Jump to content

ndawg

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    849
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ndawg

  1. 14 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

    I have zero doubt he is substantially worse than Hillary would've been.  That's not the point.  The point, is don't put her on the fucking ticket again.  

    It would be pretty surprising to see them put her on the ticket. That said, you did say this:

    Quote

    And if the Dems roll that ancient cunt out again to run in 2020, I'll vote for another Libertarian.

    Reading that sentence, it doesn't seem like you'd consider Trump substantially worse than she'd be.

  2. 3 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

    So, don't put up Hillary, again, and that problem shouldn't be there.  

    I give people a pass for refusing to vote for either candidate in 2016. I also don't think that she's going to run in 2020, either.

    But suppose we accept for a second that they appeared to be equally bad in 2016 (I don't buy it personally, but hey, I'll play ball for a second). Exactly what more evidence would you need to see in order to conclude that he's substantially worse than Hillary would have been?

    • Like 2
  3. Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

    Cynicism ?  No, just that racism exists in every race and culture.  I don't envision any race war or retribution type scenarios for America.  

    I'm betting Dennison is one of those black people can't be racist, only white people can be, types.

    Point of order: we need to distinguish between prejudice and racism. Many black people in the world are indeed prejudiced against whites. Is it wrong? Absolutely, in the sense that it can and does lead to injustices. Is that racist? Not necessarily. Racism refers to the belief that ones race is inherently superior to another and thus deserving of a higher place in society. White supremacy is an example of systemic racism, the kind that harms all members of a minority group, which is also what I think you were suggesting might be likely if we see a non-white majority in the US.

  4. 2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

    Yeah cause then whoever is politically dominant will be egalitarian and color blind, with liberty and justice for all....  wing-ed unicorns will roam freely....

    This is ultimately white supremacy's final gasp of fear -- utterly terrified that, soon, white people will suffer from the same cruelty we inflicted on everyone else. I don't buy it. White supremacy was borne out of some unique circumstances. Namely, our ability to terrorize other cultures with superior technology and the availability of Christianity as a means of justifying it to the masses (and ultimately indoctrinating them as well).

    There is no brown supremacy or black supremacy waiting on the wings to exploit us the minute they gain a majority. I think you're cynicism is unfounded here.

  5. 2 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

    That is impossible based on the quotes.  You can not defend the nation's honor and at the same time be supposedly trying to create an atmosphere that results in people being blown up by bombs while they are attending church.   How can you defend a person as someone  "who was never afraid to do what he believed was right"  if apparently (at least in Lewis' opinion) one of those things was trying to create an atmosphere that would allow for innocent people to be blown up while they are at church?  "One of the quotes must be bullshit.  There is absolutely no way to argue C.  All of the above in this instance.  I was not a huge supporter of McCain after the mid to late 1990s but I hope McCain left a request to be turned face down in his casket when Lewis walks up to it so Lewis can kiss his ass.

    The answer is in this sentence you quoted from 2008: "What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history"

    The McCain/Palin ticket reminded him of the civil rights movement. Reminded him. He drew a comparison. He did not equate them.

    • Like 1
  6. 19 minutes ago, bernorange said:

    McCain's foreign policy (rabid advocation for war around the globe) was very polarizing.  I've been a vocal critic of his domestic politics for many, many years (anyone remember the McCain/Leiberman hates the Constitution thread on the old site?).  There is a lot of fodder out there about his personal life and military record for those who care to dig that doesn't speak well for his character.

    There is an adage that says, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.  I wasn't going to post in this thread.  Some of the hero worship that's being expressed in this thread and in the media is way over the top IMO.

    McCain was passionate about his politics.  He fought hard for what he believed in.  That's about the nicest thing I am going to say about him.

    There's validity to what you're saying, but McCain resolutely stood up to an authoritarian takeover of the GOP. That's a pretty substantial last-minute addition to his lifetime wins column.

    I won't gush over him, but I can't help but to appreciate that, in the end, he stood on the right side of history at a very important juncture.

  7. This is what I want to know from the "don't politicize this tragedy" crowd. What other thing besides politics is supposed to magically swoop in and cure our epidemic of gun violence? At this point, if it's not politics that's going to fix this, then what is?

    "Don't politicize this tragedy" is a politician's jedi mind trick forcing you into not getting mad at him for having abdicated his duties as an elected official.

  8. 8 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

    This lunacy gets people killed. I'm serious.

    This is the kind of preacher that makes nonbelievers wish God were real for just a few moments, only so God could punish his blasphemy.

    I'm not a violent person, but I can't help but to admit that I'd grin mightily if a lightning bolt struck him on the head.

    • Like 5
  9. 10 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

    The Fox News news shows aren’t horrible but they surrounded by the opinion shows that pretend to be news. 

    I'm pretty sure this is the crux of the matter. It's normal for 24 hour news channels to put a newsroom backdrop behind a political pundit saying all the kinds of things that we'd expect a political pundit to say -- selecting facts that fit a particular narrative, arrogant dismissal of opposing view points, damage control, etc. When you add in the ticker at the bottom and all the other visual cues that identify news reporting, many people lose the ability to recognize whether they're watching actual reporting or just op-ed.

    Eventually people just move in to that castle-in-the-sky, and stop watching reporters like Smith altogether, and tune in to the likes of Hannity instead. I've seen it with the left, too, where people watch John Oliver and Bill Maher all the time but don't really get news directly from any news source.

