Before there's any fruitful ground to be had on the details of revolution we have to establish this point.
|
On July 19 2019 11:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Dammit KwarK. That was my response.
To velr being banned...wtf? He's only saying (albeit rudely) what I've said previously. When confronted with a question of how his supposed "revolution" plays out and the outcome, GH doesn't offer anything. He's challenged me and I've answered the call. Yet he still refuses to give people his details of his plan. Or at least a semblance of one.
Stop bitchin' and start producing. Sir.
Because he was being unnecessarily, aggressively belligerent.
GH is not obliged to provide a 12 step plan to causing the revolution and then how he would reform all of society afterwards. If he was the level of scholar able to provide this he would have far better things to do than post on this forum; like write really world-changing books of philosophy.
In addition he's given details on dozens of elements of things he would rather seen blown up, and people a) mocked his suggestions and b) then acted like he never answered the question in the first place.
|
United States41989 Posts
In fairness if you could convince me that your revolution had any hope of making things better I'd be more likely to be on board. I have the exact same problem with your revolution as the others, while I understand why you want it I don't think it'll end well. Or at least not yet. Try again when unemployment hits 50%.
|
United States15275 Posts
On July 19 2019 11:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
She's in CONGRESS. That's a pretty high achievement man.
By running in a district that's voted Democratic for the last 14 general elections where no Republican has cracked the 25% barrier. Her main obstacle was overcoming incumbent Crowley, who had far more political players backing him but the misfortune of being a aging white man in the post-Trump era representing a multi-ethnic region. I'd know, it's my district.
Note my point applies to everyone within politics, not only those I disapprove of. It's why nepotism is so potent in that domain; it largely eliminates the randomness tyrannizing the bottom of the rat race. Until recently, access to SCOTUS and POTUS was firewalled by an Ivy League education for the same reason.
On July 19 2019 11:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Noted. To address that, I will offer this. I believe that women, if given the chance, would make much more sound judgment on going to war or escalating tensions, than men. If we take Hollywood and some anecdotes as evidence, they'd more than likely wait for the perfect moment to strike, than whipping out their weapons and going full bore on an "enemy". Of course, this doesn't hold much water, but the premise is that women should be seen as equal to men when it comes to directing national affairs. (so many examples, I don't want to get started that both support and contradict my stance).
Historical data suggests that European queens (using 1480 and 1913 as the set boundaries) were ~27% more likely to wage war than their male compatriots. Here's the initial study and the followup.
There is no "perfect moment to strike" in war. Most wars either begin unexpectedly or are interrupted by chance e.g. the Allies almost screwed up WWII by initiating Operation Pike, only canceled by Germany's earlier-than-anticipated invasion of the Ardennes (which captured top-secret documents detailing the plan in a tiny French village).
|
On July 19 2019 04:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2019 04:34 NewSunshine wrote:On July 19 2019 04:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:About the point of those being American not loving America enough, what do you all say to this guy? Smedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940) was a United States Marine Corps major general, the highest rank authorized at that time, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. During his 34-year career as a Marine, he participated in military actions in the Philippines, China, in Central America and the Caribbean during the Banana Wars, and France in World War I. Butler later became an outspoken critic of U.S. wars and their consequences. He also exposed an alleged plan to overthrow the U.S. government.
By the end of his career, Butler had received 16 medals, five for heroism. He is one of 19 men to receive the Medal of Honor twice, one of three to be awarded both the Marine Corps Brevet Medal (along with Wendell Neville and David Porter) and the Medal of Honor, and the only Marine to be awarded the Brevet Medal and two Medals of Honor, all for separate actions.
In 1933, he became involved in a controversy known as the Business Plot, when he told a congressional committee that a group of wealthy industrialists were planning a military coup to overthrow Franklin D. Roosevelt, with Butler selected to lead a march of veterans to become dictator, similar to Fascist regimes at that time. The individuals involved all denied the existence of a plot and the media ridiculed the allegations, but a final report by a special House of Representatives Committee confirmed some of Butler's testimony.
