Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3484
  • Joined

Everything posted by hpslugga

  1. Fucking this
  2. Essentially our history since 1945 has been season 9 of Roseanne after they won the Illinois state lottery. Jackie=US military leadership announcing Germany and Japan’s surrenders Roseanne=US economic elite Dan=US political leadership (the heart attack Roseanne refers to is a combination of the depression and the war) The two baby boys=Baby boomer generation
  3. Fuh dee oh Fuuuuuh dee oh
  4. ^ I agree, and I'll offer no further comment to it. Back to the original subject, I would urge anyone interested to head to democracynow.org and examine the material they have on the subject, which by now is all over the place. There are interviews with Angela Davis, Noura Erekat and Gideon Levy in particular that allow for us to see the real world consequences of the IDF's actions rather than listening to US talking heads pontificate about "Israel has the right to defend itself" as a way to offer apologetics for the occupation.
  5. I'll be brief and this is the only thing I'll say about it because it merits even less and I'm being extremely generous to @WhatTheBuck to even consider recalling it. Wasn't mine. Borrowed it from a relative (cousin who's a big fan). I didn't measure that but I distinctly remember having a birthday go past while reading it. In seriousness, I'd venture roughly 50-60 pages. The speech? It was perplexing in its preposterosity compounded by its verbosity. I do remember a small sliver of a passage that describes mystics and dictators being intertwined and that was the only thing I agreed with (to the extent that "mystics" is synonymous with "religious," which was my impression). What I objected to was her insipid insistence on this false dichotomy of anarcho-capitalism vs. state socialism, which is in a nutshell what he was talking about when she wrote of "brother-love morality" and a host of other garbage denouncing the concept of sacrifice and caring for others. I have seen many awful takes on socialism over the years, and hers were just about the worst. Or to put it another way, to the extent I did see anything worse than that, it at least had to have been someone else's awful takeaway from one of Rand's works, namely this one. The reason? That woman made absolutely no room for the possibility that we are a naturally social species and that being communitarian is a completely voluntary concept. She always made communitarianism to be synonymous with totalitarianism imposed by a powerful state, which is just infinite in its stupidity. “I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” Like Hitchens said in his critique of Rand, such an attitude requires no further reinforcement.
  6. You’re missing the point. Let me try it another way: I. Did. Read. Atlas. Shrugged if it were made out of a cloth, I wouldn’t use it to dust my furniture. Why there are people who praise that silliness is beyond me. I cannot fathom why a single person would find it terribly useful to their lives, let alone as many in that video...and those are just major public personalities.
  7. No, I literally mean too many people read her insipid drivel. When you consider the utter nonsense that objectivism is (btw, I would encourage those curious about it to juxtapose its tenets with the tenets of LaVeyan Satanism and try telling me they’re not identical), even that handful of characters in that video who admit to reading her verbal effluvia constitute “too many people” who read her. As for anti-Christian and anti-religion works, there are far better authors and intellectuals who’ve opined on that topic than her.
  8. Oh I’ve done that too, but like that video, that was about two and a half minutes of nauseating drivel that I deeply regret exposing myself to.
  9. She said she sided with the Israelis because the Arabs were “totally primitive savages.”
  10. That’s because a ton of people read Ayn Rand. As John Oliver said, how is that still even a thing?
  11. Yeah damnit I noticed that well after the limit to edit expired.
  12. First I assume you mean a Jewish nation state with Jerusalem as it’s capital, correct? If it were up to me I’d scoff at the entire premise because nation states in general are an abomination, and that’s particularly true with ethnic states. That being said, I’ll answer: I would spare no effort to insure the Palestinians that the expulsion crap that was inbuilt into Zionism would not be an issue during the drafting of the partition resolution. The resolution did relatively little, if anything, to relieve those very real anxieties that were rampant about that exact subject. I would also urge the Israelis to refrain from engaging in same. That way if it did happen, literally no one would come to Israel’s aid and that 1967 shit never happens.
