As an American who has never lived abroad and has never heard anybody in his own country talk about leftist economic ideas with any sort of intellectual basis whatsoever, I can assure you that any non-conformist or otherwise anti-Ametican views I hold are the sole responsibility of joncey

I should probably add that in addition to having lived outside the country, I have sensibilities and concerns that sometimes align me with the left and sometimes align me with the right, and that inclines me not to dismiss whatever conservatives say as uninformed self-interested gobbledegook. For example, I think religious liberties are important. It’s very, very common to find people on the left who think that the very notion of “religious liberty” is a sham and a cover (or an excuse) for bigotry and homophobia. I think they’re wrong, and that many religious people are trying sincerely to be faithful adherents to their religion. People on the left rarely talk about religious liberties or take them seriously, and so it means that to hear informed opinion on the issue, I have to go to conservatives and take them seriously.

In other words, my commitments require me to take the right seriously on some issues, so I also take the right seriously on other issues, and my identification with the left can’t be wholehearted and requires significant qualification, which makes me fall uneasily into any one tribe.

By the way,



I'm going to have to report you to HUAC

I find it weird that people believe I believe this. I don't in actuality, but I guess in the course of arguing it can seem that way.

One thing we've always seemed to disagree on is how much leeway to give. A big example for me is global warming skepticism. We had a long discussion here and I expressed how something like over 90% of global warming skepticism is not peer reviewed and rejected by the scientific community, and how they're funded by think tanks. We discussed how they create "conferences" to bring in conservative media figures to spread misinformation but exclude researchers with countervailing opinions, and then mainstream conservative media reports on what's said.

I don't recall us disagreeing that this is basically how it happens, but I still felt you were willing to give the conservatives leeway. Why is that? Is there any amount of argument or evidence which would convince you conservatives are just wrong about climate change? Because just as frustrating as I probably am in insisting conservatives don't have a leg to stand on, it's frustrating likewise when other people insist conservatives must have some legitimate arguments but are unable to provide them.

Similarly, I have expressed in here there are some conservative arguments I find legitimately convincing. Deregulation is a prime example. I find many on the left are quick to want to "do something" about housing prices, especially in the form of price caps, which I find disturbing. In many cases, the lack of housing is caused by local regulations and zoning, and simply deregulating things would maybe make cities uglier, but more livable. So I think the solution for housing costs is probably best served by the free market argument.

I have said this exact this before in this thread, but whenever I disagree with the left and agree with the right it gets glossed over due to other stuff. So mark you calender, make a note, on October 21 Reid is saying full well that conservatives are correct about something.



Nothing but or often but? Of course not all arguments ever are smoke, but arguments often enough are smoke. Is this really what the left says, or are you reinterpreting what they say because it's easier to argue against this than what they really say?

I feel this perspective is uncharitable to the left's position, and I feel much of the discussion we have is framed this way. Often I feel what I get from you is a "not all conservatives" but a "pretty much all liberals" kind of stance: you're quick to defend against widespread conservative stupidities but quick to attack widespread left-wing stupidities.

It comes across at times more like you're just trying to be the middle man more than you're arguing for what you personally believe. I know that's not always true, but when it feels like that it feels like I shouldn't take you seriously, because if that's the case then it's not worth taking your voice seriously.



It's possibly because the left is more secular/atheist leaning so religious liberty is less important personally. But the left has a complicated stance on religious liberty, and yes it's not always the most consistent. Look at any debate on Islam. It's clear what many right-wingers want, which is for Islam to be banned and it's followers not to practice any teachings. Okay, maybe not, but you'll be hard pressed to find any conservative thinker who isn't magically a strong liberal when it comes to head coverings, will you?

It's not always clear how the left wants to cope with Islamic teachings and liberalism/feminism clashing. But I think your point is limited in scope: you're focusing on Christian religious liberty, and yeah, sometimes they do have a point.



It's simple, for me: I do take the right seriously, but I don't think taking someone seriously means giving them excessive leeway when their arguments are poor.

Also, I post alot of low effort memes, yeah. This isn't where I think my hardest and defend beliefs the hardest. We're just going to have to accept that not everything I post here is some serious take on how I view conservatives and the right. So let's not mistake the memes for actual beliefs, yeah?

"On the occasion I could be wrong, please refer to the endnotes"

They also have a bunch of other features in common that aren’t so admirable.

I get you're upset RJ, no need to keep posting about it.

Oh, I'm holding back. Mostly for the sake of both of us, presuming that we have better things to do than argue over minutia.

It is in somewhat in bad taste for me to suggest this, but: Trump must really be torn right now. On the one hand, he has the chance to demonstrate some loyalty toward his good`ol dictator buddy Erdoğan (and all the more so with the opportunity to put on as good show of strength, with elections just weeks away). On the other hand, I can't help but wonder if he feels a certain lack of enthusiasm in seeking justice for a journalist, let alone a Washington Post contributor. Perhaps I am being too cynical to suggest he would be so immoral as to harbor such reservations. Or even maybe I am being too idealistic in presuming Trump even has any concept of morality at all.