In 1935, Butler wrote a book titled War Is a Racket, where he described and criticized the workings of the United States in its foreign actions and wars, such as those he was a part of, including the American corporations and other imperialist motivations behind them. After retiring from service, he became a popular advocate, speaking at meetings organized by veterans, pacifists, and church groups in the 1930s SourceI bring it up because you don't have to hate America to want better for the nation. There's nothing anti-American about criticizing America. If anything, it shows a willingness to see the defects and argue/fight for a better outcome. Also this is quite accurate. When you're creating anything, anything at all, if you want to make it better you have to get it criticized to hell first. A functioning nation is no exception. The problem is, with the "Democrats hate America" crowd, "America" is code for "America exactly as it was", and not actually America. First you have to decipher the code, then you can spot it for the dogwhistle that it is. Just like how "traditional family values" actually means subjecting women to a life of child-rearing and servitude to men. I personally believe that women are more than capable of running the world if given the chance better than men.
Sure i mean look at Margaret Thatcher.She killed the UK coal industry 35 years ago, thats way before Hillary wanted to kill the US coal industry.Very progressive.
Then you've got Theresa May, another great leader I'm sure we can all agree there.
In reality there isn't a difference between male and female leaders and trying to paint it as some big chasm between genders as a leader is pretty laughable.The biggest difference would be female leaders may get treated worse by countries like Saudi Arabia, get less respect etc.Harder to do good deals with those nations.
|
I swear KwarK. Steal my thunder again. One more time and we will have words sir. WORDS!!!!!!!
To iamthedave: Of course. That is why we're here, isn't it? If he produced something we could discuss, we would not be having this back and forth. But here we find ourselves. having this back and forth. He isn't obligated, but he kind of is. You cannot say what he says, without some kind of first step. He has failed to produce this. Again, in the past, I have answered his challenge and given him my thoughts on how things should proceed. He has, expectedly, not returned the favor. It has come to the point where his talk has become a mocking point. I do not wish it to be so, but it is.
GH: Ah. To be answered with another question, instead of ANSWERING THE FUCKING QUESTIONS POSED. Never change. Of course we fight. We fight at the polls. At the rallys being held. At the ignorance being taught our children. We fight ignorance with truth. You can split it between R and D all you like. I won't make you right. What needs to be done is a full on re-education of America.
Edit: To Nettles and CS...did you uh...did you not see the follow up? I mean...uh...yeah?
|
United States41989 Posts
On July 19 2019 12:25 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2019 11:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
She's in CONGRESS. That's a pretty high achievement man. By running in a district that's voted Democratic for the last 14 general elections where no Republican has cracked the 25% barrier. Her main obstacle was overcoming incumbent Crowley, who had far more political players backing him but the misfortune of being a aging white man in the post-Trump era representing a multi-ethnic region. I'd know, it's my district.
Even if we accept that the district was open to a challenge from the left that still doesn't mean that she had to be the challenger. She'd already beaten out all of the other progressive voices unified that wing in order to stage her takeover.
As a rule I'm generally impressed whenever anyone does anything that requires exertion and opposition to the status quo because in my experience the vast majority of people aren't capable of that. Hell, a lot of people can't even find the energy to vote. I have an interest in politics but no interest in getting involved because it's more work than I wish to do.
At the very least AOC has initiative and followthrough. If we made a Sankey diagram of people who go "someone should do something" I'm pretty sure that by far the biggest obstacle that they face is getting from that to "I should do something".
|
United States15275 Posts
You shouldn't retreat at the first sign of an unequivocal response. :D
On July 19 2019 12:37 KwarK wrote:
Even if we accept that the district was open to a challenge from the left that still doesn't mean that she had to be the challenger. She'd already beaten out all of the other progressive voices unified that wing in order to stage her takeover.
The primary reports don't tell us who she competed again in order to be the progressive candidate. It could have been no one or a veritable horde. But it was all but certain that a progressive candidate would win the district as long as they ousted the Democratic one. The Republicans have no grip on it and no evidence they will flip it in the next decade, let alone the next century.
On July 19 2019 12:37 KwarK wrote:
As a rule I'm generally impressed whenever anyone does anything that requires exertion and opposition to the status quo because in my experience the vast majority of people aren't capable of that. Hell, a lot of people can't even find the energy to vote. I have an interest in politics but no interest in getting involved because it's more work than I wish to do.
Uh oh, unintended praise for Trump! 
