Jump to content

Tuco

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3363
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Tuco

  1. 7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

    That is…optimistic. 

    I think the Dems lose more they gain if they start backing off something like gay marriage.  Again, this isn't the Dem leadership deciding how to change the world; the world changed and the Dems are reacting.  Unless our culture shifts back enough, supporting gay rights will remain part of any path to winning. It's hard to imagine culture shifting back that much quickly, but, as they say, "nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition."   

  2. The left/right shifts are meaningless unless you are talking specific issues.  In general, I think any shift to the left on any policy is attributed to the Dems, even if neither the main party nor a Presidential candidate pushes it. Where the dems have pulled to the right, it reflects a shift in the country or a push by a few dems or liberal groups.  So, the Dems aren't setting the agenda in either situation. 

    LBGTQIA+ (etc.) --The dems have definitely shifted left.  In 2008, civil unions in lieu of gay marriage was the party line.  Trans rights?  Not even on the radar.  The Dems shifted because it was the right position to have, and frankly America as a whole shifted.  There is no shifting back, thankfully. 

    Black Lives Matter (police brutality) - There really isn't a policy here and I think the Dem organization as a whole has ducked the issue.  But, individual dems and affiliated groups have definitely signaled a willingness to reign in cops.  So, it is frequently seen as a shift with the Democrats.  

    DEI/race issues - Again, it's pretty light on policies.  I think the Minority-Owned/Women-owned contractor policies have existed in federal contracting for a while, generally with bipartisan support.  (That's a guess, since it doesn't typically get argued about.). The bigger shift left has been in corporate America, not anything driven by the Democratic Party.  

    Gun Control - The dems have definitely shifted to the right.  Shit, I remember when there was meaningful debate about controlling hand guns. Now, shooting trophies seems to be a benefit for being a VP nom.  The Democrats have crumbled on this issue.  Maybe that reflects the direction the country has gone, despite the frequent murder of children. 

    Tax /Trade Policy - Yeah, shifted way right. 

    Support for Israel - unchanged, maybe a bit to the right over the last 30 years.  But there are enough individual Dems and associated groups that have pushed back on Israel, so it creates the appearance of a shift in the Dem party.  

    Health Care - on the whole, not really changed since Hillary Clinton in the early 90s.  The difference is that Obama actually got something set up. At this point, it seems like Dems are consolidating the support for Obamacare, but no wide-spread push for a better system.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  3. 6 minutes ago, Skipper said:

    Yeah, the "Center of the World" is a tad more consequential than Vermont with a state population that is probably less than each borough.  Nobody cares about Vermont.  This made international news.

    The biggest surprise about electing a Socialist in NYC is that the rest of the country would have assumed the mayor of NYC was always a socialist.  This is irrelevant.  Nobody cares.  And that Vermont Senator came pretty came damn close to winning the nomination two cycles in a row.  That says way more about the Democratic Party as a whole. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  4. 2 hours ago, Skipper said:

    I'll leave you all to it but confident that every R (rightfully) worried about midterms views this as an absolute gift from a national messaging standpoint. 

    Dammit, now the Republicans are going to say we elected a Socialist in New York City.  We're doomed. Doomed I tell I ya! Next thing you know we'll have a Socialists Senator from Vermont.  

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  5. 29 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

    I once took two Midnight Hammers and washed them down with an OG 4Loko. Snapped out of it 18 hours later locked up in Debo's chicken coop. 

    I smoked a bowl after a Midnight Hammer once; got the munchies so bad I ate an entire Dessert Storm.  

     

  6. 3 hours ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

    Sure.  And our strategy to defeat Japan did not equate to a commitment to nuke Japan, despite how rhetoric is generally presented.  

    Same with the Russian nukes on Cuba. There was no commitment when N. Kruschevchev said "we will bury you.".  Despite how that rhetoric was gnerally presented.

    I don't think one can ever say that a developed nuke will or won't be used.  I do think that Israel's justification for fearing nuclear weapons, given the history of the 20th and 21st century, is way more rational than your sanguinity.

     

    Did Kruschevchev nuke the US?

