“You can be sure we will charge and advance the investigation toward the most serious charges that can be brought because this is unequivocally an unacceptable evil attack,” Mr. Sessions said, adding that terrorism and civil rights investigators were working on the case....
The “domestic terrorism” language is largely symbolic — many of the law's stiffest penalties are for international terrorism that do not apply domestically. But the debate over language has raged for more than a decade, as Muslim groups in particular argue that the word terrorism is used only when the attackers are Muslim....
August 14, 2017
"It does meet the definition of domestic terrorism in our statute."
Said Jeff Sessions, speaking of the Charlottesville incident (NYT).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
479 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 479 of 479Same group that, by the way, would post want ads in the alternate media to pay people to protest at various D.C. events.
sunsong said...
Please show us some of those many comments. I call bull shit on this.
New York Times story with comments
dEs joHnson Forest Hills, NY June 14, 2017
"I condemn this violence unreservedly. But as GOP members bemoan their inability to go about a sacred America ritual without fearing for their lives, I must point out that the vast majority of Americans cannot now go to bed, or get up in the morning, or go to work without the threat of GOP cruelty hanging over them. My Medicare! My Social Security! My country once more to be dragged into a war of political and profiteering convenience! Let's have some proportionality here! And let's have some civilized gun safety laws."
Currently has 4336 likes.
C. M. Indiana June 14, 2017
"I was a student at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007. I was on campus the day a Graduate Teaching Assistant was shot at Purdue University.
I am deeply sorry to hear of this most recent shooting. May we have sensible gun control reform now, please?"
Currently has 3416 likes
Dorota Holmdel June 14, 2017
"My thoughts and best wishes go to all injured.
Congressman Scalise, let something good come out of this tragedy. Let your Website, instead of "Congressman Scalise's pro-gun stance has earned him an A+ rating from the National Rifle Association, say "Congressman Scalise's anti-gun stance earned him an F rating from National Rifle Association.'"
Currently has 3231 likes
Pam Roman Trumbull June 14, 2017
"It's past time for "thoughts and prayers". I am so sad to hear that this has happened; sad to know that so few in government will stand up to the NRA and their $$; and sad to know that next time, it could be me or mine in a ball field somewhere."
Currently has 2355 likes
As for BLM, Antifa, and other extremist protesters, I think some people here are giving them too much credit for principle.
A lot of these folks taking to the streets don't really care about the issues. They are just out for a day or night of mayhem. They are there simply in order to smash things and engage in some thrill violence. They are out there to experience their own real-life Purge. And sometimes, if they are lucky, they can get to loot too.
Many of the folks out there "counter-protesting" the neo-Nazis are also going to be out there setting fires and smashing windows if U.Va. were to win a national championship in basketball.
Much of this has nothing to do with principle, that is, actually caring about this person or that group or that issue. It is all about a chance to be a thug. It is blood sport.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/24/politics/nebraska-dem-fired-scalise-shot/index.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/14/terminate-the-republican-party-followers-celebrate/
So, no bull shit.
Freedom of Assembly used to mean, actually (dolts) the right to put a weapon together in any manner you see fit, i.e. 1lb trigger pull and full auto instead of some 1.5lb. semi shit for pussies.
You bought it, the framers figuered, you can do whatever the hell you want with it, including your choice of standard or atypical assembly.
LOL, he was pissy that he had to denounce the KKK and the Nazis. He'll be in a bad mood all week.
Why should Trump have to denounce them? He's not of them and has never spoken well of their group.
Was Obama hounded to denounce BLM for the shootings in Dallas? Did members of his own party state that he was insufficiently contrite on their behalf? Did the media announce hour after hour that Obama had NOT denounced them, and thus was tacitly supporting their actions?
Of course not. Here is all he said on the matter:
And I understand these protests -- I see them. They can be messy. Sometimes they can be hijacked by an irresponsible few. Police can get hurt.
(APPLAUSE)
Protesters can get hurt. They can be frustrated. But even those who dislike the phrase "black lives matter," surely, we should be able to hear the pain of Alton Sterling's family.
No, Trump had to specifically denounce specific groups or be deemed one of them. Obama denounced protests hijacked by an irresponsible few, does not mention they killed five police officers, and the media calls it all good.
I leftists did not have an anti-conservative narrative in which any right-sounding behavior is suspect of terrorism (see Sara Palin's lawsuit) they would have nothing.
Oops! I forgot. It is always for the children, the disenfranchised, the dead voters and the Poor. Of course, they administer those federal, local and state programs, giving jobs to otherwise completely useless people.
"This is an example of what I'm talking about. How do you know. I have NEVER said I have a weak grasp of logic. Never. But you just decide to say that I have. "
Sunsong, you have said more than once you value emotion over logic. You've provided quotes from your store of Happy Hallmark Sentiments saying as much. You routinely fall back on feeeeellings when confronted with facts.
"How do you know what my knowledge of Gandhi is??? I quoted him."
Yeah, you quoted him bashing Christianity. I'll pass over your equation of Christianity with Nazism. It's a laughable quote from Gandhi because his tactics worked against Christian Britain but did nothing to stop the massive murders, atrocities, rape and torture that occurred AFTER the white Christians had left the scene. The killing numbered in the millions and it was non-white Muslims murdering Hindus and vice versa. You wouldn't have posted that quote if you actually knew something about the history of Indian independence.
But I doubt you were ever educated about it. Leftists thrill to stories of leftist revolution but have a tendency to ignore the aftermath. So it's hooray for Gandhi's march to the sea - but never mind about the bloody aftermath of independence and how his useless economic ideas kept India mired in poverty. Just like it's hooray for the storming of the Bastille, but let's not think about the Reign of Terror. Hooray for Castro, but let's not think about how he killed and imprisoned many thousands and put gays in mental hospitals. Hooray for the Viet Cong fighting colonialism, but let's not think about how all of Vietnam became a dictatorship and Cambodia was plunged into hell. Hugo Chavez was the left's hero - that progressive who mocked Dubya at the UN and was adored by the America left for doing so. Now, thanks to his policies, Venezuela is in anarchy and its people are starving.
You glibly quote people without understanding the context of the quotes you post.
And as another commentator said, we might have a better idea of what is in your mind if you told us instead of constantly falling back on the words of others. We all post quote from time to time, but you seem to do it as a easy way out and in deference to authority (or people you think are unquestioned authorities.)
Matthew Dowd is a notable dolt. quoting him impresses nobody.
Inga lies once again:
"What hypocrisy. When Scalise was shot we heard for an entire week how we "Leftists and Stalinists" were responsible for his death. You think we wouldn't remember?"
You were called Stalinists because you didn't - and don't - condemn violence on the left.
You're a Stalinist.
BTW, I went to a party at a horse farm in rural Waukesha County - Inga's county - on Saturday night and had a wonderful time. Politics wasn't discussed much but I think it's safe to say most of the people there were "Trumpists." Inga's surrounded by people she thinks are Nazi scum. Goodness Inga, aren't you afraid the Trumpists are going to run you over or beat you with a bat?
Nope. You're not. Because you know you're a liar and nobody will do a thing to you. Go down to 35th and Cherry and hang with the Democrats there. How long would you last?
"Matthew Dowd is a notable dolt. quoting him impresses nobody"
I was thinking of how to respond to that, and that the left' refusal to condemn the violent thugs in their midst had something to do with virtue signaling. Then I realized that what we maybe needed was a new meme - that of Dolt Signaling. Quoting Mathew Dowd is Dolt Signaling- signaling that the person doing so is dolt, too ignorant to realize that most of those here consider her a dolt for quoting someone as partisan and unquotable as Dowd.
And Achilles proved his point at 8/14/17, 4:17 PM.
Of course, Inga and sunsong will ignore it and go on repeating lies.
The pattern is clear. The leftists assert something, it's refuted, they ask for proof, it's given - and ignored.
Thus Inga keeps repeating the moronic "Trump's a Nazi!!" despite the fact that it's beyond stupid to imagine that someone with a Jewish daughter, SIL and grandkids is a Nazi.
But, like Goebbels, Inga believes in the Big Lie. Repeat it often enough, and it will be believed.
"Social media users are banding together to expose attendees at the Charlottesville white nationalist rally to make sure their employers, friends, and neighbors know their names.
"A man identified as Cole White was fired from his job at a Berkeley, California restaurant Top Dog when his participation in the rally was revealed by the Twitter account @YesYoureRacist..."
twitter users outing charlottesville protesters
“If you comparing KKK to BLM you’ve already shown what side you’re on.
One wants me dead due to the color of my skin; the other wants equality.”
~ unknown poster
sunsong said...
“If you comparing KKK to BLM you’ve already shown what side you’re on.
One wants me dead due to the color of my skin; the other wants equality.”
~ unknown poster
Unknown poster is full of crap. BLM is a murderous, racist outfit responsible for the death of cops and the burning and looting of inner city businesses.
I'm sorry that you approve of the murder of cops, sunsong. I thought you were better than that.
You can post that line from some unknown shit all you want and italicize it so it looks pretty and that doesn't make it true.
It's morally repugnant.
I'm also sorry to see you approve of Stalinist tactics.
I guess you want to prove that Achilles is right after all and you really are a Stalinist.
Point taken.
Triangle Man said...
"Meanwhile you need to kick out Antifa, CAIR, BLM, La Raza, every campus leftist organization, ANSWER, ACORN and any number of militant racist organizations."
Commies and violent radicals out.
Can we agree on getting the anti-vax, anti-GMO, young earth, creationist yahoos off of both parties platforms too?"
Sure, as long as we exclude the CAGW and ecofascists, too.
They already have the Green Party to go to anyway.
“If you comparing KKK to BLM you’ve already shown what side you’re on.
One wants me dead due to the color of my skin; the other wants equality.”
One might want you dead because of your skin color, the other wants you to walk at the back of the line because of your skin color, fights against equal protection, believes cops are pigs, and lies about circumstances to heighten animosity. BLM certainly does not want equality.
Reasonable people conclude both groups are wrong.
Shift change.
Do you condemn Antifa or do you support Antifa?
Who are "Antifa" and how many Americans did they kill Saturday while wearing pro-Trump paraphernalia?
Shift change.
I take it unemployment must not have a shift.
Joe said...
Just curious, Mr. Bimbos, were you opposed to Ukranians pulling down Lenin statues?
8/14/17, 2:36 PM
Just curious, Mr. Stalin, were you opposed to Talibans blowing up the Bamiyan Buddhas and Daesh the ancient Palmyra site?
Hi Toothless! I lost track of you for a while. If you remember, I called you out (seeking your opinion) on a Damore/Google thread. What did you think of his firing?
If you comparing KKK to BLM you’ve already shown what side you’re on.
One wants me dead due to the color of my skin; the other wants equality.
The KKK has an undeniable violent history of racism.
Both Black Lives Matter and La Raza are bigoted, racist organizations and do not belong in mainstream American politics.
Good question, BL. (And Hi back to you).
I think his firing exposes a pretty significant bit of hypocrisy in American society.
On one hand, what he wrote was reasoned and not at all intemperate, given the sensitivities of anyone who could have felt that way about what he wrote.
On the other hand, I think Google/Alphabet has a fiduciary interest in having as diverse a workforce as possible. While it's flat-out true that far fewer women will be as interested in coding/engineering as men, Google's in the business of curating the world's information and therefore benefits exponentially from a workforce as open-minded and with as many backgrounds/experiences to know about as possible.
So the interesting thing is where the law will fall down on this. I don't think the kid was really all that offensive, but Google's a private employer who has some relationship with the gov't that makes them esp. vulnerable to hostile workplace issues. I think they have/had a case, but I also think Damore has an equally strong case.
I guess it's hard for me to see either party as being in the wrong. Just that it's unfortunate we live in a society that can't accept that pros/cons of competitive/cooperative behavior and how gender-based tendencies align with them as a trend but not as a fucking commandment.
Ultimately, when women complain that hearing potentially stereotypical viewpoints damage them, they prove the point of the non-feminists: That a woman who's as good/talented/competitive as a man wouldn't be screaming about how society forms one huge patriarchy that's against her and holding her down. Bucking the vast array of economic and social forces aligned against you is precisely what competition/masculinity/achievement are all about. Google may have a case, but if women have any case, they don't help it by basically conceding that Damore has hurt their precious little feelings and their precious little natural inclination to succeed if they feel so susceptible to what is concluded in the literature about their gender's responses to - among many other things - social pressure in a generalized context.
Both Black Lives Matter and La Raza are bigoted, racist organizations and do not belong in mainstream American politics.
Yes! Because Black Lives obviously don't Matter and because police brutality is something that every community should be more welcoming to.
Yes! Because Black Lives obviously don't Matter and because police brutality is something that every community should be more welcoming to.
Wrong, Writmo. It's because all lives matter. Yet at a nationally televised Presidential debate, admitting that All Lives Matter was enough to disqualify candidates. That told me and countless others that BLM was racist to its core.
@Toothless, the antifa killed three. In the absence of the mob at Fourth and Water, young Mr. Fields turns left on Water, south on US 250, and makes his way to I-64 and drives home. Heather Heyer is still alive. The police helicopter does not need to go up and perhaps its flaw will be discovered before it does go up again.
You should not be supporting violent people. Those who live by violence ...
@Writmo: I forgot, you're the stupid boob who used to argue that racial minorities cannot be racist a priori because of minority status. Would you mind running that logic by us again for old times sake?
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
Yes! Because Black Lives obviously don't Matter and because police brutality is something that every community should be more welcoming to.
This is the level of intelligence we're accustomed to from the left. We can't oppose police brutality without supporting racism?
We don't really know because they all dress like ISIS partisans. They never sit for interviews.
That's pretty funny.
You make jokes like that when Nazi-Confederates go on killing sprees?
Oh that's right; you already answered the question.
I forgot, you're the stupid boob who used to argue that racial minorities cannot be racist a priori because of minority status. Would you mind running that logic by us again for old times sake?
Well, I don't know how many of "us" need it, but for a socially incompetent autistic like you, I'm happy to provide the lesson for the 100th time.
And that lesson is, that racism doesn't really mean all that much when you don't have the economic or demographic power to impose mass lynchings, redlining, Jim Crow, forced segregation, slavery and sharecropping on whatever race you don't like.
Of course, if you disagree, or are simply too handicapped to understand that difference between real, institutional racism and just some random black guy who thinks you're as useless as any halfway intelligent white or Asian guy can see that you are, then I suppose you should volunteer yourself to be the subject of a lynching, enslavement, redlining, poll tax, and see what it's like.
You really couldn't be any dumber if you tried now, could you?
You should not be supporting violent people.
Who's supporting anyone? I don't even know who these people are. And yes, isolated incidents (if they're even corroborated by outlets not in hock to Trump's tabloid empire) are different from mob events.
Of course, if you disagree, or are simply too handicapped to understand that difference between real, institutional racism and just some random black guy who thinks you're as useless as any halfway intelligent white or Asian guy
I wonder why left wingers believe blacks have no authority or influence. And if we're limiting the analysis to institutional racism hos is openly admitted racial discrimination not felt by its targets? At some point you're going to make sense about something right? Just once?
It's because all lives matter. Yet at a nationally televised Presidential debate, admitting that All Lives Matter was enough to disqualify candidates.
Hey. If such a group - which doesn't exist - was out there doing something about police brutality and also taking on the racism of the more violent and trigger-happy cops, then maybe that would mean something. But it doesn't and it isn't and it doesn't.
That told me and countless others that BLM was racist to its core.
Yes, because only you are damaged and self-isolated and self-unaware enough to completely disembody all the context of what's really going on. Police killings of the innocent is no joke and neither is the way they think they can get away with it more easily if the victim is significantly disadvantaged.
I wonder why left wingers believe blacks have no authority or influence.
None? Who said none? You said none.
At some point you're going to make sense about something right?
Like the difference between "much less" and "none?" You first. Seeing as how you're the one not getting that easy difference and making that stupid error.
The context of you being a boob that I had in mind was a black individual attacking a white person, ostensibly motivated by racism. You jumped through twisted hoops to argue that a black man could not be racist. I believe I raised the comparison of macro vs. micro economics at the time. Anyway, it's still interesting that you will still go to any length to exonerate any black individual from racism. I need not revise my opinion of you. You're really no different than Crack EmCee was.
sunsong @ 6:07,
That stuff is absolutely chilling. I'll remember that you quoted this, presumably approvingly. When you drop the mask it hits the floor hard.
Writmo wrote: But it doesn't and it isn't and it doesn't.
Says you and only you, here. You are quite isolated in your opinion on this matter.
You may not know individual antifa members (or you may be lying), but you do not seem eager to denounce their violent tactics. That makes you as guilty as they are.
Says you and only you, here. You are quite isolated in your opinion on this matter.
Here?
First of all - that's UNTRUE and second, this blog is itself somewhat of an outpost of minority opinion. You poll the entire state of California or even the country and see if they support you in your quest to promote this as-yet-unnamed organization that you imply must exist and is doing as much to highlight the problem of racism and police brutality as BLM did.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
None? Who said none?
You did when you said whites can't face discrimination because racism from blacks can't effect whites. Maybe you should be careful if you don't yet know what words mean.
you don't have the economic or demographic power to impose mass lynchings, redlining, Jim Crow, forced segregation, slavery and sharecropping on whatever race you don't like.
See you wrote blacks don't have this power, not that they had less.
Hey. If such a group - which doesn't exist - was out there doing something about police brutality and also taking on the racism of the more violent and trigger-happy cops, then maybe that would mean something. But it doesn't and it isn't and it doesn't.
It doesn't exist now because BLM accused it of being a racist group thereby ending our best opportunity to address the issue. In the process they proved their goal is not progress on brutality or anything else but only increased racial resentment to empower the BLM leaders. And after proving they are race baiters decent people aren't going to support them. So we'll wait for the next opportunity and hope they don't F that up too.
You may not know individual antifa members (or you may be lying), but you do not seem eager to denounce their violent tactics. That makes you as guilty as they are.
First of all, it doesn't - Look up that constitutional right called "due process" and get back to me and 2nd, I never realized I was pro-murder or pro-killing. (Apparently the paranoia among the right-wing is sufficiently large enough that they actually believe large numbers - MAJORITIES, actually - are pro-murder if it's in support of a group that they see as the unequal if opposite moral equivalent to the Klan and its Nazis and whichever other Trump apologist white nationalists they feel sympathetic to.)
Every day about 43 Americans are killed. The idea that you're going to claim accessory to the crime on any one of them that you didn't get any American you didn't like to even know about let alone denounce is about as retarded and fascist an idea as they come.
You did when you said whites can't face discrimination because racism from blacks can't effect whites.
Who's discriminating against them, dummy? In what context? In the rap music industry? In R&B? In basketball? Words have fucking meaning still. Show me where whites are facing black institutional anti-white discrimination and make your case before just venting in a generic, racialized and entitled way about discrimination otherwise not specified.
"you don't have the economic or demographic power to impose mass lynchings, redlining, Jim Crow, forced segregation, slavery and sharecropping on whatever race you don't like."
See you wrote blacks don't have this power, not that they had less.
Duh. They didn't. Show where they did. Which black neighborhood were you prevented from moving into? Which black-owned business were you legally prevented from frequenting? Which black city lynched you? Or forced you to work on their farm? Or instituted a voting eligibility requirement that discriminated against your inferior, white person education?
You live in a delusion. No wonder Trump's your guy.
@ The Toothless Revolutionary
It is common knowledge that Asians and Whites have to meet a higher academic standard than blacks or Hispanics to get admitted to various academic institutions. There are many scholarships that are expressly limited to Blacks or Hispanics that are not available to Whites or Asians. There are a multitude of private businesses that have express priorities to hire Blacks or Hispanics, this is discrimination against whites and Hispanics. There are a multitude of government grants and programs that are specifically set aside for under-represented minorities. This means whites and Asians can not receive those.
NONE of these exist the other way. The only thing the the other can talk about it is 'institutional racism' Which are things like Band-aids being in white people skin tone, going to a school or business and most people looking white etc.
All the facially discriminatory policies work against Whites and Asians. The only discriminatory policies against black people today are the ones that fall under "institutional racism' and the ones in their imagination. Note, the overlap for these is pretty significant.
You may not realize that you support murder, but you refuse to denounce people who believe in using violence to achieve their aims. What should anyone believe of you?
NONE of these exist the other way.
And I'll happily wager that NONE of them have ever applied to such nincompoops as Rick and chickelit. If they had, I might be sympathetic.
And this is completely the opposite of lynching, Jim Crow, segregation, sharecropping and the rest - all equally applied to whatever black they could get their hands-on. The whiny barely as significant retributive issue of affirmative action, where whites and Asians at the top of their class might have to be even the teensiest bit smarter than before or more competitive to get into the the most elite dildo college (as if tons of other equally high quality schools and programs aren't available), barely compares as a matter of widespread injustice.
What should anyone believe of you?
What any intelligent, non-minblinded neurotypical person already does: Argue an actual point and you'll get a meaningful response.
Show me where whites are facing black institutional anti-white discrimination and make your case before just venting in a generic, racialized and entitled way about discrimination otherwise not specified.
Most obviously in academia. But it's not hard to understand. We have hundreds - maybe thousands - of institutions dedicated to helping minorities - many run by those minorities - but according to you none have any impact on anyone except minorities. Even when they openly admit it. Remarkable.
Duh. They didn't.
We're not taking about didn't, we're taking about do. But it's interesting you're talking out both sides of your mouth again. In the last comment you claimed you didn't say none yet here you are saying it again.
Which black neighborhood were you prevented from moving into?
In my neighborhood whites are a minority. Maybe the world still looks like 1920 where you live but don't project your nonsense on others.
No wonder Trump's your guy.
Maybe if you were smarter you wouldn't make so many mistakes. Or even just thought at all.
And this is completely the opposite of lynching, Jim Crow, segregation, sharecropping and the rest - all equally applied to whatever black they could get their hands-on. The whiny barely as significant retributive issue of affirmative action, where whites and Asians at the top of their class might have to be even the teensiest bit smarter than before or more competitive to get into the the most elite dildo college (as if tons of other equally high quality schools and programs aren't available), barely compares as a matter of widespread injustice.
You will get no argument from me that Lynching, Jim Crow, slavery etc. were leagues worse than the discrimination that Whites and Asians face today. (though I should really say Asians and Whites, since Asians face it more severely) However your comment makes me wonder whether you understand the basic morality of why discrimination is wrong. Your argument seems to be, that because people who looked like x discriminated against people who looked like Y in the past, it is now OK for society at large to discriminate today against people that look like x even though the current people that look like x never did anything wrong themselves. Does this sound fair to you? Isn't this the same logic of a person who believe well, my grandpa was killed by a black man so now I hate all black men?
In the last comment you claimed you didn't say none yet here you are saying it again.
Geez Rick. You really seem to have a lot of trouble with this whole "much enslavement and lynching and segregation and Jim Crow and poll taxes applied to blacks for their skin color didn't happen to others" thing. Maybe your sense of victimhood calls out for an experience they went through that your predecessors didn't. Only then will you be the righteous victim that you so wish you could be! Rick the Underdog! Claim your grievance, Rick!
Rick, we already know you have several disadvantages in life. But several generations of suppressed income, forced breeding, rape at the hands of the plantation-owner and racialized residency and voting restrictions weren't any of them. Boo hoo. If only people could feel more for Rick! What about Rick! He's a victim, too!
Isn't this the same logic of a person who believe well, my grandpa was killed by a black man so now I hate all black men?
No. It's the logic of saying several generations of whatever skin your grandpa was were prevented from contributing nearly anything to their posterity, so the beneficiaries of the posterity they took are oftentimes preventing any redress of justice as long as they refuse to acknowledge that legacy and its impact.
You really seem to have a lot of trouble with this whole "much enslavement and lynching and segregation and Jim Crow and poll taxes applied to blacks for their skin color didn't happen to others" thing.
Apparently you have trouble with both words and logic. Slavery was of course wrong. But it doesn't follow that therefore anything in reverse short of slavery is therefore acceptable. It's a shame you can't get past that. Most people don't have a trouble with such basic concepts, but some people love to hate.
so the beneficiaries of the posterity they took are oftentimes preventing any redress of justice as long as they refuse to acknowledge that legacy and its impact.
Who are the beneficiaries of all this past discrimination? I'll wager a white kid born today and a black kid born today benefited exactly the same amount from all of slavery and the discrimination in the past, which is exactly zero. Simply identifying a wrong that occurred to people in the past does not entitle people who look similar to the people that actually suffered the wrong to any benefit. It certainly doesn't make other people who literally did no wrong liable.
If this moral concept were otherwise then everyone who wasn't African would have some claim against all Africans today from being driven out of Africa about 100,000 to 150,000 years ago.
@Toothless, whether you accept your culpability is orthogonal to whether you are, in some degree, culpable.
...whether you accept your culpability is orthogonal to whether you are, in some degree, culpable.
Whether you accept your irrationality is orthogonal to whether you are, in some degree, irrational.
What happened? Did I wake up and suddenly find a society in which individual responsibility is something we gave up on?
Go and resolve that issue with Rick. That's where the conservatives have gone so wrong. You believe in group responsibility for individual acts of killing/murder and he believes in being individually responsible for one's birth as a son of several generations of slaves whose property and livelihood was stolen from them. (And yet you probably both believing in doing away with the estate tax). Such inconsistencies are hilarious in how unworkable they are in the aggregate.
But it doesn't follow that therefore anything in reverse short of slavery is therefore acceptable.
Who said "anything?" Affirmative action is a very specific thing. It's not "anything."
Who said "anything?" Affirmative action is a very specific thing. It's not "anything." Or you know, we could just treat all individuals like individuals and judge them based on their own individual merit. Or we could indulge certain people's group identity politics more. Hmm... I wonder why we are seeing an increase in White nationalism in young white people?
Or you know, we could just treat all individuals like individuals and judge them based on their own individual merit.
Like Jared Kushner was when Frank Lautenberg got Ted Kennedy to arrange his acceptance to Harvard University?
I guess that must be the kind of merit you mean. You guys love legacy like that. Same with the estate tax that you find so unfair. Whatever perpetuates aristocracy, you're in favor of.
I wonder why we are seeing an increase in White nationalism in young white people?
Because capitalism has failed the common man, its perpetuators have bought out their politicians, and the resolving their grievances through the economic or political angle will therefore not work. Same thing as Germany pre-war.
Like Jared Kushner was when Frank Lautenberg got Ted Kennedy to arrange his acceptance to Harvard University?
You say that like I think it is a good thing or that I have ever benefited from a 'Legacy admit', or that this is something that is perpetuated by anyone other than college administrators who want donations. I'm all for meritocracy. I don't care if your Daddy, Granddaddy and great Granddaddy went to a school. You should only get into any school if you qualify.
Because capitalism has failed the common man, its perpetuators have bought out their politicians, and the resolving their grievances through the economic or political angle will therefore not work. Same thing as Germany pre-war.
Yes I am sure the treaty of Versaille, nor the German central Bank literally printing money to pay debts had anything to do with that.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
Who said "anything?""
The principles you asserted.
Because capitalism has failed the common man,
Capitalism has increased the living standards even of the poor by far more than people understand. Without it we'd still be scratching a living off the earth. Even Picketty's own analysis shows the bottom earning quintile has improved 25% in real terms since the 70s - and this is with much of the current quintile comparative having the appropriate antecedent in the lowest quintile of Mexico or Central America.
You nutters have no idea what you're talking about.
Toothless hides behind sophistry. You support people who seek to achieve their goals through violence. He asks what about personal responsibility, but what should his personal responsibility be when he declines to denounce left-wing violence?
You say that like I think it is a good thing or that I have ever benefited from a 'Legacy admit', or that this is something that is perpetuated by anyone other than college administrators who want donations. I'm all for meritocracy. I don't care if your Daddy, Granddaddy and great Granddaddy went to a school. You should only get into any school if you qualify.
Yeah.
Well, if you're not going to get rid of that (and you won't), then you won't get rid of AA. So enjoy.
You nutters have no idea what you're talking about.
We're talking about the last 40 years of declining/stagnant living standards for the common man (and nearly everybody) under the most gangbusters tenets of Reaganism. But that's hard to beat when you want to pretend that people should instead focus on how far their infrastructure has come since agriculture was replaced by industry and witchcraft by decent sanitation.
...the poorest people own automobiles and are fat.
A consequence of poor transit infrastructure (and greatly increased costs associated with auto) and processed factory foods being the cheapest and most easily available.
Toothless hides behind sophistry.
Oh no! I'm so in hiding! Someone put me in an attic somewhere!
You support people who seek to achieve their goals through violence.
Again, not sure who but feel free to just make stuff up! You're not just a liar, you're a creative liar with NO specifics whatsoever! (Something a 1st grader would do).
He asks what about personal responsibility, but what should his personal responsibility be when he declines to denounce left-wing violence?
Well, as long as you're going to be so stupid as to blame me for it and get all group-think-y about it then I'll continue pissing you off by refusing to have anything to do with whatever crime I was never a part of, anyway.
But otherwise your contempt for freedom of association is admirable, Sir!
To say that I hide behind sophistry is just a stupid man's way of saying that I used reason and intelligence to overcome (or fail to succumb to) his idiotic browbeating.
Bring a nice brie to go with all your w(h)ine.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
We're talking about the last 40 years of declining/stagnant living standards for the common man (and nearly everybody) under the most gangbusters tenets of Reaganism
There's a figure at the link below showing real income for the bottom quintile of earners has increased 46% since 1979. Always wrong but never in doubt, isn't it tiring? Doesn't being so constantly wrong make you want to surprise us just once?
https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality
Blogger The Vault Dweller said...
Let's say there is going to be a public Anti-Islam demonstration. A group of people are going to gather to denounce the religion of Islam and describe what they think the evils of it are.
Now let's say a local Muslim man is troubled about this and decides to attend to hopefully be able to sway some of the demonstrators that Islam is actually a force for good for millions and millions of people world wide.
At the demonstration the Muslim man sees a man in the Anti-Islam group saying some of the usual Anti-Islam lines but sees that he is younger so hopes he can sway him. He attempts to engage in conversation with the young man. Point after point the Muslim man makes is reacted to with what he views as just illogical hateful rhetoric. He continues though really hoping he can change his mind. As it continues the conversation changes tone from persuasion, to argument, to yelling to insults. Finally having gotten angry enough, the Muslim exclaims "Oh you think Muslims are evil?! I'll show you Evil! Allah Aukbar!", the muslim man then pulls out a gun and shoots the young man dead.
Well, it wasn't a SINGLE man. It was TEN Muslims for every Anti-Muslim.
Next point: Why did your hypothetical Muslim man bring a gun, just as your Antifa brought their own weapons?
Want to know who brings weapons to an incendiary situation? Troublemakers. Some of the trouble makers USED their weapons. It was your side.
Some of the trouble makers did not. That was my side.
Why did the people there 'just to have a conversation' wear protective garb and masks to hide their identities? Do LEGITIMATE and PEACEFUL people hide their identities or people knowing they were about to commit illegal acts?
This is you trying to reclaim a blatantly lost moral high ground.
Your side has 'rent a mobs' who show up ARMED with baklavas to hide their identity to attack people they disagree with.
YOUR side is causing violence.
This was the first step in a long year of removing pro-slavery Jim Crow relics from the South. If we don't learn from this, many more will die. Please think of them before you type.
sunsong said...
“If you comparing KKK to BLM you’ve already shown what side you’re on.
One wants me dead due to the color of my skin; the other wants equality.”
~ unknown poster
8/14/17, 6:15 PM
Tell that to the cops they [BLM] shot...
Lots of comments, didn't read most of them because there's just too much arguing from the pig trough of the resident trolls making.
However, it wasnt terrorism. The people there were to wage violence on one another. When one of those warmongers dies, it isn't because of terrorism, but the fact that they were fighting. They were not innocent people.
(I'm sure this point has been made, but the leftists - in the worse sense of the word - keep trying to manipulate the goalposts and words; and paint the vastly reasonable people here as the various ists that have now lost a sembelence of meaning. It is infuriating).
Post a Comment