On July 19 2019 12:37 KwarK wrote:
At the very least AOC has initiative and follow-through. If we made a Sankey diagram of people who go "someone should do something" I'm pretty sure that by far the biggest obstacle that they face is getting from that to "I should do something".
Which is admirable. If only she had cogent arguments to buttress that determination, it could energize the Democrats and possibly push the party further left without further destabilizing it. I don't trust her ability to simultaneously handle the spotlight and articulate a principled platform for said new version.
|
On July 19 2019 12:37 CosmicSpiral wrote:
You shouldn't retreat at the first sign of an unequivocal response. :D
Whom is this addressed to?
|
On July 19 2019 12:28 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I swear KwarK. Steal my thunder again. One more time and we will have words sir. WORDS!!!!!!!
To iamthedave: Of course. That is why we're here, isn't it? If he produced something we could discuss, we would not be having this back and forth. But here we find ourselves. having this back and forth. He isn't obligated, but he kind of is. You cannot say what he says, without some kind of first step. He has failed to produce this. Again, in the past, I have answered his challenge and given him my thoughts on how things should proceed. He has, expectedly, not returned the favor. It has come to the point where his talk has become a mocking point. I do not wish it to be so, but it is.
GH: Ah. To be answered with another question, instead of ANSWERING THE FUCKING QUESTIONS POSED. Never change. Of course we fight. We fight at the polls. At the rallys being held. At the ignorance being taught our children. We fight ignorance with truth. You can split it between R and D all you like. I won't make you right. What needs to be done is a full on re-education of America.
Edit: To Nettles and CS...did you uh...did you not see the follow up? I mean...uh...yeah?
I gave you the first step, to which you just responded that we maintain the status quo.
With a bit of inadvertent communist flair there at the end with the What needs to be done is a full on re-education of America
On July 19 2019 12:18 KwarK wrote:
In fairness if you could convince me that your revolution had any hope of making things better I'd be more likely to be on board. I have the exact same problem with your revolution as the others, while I understand why you want it I don't think it'll end well. Or at least not yet. Try again when unemployment hits 50%.
Reducing the number of reliable club wielders for the oligarchs is an important part of the struggle, one hopes confronting these realities sooner rather than later gives us time to prepare for when there's a lot more clubbing and a lot less talking.
|
On July 19 2019 12:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2019 12:28 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I swear KwarK. Steal my thunder again. One more time and we will have words sir. WORDS!!!!!!!
To iamthedave: Of course. That is why we're here, isn't it? If he produced something we could discuss, we would not be having this back and forth. But here we find ourselves. having this back and forth. He isn't obligated, but he kind of is. You cannot say what he says, without some kind of first step. He has failed to produce this. Again, in the past, I have answered his challenge and given him my thoughts on how things should proceed. He has, expectedly, not returned the favor. It has come to the point where his talk has become a mocking point. I do not wish it to be so, but it is.
GH: Ah. To be answered with another question, instead of ANSWERING THE FUCKING QUESTIONS POSED. Never change. Of course we fight. We fight at the polls. At the rallys being held. At the ignorance being taught our children. We fight ignorance with truth. You can split it between R and D all you like. I won't make you right. What needs to be done is a full on re-education of America.
Edit: To Nettles and CS...did you uh...did you not see the follow up? I mean...uh...yeah? I gave you the first step, to which you just responded that we maintain the status quo. With a bit of inadvertent communist flair there at the end with the Show nested quote +On July 19 2019 12:18 KwarK wrote:
In fairness if you could convince me that your revolution had any hope of making things better I'd be more likely to be on board. I have the exact same problem with your revolution as the others, while I understand why you want it I don't think it'll end well. Or at least not yet. Try again when unemployment hits 50%. Reducing the number of reliable club wielders for the oligarchs is an important part of the struggle, one hopes confronting these realities sooner rather than later gives us time to prepare for when there's a lot more clubbing and a lot less talking.
Waiting on them answers like.....
|
United States15275 Posts
On July 19 2019 12:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2019 12:37 CosmicSpiral wrote:
You shouldn't retreat at the first sign of an unequivocal response. :D Whom is this addressed to?
You already know.
