*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

You don't know EXACTLY what Harris does or doesn't know or what K did or didn't do. You're filling in the blanks with your own/Fox News' best-case-scenario MadLibs.

---

I never stated I knew EXACTLY anything.

But OBVIOUSLY she thinks that BK talked to someone connected to Kasowitz about Mueller. That's all I'm inferring. I'm not saying who he talked to, what they talked about, why they talked about it, or what they did about the talk afterward.

Why are you being such a cunt about this?

What inference have I made that you specifically object to? Have I said anything that's not the MOST plausible inference?

Do you realize that the next most plausible inference is that Harris made shit up out of nowhere and discredited an honest man merely for the purpose of generating face-time on television? Is that where you want this talk to go???

What the fuck is wrong with you dude??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

The question doesn't depend on you being a Republican, it depends on you being a Trumptard.

---

You keep WISHING that I'm something I'm not.

We've been over this. I don't love Trump. But I fucking HATE the so-called progressive left.

I think it's absolutely great when Trump stumbles and they try to take him down, only to fail and emerge looking more deranged, petty, and unreasonable all the time. That unreasonableness is what got Trump elected in the first place, so the more that backfires, the better in my opinion. I think Trump is what America deserves, not necessarily what's best for America.

We tried to have an election in 2012. The Dems turned it into a knife fight. So the repubs went home and got a gun. I don't blame them.

Trump won, and won fairly. I believe he deserves the chance to do a good job, and the fact that he has to ward off CONSTANT media barrages, and incessant talk of impeachments and 25th amendments invocations is pathetic and detrimental. I blame the left for that, completely.

So no, I won't blindly follow Trump off a cliff if that's what you're asking. I'll support whatever hurts progressive causes the most.

Trump doesn't have the kind of "loyalty" you think he has. If he ran in a primary against Hannity, he'd be destroyed.

Is that who you want to see win in 2020?? You want to see a President Hannity??

The right doesn't have loyalty to Trump. They have an ax to grind with the left. They'll go with whoever lets them grind that ax the hardest.

And you libtards better wake up to the notion that this kind of thinking is out there, and you're not reading it correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I never stated I knew EXACTLY anything.

---

Oh sorry, when you outline such a detailed scenario as below I assume it means you think you know something about it.

Quote:

---

Kamala Harris obviously found some piece of paper that shows BK talking to some lawyer about Mueller. She obviously has reason to believe that lawyer works at XYZ law firm. XYZ law firm was founded by Lawyer X. Lawyer X worked for Trump for about five minutes in 2017, and then resigned.

What Ms Harris is implying....is that there still exists some back-channel connection through this lawyer with which Trump currently has no client-relationship. And that Trump may be using that back channel to vet supreme court candidates.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Why are you being such a cunt about this?

---

Pointing out the falllibility of your claims isn't being a cunt, sorry. It's taking you to task for having nothing to back up your claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

What inference have I made that you specifically object to? Have I said anything that's not the MOST plausible inference?

---

Why infer anything at all. I could infer Kav and Kas spoke for hours about a joint plan to let DJT pardon himself and take the next submarine to Russia. It'd be just as plausible to many people as your argument that there's a completely innocent explanation for why Kavanaugh would talk to someone on Trump's personal legal team about Mueller.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Do you realize that the next most plausible inference is that Harris made shit up out of nowhere and discredited an honest man merely for the purpose of generating face-time on television? Is that where you want this talk to go???

---

lol, no that's YOUR next most plausible inference. Like,it's either there's a totally innocent explanation where Kavanaugh unwittingly bumped into one of Kas.'s lawyers in the elevator and one of them was holding the NYT article that day about Mueller, and they both said 'interesting case' or some such, and now Harris is trying to make a big deal out of it, OR it's a deliberate attempt on her part to use lies and insinuations to discredit this wonderful person who thinks illegal immigrants shouldn't be allowed abortions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

What the fuck is wrong with you dude??

---

lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

You keep WISHING that I'm something I'm not.

We've been over this. I don't love Trump. But I fucking HATE the so-called progressive left.

I think it's absolutely great when Trump stumbles and they try to take him down, only to fail and emerge looking more deranged, petty, and unreasonable all the time. That unreasonableness is what got Trump elected in the first place, so the more that backfires, the better in my opinion. I think Trump is what America deserves, not necessarily what's best for America.

We tried to have an election in 2012. The Dems turned it into a knife fight. So the repubs went home and got a gun. I don't blame them.

Trump won, and won fairly. I believe he deserves the chance to do a good job, and the fact that he has to ward off CONSTANT media barrages, and incessant talk of impeachments and 25th amendments invocations is pathetic and detrimental. I blame the left for that, completely.

So no, I won't blindly follow Trump off a cliff if that's what you're asking. I'll support whatever hurts progressive causes the most.

Trump doesn't have the kind of "loyalty" you think he has. If he ran in a primary against Hannity, he'd be destroyed.

Is that who you want to see win in 2020?? You want to see a President Hannity??

The right doesn't have loyalty to Trump. They have an ax to grind with the left. They'll go with whoever lets them grind that ax the hardest.

---

Wow.

I think you're conflating your own personal issues with the reasons others vote. Not every Trumptard has the same reasons for being a Trumptard.

Some are clearly life-long Republicans who would vote for anyone as long as they can see (R) next to their name on the ballot.

Some, I think, are racists. And Trump's race-baiting appeals to them on that visceral level.

Some, I think, are jingoists who think MAGA and all that, and he's certainly portrayed himself as the most pro patria guy around.

Some, I think, are ignorant farmers and coal miner and other menial job types who think he cares about them cause he goes to their state and praises them when no-one else seems to give a shit.

Some, I think, are angry about this or that, and can generally be further divided into two subgroups:

a) those who hate government because they think it's corrupt and/or interferes with their lives too much; and

b) those who hate the left and anything that is associated with the left, and will vote in the furthest-right person they can out of sheer spite. And it's the b) group you seem to identify with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

And you libtards better wake up to the notion that this kind of thinking is out there, and you're not reading it correctly.

---

I think actually YOU need to wake up and see that the next generation of Americans is bent on making real effective changes in your government, not by voting in a populist TV con man, but by adopting progressive candidates who are going to bring America finally to a place the rest of the civilized world is already at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I believe it has something to do with the appearance of impropriety being nearly as bad as impropriety itself.

---

We both agree that's stupid, illogical reasoning, though, right?

... and that if that is her underlying reason for asking that question in that tone, then she's being childish...

... right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

why Kavanaugh would talk to someone on Trump's personal legal team about Mueller.

---

Source? Who says he talked to someone on "trump's personal legal team". Haven't you been ranting about how wrong it is to make inferences without facts? He talked to someone employed by Kasowitz. Kasowitz's was on "Trump's legal team" with regard to Mueller for less than 60 days. His firm has 266 lawyers on staff. How are you inferring that BK talked to "trump's personal legal team about mueller"?

Quote:

---

wonderful person who thinks illegal immigrants shouldn't be allowed abortions.

---

Fake facts again. He doesn't believe anyone should be denied an abortion. He didn't think the government should be required to provide one, paid for, on demand, for a non-citizen. Not quite the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

We both agree that's stupid, illogical reasoning, though, right?

... and that if that is her underlying reason for asking that question in that tone, then she's being childish...

... right?

---

Why is it stupid and illogical?

If someone puts themselves in an ambiguous situation, where they could either be up to no good or it could be nothing, they're the unwise one, not the person who asks them about it. Even I know not to have a closed-door meeting with a female student in my office. That's not because every time I do, I'm offering them an A for a blowjob, it's because it opens me up to false allegations. And to the outside, objective observer it's difficult to prove my innocence since it would just be my word against someone else's. So, to avoid such a situation arising, I don't allow that to happen.

And of course, it's not fair to assume that because he talked to someone on Trump's personal law team about Mueller that it necessarily was for unethical purposes, but it is fair to ask if they met and if so, what the contents of that meeting were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Some are clearly life-long Republicans who would vote for anyone as long as they can see (R) next to their name on the ballot.

---

What's wrong with that? That's what primaries are for, right?

Quote:

---

Some, I think, are racists. And Trump's race-baiting appeals to them on that visceral level.

---

Silly, wishful thinking of a demagogue right here.

Quote:

---

Some, I think, are jingoists who think MAGA and all that, and he's certainly portrayed himself as the most pro patria guy around.

---

This is the vast majority, for sure.

