|
Al Harrington posted:goddamnit, the americans against the tea party group on facebook is now posting that mayday poo poo What's the deal with that and why exactly is it terrible? I only just recently started seeing it get shared around.
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
Nostradingus posted:WE LIVE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE, ONLY BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE! This part made me double take. It's seriously disturbing that an American patriot could write this unironically. "Support the junta or go before a firing squad" -conservative American values Edit: I wonder if these military fetishists realize that B. Hussein Obama is the commander in chief of the military. He's the number one military guy. Super king of the military. Every soldier from top to bottom has the ultimate duty to enact the will of our Marxist Muslim Emperor. Deep State of Mind fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Jul 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
sweart gliwere posted:can't differentiate Sufi from Sunni or Shia, and can't explain why Jewish law is acceptable when it's practically the same. Please don't get them started. The kind of Jews who practice Halakah as part of their daily lives are the extremely visible ones who dress up like  and speak Yiddish. They'd be just as scary and dangerous to the far right crowd as the nebulous Muslims, if they were aware of them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:They try to avoid that by never having them all meet at the same time. For instance, they always have one member of the Cabinet stay out of the Capitol during the State of the Union, just in case the building blows up. And then the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development hatched his evil plot to blow up the Capitol and seize power one and for all.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
Can someone explain why the "Plucky Little Israel" narrative doesn't work? I'm an American Jew who was raised on stories of how Our Jewish State was dogpiled by all its Arab neighbors within minutes of gaining independence and managed to beat them all back and even take some of their land. And then they managed to do it again two more times. I mean, Israel was a much smaller country in both land area and population than its neighbors, right? And as I understand it, US government support for Israel wasn't really a thing until Nixon. So what's the part I'm missing there?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
So the point is that there used to be a Plucky Little Israel but there isn't anymore? That makes sense. But there's really people who believe that Israel is small and weak in this day and age? I didn't even know that was on the table.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
Careful preparation and military experience still sounds like Israel accomplished an impressive feat. I think if you ruled out training, preparation and experience, nobody could've ever been considered to have accomplished anything ever.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
Face punching is a mere continuation of this thread by other means.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
He is literally a gangster (and that's actual literally, not Internet literally. He is in a gang) and his purpose in the first movie is to illegally smuggle people past the authorities from one jurisdiction to another.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 13:35
|
|
|
I think I can deliver this thread's first authentic email forward in a while. My mom called me up and asked for my email address the other day specifically to forward me this. The emphasis is all someone else's, maybe the original author's, I don't know: Why the Left is Closed-minded and Intolerant Erica Wanis 7/30/2014 12:01:00 AM Ask a conservative why they believe that their views are "true" and you are likely to get (assuming you are speaking with a thoughtful, articulate person) a varied and multifaceted answer that invokes religion, tradition, and philosophy. Ask a liberal [leftist] why their worldview reflects the truth and you are likely to get a rhetorically compelling response long on passion and emotional appeal but woefully lacking when it comes to rational coherence, common sense, or practicability. One of the primary critiques of religion popular among New Atheists and secularists generally is that it is arrogant and close-minded for any group to claim a monopoly on Truth. The idea that a divine creator had a plan and ordered things a certain way, that he revealed the Truth to an elect group and that all mankind will be judged by how closely they aligned their lives with the Truth... nothing could be more offensive to the secular progressive worldview. On the contrary, secular progressives [leftists] claim the mantle of open-mindedness and tolerance. They understand that what feels true for some may not be true for others. They value individual perspective and individual experience and recognize that nothing in life – not morality or values or culture or lifestyle – is one-size-fits-all. The tolerance that secular progressives [leftists] boast, however, is little more than a hollow facade. There is nothing tolerant about the secular progressive worldview, and secular progressives are just as arrogant as the most self-righteous holy roller when it