Page 266 of 380 FirstFirst ... 166216256264265266267268276316366 ... LastLast
Results 10,601 to 10,640 of 15173

Thread: Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!

  1. #10601
    Ooh, yes! That would work pretty well.

  2. #10602
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    You might be able to get people interested in those guys if they fought for social justice, though. Clearly Brandeis fits into this category!

    (Was Paine an abolitionist?)
    Apparently he espoused those views strongly in person, but as what you quoted said, it's unclear he wrote on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    But only now that he has your permission.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    When you put it that way, I don't see the upshot of having an opinion.
    Sorry. That was a rude thing to say. I was just hoping that, well, often Eversor expresses hostility and sarcasm to my views, so I thought I'd give a clear argument as to why I say some of the stuff I do to get a response on it, or at least some clues about where to go to correct my views. So I felt a little frustrated that he's backing out without offering much of what I was seeking. Considering I asked him to and he was replying.

  3. #10603
    btw, I wasn't assuming you were trying to be rude. Of course it's easy to come across as rude in this medium without trying.

  4. #10604
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    btw, I wasn't assuming you were trying to be rude. Of course it's easy to come across as rude in this medium without trying.
    It's definitely a bunch of effort to defend your position, and I was asking that of Eversor. I recognize it can be a burden to put that much thought. I don't expect him to necessarily defend his views to the end. I literally mean that if he doesn't want to express his disagreements, or if the conversation has worn him out, I'm fine not pressing the subject any longer and moving on. It just came out terse.

  5. #10605
    I mean, I guess I kind of got lost with the post you wrote on your phone. I think I know, but i wasn't super confident with what you were getting at there, so I think that's why things kind of trailed off.

  6. #10606
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    I mean, I guess I kind of got lost with the post you wrote on your phone. I think I know, but i wasn't super confident with what you were getting at there, so I think that's why things kind of trailed off.
    Ah, I see. I think the post I was trying to respond to was this one:

    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    I don't think it's meaningless. If we follow Grossman on this, I think it speaks to the fact that Republican affiliation is based more on cultural identification, and with a vision of what constitutes Americanness than a program of governance, as it is for Democrats. Americans like to think of themselves and like to think of their dignity as being associated with self-reliance, hard work, etc. Evidently, a person can believe that they achieve dignity through hard work and self-reliance even though they receive health insurance through a federal program such as medicare.

    I think very often Democrats/the left argue that the fact that a person would vote Republican yet rely on a service like medicare as hypocrisy. But Grossman's argument about the asymmetry of the parties make possible a more benign understanding of what's happening when someone votes Republican: they're voting for a gesalt vision of America rather than a program of governance. I think Grossman's argument is actually quite elegant, and actually gives an explanation for why Republicans -- as liberals put it -- "vote against their self-interest", without attributing it to Republicans being ignoramuses or moral cretins.
    I'm fine accepting Grossman's idea; Republicans vote for this gesalt vision of America rather than a program of governance. I was saying that, okay, I think we can agree that there is a difference in why they vote. But it's not clear why a gesalt vision of America is a good reason to pick a politician. That's what I'm saying, if they vote for this gesalt vision of America, then the next step is justifying why that is the right vision.

    My examples were to rhetorically show that just having a reason alone isn't justification for behavior, we also judge the reason.

  7. #10607
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    Ah, I see. I think the post I was trying to respond to was this one:



    I'm fine accepting Grossman's idea; Republicans vote for this gesalt vision of America rather than a program of governance. I was saying that, okay, I think we can agree that there is a difference in why they vote. But it's not clear why a gesalt vision of America is a good reason to pick a politician. That's what I'm saying, if they vote for this gesalt vision of America, then the next step is justifying why that is the right vision.

    My examples were to rhetorically show that just having a reason alone isn't justification for behavior, we also judge the reason.
    It seems like you also think, though, that there's something irresponsible about voting based on abstract ideas if they aren't coupled with concrete goals?

  8. #10608
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,767
    Like, you can create an analogy with when someone intentionally kills another person. It's not enough to say they had a reason to kill the other person, you also ask why. Were they defending someone? Were they doing it in self defense? Were they just getting revenge? The reasons why they killed someone matters, and we can propose arguments to justify why killing for self-defense is acceptable, but killing for revenge is not.