Quote:

---

Some, I think, are ignorant farmers and coal miner and other menial job types who think he cares about them cause he goes to their state and praises them when no-one else seems to give a shit.

---

You call then "ignorant menial job types". God you're such a fucking ass hole. You know, you could call them "honest people who do all the hard work and pay all the bills in this country". The irony here is that the Democrats used to be the party of the working class. They used to be the ones standing up for the blue collar worker, fighting back government regulations and oppressions that are detrimental to a free and fair labor market.

Now you call them "ignorant menial job types". And you wonder why they vote for Trump.

These people were all on the left. Now they're not. Do you think that's Trump's fault???????

Quote:

---

a) those who hate government because they think it's corrupt and/or interferes with their lives too much; and

---

Are they wrong??

Quote:

---

b) those who hate the left and anything that is associated with the left, and will vote in the furthest-right person they can out of sheer spite. And it's the b) group you seem to identify with.

---

No no no no no. Don't confuse anti-left with being far-right. The two can be mutually exclusive.

Quote:

---

I think actually YOU need to wake up and see that the next generation of Americans is bent on making real effective changes in your government,

---

I would welcome that....assuming those changes can be paid for. Still waiting to hear how any of that is going to happen.....

Quote:

---

but by adopting progressive candidates who are going to bring America finally to a place the rest of the civilized world is already at.

---

You mean bankruptcy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

And of course, it's not fair to assume that because he talked to someone on Trump's personal law team about Mueller that it necessarily was for unethical purposes, but it is fair to ask if they met and if so, what the contents of that meeting were.

---

WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THE BOLDED INFORMATION??????????????????????????????????????? ??????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Source? Who says he talked to someone on "trump's personal legal team". Haven't you been ranting about how wrong it is to make inferences without facts? He talked to someone employed by Kasowitz. Kasowitz's was on "Trump's legal team" with regard to Mueller for less than 60 days. His firm has 266 lawyers on staff. How are you inferring that BK talked to "trump's personal legal team about mueller"?

---

That was the question being posed to Kavanaugh, and one he adeptly dodged. So we'll have to wait and see what the facts are when they come out. Patience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Fake facts again. He doesn't believe anyone should be denied an abortion. He didn't think the government should be required to provide one, paid for, on demand, for a non-citizen. Not quite the same thing.

---

Sigh. For someone who claims that the only reason people ever disagree with him is because they don't have the facts, it's becoming increasingly obvious that what you mean is they don't have the alternative facts.

PLEASE try to get at least SOME of your information from an objective source.

Quote:

---

“It’s important to emphasize that it was a minor,” Kavanaugh began. “So she’s in an immigration facility in the United States, she’s from another country, she does not speak English. She’s by herself. If she had been an adult, she would have a right to obtain the abortion immediately.”

---

The argument K made here had nothing to do with money. The argument was she wasn't old enough to make up her own mind. Never mind that the gov't denied her a sponsor for the first 18 weeks of her pregnancy so she wouldn't be able to have an abortion; that didn't seem to faze him much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THE BOLDED INFORMATION??????????????????????????????????????? ??????

---

Dude, take a xanax.

I got it from Harris' question, the same place as you.

If you like, we can say 'a lawyer on the firm formerly employed by Trump as his personal attorney'. Feel better now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

The argument K made here had nothing to do with money. The argument was she wasn't old enough to make up her own mind.

---

Ok, I read something else, but whatever. So she wasn't old enough. That's not his opinion. That's not something judges get to decide.

The laws in the state say how old you have to be, and she wasn't old enough. That's a judges job.....follow the law. If you don't like a law, a judge is not the person to talk to about it. That's something you libtards don't seem to understand. You're all anti-fascist, but you also think that one guy in a robe should be able to just give you your way all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

If you like, we can say 'a lawyer on the firm formerly employed by Trump as his personal attorney'. Feel better now?

---

STILL FUCKING WRONG

TRY AGAIN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

What's wrong with that? That's what primaries are for, right?

---

Sure, if you say so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Silly, wishful thinking of a demagogue right here.

---

Whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

This is the vast majority, for sure.

---

Pride cometh before a fall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

You call then "ignorant menial job types". God you're such a fucking ass hole. You know, you could call them "honest people who do all the hard work and pay all the bills in this country". The irony here is that the Democrats used to be the party of the working class. They used to be the ones standing up for the blue collar worker, fighting back government regulations and oppressions that are detrimental to a free and fair labor market.

---

Sorry, was your dad a coal miner? Didn't mean to strike a nerve there.

And yeah, if you have no education and do a job that requires zero thinking, that to me makes you ignorant. Doesn't make you a bad person, just not necessarily a sophisticated thinker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Now you call them "ignorant menial job types". And you wonder why they vote for Trump.

---

Well I wouldn't call them that or 'deplorables' or anything similar if I was running for office. That would be obviously impolitic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

These people were all on the left. Now they're not. Do you think that's Trump's fault???????

---

I think he exploited their ignorance brilliantly. And I think Hillary's snobbery cost her. Next time it won't be Hillary, and practically anyone will be more appealing than her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Are they wrong??

---

Dunno. Seems there's a real lack of appreciation for what gov't does in your country. Maybe because it is so corrupt. But that doesn't mean you don't need a gov't, you just need one that isn't ruled by big money, where presidents don't hire half of Goldman Sachs to be in their finance department, for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Don't confuse anti-left with being far-right. The two can be mutually exclusive.

---

Fine, but you stated yourself a good part of your motivation is to see the left in pain. And if that means picking someone far-right you don't seem to have a problem with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I would welcome that....assuming those changes can be paid for. Still waiting to hear how any of that is going to happen.....

You mean bankruptcy?

---

Nonsense.

https://www.ariscommunity.com/users/...credit-ratings

See all those countries in green on that map? Those are the ones with the highest credit rating, and all a step above the US I might add. You don't get that by going bankrupt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Ok, I read something else, but whatever.

---

Lol "I read some bullshit lies and believed them, but so what? I'll do it again and come on here and scream at anyone who says otherwise."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

The laws in the state say how old you have to be, and she wasn't old enough. That's a judges job.....follow the law. If you don't like a law, a judge is not the person to talk to about it. That's something you libtards don't seem to understand. You're all anti-fascist, but you also think that one guy in a robe should be able to just give you your way all the time.

---

That might be a good argument if the opinion was unanimous. It wasn't. Clearly there was enough ambiguity in the law to make different interpretations possible. That's where a person's judgment and humanity comes in. And when you think a 17 year old girl can't decide for herself she wants an abortion, and the gov't won't provide her with a proxy to help in that decision, it's tough shit for her, then you're a cunt plain and simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

STILL FUCKING WRONG

TRY AGAIN

---

lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

if you do a job that requires zero thinking, that to me makes you ignorant.

---

Psychologists = Ignorant. Got it.

Quote:

---

I think he exploited their ignorance brilliantly.

---

Exploited? So he didn't cut their taxes, increase their wages, and decrease their unemployment??? He just hoodwinked them?

Quote:

---

Next time it won't be Hillary, and practically anyone will be more appealing than her.

---

A Hillary rerun would do better than either Harris, Booker, or Warren. Fact.

Quote:

---

Fine, but you stated yourself a good part of your motivation is to see the left in pain. And if that means picking someone far-right you don't seem to have a problem with that.

---

Then allow me to rephrase. A good part of my motivation is to see ideologically possessed people in pain. Someone far-right would also qualify.

Who are you talking about anyway? Kessler? Spencer? I'd probably vote for a 3rd party. Hannity? Shapiro? I'd probably stick it to the libs.

Quote:

---

See all those countries in green on that map? Those are the ones with the highest credit rating, and all a step above the US I might add. You don't get that by going bankrupt.

---

Find another map, one that shows household debt instead of government debt. Let me know how many of your green countries turn red.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Lol "I read some bullshit lies and believed them, but so what? I'll do it again and come on here and scream at anyone who says otherwise."

---

No, I read actual excerpts from one of BK's opinions. It must have been a different case.

Quote:

---

That might be a good argument if the opinion was unanimous.

---

LOL, you might be right if there was no such thing as an activist judge.

Quote:

---

Clearly there was enough ambiguity in the law to make different interpretations possible. That's where a person's judgment and humanity comes in.

---

NO!!!!!!! That's where CORRUPTION comes in.

Good judges rarely see ambiguity in the law. The law says what it says. If you want the law to say something else, pass a law that say something else.

Quote:

---

And when you think a 17 year old girl can't decide for herself she wants an abortion

---

I doesn't matter what anyone "thinks". What matters is the law. You could make the same argument that says a 17 year old girl can decide for herself to have sex with her math teacher. SHE CAN'T

Quote:

---

it's tough shit for her

---

There are plenty of cheap abortion clinics in Mexico. She's welcome to go there any time she wants.

Quote:

---

then you're a cunt plain and simple.

---

Then I'm a cunt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Psychologists = Ignorant. Got it.

---

Nice ad bananum. I'm so in a world of hurt right now lol.

Just because they couldn't help you doesn't mean psychologists aren't clever. One can't hold back the sea with their hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Exploited? So he didn't cut their taxes,

---

wat? you mean that extra few dollars a month is meaningful somehow?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

increase their wages, and decrease their unemployment??? He just hoodwinked them?

---

You don't have to lie to exploit. The fact that coal mines are opening is hardly the sign of a brilliant economist. This isn't 1850.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

A Hillary rerun would do better than either Harris, Booker, or Warren. Fact.

---

"Facts" without evidence. Fact.

Honestly I think a dictionary would really help you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Then allow me to rephrase. A good part of my motivation is to see ideologically possessed people in pain. Someone far-right would also qualify.

---

Just curious, do you go on forums where people are predominantly right wing and insult and belittle people there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Find another map, one that shows household debt instead of government debt. Let me know how many of your green countries turn red.

---

Here you go.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-04/debt-nations

US ranks seventh.

So tell me, what have you got to lose?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Here you go.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-04/debt-nations

US ranks seventh.

---

Oooohhhh, and look at all the socialist cuckdoms in the top 6. Wonder if that's a coincidence???????

Also, what's the year-over-year trend looking like in the US compared to, for example, Denmark????

Do we need to have a lesson on how to read charts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

No, I read actual excerpts from one of BK's opinions. It must have been a different case.

---

Fine, don't worry about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

LOL, you might be right if there was no such thing as an activist judge.


NO!!!!!!! That's where CORRUPTION comes in.

Good judges rarely see ambiguity in the law. The law says what it says. If you want the law to say something else, pass a law that say something else.

---

Actually, yes. Any view of the Law as purely black-and-white is simply naive. Words themselves are ambiguous. Judges spend lots of their time interpreting the law, and by definition that process is subjective. If it wasn't subjective, you would always have unanimous SC decisions, for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I doesn't matter what anyone "thinks". What matters is the law. You could make the same argument that says a 17 year old girl can decide for herself to have sex with her math teacher. SHE CAN'T

---

No you couldn't actually make such an argument, because the law is clear and unambiguous on that. It's also clear that you're expected to stop at a stop sign. The law was instead ambiguous on this case, which is why there were dissenting opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

There are plenty of cheap abortion clinics in Mexico. She's welcome to go there any time she wants.

---

Funny that option was never offered to her while she was in custody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Then I'm a cunt.

---

I think that is at least something that would be unanimously agreed on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Why is it stupid and illogical?

---

Because blaming and/or punishing someone for something they didn't do is injustice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

If someone puts themselves in an ambiguous situation, where they could either be up to no good or it could be nothing, they're the unwise one, not the person who asks them about it. Even I know not to have a closed-door meeting with a female student in my office. That's not because every time I do, I'm offering them an A for a blowjob, it's because it opens me up to false allegations. And to the outside, objective observer it's difficult to prove my innocence since it would just be my word against someone else's. So, to avoid such a situation arising, I don't allow that to happen.

---

C'mon, man.

You were at home alone. It's possible you were watching kiddie-porn on the internets. Therefore, you should be treated like a pedophile.

I work on a college campus as well, and that rule is, of course, in place here. It's the reality that any student can accuse any member of the faculty or staff of assault and that's probably the end of that person's career. That is understandable from the administration's point of view, but still a miscarriage of justice. That staff or faculty member hasn't been found guilty of anything but breaking the company policy, but the result is that they will never work in academia again.

It's perverse and unjust. It's the reality of the college world, but it's no way for adults to treat each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

And of course, it's not fair to assume that because he talked to someone on Trump's personal law team about Mueller that it necessarily was for unethical purposes, but it is fair to ask if they met and if so, what the contents of that meeting were.

---

That's my whole point. It's fair to ask, but her tone was not fair or open-minded.
She said she knows the answer.
She wants to trap him in some way.
How is that anything but childish?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Oooohhhh, and look at all the socialist cuckdoms in the top 6. Wonder if that's a coincidence???????

Also, what's the year-over-year trend looking like in the US compared to, for example, Denmark????

Do we need to have a lesson on how to read charts?

---

Apparently we do. We can start with a lesson on how not to cherry pick your data.

If the US is the least socialist country on that list and has a middling-to-high personal debt ranking, seems to me the issues are likely orthogonal to one another. There's hardly a strong correlation if any between socialism and personal debt.

Also, regarding the year-over-year trend, maybe you didn't hear about the housing crash in 2008 and noticed that there's a clear correlation between the countries hit hardest by that (US and UK) and a reduction in debt between 2007 and 2010.

here's another chart.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defa...0602_debt1.jpg

Now, before you misintrepret this one too, please note that the US is still in the middle of the group. This to me does not show socialism makes people go bankrupt. Or maybe it's only the lefties in the US who have personal debt I dunno.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Because blaming and/or punishing someone for something they didn't do is injustice.

---

Who is blaming and punishing. All she did was ask a question. Try not to go full banana on filling in the blanks yourself here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

You were at home alone. It's possible you were watching kiddie-porn on the internets. Therefore, you should be treated like a pedophile.

---

Poor example, since it's easy to check my computer and see I was really looking at adult porn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

That's my whole point. It's fair to ask, but her tone was not fair or open-minded.
She said she knows the answer.
She wants to trap him in some way.
How is that anything but childish?

---

Fine, she's a nasty person by not offering him some milk and cookies and smiling sweetly at him.

FFS, it's a confirmation hearing, not a dinner with your grandma.

And I still want to see him answer the question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Who is blaming and punishing. All she did was ask a question. Try not to go full banana on filling in the blanks yourself here.

---

What did you call me? Dude. I thought we were cool.
:(

You changed the subject here:

Quote:

---

I believe it has something to do with the appearance of impropriety being nearly as bad as impropriety itself.

---

My response was to that statement, in abstract.

Back onto your original topic, if you don't agree that her tone was pre-loaded with conclusions, then what would you call it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Poor example, since it's easy to check my computer and see I was really looking at adult porn.

---

I don't need to check your computer. One of your douchebag neighbors said you were probably a pedo, so you appear to be a pedo.
Case closed.

Your entire point was that appearance of impropriety is close enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Fine, she's a nasty person by not offering him some milk and cookies and smiling sweetly at him.

---

I never said nasty. I said childish. I said combative tone.
I said it's understandable why any adult would clam up when faced with her tone.

I don't understand your hyperbole, here.
Milk and cookies?
That's nothing near my point.

I wonder if I've disrespected you in some way? If so it was unintentional. I apologize.
If not, please don't intentionally mischaracterize my points into paper tigers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

FFS, it's a confirmation hearing, not a dinner with your grandma.

---

My point exactly. Grandma can be as childish as she likes and we'll all love her just the same.

A representative of the people acting the fool like that is a whole different story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

And I still want to see him answer the question.

---

Me, too.
There's only a dearth of information at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

What did you call me? Dude. I thought we were cool.
:(

---

lol well thanks for your leniency, i appreciate that it's a bananable offense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

You changed the subject here:

Quote:

---

I believe it has something to do with the appearance of impropriety being nearly as bad as impropriety itself.

---

My response was to that statement, in abstract.

---

Ok then. I agree with you it's an unfair thing to assume guilt through the appearance of impropriety. But it's something that anyone in a position of responsibility has to take seriously. So when K pretends to be dumb on the issue I don't see that as exculpatory, but rather as suspicious.

Of course it's not correct to automatically assume that if he spoke to one of Trump's lawyer 'former associates' (or whatever banana wants us to call them) it was part of some corrupt plan. But it's also not correct to assume it was completely innocuous. Surely you agree there?

And yea, you can say Harris was behaving badly by your standards of decorum. I certainly don't talk to people that way. But this is a setting where people are naturally confrontational and trying to trip the candidates up. That seems to be their job, judging by the way they act. I don't think this is anything peculiar to Harris.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

lol well thanks for your leniency, i appreciate that it's a bananable offense.

---

https://crooksandliars.com/files/ima...ectcartman.jpg

Hehe. Not ban-worthy, but you cut me deep.
:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Ok then. I agree with you it's an unfair thing to assume guilt through the appearance of impropriety. But it's something that anyone in a position of responsibility has to take seriously. So when K pretends to be dumb on the issue I don't see that as exculpatory, but rather as suspicious.

Of course it's not correct to automatically assume that if he spoke to one of Trump's lawyer 'former associates' (or whatever banana wants us to call them) it was part of some corrupt plan. But it's also not correct to assume it was completely innocuous. Surely you agree there?

And yea, you can say Harris was behaving badly by your standards of decorum. I certainly don't talk to people that way. But this is a setting where people are naturally confrontational and trying to trip the candidates up. That seems to be their job, judging by the way they act. I don't think this is anything peculiar to Harris.

---

All right, sounds like we're on the same page in all this.

I might be two pages too late, but I'd just like to point out I don't just blame Muslims for their oppression of women and homosexuals. I also blame the apologists who think we should do our utmost to not offend a religion that oppresses women and homosexuals. Maybe if the majority non-Muslim population of the world all stood together and said "what the fuck is this medieval shit" then humanity might make some progress.

Also, Islam isn't the only religion that belongs in the past. But it's the biggest problem humans face right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I might be two pages too late, but I'd just like to point out I don't just blame Muslims for their oppression of women and homosexuals. I also blame the apologists who think we should do our utmost to not offend a religion that oppresses women and homosexuals. Maybe if the majority non-Muslim population of the world all stood together and said "what the fuck is this medieval shit" then humanity might make some progress.

Also, Islam isn't the only religion that belongs in the past. But it's the biggest problem humans face right now.

---

The real problem is the mentality that lets you state it's all of Islam that oppresses women and not some Islamic people.
The problem is that ability to ignore the vast number of non-apologist Muslims whom are themselves oppressed by other Muslims.
The problem is when people get so self-righteous about what is best for other people that they feel empowered to hurt or oppress other people "for their own good."

It's the same ridiculous, insular nonsense coming from your mouth as it is from any other oppressor.
Your blame of people whom are being oppressed as being the oppressors is absurd.

It's institutional discrimination. It's an unavoidable aspect of Islam... it is, by its very nature, oppressive.

I'm not the oppressor. I don't have a hold over anyone, I'm not making anyone believe anything. I'm simply observing that Islam is oppressive, dangerous, and a relic from the past that has not evolved and will probably never evolve because it's so dominated by men, who like being dominant, and the rest of the world let it happen on the basis of "equality", like it's more important to protect their fucking feelings than it is to protect the fundamental rights of humans.

If you think Islam is not oppressive to women, if you think it's individuals and that actually the religion of Islam promotes gender equality and sexual freedom, then you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

It belongs in the past. Religion in general belongs in the past, but one at a time. Let's start with the most batshit.

You're a scientist, mojo. Science will defeat organsied religion one day, it's inevitable. When that day comes, those who defended the rights of people to believe in fairies over the rights of people to be treated equal regardless of gender or sexual orientation, well those people will look like fools.

Quote:

---

Your blame of people whom are being oppressed as being the oppressors is absurd.

---

Your assumption that I blame Muslims, and not Islam, is absurd.

On a completely random note, I just got a 'like' on Twitter from Kari from Mythbusters.

My life is complete.

Lol, this is hilarious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4pcZdJcpbs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-I9toxe4Xk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

It's institutional discrimination. It's an unavoidable aspect of Islam... it is, by its very nature, oppressive.

---

Still ignoring that the vast majority of this discrimination you speak of is directed by Muslims at other Muslims.
The religion isn't the problem; radical interpretations thereof is the problem.
Just like radical interpretations of Christianity lead some Christians to all sorts of oppressive, murderous shit.
Or radical anything.

The problem isn't an old book. The problem is the mindset that allows someone to believe that they know what's best for someone else, and that they're willing to oppress or otherwise hurt them "for their own good."

Any honest person whom is trying to be good and embracing a religion to guide them on that path is going to be oppressed if you take that from them. Telling them that their path to goodness is, in fact, bad is a hard sell. Good luck with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I'm not the oppressor.

---

You're saying things on a public forum which are directed at a huge swath of humans using blanket statements.
We've discussed this before, and you know full well that your criticisms only apply to some Muslims, yet you continue to choose language which does not make that distinction.
You are choosing to use language that you know does not best express your thoughts, and furthermore that language is hurtful to any good Muslim whom is not an apologist and whom may well themselves be oppressed by other Muslims.

So yes. You are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I don't have a hold over anyone, I'm not making anyone believe anything.

---

What does that even matter? You're speaking in a public forum. Your words influence people's thoughts.

No one can make anyone believe anything, but you're saying ignorant things which you do not fully stand by (unless your position has changed to unnuanced bigotry).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I'm simply observing that Islam is oppressive, dangerous, and a relic from the past that has not evolved and will probably never evolve because it's so dominated by men, who like being dominant, and the rest of the world let it happen on the basis of "equality", like it's more important to protect their fucking feelings than it is to protect the fundamental rights of humans.

---

Which is an exposition of your own ignorance, choices to remain ignorant, and your willingness to say half-baked, hurtful things about people whom you have never met.

I've seen better from you on a consistent basis for years.
You're not a hater. So I don't see why you can say such asinine crap online when you'd surely have more decorum in a face to face conversation with a Muslim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

If you think Islam is not oppressive to women, if you think it's individuals and that actually the religion of Islam promotes gender equality and sexual freedom, then you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

---

Where I live has no bearing on the veracity of my arguments.
Plan on bringing anything more to the table than childish name-calling, poopface?

Care to explain why it is that Muslim women have made such great contributions to science and medicine in the past decades?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

It belongs in the past. Religion in general belongs in the past, but one at a time. Let's start with the most batshit.

---

Yet another extremist idea based on the notion that you know what's best for other people, and you're willing to take away something they love to show them how right you are.

How often has that worked to change your own behavior?
Like if some fanatic were to take away your weed "for your own good," would you think, "Hey, this is exactly what I was waiting for. Thank you for bullying me into this!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You're a scientist, mojo. Science will defeat organsied religion one day, it's inevitable. When that day comes, those who defended the rights of people to believe in fairies over the rights of people to be treated equal regardless of gender or sexual orientation, well those people will look like fools.

---

Science and religion are not at odds with each other.
There is nothing science can answer that religion is in the business of answering.
They will always coexist is my prediction.

Science tells us a means to understand predictable things about the world. Religion tells us what is good and right and how we should spend our time.
These 2 fields don't even address the same forms of questions.

Is the question's answer measurable? Science has you covered.
Is the question's answer not measurable? You need morality, religion or some other guide. Science has literally nothing to say about unmeasurable phenomena.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Care to explain why it is that Muslim women have made such great contributions to science and medicine in the past decades?

---

Because they managed to get their asses away from Islamic men and moved (or their parents did) to the US or Britain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mojo

Still ignoring that the vast majority of this discrimination you speak of is directed by Muslims at other Muslims.

---

This is completely besides the point. The discrimination is an integral part of Islam, it is social norm amongst their culture, it's not a few individuals.

Quote:

---

The religion isn't the problem; radical interpretations thereof is the problem.

---

Yes, the religion is the problem. Those who are being oppressed dare not challenge their oppressors because they fear Allah.

Quote:

---

Just like radical interpretations of Christianity lead some Christians to all sorts of oppressive, murderous shit.

---

Westboro Baptist Church belongs in the fucking past. That is EXACTLY as offensive as saying Islam does.

Quote:

---

The problem isn't an old book.

---

It is if billions of people insist it's the literal word of God and a moral code for us all to live by.

Quote:

---

Any honest person whom is trying to be good and embracing a religion to guide them on that path is going to be oppressed if you take that from them. Telling them that their path to goodness is, in fact, bad is a hard sell. Good luck with that.

---

I'm hoping science can sell it for me. One day, islam will be like Flat Earth "theory".

Quote:

---

You're saying things on a public forum...

---

And? Anyone who claims to be oppressed by my words is a fucking liar. You do not get oppressed by words, you get oppressed by people abusing their power to keep you under control. Don't you dare start saying that words on an obscure forum are oppressive, it's an insult to those who actually are oppressed.

Quote:

---

which are directed at a huge swath of humans using blanket statements.

---

Your problem with my comments is the number of people it offends. Think about that. If I were talking about scientology, would you be so outraged? What's the difference?

Quote:

---

We've discussed this before, and you know full well that your criticisms only apply to some Muslims,

---

Oh, another problem of your is you refuse to accept that I am attacking Islam, not Muslims. If I say North Korea is a batshit country, I do not think North Koreans are batshit people. Even though somehow them seem happy.

Quote:

---

language is hurtful to any good Muslim whom is not an apologist and whom may well themselves be oppressed by other Muslims Islam.

---

FYP

Quote:

---

So yes. You are.

---

With all due respect, and believe me I have a lot for you, FO. Take a look at what oppression means, then tell me what authority I have. Saying mean things is not oppression. Sharing my opinion is not oppression. Thinking a religion, in fact all religion, belongs in the past is not oppression.

Quote:

---

What does that even matter? You're speaking in a public forum. Your words influence people's thoughts.

---

It matters because oppression is unjust exercise of authority. I have no authority. I am an individual with no influence stating my opinion. That cannot be oppression, and if you want to use law (since discrimination is illegal, you're effectively doing so) to shout me down, then it is YOU who is oppressing ME. You are trying to control my behaviour by abusing power. THAT IS OPPRESSION, NOT SAYING MEAN THINGS.

Quote:

---

No one can make anyone believe anything, but you're saying ignorant things which you do not fully stand by (unless your position has changed to unnuanced bigotry).

---

My position is Islam belongs in the fucking past.

Quote:

---

Which is an exposition of your own ignorance, choices to remain ignorant, and your willingness to say half-baked, hurtful things about people whom you have never met.

---

Again, you think I'm insulting Muslims. I'm not, I'm insulting Islam. If Muslims take offence to that, not my problem. If I say USA is a corrupt country, am I calling you corrupt? Even if you're a proud American?

Quote:

---

You're not a hater.

---

No, I'm not. I don't treat Muslims differently to anyone else I might meet. I don't have any hatred for any indivudual whatsoever. But I do hate things that cause human misery, such as war. And Islam has caused centuries of war, while oppressing its own adherants. So yeah, I hate Islam. But I DO NOT hate Muslims, not unless an individual Muslim gives me reason too.

Quote:

---

Plan on bringing anything more to the table than childish name-calling, poopface?

---

Oh dude don't be so sensetive. "Cloud cuckoo land" is not name-calling, it's a common phrase here that your nan might say if you were living in a world of deluded optimism.

Quote:

---

Care to explain why it is that Muslim women have made such great contributions to science and medicine in the past decades?

---

I guess because they're smart. What's this got to do with the discussion?

Quote:

---

Yet another extremist idea based on the notion that you know what's best for other people, and you're willing to take away something they love to show them how right you are.

---

I know what's best for people? I'm making an assumption that a world without religion would be an infinitely less insecure place than one with multiple religions. I'm making an assumption that an individual who is free of oppression is happier than someone who is oppressed. I might be wrong, maybe religion is needed to stop people being barbaric. I tend towards the idea law and order is enough.

Quote:

---

Like if some fanatic were to take away your weed "for your own good," would you think, "Hey, this is exactly what I was waiting for. Thank you for bullying me into this!"

---

Terrible anaology. Weed isn't oppressing women and homosexuals.

Quote:

---

Science and religion are not at odds with each other.

---

Yes they are. Have you read the Bible? I haven't, not all of it, but I do know the very first line is a lie, proven by sceince.

Science and God are not at odds. Religion is not God.

Quote:

---

They will always coexist is my prediction.

---

Then there will always be oppression and war.

Do you like religion enough to accept these things? I don't.

"discrimination is an integral part of Islam"
Then why are Islamic people fighting against being oppressed by other Islamic people?
I don't think you really appreciate the power of this data.

It can't be that Islam is the oppressor when Islamic oppression is being fought by Islamic people.
That's a contradiction.

You assert that Muslims are not fighting to end the oppression of other Muslims, then expose yourself to some world news before inventing a narrative that suits your ignorance.

Condemning the entirety of Westboro Baptist, and not the oppressive teachings held by some or even all of the members thereof is where you're being bone-headed.

Billions of Muslims say one thing and billions of Muslims say the opposite. (IDK the exact numbers, which do not matter.) You're cherry-picking only one side of that narrative.

Science will never settle religion. It can only settle what the boundaries of religion are as we become better at measuring more things.

Just stop with your "Islam vs. Muslim" talk. If you go attacking Christianity, you bet your ass you're going to offend Christians.

Words have power. Your assertion that you can spout bigotry or other random shit that is both wrong and hurtful - without responsibility to the effects of that speach - is blind to actual human nature. Even a blind idiot about human nature, like me, knows that much.

Your position that religion belongs in the past is a bit blind, but nowhere near as offensive as singling out one religion and saying it belongs in the past. Funny how the one religion you're singling out is the single most popular religion in the world, too.

Again, you choosing to plug your ears about how the words you are choosing will be heard is your problem, not the rest of the world's. You can choose your words in such a way as to not be a total jerk, or you can choose to use language which promotes bigotry.

Shut up, poopface! You're being sensitive!

Smart Islamic women whom are not oppressors, contributing to the greater good of all humans seems to be a pretty stark counterpoint to your thesis.

Yeah... you're making assumptions about what other people need to be good people, and since religion doesn't work for you, you're asserting that it can't work for anyone.

Who cares if weed is an oppressor? You use it to help you be a good person, and plenty of other people say that your use promotes drug wars and violence. They're idiots, but they make the same arguments that you do. Since other people cause problems by the existence of this thing, you cannot have it. No matter that you don't cause problems when you use it.

Yes. I have read the Bible. Cover to cover. I was raised Catholic and I tried very hard to embrace it in my early teens. I could not. I struggled with that for a while and was a staunch athiest. Then I realized that other people actually get a lot of goodness and inspiration from being a member of a church, so I dropped it. To each their own.

Sorry, but no. Science and religion are not at odds with each other, even though many scientists and many religious people will argue beyond the scope of their fields.

Weed makes at least some people paranoid. It is arguably a form of mental oppression just like religion since it affects how some people view the world, and in a negative way.

Mojo stop me before i try to argue that weed is an outdated drug and we should rid our lands of it.

First of all. Can we stop calling Islam a religion? It's not. It's a political ideology mixed with mythology. therefore, it is completely incompatible with liberal western society....which is obviously the best society.

I didn't read the whole word salad above, but whichever of you is saying Islam = bad, is correct.

Arguing about whether or not that applies to "all" muslims or just "some" muslims is a distraction. "Some" Nazis refused to kill Jews. It would be ridiculous to say that their ideology couldn't possibly be anti-semetic???? Conversely, "some" catholics shoot up abortion clinics, but it would also be ridiculous to suggest that catholicism endorsed that murder.

So MMM, your "some" vs "all" game-playing fails. Just stop it.

What you have to look at is the frequency of dangerous ideas. Look at the polls that show how many muslims support governments run by Sharia law. Look how many think that bombing civilians is at least sometimes acceptable. Look at how many votes were cast for overt Islamist political candidates.

MMM, can you really look at that data, as a scientist, and still say "Hmmm, these charts don't read 100%. I guess some of them are ok. No reason to judge this religion negatively."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Look how many think that bombing civilians is at least sometimes acceptable.

---

Are the numbers as high as this? 'Cause that would be scary I agree.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...n-donald-trump

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Are the numbers as high as this? 'Cause that would be scary I agree.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...n-donald-trump

---

Actually they're double that. And they didn't have to dupe the poll-takers to get results that high.

So then you agree, it's shockingly alarming and a major threat to world stability.

"Shockingly alarming?" you realize you basically said the same word twice here right? Please add a thesaurus to that dictionary you so desperately need.

Where are you getting these numbers, Fox News? I keep telling you they're biased but you keep believing them anyways. Way to stick to your guns, I guess.

Apart from Palestine and Bangladesh, the average muslim seems a lot less tolerant of violence against civilians than the average republican.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/...-extremism-10/


Major difference here is the US has the power to kill 100s of thousands of civilians.

Like I said, USA is a bigger threat to the world than islamic terrorism. Can we agree then this is a major threat to the world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Where are you getting these numbers, Fox News? I keep telling you they're biased but you keep believing them anyways. Way to stick to your guns, I guess.

---

I'm getting them from Pew. The exact same place you cite later in this post. The difference is......I can read.

Quote:

---

Apart from Palestine and Bangladesh, the average muslim seems a lot less tolerant of violence against civilians than the average republican.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/...-extremism-10/

---

How are you reading that chart and coming to that conclusion?????

Look at Turkey for fuck's sake!! That's supposedly the place where Islam is done so well, and everyone is moderate and reasonable. And yet only 58%.....not even two thirds.....of people are willing to say "Suicide bombings are never justified against civilian targets in order to defend Islam from its enemies"

How are you still saying that Islam is fine????

Quote:

---

Major difference here is the US has the power to kill 100s of thousands of civilians.

---

You're playing a semantic game to create a false equivalency. The poll you cited is garbage ok. Stop talking about it. America is a country. Not a religion. Military force is a perfectly reasonable and sometimes expected action by a world power. Everyone knows we're engaged in military conflict in the middle east. And some people have aggressive opinions about how to execute a war. 30% seems totally reasonable. All this proves is that slightly less than 1/3 of republicans doesn't pay enough attention to the news, or disney movies, to recognize a fictitious (but very authentic sounding) middle eastern city name.

If you want to continue to talk about this poll, then you need to provide an equivalent comparison. Take a poll in Afghanistan asking how many machine-gun owning goat herders support a military bombing of America-town. Let me know what you find out.

Also, look at the wording of the poll question you cited..."Defend Islam from it's enemies"

Who is the enemy of Islam? How does a religion have enemies?

States have enemies. Is Islam a state? Does it matter if a billion people happen to think it is?

I mean....what the fuck is this????

1 in 6 Egyptians thinks Al Qaeda is totally cool. That's horrifying!!

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-con...tremism-03.png

Hey look. 1 in 5 Jordanians and 2 in 5 Lebanese think Hezbollah is terrific.

Nothing to see here.

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-con...tremism-06.png

And I know Poop already posted this one, but I think this is the whole story. So it bears repeating.

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-con...tremism-10.png

first of all, everyone who responded to that poll can be considered dangerous. Any reasonable person would say "A religion doesn't need to be defended with bombs!! Certainly not against any civilian threat????". Anybody who is not a murderous psychopath would reject the question as being wholly absurd in the first place.

Second of all, how about the fact that only ONE of those countries could get a "Never" score above 90%.

Look how many countries have "never" scores below 50%!!!!!!

Who in their right mind would say that this is a religion of peace that should be tolerated????????

Rage some more lol.

You dont like the fact that the numbers don't support your argument. I get it. But cherry-picking a few numbers to defend it doesn't work either. You're not kidding anyone.

Now for some serious questions that you won't hear on Fox News, or any American TV channel for that matter:

Who was the US defending itself from in Iraq II? What % of Americans supported the idea of Iraq II when it was decided to go ahead with it?

What was the justification for killing > 100k civilians (presumably most of whom weren't planning a suicide trip to the US anytime soon, since they were generally a bit busy at the time ducking for cover)? They just get in the way? Collateral damage to make a point? How is that any different from what these people are arguing is ok to DEFEND their religious beliefs? Also please make note of the importance of the word DEFEND here and how it contrasts with an "attack without provocation."

Now go tell me who is a bigger threat to my world's peace: A religion where people think it's ok to defend themselves, or an entire country where it's so easy to hoodwink people into supporting an unjust war that killed >100k innocent people that it was never in doubt whether they could go ahead with it or not?

Why is it a concern for a religion to be violent but not a country? Do you know how many people died in WWI and WWII? Do you know what WWI and WWII were about, and who started them? I'll give you a hint: it wasn't Islam, or even religion at all, that got those little kerfuffles underway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Who was the US defending itself from in Iraq II?

---

Saddam Hussein

Quote:

---

What % of Americans supported the idea of Iraq II when it was decided to go ahead with it?

---

Very high.

Quote:

---

What was the justification for killing > 100k civilians

---

You say that like it was the US, or US actions that directly lead to their killing. Concrete statistics on that are difficult to nail down. But look at this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/resiz...NF2O4RUA2E.png

The green bars are us. The red/gray bars are not us. It looks like not-us was doing plenty of civilian killing on their own. Fighting against an enemy like that certainly will result in collateral damage. What's you're point??

Quote:

---

How is that any different from what these people are arguing is ok to DEFEND their religious beliefs?

---

Are their religious beliefs under attack? Israel just wants to be left alone.

Quote:

---

Also please make note of the importance of the word DEFEND here and how it contrasts with an "attack without provocation."

---

Fine. Defend against what though? You need to define the attacker.

Quote:

---

Now go tell me who is a bigger threat to my world's peace: A religion where people think it's ok to defend themselves, or an entire country where it's so easy to hoodwink people into supporting an unjust war that killed >100k innocent people that it was never in doubt whether they could go ahead with it or not?

---

That's no contest. You say "defend themselves". But really what the poll was asking was about the use of terroristic intimidation to influence policies. It doesn't ask "is it ok to bomb the enemies of Islam". It asks if it's ok to bomb civilians as a means to defend Islam. That's completely different than a nation conducting a preemptive military strike, with support from other nations, abiding by international laws, and subject to UN sanctions.

If you're equating the two, it's because you huff too much paint.

Quote:

---

Why is it a concern for a religion to be violent but not a country?

---

I just told you....because consequences

Islam is not subject to that same scrutiny. They can do whatever they want, and if anyone complains, they're racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Saddam Hussein

---

And that he was any threat at all to the US was debunked shortly after the war started when they found no WMD. Did the US then say 'whoopsie' and immediately vacate the country they'd just bombed back into the stone age? No? Why not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

You say that like it was the US, or US actions that directly lead to their killing. Concrete statistics on that are difficult to nail down. But look at this:

---

That's like saying the Axis weren't responsible for all 60 million deaths in WWII because some of those people were killed by other countries, or starved to death or whatever. So they weren't killed by Axis bombs and bullets. Another, more reasonable way of looking at it is if they hadn't started the war, there wouldn't have been a war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Are their religious beliefs under attack? Israel just wants to be left alone.

---

lol, Israel has not been acting like a country that just wants to be left alone. You'd have to go back more than a couple of decades to find a time when they've been behaving like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Fine. Defend against what though? You need to define the attacker.

---

Well I don't cause I didn't write the poll. I sijmply pointed out the word 'defend' is something that goes right past a lot of people. And I agree it's ambiguous and can be taken in different ways. But the numbers who are willing to 'defend' their creed by killing civvies is pretty consistent if you exchange the word 'Islam' with 'USA', and ask a different group of people. But no-one is talking about 'radical American terrorists' posing a huge threat to the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

But really what the poll was asking was about the use of terroristic intimidation to influence policies.

---

Reductio ad bananum at its finest. Maybe read the actual words in the poll question itself and don't make up your own meaning for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

It doesn't ask "is it ok to bomb the enemies of Islam". It asks if it's ok to bomb civilians as a means to defend Islam. That's completely different than a nation conducting a preemptive military strike, with support from other nations, abiding by international laws, and subject to UN sanctions.

---

The argument wasn't whether they got it past the UN or not. The UN wasn't exactly cheering them on iirc. But anyways, who was going to stop the US from doing w/e the fuck it wanted to in 2004?

Point is they did it without provocation or rationale. The 'evidence' of a threat was fabricated at worst, and at best incorrect (probably the former). What superpower country is so paranoid it goes halfway around the world to attack a third world country on the basis of imaginary threats?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I just told you....because consequences

Islam is not subject to that same scrutiny. They can do whatever they want, and if anyone complains, they're racist.

---

Lol, no 'racist' (or to keep Ong happy, 'theophobe') is the word reserved for people who hold an entire religious group responsible for the actions of a tiny minority. It's akin to holding all Americans responsible for Iraq II. It's not fair and that's why people object to it.

Quote:

---

Just stop with your "Islam vs. Muslim" talk. If you go attacking Christianity, you bet your ass you're going to offend Christians.

---

I don't give a fuck if people are offended. Jesus fucking wept, since when is not offending people more important than wars and oppression?

If I attack North Korea as a nation, I am not attacking North Korean people. If some wanker Korean decides he's offended, fuck him.

Holding a religion, all religions, in contempt is not oppression, it's not racism, it's not anything except theopbobia. And if you're going to suggest to me that theophobia is something I should be ashamed of, you can do the same as the offended Korean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

https://www.washingtonpost.com/resiz...NF2O4RUA2E.png

The green bars are us. The red/gray bars are not us. It looks like not-us was doing plenty of civilian killing on their own. Fighting against an enemy like that certainly will result in collateral damage. What's you're point??

---

Do you have a graph like this with numbers from "us" and "not-us" that starts before 2003?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

lol, Israel has not been acting like a country that just wants to be left alone. You'd have to go back more than a couple of decades to find a time when they've been behaving like that.

---

ANTI SEMITE

YOU'RE THE WORST KIND OF RACIST

You said something negative about Israel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Do you have a graph like this with numbers from "us" and "not-us" that starts before 2003?

---

Does it matter? The total number of civilian deaths are estimated as 182k-204k. Since it was 'us' who started the war, it's 'us' who is primarily responsible for the resulting deaths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

ANTI SEMITE

YOU'RE THE WORST KIND OF RACIST

You said something negative about Israel.

---

ya i know. 40 lashes with a wet noodle for me.

And don't forget I'm anti-protestant because I criticized the US and anti-islam because I criticized Iran. And anti-white male because i criticize you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

ya i know. 40 lashes with a wet noodle for me.

And don't forget I'm anti-protestant because I criticized the US and anti-islam because I criticized Iran. And anti-white male because i criticize you.

---

No, it doesn't work like that. It's only Israel that gets that kind of protection from butthurt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

No, it doesn't work like that. It's only Israel that gets that kind of protection from butthurt.

---

I know. Just like it's only Islam that gets protection from bigotry. All other religions are fair game.

Islam doesn't get protection though, not any more than any other religion. At least, not officially. The mouth breathing left do offer Islam more protection than other religions, but it's only Judaism that gets its own special definition of discrmination, which includes suggesting the media is controlled by Jews. If you actually think that (and assuming the media isn't controlled by Jews), you not simply wrong, you're an anti-Semite. Same with Holocaust denial. You're not misinformed or ignorant, you're a racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Islam doesn't get protection though, not any more than any other religion. At least, not officially. The mouth breathing left do offer Islam more protection than other religions, but it's only Judaism that gets its own special definition of discrmination, which includes suggesting the media is controlled by Jews. If you actually think that (and assuming the media isn't controlled by Jews), you not simply wrong, you're an anti-Semite. Same with Holocaust denial. You're not misinformed or ignorant, you're a racist.

---

Judaism gets some special leeway because of the Holocaust is my personal theory of that. But I think they're running out of that capital lately.

Also my experience is not that anyone who criticizes Israel gets called racist or anti-semite. Maybe I'm hanging around the wrong parts of the internet, dunno.

I recently took a look at what the working definition of anti-Semitism is. Ok I'm maybe being a little disingenuous, critisising the state policy of Israel is not anti-Semitism, but you've really got to tread carefully.

Yes the Holocaust was terrible. But what people are quick to forget is that at least twice as many Russians died in WWII, yet it's perfectly acceptable to pour hot piss on them guys.

Were we talking about Serena in this thread? Some Australian cartoonist is racist and sexist because he drew a picture of her throwing a tantrum.

He should've drawn a white male to depict her, stay on safe ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Does it matter? The total number of civilian deaths are estimated as 182k-204k. Since it was 'us' who started the war, it's 'us' who is primarily responsible for the resulting deaths.

---

I really hope we aren't going to spend a day in 2018 talking about the Iraq war. You say it was "us" who started the war. Fuck you.

We made a pre-emptive strike against a hostile regime. It doesn't matter necessarily that they didn't have WMD's. The intelligence suggesting that Hussein was TRYING to procure such things, has never been disproved. He also had a relatively powerful army with plenty of chemical and biological weapons, and had no problem using them. That's not "our" fault.

Pro Tip for you dictators out there. When you start getting 95% of the vote....the world is gonna get a little suspicious of what the fuck you're up to.

And don't start with the "Iraqi people didn't want us there". That's bullshit too. There were plenty of slaves that weren't thrilled about the emancipation proclamation either. Just because Saddam kept the Iraqi trains running on time, doesn't mean he should not have been removed.

The western world, led by the US decided that it was going to war against Islamism. Where is that coming from? Is there a country in that region that A) Borders all the others B) Is home to the two largest rivers in the region C) has prime access to major seaports and D) has enough natural resources to sustain wealth.

^That's the kind of ally we need if we're going to run a successful campaign against terrorism. Obviously we don't want to go around conquering countries for this purpose, but if said country is occupied by someone we can reasonable remove...so be it.

You see, at this point we were working under the progressive assumption that "not all muslims are bad". So we assumed that most muslims would embrace democracy, and be glad to be free. As it turns out, most muslims are bad. And huge numbers of them carried out an armed insurgency to try and seize power after Saddam was deposed. And even though they were dying by the thousands, the muslim civillians didn't really do much to help us. They were just like..."yeah, fuck the west, we want Islam, kill the infidels"

There's no fucking way the world would be a safe place, if we allowed a violent insurgency of Islamists to take over a country like Iraq.

So sorry if it got messy.

In 08, Obama was elected, and he pulled us out fast. ISIS came. That pretty much proves that staying in Iraq was the right thing to do, even after we learned that Saddam had no WMD's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

You say it was "us" who started the war. Fuck you.

We made a pre-emptive strike against a hostile regime.

---

Lol.

So, it was 'them' who fired the first shot?

If your whole justification for Iraq is that 'they' were somehow a threat to 'us' and so we had to start a war (but we didn't *really* start it in any sense except the sense of who invaded who), and so the blame lays entirely with them, then you're an even bigger moron than I thought.

Only the dumbest, most jingoistic brainwashed flag-humping American thinks that war was justified. Sadly that's probably about the same % who want to bomb Aladdin.

Not even going the read the rest of your diatribe. I'll assume it's just more bullshit to try to support the basic contradiction you started the argument with. But hey, go ahead and answer this post with another essay lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

If your whole justification for Iraq is that 'they' were somehow a threat to 'us' and so we had to start a war (but we didn't *really* start it in any sense except the sense of who invaded who), and so the blame lays entirely with them, then you're an even bigger moron than I thought.

---

You seem to be blurring the sequence of events.

Hussein was a threat.

We took him out.

Easy game.

THEN.......

Armed Islamic insurgents started a war. Not us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

You seem to be blurring the sequence of events.

Hussein was not a threat.

We took him out, and devastated the country.

THEN.......

Ungrateful armed Islamic insurgents started a war.

---

fyp

If your argument is "Saddam Hussein was really harmless", fuck you

The intelligence did show that Saddam was trying to make WMD's. It also showed that he was decades away from anything really fitting the M of WMD. If it was about WMD's, we really fucked up by going to Iraq instead of Iran.

Those chemical and biological weapons he was using against his own people.
The USA sold him those weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

The intelligence did show that Saddam was trying to make WMD's. It also showed that he was decades away from anything really fitting the M of WMD. If it was about WMD's, we really fucked up by going to Iraq instead of Iran.

---

Come the fuck on man. You agree that it was obvious Saddam had a desire to acquire these weapons. He was a long way off from making them...maybe.

Does it make sense to you, that it would never have occured to Mr. Hussein to try and purchase the weapons?

How long would that take? Was he decades away?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Those chemical and biological weapons he was using against his own people.
The USA sold him those weapons.

---

So?

http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/20...tcmp=obnetwork

This is why it was fine that Starbucks had a "bathrooms for customers only" policy

If your only prerequisites for declaring war are:

a) they have, or can someday have, weapons that they could in theory use against us; and

b) they don't like us;

then the list of countries you should invade is probably in the dozens and arguably larger than the list of countries you shouldn't invade.

Any country that attacks the US is committing national suicide. That's evident in the fact that no country has attacked you in 75 years. But you have invaded (or tried to invade in the case of Cuba), about a dozen countries in that same time, often without provocation or facing any direct threat to yourself (e.g., Vietnam, Granada, Iraq II). It's hypocritical therefore to point the finger at others as being out to cause mayhem when you're the most aggressive and destructive force in the world in recent history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

It's hypocritical therefore to point the finger at others as being out to cause mayhem when you're the most aggressive and destructive force in the world in recent history.

---

Bullshit. You're just saying that because you spliced together a tunnel vision highlight reel of what you consider American missteps.

For an "aggressive and destructive" force, America certainly has done a whole lot of good. American power and innovation has done enough for the world to keep us in the black through 50 Iraq wars.

You're in Britain now right? There's a reason it's still Britain and not Germany's vacation island.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/20...tcmp=obnetwork

This is why it was fine that Starbucks had a "bathrooms for customers only" policy

---

It's an epidemic

Blair and Bush are war criminals for what they did to Iraq. That said, Saddam was a world class piece of shit and if we're going to fuck world leaders up the arse like that, he's a good one to start with. If only there was oil in Zimbabwe.

If anyone thinks the world would be a better place with Saddam still alive, watch him take power...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLUktJbp2Ug

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Bullshit. You're just saying that because you spliced together a tunnel vision highlight reel of what you consider American missteps.

---

Haha, I only mentioned the places you actually invaded, never mind the ones you bombed like Cambodia or Laos. And never mind the CIA's little leader-toppling program they ran around the world for decades. Guess who we have to thank for the fascist Allende in Chile and the Ayatollah taking over in Iran in '79, to name just a couple of your 'missteps'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

For an "aggressive and destructive" force, America certainly has done a whole lot of good.

---

And he goes on to list...nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

American power and innovation has done enough for the world to keep us in the black through 50 Iraq wars.

---

Not sure what that's even supposed to mean, sorry. You think America is solely responsible for world progress? The world has been progressing since the renaissance, when America was only a glint in the Pilgrims' eye. Wow man get your head out of your ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

You're in Britain now right? There's a reason it's still Britain and not Germany's vacation island.

---

And you only entered the war when someone launched one of those pre-emptive strikes you've since become so fond of. Obviously they saw a threat and acted on it, but I don't remember anyone congratulating Japan for Pearl Harbor and saying it was all good.

And since WWII (which is what I was talking about after all) you've mostly just been sticking your dick in where it dont belong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Blair and Bush are war criminals for what they did to Iraq.

---

Only if you consider an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation a war crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

That said, Saddam was a world class piece of shit and if we're going to fuck world leaders up the arse like that, he's a good one to start with.

---

The problem is they didn't just fuck a world leader, they fucked the whole country he was sitting on top of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I don't remember anyone congratulating Japan for Pearl Harbor and saying it was all good.

---

History is written by the victors.

Sounds true but isn't.

That's a really strange post, poop. On the one hand, you argue that they only comitted a war crime if invading a nation is a war crime. And on the other, you argue they "fucked the whole country", which would be a war crime if we assume that reasonable steps weren't taken to minimise civillian deaths.

Also, "unprovoked" is tenuous. He had already invaded Kuwait, and been forced to retreat. In doing so, he set fire to huge amounts of oil. He provoked quite a lot of people over his tenure. But I think what most provoked his enemies was his threat to stop selling oil in dollars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

And you only entered the war when someone launched one of those pre-emptive strikes you've since become so fond of. Obviously they saw a threat and acted on it, but I don't remember anyone congratulating Japan for Pearl Harbor and saying it was all good.

---

Gotta intervene here, too. America's attacks are a lot different to Japan's, in the sense America give warning first. As daft as that might sound, what Japan did was a war crime because they didn't declare war, they gave no notice of their intentions, and so everyone who was attacked was deemed a non-combatant. That charge held up in international courts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Gotta intervene here, too. America's attacks are a lot different to Japan's, in the sense America give warning first. As daft as that might sound, what Japan did was a war crime because they didn't declare war, they gave no notice of their intentions, and so everyone who was attacked was deemed a non-combatant. That charge held up in international courts.

---

haha, saying 'i'm gonna kill you' is not a defense for murder, sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

That's a really strange post, poop. On the one hand, you argue that they only comitted a war crime if invading a nation is a war crime.

---

That was sarcasm. Sorry it went past you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

And on the other, you argue they "fucked the whole country", which would be a war crime if we assume that reasonable steps weren't taken to minimise civillian deaths.

---

Haven't read the proceedings of the Hague Convention lately, but I think waging aggressive unprovoked war is a war crime regardless of whether you're careful about only killing the guys in the other country's army, or just indiscriminately bomb the fuck out of everything and everyone like the US has done numerous times. And if it's not, it should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Also, "unprovoked" is tenuous. He had already invaded Kuwait, and been forced to retreat. In doing so, he set fire to huge amounts of oil.

---

15 years earlier. By that logic, America could be attacked by anyone for provoking them by invading Iraq and devastating the country, since it also happened in the last two decades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

haha, saying 'i'm gonna kill you' is not a defense for murder, sorry.

---

It is when we're talking about the rules of war.

Quote:

---

15 years earlier. By that logic, America could be attacked by anyone for provoking them by invading Iraq and devastating the country, since it also happened in the last two decades.

---

Sure, 15 years earlier. Do you suppose Saddam had turned into a good guy during these years?

Don't get me wrong, I agree that the war on Iraq was a terrible and shameful event in our history.

But don't be fooled into thinking it was unprovoked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

It is when we're talking about the rules of war.

---

The rules of war require a declaration not advance warning afaik. "Hey get ready we're coming!" lol. There's a reason that doesn't happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Don't get me wrong, I agree that the war on Iraq was a terrible and shameful event in our history.

But don't be fooled into thinking it was unprovoked.

---

Well you can't have it both ways. There's a whole continuum of 'provocation'. I mean 'little rocket man' is provocative.

But either we were provoked enough to justify it or we weren't. I'm glad you seem to agree we weren't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

The rules of war require a declaration not advance warning afaik. "Hey get ready we're coming!" lol. There's a reason that doesn't happen.

---

An advance warning of a military attack would make it less serious in the eyes of an internation war crimes tribunal. I'm not talking about what I think is right and wrong here, just my understanding of international law, which admittedly is based on dirty googling, since I'm not educated on such matters.

Quote:

---

But either we were provoked enough to justify it or we weren't. I'm glad you seem to agree we weren't.

---

I don't think Saddam did enough to provoke us into attacking Iraq. I do think he did enough to get dead and me not give a single shit about him.

I should point out though, if he really was threatening to sell oil in a currency other than dollars, and if such a move would crash the American economy, then he did enough to provke us into attacking him. Right or wrong, if the dollar crashes, we'll all know about it.

The USA hasn't declared a war since the 1940's. The last time Congress declared war was against Japan in response to Pearl Harbor, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

The USA hasn't declared a war since the 1940's. The last time Congress declared war was against Japan in response to Pearl Harbor, I think.

---

Official declaration of war against a nation state? Perhaps not, but their attacks came with warning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

The USA hasn't declared a war since the 1940's. The last time Congress declared war was against Japan in response to Pearl Harbor, I think.

---

I think the rules on what does or doesn't count as a declaration, and what does or doesn't count as a war, are a bit fuzzy. Some of the wars the US got into like Vietnam started out as kerfuffles and just escalated into war, so a formal declaration would be a bit superfluous in that context.

But in general, country A is supposed to send their ambassador to country B with a letter saying 'this means war' at least a few hours in advance of the troops crossing the border. Of course that's only between nations with good manners, which most stopped having after WWI.

Yeah it's like after WWI world leaders around the world asked "whose stupid idea was it to play war with rules?".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Official declaration of war against a nation state? Perhaps not, but their attacks came with warning.

---

Not sure it's relevant, but don't think that's true.

Vietnam: continuous escalation, no warnings.
Granada: hi, we're here!
Cuba: ola!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Yeah it's like after WWI world leaders around the world asked "whose stupid idea was it to play war with rules?".

---

More like 'during' than 'after' but yeah.

Those rules were made up before war got so intense. Back in ye olde days, you'd send Lord Beaverbottom to Paris and tell King Louie 'let's get it on' and then they'd have one battle and whoever won that won the war.

UK won Quebec from France in the 1700s after one battle that took place on a field the size of a soccer pitch.

Now, war is so destructive no-one can be bothered to fuck around with niceties like that.

I'd like war more if world leaders got together to have a proper fight. I'd find Merkel a lot more tolerable if she punched Macron in the throat before kicking him unconcsious. Fuck yes, Germany.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.e0df5f882a70

Tucker: Is Diversity good?
WP: You're a racist!
Tucker: All I asked was if diversity was good....
WP: Nope you're a racist...look here's where some people said so on twitter. Racist.


Can anyone find one sentence in this thing that actually addresses Tucker's points??

His whole point is that the left doesn't want discourse.....and then they prove his point.

Holy macaroni