    I would be convinced that Bibi's fear of getting nuked was more genuine if actually did something, anything, to deescalate the conflict with Iran.  His one and only response to that fear is to attack them - their uranium operations, ok, but also their leadership, their TV stations, etc.  Those actions obviously continue to harden and deepen the conflict. Even Reagan negotiated with the USSR.  Bibi pushes hard against any deal between the US and Iran. And despite this terror of a glowing Tel Aviv, they continue to expand their territory with illegal settlements and brutalize the Palestinians living there.  These are not the actions of a frightened government. Yeah, no one wants a nuclear Iran, but to me it's pretty clear that Bibi wants to keep that threat always 6 months to two years aways so he always has an excuse.  

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Like 1
  7. 12 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

    I never argued Ahmadinejad is the sole author of threats to destroy Israel and I provided you with some additional quotes from folks other than Ahmadinejad.  If your argument is that Iran hasn't pursued a strategy of destroying Israel in the last few decades, I think the evidence belies that.

    And I do realize that some of the folks quoted later said "not really/JK".  Given Iran's part in 10/7, I'm not putting much stock in that.

    My argument is that "strategy of destroying Israel" does not equate to a commitment to nuke Israel, despite how the rhetoric is generally presented. 

    Edit: ...and Iran's role in 10/7 if far from proven fact.  

  8. 12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Yeah....the AMIA bombing in Buenos Aires by Iran-backed Hezbollah puts the lie to the "we don't hate jews" statement.  Sorry, that was bullshit.  Iran was perfectly happy to kill jews.

    The genocide by American-backed Israel should prove that we hate Muslims.

    • Rage+1 2
  9. 16 hours ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

    In 2013, Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called Israel "an illegitimate regime" led by "untouchable rabid dogs" and "doomed to failure and annihilation."[8] In 2015, he said there would be "no Zionist regime in 25 years" and that "during this period, the spirit of fighting, heroism and jihad will keep [Israel] worried every moment."[9] Khamenei referred to Israel as "cancerous" on numerous occasions, has said Israel will be destroyed, and has pledged Iran's support for any group or nation confronting it.[1

    On October 3, 2023, four days before the Hamas-led October 7 attacks on Israel, Khamenei delivered a speech in Tehran in which he said Israel would "die of [its] rage", and concluded by saying: "This cancer will definitely be eradicated, God willing, at the hands of the Palestinian people and the resistance forces throughout the region."[2] In 2024, Ali Khamenei told Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh: "The divine promise to eliminate the Zionist entity will be fulfilled and we will see the day when Palestine will rise from the river to the sea."[11]

    In 2014, Hossein Sheikholeslam, then secretary-general of Iran's Committee for Support for the Palestinian Intifada, stated that "the issue of Israel's destruction is important, no matter the method" and warned that "the region will not be quiet so long as Israel exists in it."[21]

    According to Dana H. Allin, Iran has covertly supported Palestinian suicide attacks targeting Israeli civilians.[33] The October 7 attacks on Israel—which killed approximately 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and saw the kidnapping of 250 hostages—was, at least in part, a product of Iran's strategy.[34] The Wall Street Journal cited senior Hamas and Hezbollah members who said the IRGC helped plan the assault and gave the go-ahead during an October 2 meeting in Beirut.[35] In the lead-up to the attack, about 500 Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad fighters reportedly received training in Iran under the supervision of the IRGC Quds Force.[36]

    Destruction of Israel in Iranian policy - Wikipedia

    In September [2019]] the commander of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said that destroying Israel was now an “achievable goal.”

    Four decades on from Iran’s Islamic revolution, “we have managed to obtain the capacity to destroy the impostor Zionist regime,” Major General Hossein Salami was quoted saying by the IRGC’s Sepah news site.  “This sinister regime must be wiped off the map and this is no longer … a dream [but] it is an achievable goal,” Salami said.

    So, that's in response to me saying that Iran (or specifically Ahmadinejad) never said anything to indicate they would nuke Israel, given the chance.  I'm still not seeing it in there.  The "we have managed to obtain the capacity to destroy the impostor Zionist regime" isn't on the Wiki page you quoted, but I did find it on the Times of Israel article.  It would be nice if the original source "IRGC's Sepah news site" was available to see the original context.  But, can we agree that Iran didn't "manage to obtain the capacity to destroy the impostor Zionist regime" in 2019? 

    As far as the typical rhetoric, the TofI article did start out: 

    Quote

    When Iran speaks of wiping Israel off the map, it doesn’t mean the mass slaughter of the country’s Jews but rather eliminating the Jewish state’s “imposed regime,” Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Friday.