comes to their certainty that their version of "the Truth" is the correct one. Offenses against the established secular orthodoxy are increasingly met with a fiery scorn that would have shamed the most zealous of Puritans. First Things editor R.R. Reno recently addressed this issue in a short essay entitled "The Bolshevik Moment." Drawing parallels from the revolutionary movement that transformed Russia after the fall of the Tsar in 1917, Reno observes: "American in 2014 certainly is not Russia in 1917. Our society is stable. Our liberal [leftist] elites are very much in control of the institutions they dominate, and their watchword increasingly is sustainability, not revolution. But theirs is a muddy, ad hoc ruling mentality. We're to be inclusive – except when we're not to be. We're to be tolerant – except when faced with the intolerable. We're to affirm – except when we're to deny and denounce. We're to think critically – except about liberal pieties. Our Ivy League presidents are all liberals, but I sincerely doubt they could give a coherent explanation of or justification for where the lines are to be drawn. This fuzziness makes them vulnerable. They're easily intimidated by students and faculty who out-flank them on the left. They're cowed by the Party of the Pure." Reno goes on to describe two notable accounts whereby college administrations were pressured to disinvite (or the speakers themselves withdrew) respectable and distinguished individuals as commencement speakers for failing to meet the ideological standards of outraged students and faculty. In the now infamous words of Harvard undergraduate Sandra Korn, it's not "academic freedom" that matters, but "academic justice." Those deemed a threat to the advancement of progressive ideology should, as a matter of justice, be silenced and ostracized. She calls for the ouster of Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield, for example, for his "sexist commentary," referring to his suggestion that modest dress and ladylike conduct might decrease the frequency of male sexual aggression against women on college campuses. Using the platform of the Harvard Crimson to challenge Mansfield's position in a public forum is apparently not enough. There is a limit to the free exchange of ideas, and in Korn's august view, Mansfield's ideas don't qualify for consideration. Reno attributes the rising influence of far-left ideologues to the "hopeless mush" that is establishment liberalism [leftism]. In a word, the establishment has been so obsessed for so long with promoting diversity, tolerance, and open-mindedness that it lacks the perceived authority to police its own movement. Consequently, it's the squeaky wheels that get the grease, no matter how extreme or ludicrous their message. Additionally, Reno notes that far-left progressives are making hay while the sun shines, as they currently have popular sentiment on their side. This enables them to push their agenda more aggressively than they otherwise might: "The triumph of gay rights and gay marriage has been so rapid that progressives feel as though they have History on their side. The defeat of the Arizona Religious Freedom Restoration Act last winter demonstrated the extraordinary power of the movement. Gay activists were able to grotesquely mischaracterize the intent and significance of the legislation – and to do so with the full complicity of the media. . . . It wasn't so much the victory that now emboldens our present-day Bolsheviks; it was the ability of gay activists to dehumanize their opponents. Bigots don't deserve respect; and like the bourgeoisie of old, they don't deserve protection under the law. This division of society into the clean and impure, just and unjust, is at work in Sandra Korn's confident dismissal of academic freedom as a distraction from the real task of "academic justice." She knows who should be in control of the future – and who must be silenced." Reno's use of the word "dehumanize" to describe the tactics of the far-left is notable, for when it comes to the ideological battles currently raging across America's cultural landscape, it is often the case that liberals [leftists] view their opponents as not merely wrongheaded, but positively evil. Many liberals simply cannot imagine how a truly good and well-meaning person could arrive at different conclusions on issues like homosexuality, feminism, or the environment, so their kneejerk reaction to opposition of any kind is character assassination. This phenomenon reflects the findings of psychologist Jonathan Haidt, whose 2012 work, The Righteous Mind explores how and why people believe what they believe and why they hold the moral views they do. The answer, Haidt suggests, has much more to do with sentiment and intuition, and little to do with reason qua reason. In his review of The Righteous Mind for The New York Times, William Saletan captures the gist of Haidt's argument nicely, and is worth quoting at length: "To the question many people ask about politics – Why doesn't the other side listen to reason? – Haidt replies: We were never designed to listen to reason. When you ask people moral questions, time their responses and scan their brains, their answers and brain activation patterns indicate that they reach conclusions quickly and produce reasons later only to justify what they've decided. . . . The problem isn't that people don't reason. They do reason. But