    We only have one way out of this tailspin. We have to get several hundred million Americans with free will and shit for brains to once again see the same world (albeit with different perspectives). Outlook not so good, IMO.

  10. 21 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

    That's how all three major networks used to report.  You didn't know their biases.  Cronkite was apparently very liberal, but you never knew that when he reported.  That genie is out of the fucking bottle now though. Thanks Ted Turner.....

    I'm genuinely curious about what leads people to this conclusion. I have never relied on television news for information, so I'm out of the loop. What do you see when you watch TV news that reveals the biases? Are you sure someone like a Cronkite today would be perceived as impartial? It's very easy to apply a blanket statement to the entirety of the mainstream media.

    Hell, isn't it just as likely that a strong bias on the part of the viewer makes them perceive bias in the reporting, whenever the reporting conflicts with the viewers biases?

    Also, with so much media being reported every day, it doesn't seem to hard to find "evidence" to support bias. It would take a monumental effort to comprehensively assess media outlets for their bias. And even then, such bias would be relative to the American audience, right? "Liberal" for an American audience might well be middle of the road or even conservative for another audience.

    If we must have faith in journalism, and we've lost that faith, why don't we ever talk about what would restore that faith?

    I'm, uh, just asking questions...

    • Like 3
  11. I'd go a step further. This actually gives Trump the potential to pin all the crimes on Sessions.

    Set aside the fact that Sessions has worked to maintain the investigation for a moment -- Trump can easily argue that Sessions all but admitted he was guilty when he recused himself from the investigation. Why couldn't this work?

  12. 6 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

    Proving my point from a few weeks ago that liberals want to suppress votes too. I’m glad your not hiding it.

    How did you type this out with a straight face? I mean, at some point when you were typing that, it must have dawned on you how stupid it was to equate telling a message board poster not to vote with state and local governments deliberately systemically reducing representation of entire segments of the voting population. So, what happened? Did you realize how stupid what you were saying was, but felt too invested in the sentence already, and decided to see it through to the end?

    Because there's no way a functioning human brain actually arrived at the notion that telling someone not to vote is equivalent to voter suppression.

    • Like 5
  13. 36 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

    Bullshit. Do whatever it takes to get it done. Ignore any complaint of hypocrisy, etc. I want a 5-4 advantage for the next 20 years. It’s that important 

    So true, +rep. If it takes throwing kids in cages, obstructing justice, etc., then so be it. I mean, even if it takes ripping up the original Constitution and literally wiping Putin's ass with it, at least we'll have that 5-4 advantage.

    • Like 5
  14. 18 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

    So, the fentanyl they siezed didn’t save lives? I think that’s a rather poor position to entrench oneself. I certainly think the war on drugs could be far more effective if they stopped focusing on drugs such as marijuana, but that’s another discussion I suppose. 

    I’ve already explained that I don’t view the war on drugs as wasted effort, so I’m not sure why you insist on going backwards. 

    It pains me to say this, but if it feels like I'm insisting on going backwards to you, it's because you aren't comprehending me. If we spent $1 trillion on the war on drugs, and saved just, say, 10 lives from fentanyl overdoses, was our drug policy effective or wasteful?

    But I get why you feel this way. It sounds like drugs have affected you or people close to you, as they've affected too many of us. It really is shitty, and I'll say that we have that in common. However, you are choosing to allow your personal emotions to override analysis that would demonstrate that your position, well-intentioned as it may be, is utterly impractical in the real world. This really isn't a whole lot different that commies concluding that we can just end poverty by letting the state control wealth.

    So, you've shown us you've got a bleeding heart, just like us libs, so now own it!

    • Like 2
  15. 14 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

    I don’t believe getting Fentanyl off the streets is waste of time. 

    If I attempt to deadlift a two ton truck, 100% of the energy I've expended is waste. Zero actual work was accomplished. Our war on drugs has been huge and expensive. How much has it actually moved the needle? Is drug use less of a problem in the US than other countries that don't spend enormous gobs of money on a war on drugs?

    Your response seems to indicate that you're under one of two impressions: 1. our war on drugs is actually effective, or 2. wasted effort applied towards a noble goal is justified because the cause itself is just. The first would be ignorant, the second would be the GOP's primary criticism of the left.

    • Like 1
  16. 2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Has anyone observed that none of this matters?  He won't lose any support -- and most importantly, he won't lose ANY support in the Senate?  We could impeach him tomorrow, and the Senate will never, ever, ever convict him?  Cuz I just want to bookmark that sentiment for the record, pollyanna that I am. 

    In the worst case scenario, today still brings the "should I expatriate or not" question closer. The sooner we figure out whether it's time to bail, the better, right?

    • Like 2
  17.  

    11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    The Trump presidency will go down as the greatest international troll job of all time.

    Everyday is another embarrassment. 

    What is presently the greatest international troll job of all time, out of curiosity?

  18. 36 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

    Ok, dawg. If that belief comforts you, who am I to intervene? 

    I think you might be assuming everyone else is just as much of a tribalist as you are. I get no joy from seeing the Republican Party destroyed. This is horrendously bad for America.

    The Republican Party, by the way, is already destroyed. It's been utterly overrun by interlopers. You're not even supporting the same party. But you are supporting the same tribal identity. So, there's that, I guess.

×
×
  • Create New...