    “The disappearance of Israel does not mean the disappearance of the Jewish people, because we have nothing against [Jews],” Khamenei said, speaking alongside senior Iranian officials at the so-called 33rd International Islamic Unity Conference.

    “Wiping out Israel means that the Palestinian people, including Muslims, Christians and Jews, should be able to determine their fate and get rid of thugs such as [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu,” Khamenei continued, according to Iranian media.

    Khamenei further argued that “had the Islamic world been committed to unity, there would have been no tragedy in Palestine.” He lamented that Muslims couldn’t even adhere to what he called the lowest level of unity — non-aggression between Muslims.

    “We are not anti-Semitic. Jews are living in utmost safety in our country. We only support the people of Palestine and their independence,” he said.

    And, listen, Iran is full of shit, right.  As stated originally, they are shitty.  But of the types of statements - the "wipe Israel of the map" vs. "we love Jews" - which gets play in the US Press?  What percentage of Americans do you think would be surprised about Khamenei's statements above.  When I say propaganda, that's what I mean: the version of Iran that Americans sees is filtered, and therefore a half-truth at best.  

  10. 38 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

    I'm being pulled into arguments about civilian casualties when my initial point is that Iran has always stressed wanting to destroy Israel.  Hence, Israel is justified in wanting to destroy their capability to wage nuclear war.  I'm not interested in justifying their behavior beyond this very justifiable behavior. 

    And hopefully you understand that position is part of the propaganda we have been fed.  The translations are frequently in the most inflammatory ways possible.  Anyone remember Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel of the map"?  He wanted to blow them up, right?  But it's not a Farsi idiom.  Per wikipedia

     

    Quote

    Shiraz Dossa, a professor of Political Science at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia, Canada, also described the text as a mistranslation.[98]

    Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation – "wipe Israel off the map" – suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. The notion that Iran can "wipe out" U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous.[99][100][101]

    And that's not some super-radical idea.  Many countries do not recognize Israel (the government that is in charge of the land) has the right to exist.  That doesn't mean they have expressed a desire to nuke the land and the people.  Nuking Israel doesn't free Palestine or Jerusalem, it just destroys them.  It serves no purpose.  It makes no sense.  It is not something Iran is threatening to do.  In order to believe that is Iran's plan, you have to have already decided Iran's decisions are completely illogical and suicidal.  

    *Sidenote: Ahmadinejad is probably the worst, total shitstain fucker they've had as President in the last 25 years.  He said plenty of dumb, terrible inflammatory shit, including questioning the Holocaust.  But he never said anything to indicate he would nuke Israel given the opportunity.  It's also worth noting he was elected after we invaded Iraq and were on their doorstep.  We always push them to stupid fuckers like him. 

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 1
  11. 1 minute ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

    Iran and Hamas are blameless in the killing of unarmed civilians in Gaza?

    Can they be blamed at all for the killing of unarmed civilians in Israel?

    Just curious about your answer to this question:

    Should the Japanese be blamed at all for the deaths of civilians at Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

     

    Hamas should absolutely be blamed for the brutal, barbaric murders of innocent people in Israel, specifically for the October 7 attacks, but others as well.  

    Israel should be blamed for perpetuating a genocide in Gaza.  

    Japan should be blamed for starting a war and then failing to end it, while they traded their people for better terms.  So, yeah, they should be blamed for the number of deaths required to end it.  Whether they should be blamed for Nagasaki and Hiroshima depends on whether you believe those were necessary to end the war.  I think it's reasonable that Hiroshima could have ended it, had the US provided enough time for Japan to understand the damage.  So, personally I think Nagasaki is on the US, but I get that opinions may differ.  Hopefully we can all agree that it wasn't Italy's responsibility.  

    I think we are way past the number of deaths required to be useful in stopping another October 7th attack.  At this point, it's about revenge, expansion, and ethnic cleaning.  It's genocide and Israel is entirely, 100% responsible for it. 

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Like 1
  12. 2 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

    What a lame ass approach to discussion.  Ask me some questions, and then follow up with this bullshit. 

    It was a response to blaming Iran for Israel systematically killing unarmed civilians in Gaza.  It is the only reasonable response.  

  13. 5 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

    I'd say Iran has an equal or greater culpability for civilian deaths in the region because of its strategy and aid to terrorist groups like Hamas who attack civilians and encourage civilian deaths through their tactics.  