On July 19 2019 12:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
My assertion (though practically everyone's made it in describing why third parties are hopeless) is that those beneficiaries of that system will not concede those benefits willingly and will fight to keep them. That leaves two options, 1 fight, 2 continue to concede to them.
Before there's any fruitful ground to be had on the details of revolution we have to establish this point.
Okay, so let's assume compromise, reform, "the long march through the institutions", or replacement through establishing rival syndicates are off the table. I surmise you're advocating some type of revolutionary violence a la Sorel. So who is the first target (in a general sense) and what constitutes the goals of the battle? I'll be charitable in supposing you're not modeling the entire arc of this revolt.
|
On July 19 2019 13:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2019 12:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 19 2019 12:28 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I swear KwarK. Steal my thunder again. One more time and we will have words sir. WORDS!!!!!!!
To iamthedave: Of course. That is why we're here, isn't it? If he produced something we could discuss, we would not be having this back and forth. But here we find ourselves. having this back and forth. He isn't obligated, but he kind of is. You cannot say what he says, without some kind of first step. He has failed to produce this. Again, in the past, I have answered his challenge and given him my thoughts on how things should proceed. He has, expectedly, not returned the favor. It has come to the point where his talk has become a mocking point. I do not wish it to be so, but it is.
GH: Ah. To be answered with another question, instead of ANSWERING THE FUCKING QUESTIONS POSED. Never change. Of course we fight. We fight at the polls. At the rallys being held. At the ignorance being taught our children. We fight ignorance with truth. You can split it between R and D all you like. I won't make you right. What needs to be done is a full on re-education of America.
Edit: To Nettles and CS...did you uh...did you not see the follow up? I mean...uh...yeah? I gave you the first step, to which you just responded that we maintain the status quo. With a bit of inadvertent communist flair there at the end with the What needs to be done is a full on re-education of America
On July 19 2019 12:18 KwarK wrote:
In fairness if you could convince me that your revolution had any hope of making things better I'd be more likely to be on board. I have the exact same problem with your revolution as the others, while I understand why you want it I don't think it'll end well. Or at least not yet. Try again when unemployment hits 50%. Reducing the number of reliable club wielders for the oligarchs is an important part of the struggle, one hopes confronting these realities sooner rather than later gives us time to prepare for when there's a lot more clubbing and a lot less talking. Waiting on them answers like.....
I told you step one, and you already said no, you prefer the status quo. Gotta get you to see the necessity (like kwark does [for people that aren't him, he'll be alright in this system]) before we start discussing your ideas on how the revolutions is to deal with the popular concerns you've highlighted.
|
United States41989 Posts
On July 19 2019 12:37 CosmicSpiral wrote:You shouldn't retreat at the first sign of an unequivocal response. :D Show nested quote +On July 19 2019 12:37 KwarK wrote:
Even if we accept that the district was open to a challenge from the left that still doesn't mean that she had to be the challenger. She'd already beaten out all of the other progressive voices unified that wing in order to stage her takeover. The primary reports don't tell us who she competed again in order to be the progressive candidate. It could have been no one or a veritable horde. But it was all but certain that a progressive candidate would win the district as long as they ousted the Democratic one. The Republicans have no grip on it and no evidence they will flip it in the next decade, let alone the next century. Show nested quote +On July 19 2019 12:37 KwarK wrote:
As a rule I'm generally impressed whenever anyone does anything that requires exertion and opposition to the status quo because in my experience the vast majority of people aren't capable of that. Hell, a lot of people can't even find the energy to vote. I have an interest in politics but no interest in getting involved because it's more work than I wish to do. Uh oh, unintended praise for Trump! Show nested quote +On July 19 2019 12:37 KwarK wrote:
At the very least AOC has initiative and follow-through. If we made a Sankey diagram of people who go "someone should do something" I'm pretty sure that by far the biggest obstacle that they face is getting from that to "I should do something". Which is admirable. If only she had cogent arguments to buttress that determination, it could energize the Democrats and possibly push the party further left without further destabilizing it. I don't trust her ability to simultaneously handle the spotlight and articulate a principled platform for said new version.
Trump hates exertion. He once explained that he believes that hearts have a limited number of heartbeats and that every time you raise your pulse you're reducing your lifespan. He's an obese mound of lard, without the charm. He barely shows up to work at his job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
