1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

On the Armenian GenocideFollow

#252 May 25 2016 at 12:09 PM Rating: Good
***
1,157 posts
What about my posts

Are they also consistently rational
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#253 May 25 2016 at 7:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,550 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll toss the same response that I give to the usual "but they're being hypocritical!" claims. I suspect you're not grasping how the conservative and liberal agenda's are aligned. As a general rule, conservatives view the role of the federal government as primarily being externally focused. So spending on wars, foreign policy, foreign aid, immigration enforcement, etc, while wanting to reduce spending on domestic stuff, is not in any way hypocritical nor is it inconsistent. In the other direction, liberals tend to view the role of the federal government as being internally focused. so choosing to focus on things like health care, education, deciding who gets to use which bathrooms in public spaces, etc, while taking a minimal "let's just all get along" approach to foreign policy is also neither hypocritical nor inconsistent for them.


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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


Hope and Change though, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#254 May 25 2016 at 7:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,550 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
What about my posts

Are they also consistently rational


They consistently contain a couple too many k's.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#255 May 25 2016 at 9:54 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,895 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's why, for example, the Obama administration spent so much effort trying to make Libya look much more successful than it was, even going so far as to ignore requests for additional security since that might make it look like it was dangerous there rather than safe (and we all know how that worked out).
You might want to do a little research into exactly who denied the requested funding for increased security for diplomatic stations before you look any dumber.

Just sayin'.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#256 May 26 2016 at 3:17 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
313 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
See you in two weeks.


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

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

Finally--too bad there wasn't an Armenian version of Wiesenthal's righteous squad.
#257 May 26 2016 at 7:42 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,763 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
I'll reply to a post of yours
Okay.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#258 May 26 2016 at 8:11 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
...there should be more movies about Armenian vengeance btw. Can't think of any. Step up Tarentino, or Spielberg, or whoever in Hollywood willing...

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


if you want to find more people to be mad at Turks with, you could always go to Germany. I believe the translation of the unpopular popular opinion is along the lines of "cockroaches who will never be a real part of the EU". But I may not be up to date on my knowledge of dead ideas.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#259 May 26 2016 at 12:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
And in two or six decades. You are all going to die here reading this thread.
You have way more optimism about the longevity of this forum than is reasonably advisable.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#260 May 26 2016 at 8:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,550 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's why, for example, the Obama administration spent so much effort trying to make Libya look much more successful than it was, even going so far as to ignore requests for additional security since that might make it look like it was dangerous there rather than safe (and we all know how that worked out).
You might want to do a little research into exactly who denied the requested funding for increased security for diplomatic stations before you look any dumber.


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

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

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

Quote:
Just sayin'.


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

Edited, May 26th 2016 7:44pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#261 May 27 2016 at 12:00 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,895 posts
gbaji wrote:
stuff
Fair enough.

atricle from Politifact wrote:
How does this tie into the Benghazi attack? State Department officials and government experts lay more blame on decisions by upper management not to provide the temporary Benghazi facility with more officers and better protections than the availability of money.
If this is where the blame lies, I'd like some names; wouldn't you?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#262 May 27 2016 at 3:13 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
313 posts
Quote:
Wow. Um... Ok. It's not about liking or disliking. It's about doing what has to be done, when it has to be done, even when it's not a fun thing to do. I don't like cleaning the house, but I kinda have to do it, right?


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

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

And

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


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

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

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

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

Are they also consistently rational


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

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

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

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

Edited, May 27th 2016 5:53am by Palpitus1
#265 May 27 2016 at 7:49 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,763 posts
gbaji wrote:
Cause, you know, if one actually researches the subject and not just the assumed conclusion (as you suggest), you'll find that the facts are completely different than you think.
Sometimes it's simply mind blowing how much you write and how little thought you put into it.

Edited, May 27th 2016 9:50am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#266 May 27 2016 at 10:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
You have way more optimism about the longevity of this forum than is reasonably advisable.
This is the smartest post in this thread.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#267 May 31 2016 at 5:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,550 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
atricle from Politifact wrote:
How does this tie into the Benghazi attack? State Department officials and government experts lay more blame on decisions by upper management not to provide the temporary Benghazi facility with more officers and better protections than the availability of money.
If this is where the blame lies, I'd like some names; wouldn't you?


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

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

I suppose it's possible that some unnamed middle manager at State made the decision, but it seems unlikely. And when we follow that up with the almost comical effort by the Obama administration to convince people that the attack in Benghazi was just some random protest that got violent, we start to see a clear pattern emerge. Is this proof? Of course not, but there's a very clear motivation on the part of the Obama administration to do every single thing that was done. It's consistent. It's logical. It makes sense. Occam's razor and all of that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#268 May 31 2016 at 5:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,550 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
And Oh my God, your entire post to my post is basically an Obama apologism. Even for the errors of your own conservativism. You really seem to like Obama.


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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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


All state matters. Not sure what your question is.

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


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


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

Edited, May 31st 2016 4:56pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#269 May 31 2016 at 7:15 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,895 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sure. It's the State Department. There's one obvious name that kinda sits right at the top of that upper management layer, right? This is why there have been hearings and investigations into this for the last couple years. And despite this, we still don't have those names. We don't actually know who made the decision and why.
But you'll just assume it was Hillary, right?

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

Edited, May 31st 2016 7:15pm by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#270 Jun 01 2016 at 2:36 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
313 posts
gbaji wrote:
Current state-wide anti-abortion laws? Trans bathroom laws? Clive Owen?

All state matters. Not sure what your question is.


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Edited, Jun 1st 2016 4:41am by Palpitus1
#271 Jun 01 2016 at 2:50 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
313 posts
I keep forgetting this forum has a curse-word censor asterisk thing. Retro.
#272 Jun 01 2016 at 10:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Naw, it's the new thing these days. Welcome to the safe and friendly internet of the 21st century. Would you like a hug?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#273 Jun 01 2016 at 10:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Without the filter, there's a risk that this forum could die!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#274 Jun 01 2016 at 10:33 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,763 posts
COCKMONGER
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#275 Jun 01 2016 at 2:21 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,550 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sure. It's the State Department. There's one obvious name that kinda sits right at the top of that upper management layer, right? This is why there have been hearings and investigations into this for the last couple years. And despite this, we still don't have those names. We don't actually know who made the decision and why.
But you'll just assume it was Hillary, right?

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


Well. Except that one of those was an actual decision that was made by the State Department while she was in charge of it, and the other is a wild conspiracy theory, sure. Same logic applies... NOT!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#276 Jun 01 2016 at 3:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,550 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Current state-wide anti-abortion laws? Trans bathroom laws? Clive Owen?

All state matters. Not sure what your question is.


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


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

Also, The Tenth amendment quite clearly states:

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

Edited, Jun 1st 2016 2:54pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 2 All times are in CST
Kavekkk, Anonymous Guests (1)