     

    "...and this is your brain on propaganda." 

  14. 16 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

    No, but some folks here do.  The definition of propaganda is "misleading or biased".  You're also free to tell me what part of my post was misleading or biased.  

    I acknowledge the stream of propaganda from every government for all time.

    When you presents those points as a justification for pre-emptive, military, deadly strikes on Iran, it implies that somehow those points are the criteria or reasonable justification for carrying out such strikes. I think that is partial truth, and therefore misleading.  

    Let's start with your add on post: 

    Quote

    Should have left it at that and added "and clearly promotes killing civilians and soldiers of western democracies through terrorism and direct aid."

    Okay. 

    Do you think there is any ethical difference between killing civilians of a "western democracies" (a term which gets more meaningless by the day) and civilians of some other form of government?  (I would argue that civilians in a democracy actually have more culpability in their government's actions than those of a theocracy.)  

    Do you think there is an ethical difference how you kill civilians - terrorism or with intentional targeting by the military?  Who was worse - the French Resistance murdering Nazi collaborators or Nazi soldiers lining up civilians and gunning them down?

    And, for my last question - over the last year, who do you think has intentionally killed more civilians - Israel or Iran?  

    So, to me, the last point is obviously biased to justify the action.  

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 1
  15. 4 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

    I don't know if it will be accepted as such, but the attack on Qatar was a clear attempt by Iran to de-escalate.  

    I can believe it, but I am curious to your reasoning.  Care to expand? 

  16. 17 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

    Yeah, how is it propaganda?  As in "biased or misleading"?

    Do you really need a definition for propaganda?  Do you acknowledge the continuous stream of propaganda regarding Iran for the last 50 years?

    Yep, sure, reasons.  Iran's government sucks.  No question or argument on that. But, do you not acknowledge the propaganda? 

    • Like 2
  17. Doesn’t take much to transport a few pounds of enriched uranium.  Stuff it in a barrel with some explosives and put it in the back of a van.  That’s what I’d be doing.

    If you’re worried about a dirty bomb, there is plenty of non radioactive shit that will kill you just as dead and much easier to transport. The focus on dirty bombs is just buzz word nonsense. And, of course, targets in Israel would be easier and higher priority.

  18. I think this is their hope. But it never works like that. You bomb someone and then they drop their focus (temporarily) on internal enemies and jointly focus on the external enemy.

    The last thing Bibi wants is a stable Iranian government that represents the will of its people and its sanctions lifted. (Saudi Arabia would also vote no on that scenario.) A chaotic, impoverished, suffering Iran makes for the best security for Israel and Saudi Arabia. So that is what will happen. Maybe they get a civil war out of it (for which we declare as progress towards a free Iran), but more likely it will just be continued bombings, destroying infrastructure and destabilizing the country. It’s harder to convert an adversary than it is to keep them weak.
    • Like 3
  19. On 6/18/2025 at 10:58 AM, Pato del Muerto said:

    The message will be “I just learned of this when told staff are not working today- we have too many federal holidays and I’ll be changing that immediately by herewith and hereby rescinding Juneteenth and mlk day as federal holidays.  Thank you for your attention in this matter.”

     

    15 hours ago, HenryJames said:

    IMG_9011.jpeg

    IMG_9012.jpeg

    Pato for the win. 

    • Like 1
  20. 21 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

    It seems to me that this is an easy calculus. Iran could soon have a nuclear weapon. It is thus possible that, at some point in the near future, Iran could use a nuclear weapon. The use of a nuclear weapon is a risk the world cannot bear. We must therefore attack Iran with nuclear weapons. It is the only way to mitigate the risk of a potential nuclear attack. 

    Also, as a bonus, this whole thing might bring Jesus back to smite a bunch of shit and judge the fuck out of us. Which I understand from a series of depressing Sunday morning lectures I was subjected to in my youth, is somehow a good thing.

    Thank god we kept Saddam from getting nukes.  Totally worth it. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Rage+1 1
  21. 5 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

    They want Netanyahu and Israel to do it? There's no guarantee Netanyahu stops at eliminating the Ayatollah. Actually, I'd be shocked if he did. You'd be looking at the prospect of an Israeli occupied Iran and all the horrors that would go with that. 

    That I doubt.  Israel is not going to try to occupy a country of 80 some million people that is not adjacent to their borders.  Israel would much more likely fuel a prolonged civil war.  

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...