their arguments aim to support their conclusions, not yours. Reason doesn't work like a judge or teacher, impartially weighing evidence or guiding us to wisdom. It works more like a lawyer or press secretary, justifying our acts and judgments to others. . . . Haidt has read ethnographies, traveled the world and surveyed tens of thousands of people online. He and his colleagues have compiled a catalog of six fundamental ideas that commonly undergird moral systems: care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority and sanctity. Alongside these principles, he has found related themes that carry moral weight: divinity, community, hierarchy, tradition, sin and degradation. . . The worldviews Haidt discusses may differ from yours. They don't start with the individual. They start with the group or the cosmic order. They exalt families, armies and communities. They assume that people should be treated differently according to social role or status — elders should be honored, subordinates should be protected. They suppress forms of self-expression that might weaken the social fabric. They assume interdependence, not autonomy. They prize order, not equality. . . . [You] don't have to go abroad to see these ideas. You can find them in the Republican Party. Social conservatives see welfare and feminism as threats to responsibility and family stability. The Tea Party hates redistribution because it interferes with letting people reap what they earn. Faith, patriotism, valor, chastity, law and order – these Republican themes touch all six moral foundations, whereas Democrats, in Haidt's analysis, focus almost entirely on care and fighting oppression. This is Haidt's startling message to the left: When it comes to morality, conservatives are more broad-minded than liberals. They serve a more varied diet. . . . The hardest part, Haidt finds, is getting liberals to open their minds. Anecdotally, he reports that when he talks about authority, loyalty and sanctity, many people in the audience spurn these ideas as the seeds of racism, sexism and homophobia. And in a survey of 2,000 Americans, Haidt found that self-described liberals, especially those who called themselves "very liberal," were worse at predicting the moral judgments of moderates and conservatives than moderates and conservatives were at predicting the moral judgments of liberals. Liberals don't understand conservative values. And they can't recognize this failing, because they're so convinced of their rationality, open-mindedness and enlightenment." This last sentence, if true, explains the Bolshevism of the left as observed by R.R. Reno and my own theory about the left's ironic quest to claim a monopoly on Truth. Ask a conservative why they believe that their views are "true" and you are likely to get (assuming you are speaking with a thoughtful, articulate person) a varied and multifaceted answer that invokes religion, tradition, and philosophy. Ask a liberal [leftist] why their worldview reflects the truth and you are likely to get a rhetorically compelling response long on passion and emotional appeal but woefully lacking when it comes to rational coherence, common sense, or practicability. Haidt's work explains, then, why engaging a person of the opposite ideological stripe often feels so frustrating and fruitless, particularly when it involves a conservative trying to justify their worldview to a liberal. It's not difficult for a conservative to understand where a liberal is coming from based on their understanding of the foundational values that inform liberal orthodoxy. "I understand what values are important to you and which don't register on your radar, thus I understand why you hold the views you do." If Haidt's research is correct, many liberals are literally incapable of doing this. When they are met with contrasting views, like Sandra Korn and her arch-nemesis Harvey Mansfield, they experience such a jarring episode of cognitive dissonance that the only "reasonable" conclusion for them to draw is that the person opposite them must be a bad person. I doubt many liberals are comfortable with Haidt's findings in The Righteous Mind. Conservatives, however, should be encouraged by his work. We should make a concerted effort to inform ourselves of the moral, psychological, philosophical, religious, and cultural foundations of our beliefs, so that we are better able to defend these beliefs in an articulate, reasonable, and winsome fashion. If, after all, there really is such a thing as truth, the evidence seems to indicate that we really do have it on our side.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
gatesealer posted:Does he think he won't have to pay taxes elsewhere? Don't we have the lowest taxes of any first world country? So he is advocating not paying taxes here and going to some place where he will have to pay more taxes? There are plenty of tax havens out there. I know a couple of ecommerce weirdos who legally pay zero taxes here in Hong Kong thanks to BVI corporations, no foreign earned income taxation and no dividend tax. A lot of tax havens like HK have high Heritage Foundation economic freedom rankings and other things internet libertarians would like. Try to get him to come to our cyberpunk hellhole.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It wasn't a huge deal, and not really more annoying than having to stand there for boring speeches in a change of command ceremony anyway, but it's still an imposition on religious freedom, however mild. If you doubt this, and if you think that sectarian prayers at mandatory events aren't imposing religion, then let's make all the prayers explicitly Muslim instead and invoke the blessing of the only God and Mohammed His Prophet (pbuh), and I'm sure that all of the Christians demanding that official prayer continue will be totally fine with this because it's not in any way an imposition on their religion or an attempt to push Islam onto soldiers of other faiths, right?  ) and everything. I think there are quite a few non-Christian chaplains in the US military.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Let's just pull a reducto ad absurdum and agree to never use adjectives on people.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 09:36
|
|
|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:The best was the immigration thing over the summer. Links to articles of border agents doing their job by rounding up illegals by the thousands yet "our border is insecure and underfunded". Obviously if the border was defended, they wouldn't be making it across to be rounded up. Kill on sight. Kill on site.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
One of my ancestors was an indentured servant for seven years so I should get a free ride to college or whatever affirmative action actually does.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
One of my presumably racist but definitely conservative relatives shared this The Blaze story which is pretty standard "here's some of the good ones" fare, but there's this excellent paragraph in there:The Blaze posted:A group of four black Ferguson residents reportedly armed themselves and descended upon a white-owned business following a grand jury’s decision not to indict police officer Darren Wilson in the fatal shooting of Michael Brown. But unlike many of the Ferguson demonstrators, the armed men were there to protect the business, not destroy it in protest.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
Buzkashi posted:Just saw this article posted and it's from 15 drat years ago - The Economist this week mentioned repeatedly how America's lovely gun control situation makes cops way jumpier and way more eager to shoot people. Theoretically anyone could have a gun and be about to kill them. But I imagine most of these BEING A COP IS HARD pieces aren't advocating a more robust gun control system.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Buzkashi posted:Just saw this article posted and it's from 15 drat years ago - Another thing about this just occurred to me: the fact that they're suggesting the only reason the cops aren't killing people is out of fear of brutality charges. Not like compassion or a general human reluctance to kill other humans.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
ZorajitZorajit posted:The phrase "thugs/organizations" is uniquely surreal to me for some reason. Translation: niggers/friend of the family-lovers
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
One of the dumbest things right wingers have been up to lately has been this idea that "entitlements" means the exact opposite of what it actually means. Like "how dare they call this social security money, which I worked for and paid into my whole life and am therefore entitled to, an entitlement?! Like it's some kind of free handout!?"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:It's incredible how much hate she gets even from people that seem otherwise reasonable. I know a guy from another site who's very liberal, thinks everyone in Gamergate is a bunch of stupid sexist shitheads, and he still went off on how Anita Sarkeesian is dumb and terrible and should stop making videos (while saying that anyone who gives her death/rape threats is even worse). It kind of took me by surprise because unless you buy into the whole Gamergate mentality what else is left to hate her for? I think on a critical level her arguments are not well supported, although the production values in her videos are very good. I don't see how you could hate her unless you were a goony game guy who felt threatened by the fact that someone was criticizing the video games you are always mad at anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 09:01
|
|
|
Vargatron posted:In America, being a Veteran means that your actions are Beyond Reproach and nobody should ever say a bad word about you. The problem with this theory is that Jesse Ventura is also a veteran of the exact same type as Chris Kyle. Although I guess he just loses some points for not being a sniper so Chris Kyle is ranked higher and wins. Even though snipers by definition hide where no one can see them and take out dudes from safe vantage points while Jesse Ventura faced down the Predator and minigunned the Entire Jungle.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
 Sorry I'm ruining America, Uncle Larry.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
That's not quite accurate. There are lots of chimps and bonobos (although I doubt there are millions left) and of course way more than millions of humans. It's all the species in between that went extinct because humans are really loving good at killing things.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
I thought it was a chimp or something. What do I look like, a lefty lucy scientist???
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Is this an argument against amending the constitution ever again? Or an argument that it never should have been amended? Does the author not realize the constitution has been and likely will be amended? Also Does anyone have a response to this? It's the argument I hear most from the right about how Obama's jobs numbers are all lies.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
When he was advisor to the Afghan military, did he try advising them not to be Muslim?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:My favorite is then they go on to complain that liberals don't like Cain or Carson. "See, liberals only like black politicians who agree with them!" I think they more typically trot those two out as a defense that they're not racist.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:
I loving love this one. It straight up says "I think all white people are white supremacists. Why wouldn't they be?" Like this macro makes zero sense unless you start with that postulate.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
xrunner posted:No it doesn't. It makes fine sense unless I'm reading it wrong. I mean, it's dumb as gently caress, but it's arguing that since very few white people support hate groups, but we still call them white supremacists, we should also call ISIS a Muslim group, even if not all Muslims support them. Its stupid and Whitney and demonstrates bigotry, but it doesn't require the reader to assume all white people are racist. It would only work that way if we (or the macro) called them white groups, going by LL's assumption of white as equivalent to Muslim. We don't call ISIS a Muslim supremacist group and neither do they. They want to indict all Muslims by calling them a Muslim group, and somehow claim this is equivalent to indicting all white people by calling the KKK or what have got a white supremacist group. So that only works if you make "white supremacist" equivalent to "Muslim" and therefore assume that all white people are white supremacists. Otherwise I can't see any way that calling the KKK a white supremacist group is an indictment of all white people.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
If that's the case then I totally agree with them. Both the KKK and ISIS should be destroyed, but I do not advocate white genocide or extermination of Muslims. That doesn't seem consistent with LL101's editorial standpoint though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Then China comes up; it is literally illegal in China to disagree with anything Mao decided. . Thus is not true, by the way. I don't know much about the intellectual history of communism but the Chinese Communist Party itself has publicly disagreed with Mao Zedong on many points since 1976. So to try to veer us back on topic, the political hyperbole is coming from inside the thread.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:Yeah, Maoism is...not really a thing in China anymore, they've largely moved on to 'socialism with Chinese characteristics', which basically means 'barely-regulated free market capitalism with a strong centralized authoritarian state to defend the capitalist class and a bunch of red flags flying everywhere.' Also state capitalism with massive state-owned enterprises dominating several key industries.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
I was having lunch with some of my colleagues the other day and one of them announces that he sure as hell isn't voting for "Who Cares Hillary." So I asked him if he was referencing the "what difference does it make" thing and of course he was, admitting he had forgotten the exact quote. I asked him if he even knew the question she was answering when she spoke the famous words and, of course, he didn't. When I recounted it for him, demonstrating that she was not callously saying that the deaths of her diplomats and CIA colleagues didn't matter and in fact literally said the opposite, he suddenly became really insistent that it's absolutely critical to know whether there was a protest leading up to the attack, that having this information would have changed history as we know it and it was woefully irresponsible of the Secretary of State to not have been aware of it. It was a frustrating discussion, but I like to think he realized how ignorant he looked, or at least that our other colleagues did.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This does not sound likely. Last Week Tonight convinced me that there are some police departments that actively seek out people on whom to use civil asset forfeiture. Like they deliberately find marks who have lots of cash on them to seize
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
I don't think he's suggesting that asset forfeiture isn't a problem. I understand and agree with his idea that there is little risk of bank reporting being used by local police departments in asset forfeiture revenue schemes because of the way the reporting goes down. Federal agencies wouldn't benefit from exploiting asset forfeiture the way local departments do.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:Here's the full Hillary quote: I posted in this thread about a colleague of mine who was ranting about "Who Cares" Hillary. And of course the best thing to do to these people is make them feel retarded by asking them what question she was answering. In my limited experience, 100% of Benghazi ranters don't even know the question.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
My aunt shared this video, tagging me with "this might make your head explode!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpH5L8zCtSk&t=7s It's pretty standard jerking off to the military and Reagan speeches. I replied with a video of Secretary Kerry sharing some of the things his diplomats have accomplished lately without killing people or spending insane amounts of money. No heads exploded.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
Does the EU even have a position called secretary general?
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 15:08
|
|