  9. #10609
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    It seems like you also think, though, that there's something irresponsible about voting based on abstract ideas if they aren't coupled with concrete goals?
    I don't know if that's always true, but I can see that being true often, yes.

  10. #10610
    btw, gestalt is spelled with a 't'

  11. #10611
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    Like, you can create an analogy with when someone intentionally kills another person. It's not enough to say they had a reason to kill the other person, you also ask why. Were they defending someone? Were they doing it in self defense? Were they just getting revenge? The reasons why they killed someone matters, and we can propose arguments to justify why killing for self-defense is acceptable, but killing for revenge is not.
    But we're talking about voting -- I don't see what work the killing analogy is doing here, aside from pointing out that the same action can have different motives and that that changes its moral meaning. I thought I was clear that I was suggesting that that Grossman presents a way of understanding how people could vote Republican and have benign motivations. Is that what you mean by motivation?

    It seems like something at stake here is that you're implying that there's some sort of recklessness to voting on the basis of abstract principles, because that gives politicians carte blanche when it comes to policy -- there are unintended consequences involved. But Like, someone could've voted for Obama because he offered promised concrete deliverables, like a public option in healthcare and ending the Iraq War, but despite the fact that he would:

    1) ramp up deportations
    2) withdraw troops from Iraq only to later send them back and get involved in several other wars in the middle east
    3) failing to shutdown Gitmo and carrying out drone strikes that continued some of the extralegal activities of the Bush administration that he promised to scale back
    4) failing to deliver on a public option, which was one of the ways in which he distinguished himself from Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primaries, and instead designing a healthcare system inspired by a Republican governor's (Mitt Romney) that left tens of millions of people uninsured.

    Promising concrete deliverables doesn't mean that a politician won't end up doing things that run counter to your good intentions when you voted for them. I don't understand why a Republican who votes on abstract principles would be any more or less accountable for the the unintended things that Republican politicians do.
    Last edited by Eversor; 08-02-2018 at 12:12 PM.

  12. #10612
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    Out of pure curiosity, I wonder how many conservatives would vote for Barack Obama against Hilary Clinton, if he had won the Republican nomination (leaving his race out of the equation).
    That's dumb.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    I mean, out of pure curiosity, I wonder how many US conservatives would vote for Alex Jones if he had the GOP nomination. I never want to find out.
    That's interesting.
    "I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16


  13. #10613
    What about a ham sandwich?

  14. #10614
    **** off *****
    sniff

  15. #10615
    im sorry i forgot i was on the internet

    ham is less carbon intensive than beef
    sniff

  16. #10616
    lol, I was wondering what I said wrong.

  17. #10617
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Spook View Post
    im sorry i forgot i was on the internet

    ham is less carbon intensive than beef
    yeah but after you finish curing and smoking the bacon, frying it, reducing the maple sap, candying it in maple syrup

  18. #10618
    Hmm, is Donny getting sick of being president?

    Quote Originally Posted by The New York Times
    WASHINGTON — President Trump pushed his lawyers in recent days to try once again to reach an agreement with the special counsel’s office about him sitting for an interview, flouting their advice that he should not answer investigators’ questions, three people briefed on the matter said on Wednesday.

    Mr. Trump has told advisers he is eager to meet with investigators to clear himself of wrongdoing, the people said. In effect, he believes he can convince the investigators for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, of his belief that their own inquiry is a “witch hunt.”

    [...]
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/01/u...interview.html

  19. #10619
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    At least with a multi-party platform, genuine conservatives could have their own party and Trumpists would be their own thing, and we'd only have a coalition instead of half of the government supporting the fascist.
    Yes, that is exactly how it would work. On the left we have a classic socialist party, a party of more moderate social democrats, a left wing party that emphasizes civil liberties, climate solutions and innovative technology, a left wing party for the rights of immigrants and emphasis on challenges in a multi-cultural society (they're pretty populist though), and there's even an animal rights party (don't think PETA, think smart people) who have the most ambitious climate solutions program of them all. They're not even remotely a one-issue party, they have an extensive program on every imaginable subject.