  13. It’s a classic example of state hypocrisy: it’s terrorism when they do it, counter terror when we do it. Why? Because they’re them and we’re us. The thing is those types are so jaded in their thinking that they believe what they’re doing to the Palestinians will prevent another Holocaust against the Jews. That’s one of the ugly secrets behind the oft repeated argument about “the grand mufti of Jerusalem met with Hitler!!!” It’s a way to connect the Palestinians to the actual Holocaust and establish a ridiculous slippery slope from that all the way down to shooting children to prevent a repeat of that shit.
  14. Yeah pretty hard to recover once one identifies oneself as a person who justifies the disproportionate murder of children. I mean I suppose it’s possible, in the same way that it’s possible for a quadriplegic to climb Mount Everest.
  15. That’s the thing. There’s no such thing as a benevolent military occupation. As there is no such thing, it’s also true that there’s no such thing as a completely voluntary withdrawal from same. The way that this will have to end will be the way that it ended for Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor. That occupation literally ended with just two words from the US state department: game’s over
  16. This. And it's funny because the implication in that insipid comment you were quoting is "well they're not all good, so they therefore do not deserve the right to self-determination."
  17. Right, it's not peace, it's "peace on the occupier's terms."
  18. See the thing is, the one thing that Israel's so-called "supporters" won't literally say is that "the Palestinians have a responsibility to lay down their arms and walk out into the open like ducks." They won't literally say it, but strip away all the bullshit of what they say when condemning this or that rocket attack or whatever and that's what you're invariably left with. They do not believe the Palestinians have any right to defend themselves, even when it comes to throwing rocks at armed (and armored) IDF soldiers that are tasked to maintain a 54-year old military occupation. It's pathetic fanboyism at its absolute worst.
  19. Whole life Has nothing to do with my views. It has to do with the historic record compared to our very own definition of what terrorism is. Terrorism, as a legal term, was first established in 1984 in the US Army Tradoc Pamphlet 525-37. In it, they define terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." Incidentally, this was around the time that the US was involved in its terrorist war against Nicaragua. The principle strategy they used was labeled "low intensity conflict" that focuses on "soft targets." Check out how the Pentagon defined those terms and you'll notice that they're almost word for word the precise and exact definition of terrorism. That was the chief tactic the US used, not only in Nicaragua but in Central America more broadly. It's also the same tactic they've used in Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada, and other comparatively defenseless nations. They're not alone in that regard, except for one thing: the US is the first and only country in world history that's ever been convicted by the ICJ of international terrorism (they termed it "excessive use of force," but that's exactly what it is). Ah yes, the Love it or Leave it fallacy.
  20. And not only that, yes it absolutely does make them terrorist organizations. He’s just flat out wrong on that, as he has been about this entire topic. The ugly truth about international affairs is that states are violent (i.e. terroristic) to the extent that they’re powerful. The US happens to be the biggest perpetrator because they have the power. Israel is no exception and it’s partisan nonsense to pretend that they are. This is just silliness.
  21. That’s all I needed to read
  22. I would tend to say yes. Now it’s your turn: is Israel? And if yes, does that disqualify them from participating in the negotiations? Again, I’m not sure why this is relevant.
  23. Let’s suppose the answer is yes. Whats the relevance? Yes, I know where you’re going with this. You’re trying to establish that Israel doesn’t have to negotiate with them because they’re a terrorist organization, right? Well if that’s the litmus test of who gets to and doesn’t get to negotiate the ending of the occupation, then Israel is disqualified as well, as is the United States from participating. Israel and the United States have perpetrated far worse acts of terror than anything the PLO and Hamas combined have ever even been accused of, let alone actually committed. That doesn’t stop Hamas from attempting negotiations with them and it shouldn’t stop the Israelis either. To argue otherwise is to propose a double standard.
  24. “Hamas doesn’t support a two state solution and neither does Israel.”
  25. They are not on the record supporting the settlement. That is also inaccurate
×
×
  • Create New...