That, and, uh, those massive conflicts of interest he's got going in SA with all those hotels.

The thing is I decided a long, long time ago that you're not worth engaging with. You don't need to tell me I shouldn't take some of your posts seriously, because frankly I don't take you seriously. So I really have to ask myself why I even come here anymore. Hint: it's not because of you.



Play it again, Sam:



Neither of those parts of your post were really worth responding to, but neither is the rest of what you've written in that post, which could only be considered self-delusional, in light of how your self-representation in that post contradicts the evidence of... let's say, about 246 pages of thread.

I know you'd like to have it both ways and claim both that 1) you're open-minded and tolerant of alternative points of views and 2) it's morally irresponsible to give safe harbor to conservatives and to conservative points of view, but those positions aren't really reconcilable. Sorry.

I think people would be a little less surprised about the Jamal Khashoggi story if they knew more about what the intelligence agencies of countries in the Middle East (I'm thinking especially of Egypt and KSA) have done in the past and often to do their own subjects/citizens. Obviously it doesn't make this particularly act any more morally tolerable. The whole thing is grotesque. But I think contextualizing it in that way speaks to how KSA intelligence thought they could get away with it. This sort of thing happens often without blowing up into an international crisis.

“But we had America’s permission and everything!!”

How dare bad Cheeto Man keep sending guns to a country so barbaric, this never would have happened under Obama

I do enjoy how the western media is making so much hay of the financial ties between US politicians and Saudi Arabia. Like holy ****in loly guys, the KSA pays for your military and your cheap Chinese ****. Where’d you think all of that money came from? Maglites and dog food?

Well, western media, or at least the American media, pretty much only makes a big deal out of anything if they can use it to vilify Bush/Trump.

Has it been confirmed, not just reported, exactly what is contained in any recording of this so-called interrogation? Assuming what I've heard is true it is utterly disgusting and, even considering the perpetrators, shocking that people can be that evil.

I just assumed it was because KSA made the mistake of killing a member of the Fourth Estate (a Washington Post contributor). They probably thought this was going to be no big deal.

Well, he was a Saudi journalist and a Muslim Brotherhood member to some degree. I hear that it is somehow conspiratorial to point that out. I only do so to say that considering those facts they probably would have thought this was going to be no big deal if they even considered they were going to be found out.

Would simply being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood suggest that the Washington Post was likely to look the other way when KSA assassinates one of their journalists? I doubt it. It seems to me this was just a poorly thought through order to have a critic of the Saudi regime killed.

I appreciate that you’re trying, but it’s hard not to read the “but it’s okay because” that you edited out.

Well based on where Wookie is getting his news, we're supposed to shrug our shoulders at the killing of Khashoggi because "Obama loved Iran":

[quote=Rush Limbaugh]
But their PR is that they attempt to achieve their objectives within the, quote-unquote, “democratic process,” the political process. They want a united Arab world, and the Saudis are the biggest problem to that because the Saudis are too close to the United States. The Saudis are the No. 1 buyers of American weapons. No. 1! They spend more money buying American arms than any other nation. That might surprise you, but it happens to be true.

The Saudis have also become recent allies with us and Israel against Iran. Now, don’t laugh at this. If you go back and look at Barack Hussein O, who the Drive-By Media loves? Well, Obama loved Iran, too. Obama paid Iran $1.8 billion in pallet-loaded cash. Obama signed a nuclear deal with Iran that was essentially a pathway for them to achieve nuclear weapons. Trump has since torn that up.

That ticked them off. That sets another rewind of an Obama policy. So if Obama loved Iran, or thought it was okay at least to have an allied relationship with them or less adversarial, then so does the Drive-By Media. But none of this about Khashoggi is designed… It’s not intended to say that he deserved to die. Don’t misunderstand. Folks, we’re between a rock and a hard place here.

Every day, we’re faced with a challenge. The media picks a story that is their No. 1 story, and its purpose is very clear: Damage, destroy whatever, as much as they can, Donald Trump. We have to defend him. At least I think this. This is my reaction to all of this. I don’t want ’em taking Trump out. I don’t want ’emm damaging Trump. I don’t want any of this to happen. This is all bogus! I want the trajectory this country is on to remain.
[/quote]

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/10/19/the-so-called-journalist-jamal-khashoggi-was-part-of-the-muslim-brotherhood-but-the-truth-doesnt-fit-the-lefts-narrative/

Ugh, if you leave out all of the incendiary rhetoric (which is hard to do considering who's talking), I think I agree with Rush on this one more than I disagree.

It is immensely frustrating that Trump is now the singular prism through which the media casts all coverage of events that happen outside the United States. And not only that, it seems the media is only interested in covering international news if it provides an opportunity to make Trump look bad.

Like, of course it's relevant that JK was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Ever since the Arab Spring, the Brotherhood has been a subversive force in many of the most repressive regimes in the Arab world. The MB is an Islamist party, but it also has a populist dimension (and even an element of democracy promotion) that is threatening to authoritarian Arab regimes. The MB is also supported throughout the region by Turkey (Erdogan's AKP party is affiliated with the MB), which is intentionally trying to undermine many Arab regimes throughout the region in order to project its power and reassert itself as an imperial power, akin to the role that the Ottoman Empire had. KSA sees MB as a real threat, and sees it as an instrument through which Turkey is trying to undermine its position in the ME (as well as internally).

Which is not to say that Trump is irrelevant to this picture. Trump's silence at other similar events (such as the poisoning of that former Russian spy in England, however long ago that was) very well may have emboldened MBS or the Saudi intelligence agency to do what it did. Or Trump's influence may have been even more direct: he may have given KSA carte blanche to do whatever. But if that's true, Trump's only a necessary condition that made this murder possible, not a sufficient one. Of course what really matters here and what really made this happen was not Trump but dynamics within the region. Americans like to think that everything that happens in the world happens because of their ****ty president, but that's because Americans greatly exaggerate the role the extent to which America inspires actors in the Middle East to do what they do, and greatly underemphasizes the extent to which events in the Middle East are inspired by rivalries between local regimes or non-state actors or whatever else. Trump fever has only augmented that narcissism.

And, yeah... There does seem to be a kind of shift on the left where, because of Trump's association with KSA, many are skeptical of Saudi in a way that they were not during the Obama administration. And I think Rush is right that Trump's scrapping of the Iran deal likely does have something to do with it (as does Trump cozying up to KSA). Benjamin Wittes, for example, has in the past described Iran as if it were a more natural partner to the US than Israel. And then there are others who effectively think that the US has outlived the conditions that made the US-Saudi relationship desirable in the first place, and that it should go ahead and scrap it, or at least fundamentally revise it (Matt Yglesias wrote something to this effect in Vox the other day). There does seem to be a kind of pivot away from Obama's more nuanced view of the Middle East to a more isolationist one, which has some people advocating leaving the Middle East altogether (as if nobody had ever thought of that before).

It's not only Saudi that has tried to use its oil wealth to buy US public opinion. Qatar also makes massive investments in US media and in American think tanks in order to spread what is effectively anti-Saudi propaganda. They've given massive amounts of money to the Brookings Institution, for example. It's not a surprise that a lot of anti-KSA rhetoric is coming out of there.

I figured someone would make this sort of crass assertion and it's not really surprising that it's you.

Yeah, it's interesting but I don't know why it was posted in reference to me.

No but he was just supposed to "disappear" after leaving the embassy which is, of course, why they went to the trouble of having a so-called body double seen leaving.

Well, you get your news from a Saudi-owned cable news show. Like I said I appreciate the effort editing out “it’s okay because” but that’s the subtext being pushed in the conservative media.

They’re trying to unperson him so they can justify the fact that Donald Trump and his family have close business ties to KSA and aren’t going to do anything about it, not even condemn it.

Ah, so the whole thing was botched.

Sorry for assuming you got your opinions from Limbaugh. I still think I was somewhat justified in referring to his views on the topic as a barometer of what conservatives are likely to think on this issue, seeing how influential he is among conservative opinion makers.

fwiw it’s not just public opinion. Oil producers are also major buyers of securities and US treasuries via sovereign wealth funds, so they do end up having a lot of hard power directing government and industry pretty much worldwide (to contrast against their soft power, controlling various media outlets, think tanks, and of course legalized bribes).

This is called petrodollar cycling. It’s a largely designed system. Economists justify it as a way for these countries to productively invest the money they “can’t” invest domestically, but really it’s how the godless bloodthirsty autocrats get away with socking state money away in safe countries.

Wookie: based on what you initially wrote, I saw some similarities with some of the more disturbing parts of that transcript from Rush Limbaugh's show (my thoughts along these lines are pretty well outlined by Jon's post:



But reading Eversor's post gives me a bit more pause, leading me to consider understanding Rush Limbaugh's remarks less cynically.

I wouldn't know. What cable news show is Saudi-owned? I mean specifically the one you are presuming I watch.



No. Just the getting caught part. The thing that absolutely boggles my mind is assuming the reports are true, what is the real world purpose of dismembering a person to death? Just to make sure they suffer the most possible before dying? I do hope there is a special place in hell reserved for these monsters.

I think they were probably trying to make an example of him, and then obfuscate in order to deflect criticism. They want people to believe he was murdered in the most brutal way, and at the same time have a somewhat credible version of the events that say the exact opposite, in their defense.

Perhaps it IS the Trump factor. Would the reporting be different had this happened under Obama? Then again, other than I know this is a story, I don't really have any idea what the reporting is like since I don't really watch any anymore.

There’d probably be less reporting on the idea that Obama’s son in law had something to do with it, and probably some reporting on Obama saying some hollow words about how terrible it all is.

The United States has had a servile disposition toward KSA ever since they threatened to nationalize Aramco in the 1930s but whatever, it’s all bad orange presidents fault.