    In the centre there's a party of moderate economic liberals who emphasize civil rights, education and democratic reform. Also somewhat in the centre there's a Christian party who are the most liberal and socialist of the Christian bunch, they also emphasize climate solutions.

    Then on the right you have Christian democrats for the somewhat conservative, a party of economic liberals for the wealthy (they're also more socially liberal, but slightly more conservative when it comes to immigration and law enforcement, but you absolutely can't call them conservatives). Then there's a small fundamentalist Christian party of extreme conservatives, and this is where Trump would be sitting: the populist party of Geert Wilders for the islamophobes, and another party of immigrant hating economic liberals who also have an agenda of democratic reforms. They're like an extension of Wilders' party, only slightly less populist, they're trying to be more intellectual about it, and failing if you ask me.

    The populists have never really been a real problem, since there isn't a single party in all of that who want to be associated with them. This is not just for ideological reasons, they also proved to be unreliable in the past. But it's not like they haven't mattered at all. Over the past decade and a half there's obviously been a shift to the right for most parties, even the ones on the left. This is because the electoral success of the populists forced all the other parties to speak out and act on the issues they were addressing, in hope of reaching populist voters.

    But that's not exclusive to the populists. Every party has some effect on policies, even just by starting the debate on some topic. Even when a party never joins in the formation of a government, there's always what we call 'initiative lawmaking', that's when the opposition pitches a proposal for policy. If they manage to convince the government, it will become reality. For example, the animal rights party may never join a government, but they've been a continuous presence in politics, and thanks to them addressing the issues, there are huge reforms going on in what we call "bio industry", or intensive animal farming, which is not only an animal rights issue, it's our country's #1 source of pollution and co2 emission.
    Last edited by ORJ_JoS; 08-03-2018 at 01:49 PM.

  20. #10620
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    yeah but after you finish curing and smoking the bacon, frying it, reducing the maple sap, candying it in maple syrup
    If you do all of that to long pork made from billionaires, are you emitting a lot because of how much carbon went into your food, or are you cutting emissions because they're dead
    sniff

  21. #10621
    Sooo... apparently, it's the Democratic party that are the Nazis. Thanks Don Jr.!
    Quote Originally Posted by CNN
    President Donald Trump's eldest son said the platform of the Democratic Party is similar to that of the Nazi Party in Germany during the early 1930s and that history classes are biased against conservatives. In a video posted Thursday by the pro-Trump One America News Network, Jack Posobiec -- a prominent right-wing voice online who supported the Pizzagate hoax -- spoke with Donald Trump Jr., who compared the present-day Democratic Party to Nazis and disparaged history taught by academics. "I've been out hearing the left talking about all these things, fascism, Nazism on the right," Trump Jr. said. "And when you look at the actual history of how these things evolved, and when you actually look at that platform versus the platform of the modern left, you say wait a minute, those two are really heavily aligned and, frankly, contrary to the right." He warned people against saying something "because someone told you that in a history class" because academia had been influenced by the left. "You see the Nazi platform in the early 1930s and what was actually put out there ... and you look at it compared to like the DNC platform of today, and you're saying, man, those things are awfully similar, to a point where it's actually scary," Trump Jr. said. [...]
    https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/02/polit...dinesh-dsouza/

  22. #10622
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,118
    Obviously, they spend so much time complaining about fake news and Jewish bolshevism cultural Marxism

  23. #10623
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,118
    My favorite part about posting in this thread is that sometimes I'll end up with a bunch of tabs open to Mein Kampf, lookin for some sick Trump burn, but then get bored/forget about it and come back hours later to a hilarious surprise

  24. #10624
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    Sooo... apparently, it's the Democratic party that are the Nazis. Thanks Don Jr.! https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/02/polit...dinesh-dsouza/

  25. #10625
    This is pretty outrageous. The NRA claims to be financially failing because it lobbied too hard and can no longer afford the cost of insurance for general liability in its operations.
    Last edited by Reverend Jones; 08-03-2018 at 06:15 PM.

  26. #10626
    Doesn't care what his title is
    Christmas Cardmaker Extrordinarie

    Posts
    5,178
    My understanding is that due to pressure from anti-gun groups and politicians, insurers and lenders are no longer working with the NRA and various gun manufacturers, making it difficult to do business. The NRA is suing to stop it, so of course (in typical NRA fashion) they have to exaggerate and paint a grim picture to garner support.

    [ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-n...-idUSKBN1KO2QY

    IDGAF about the NRA, but I am opposed to the backdoor legislation violating free speech going on by Cuomo and the various financial services. It just happens to be the NRA this time]
    Last edited by Steven; 08-03-2018 at 06:30 PM.

  27. #10627
    That'd be cool.

  28. #10628
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,118
    NRA membership collapsed in the 1990s when they overtly transitioned from non-partisan gun rights activism to a Republican PAC. The NRA doesn’t disclose official statistics about membership - their spokespeople vacillate wildly from day to day - but third party estimates say it fell below 2 million by Bush 43’s first term and never really recovered. Even apologists admit the official numbers are, at least, padded by the million+ lifetime members who are in fact dead.

    Much like their favourite president, the only reason the NRA is still in business is because of Russian government generosity.

  29. #10629

  30. #10630
    Someone should chop that out and do the Led Zeppelin IV cover that is the hermit from the rider-waite-smith deck
    sniff

  31. #10631
    Likes Kittens. Eats Fluffies
    Posts
    11,950
    fording the swamp

    it's so beautiful

  32. #10632

  33. #10633
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,767
    Apparently in that Dinesh D'Souza quotes Hitler as saying "if you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."

    That quote is, in my opinion, one of the most perfect examples of missing context. Hitler wasn't saying that about himself in relationship to the German people, which is what the quote is used to imply - it was said to explain how the Jewish people could have deceived the German people.

    That makes D'Souza's usage ironic on a few levels. Think about what the film is trying to do, and how his misuse of that quote compares to what Hitler was saying about the Jews. (Hint: it's about fabricating falsehoods to invent a conspiracy about your political opponents)

  34. #10634
    Watching the trailer, it is really fascinating how similar it is to the movie that the US made for Kim when he met with Trump in Singapore. In this trailer, the bits at the beginning seem very deliberately to evoke Gladiator, when Russell Crowe walks through the wheat field (Elysium) and touches the grain with his hand. It's drawing a connection between historical events and a fictitious story, and, in doing so, blurring the distinction between narrative and truth, fiction and reality.

    The trailer is not only a trailer for the movie. It's also an exhortation to a certain kind of political activism. The idea seems to be that you yourself, as a viewer of the trailer, are urged to live out a heroic story, a heroic narrative, that has the same kind of tidiness as a cinematic narrative, by engaging politically. Real life, in that sense, can be elevated, in the same way that movies elevate the stories of extraordinary individuals. The trailer is just as much as trailer for the movie as it is four your heroic journey.

    In other words, it's no different from something Cody Johnson said in one of his videos about fascism (or several of them -- I can't keep track anymore): under fascism, everyone is a hero.
    Last edited by Eversor; 08-04-2018 at 08:57 PM.

  35. #10635
    Clips of slave owners and confederate soldiers dying in battle, with a voice over claiming that the Democrats -- rather than, say, confederates -- were responsible for succession, and juxtaposing that imagery with leftist/liberal/Democrat protesters rioting in the streets. Daaaaaamn, not very subtle, to say the least.
    Last edited by Eversor; 08-04-2018 at 09:15 PM.

  36. #10636
    lol, subtle is not exactly the word that came to mind when I saw

    1. The poster for the movie
    2. The title of the movie
    3. The person who made the movie


    What's more mind blowing to me that something like this even exists (and isn't satire).

  37. #10637


    ****ing lmao
    sniff

  38. #10638
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,767
    So if anyone doubted that Trumpism is about picking economic winners at the expense of.. well everybody else, the EPA is approving use of asbestos again in manufacturing. And a Russian company which manufactures asbestos is now distributing their product with Trump's face on it.

  39. #10639
    Quote Originally Posted by Spook View Post


    ****ing lmao
    Damn this is good.

  40. #10640
    Sasha Baron Cohen has done more to convince me that Republicans are evil with a scandanavian accent and a goofy Hawaiian shirt than all of the major organs of the Democratic establishment.

    There's really a moral clarity to this that's refreshing.
    Last edited by Eversor; 08-07-2018 at 11:52 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •