Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,292,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

Page 27 of 39 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast
Results 1,951 to 2,025 of 2871
  1. #1951
    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.
  2. #1952
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Who was the US defending itself from in Iraq II?
    Saddam Hussein

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

    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:



    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??

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
  3. #1953
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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.
  4. #1954
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  5. #1955
    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 wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  6. #1956
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,668
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post


    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?
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  7. #1957
    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 wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  8. #1958
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    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.
  9. #1959
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    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.
  10. #1960
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    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 wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  11. #1961
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    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.
  12. #1962
    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 wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  13. #1963
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    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.
  14. #1964
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  15. #1965
    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 wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  16. #1966
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    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.
  17. #1967
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    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.
  18. #1968
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    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.
  19. #1969
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    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
  20. #1970
    If your argument is "Saddam Hussein was really harmless", fuck you
  21. #1971
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,456
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    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.
  22. #1972
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    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 View Post
    Those chemical and biological weapons he was using against his own people.
    The USA sold him those weapons.
    So?
  23. #1973
    http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/20...tcmp=obnetwork

    This is why it was fine that Starbucks had a "bathrooms for customers only" policy
  24. #1974
    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.
  25. #1975
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    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.
  26. #1976
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    7,019
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    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
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  27. #1977
    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...
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  28. #1978
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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.
  29. #1979
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    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 View Post
    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.
  30. #1980
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I don't remember anyone congratulating Japan for Pearl Harbor and saying it was all good.
    History is written by the victors.
  31. #1981
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    7,019
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Sounds true but isn't.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  32. #1982
    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 wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  33. #1983
    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 wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  34. #1984
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    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.
  35. #1985
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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.
  36. #1986
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    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 Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  37. #1987
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  38. #1988
    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 wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  39. #1989
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    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.
  40. #1990
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    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.
  41. #1991
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    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.

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  42. #1992
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  43. #1993
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,456
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    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.
  44. #1994
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    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 wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  45. #1995
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    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.
  46. #1996
    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 wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  47. #1997
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    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!
  48. #1998
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    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.
  49. #1999
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  50. #2000
    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
  51. #2001
    paywall
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  52. #2002
    Nice try.

    Tucker: ZOMFG someone please explain to me how diversity can possibly be good? How can it be good if two people get married who don't speak the same language? Why did Alex Jones get fired then? (and a bunch of other irrelevant idiotic questions).
    WP: wtf Tucker you're an idiot.
    Tucker: ZOMFG the left is attacking me. Goddamn diversifiers!
    WP: Go home Tucker, you're drunk.
  53. #2003
    The words of the mouth-breather himself


    How, precisely, is diversity our strength? Since you’ve made this our new national motto, please be specific as you explain it. Can you think, for example, of other institutions such as, I don’t know, marriage or military units in which the less people have in common, the more cohesive they are?

    Do you get along better with your neighbors, your co-workers if you can’t understand each other or share no common values? Please be honest as you answer this question.

    And if diversity is our strength, why is it okay for the rest of us to surrender one of our central rights, freedom of speech, to just a handful of tech monopolies? And by the way, if your ideas are so obviously true, why does anyone who question them need to be shamed, silenced and fired?
  54. #2004
    And here's the best answer from twitter:

    Someone needs to tell Tucker Carlson that the greatest argument for diversity is Tucker Carlson
  55. #2005
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,456
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    So now diversity means the less you have in common? lol. OK.

    C'mon, there's limits.
    A marriage works well when both partners strengths lie in separate areas, but not if they are strong in the same areas, but with conflicts.
    Which situation is more diverse?
    Neither.
    One has a diversity that adds to the situation, the other has diversity that subtracts from the situation.

    Elon Musk with a hundred other Elon Musks as employees would not be as successful as Elon Musk with a hundred qualified employees with different skills, which would be better still than Elon Musk with 100 different species of animal.

    C'mon, guysh. Just... C'mon.
  56. #2006
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    The words of the mouth-breather himself
    What exactly do you object to?

    Here's some more for you to dissect. Please explain exactly which passage you find racist.

    https://youtu.be/AqViPLEgI-g
  57. #2007
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    C'mon, guysh. Just... C'mon.
    Can you please just stay on fucking topic for five god damn seconds?

    Try to at least pretend like there is a context to this conversation huh?

    In this case, the term 'diversity' refers to a desire for every endeavor in society to have participants from as many different group identities as possible. And qualifying group identities are race, religion, citizenship, sexuality, gender expression, gender identity, and of course gender which is entirely different than any of the other things I already said.

    Got that?

    C'mon

    EDIT: and in case it's beyond the capabilities of your monkey brain to identify the question at hand, I'll spell it out for you.

    Tucker asked a question. It doesn't matter if it was a good question, or a bad question, or a question that's already been answered. As a scientist, you should know the value of bad ideas. You can't get to the good ideas without them.

    Now.....follow me chimp nerd......should Tucker be decried as a racist for asking the question?

    That's the question. We're not answering Tucker's question right now. We're not talking about the definition of, or value of diversity yet here. I just wanna know.... is it a legitimate endeavor for Tucker Carlson to ask this question, or should it be decried as racist, de-valued, and ignored?

    Now, if you say that it is in fact racist for Tucker to be asking these questions, then there is a follow up question. How do we think?

    If we can't articulate an idea, how do we advance as a society?
    Last edited by BananaStand; 09-11-2018 at 06:22 PM.
  58. #2008
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    What exactly do you object to?
    The pretense that he's so innocently interested in knowing why diversity is good.

    He's obviously not interested in having an objective discussion about what is good or bad about diversity, but just wants to bash it.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Here's some more for you to dissect. Please explain exactly which passage you find racist.

    https://youtu.be/AqViPLEgI-g
    I'll pass, thanks.

    And really, he probably isn't being racist, at least not overtly. Or maybe he is, but whatever. Who really wants to sit down for hours analyzing his every word? Not me.

    The more general problem I have is the fact that so many people try to make everyone on the other side look like scum and then get butthurt and outraged when the other side does the same to them. It's just getting really old. And it's both sides, the left is as bad as the right. You guys need to chill, try to find some common ground or go to a political marriage counsellor or something. Just calling each other names isn't going to get you anywhere.
  59. #2009
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post

    In this case, the term 'diversity' refers to a desire for every endeavor in society to have participants from as many different group identities as possible. And qualifying group identities are race, religion, citizenship, sexuality, gender expression, gender identity, and of course gender which is entirely different than any of the other things I already said.
    TC didn't make that explicit (at least not in the bit I saw), so you're filling in the blanks as you see fit here.

    Diversity to me doesn't mean having token members of each identity in every group just for the sake of ticking off some boxes. It means not excluding members of different identities just because their identities are different.

    There's a world of difference between those two definitions: one is in the realm of affirmative action and reverse discrimination (which I disagree with in principle), the other is just being a tolerant human being.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 09-11-2018 at 06:50 PM.
  60. #2010
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Can you please just stay on fucking topic for five god damn seconds?
    Jesus man, get a hold of yourself.

    He took on the part of the topic that he wanted to take on. The fact he wasn't interested in defending or decrying the name-callers I'm guessing means he found the name-calling and your outrage at the name-callers as uninteresting and/or unproductive as I did.

    And now your outrage is compounded by the fact that someone doesn't want to discuss whether your outrage is justified or not lol. Well, it's a free fucking world, so tough titties. He can pick any topic he wants, he doesn't have to speak directly to your personal butthurtedness.
  61. #2011
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    The more general problem I have is the fact that so many people try to make everyone on the other side look like scum and then get butthurt and outraged when the other side does the same to them. It's just getting really old. And it's both sides, the left is as bad as the right. You guys need to chill, try to find some common ground or go to a political marriage counsellor or something. Just calling each other names isn't going to get you anywhere.
    lol, political marriage counselor.

    As someone who's been married, and been to a marriage counselor, I'll tell you that what you're doing is a shady tactic.

    See, if you Tucker really was racist, the left would be beating him into unemployment and homelessness for his toxic viewpoint. In other words, when you're right, you fight. But when you're wrong......when you get caught.....suddenly you're all about "both sides being wrong" and "truce" and yadda yadda yadda.

    My ex wife did that. More rings than belichick
  62. #2012
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    lol, political marriage counselor.

    As someone who's been married, and been to a marriage counselor, I'll tell you that what you're doing is a shady tactic.

    See, if you Tucker really was racist, the left would be beating him into unemployment and homelessness for his toxic viewpoint. In other words, when you're right, you fight. But when you're wrong......when you get caught.....suddenly you're all about "both sides being wrong" and "truce" and yadda yadda yadda.

    My ex wife did that. More rings than belichick

    See, I didn't call him a racist, I called him an idiot. And I stand by that. So everything else you say here is based on a retarded premise.
  63. #2013
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    the other is just being a tolerant human being.
    Are you being a tolerant human being if you say "i prefer people in my neighborhood share my culture?"

    or

    "i prefer the people that I work with speak the same language as I do"

    That's what TC is asking. And he said so, explicitly.

    Do you get along better with your neighbors, your co-workers if you can’t understand each other or share no common values? Please be honest as you answer this question.
    So if you prefer "common values", what do you do about other, diverse, values?
  64. #2014
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Jesus man, get a hold of yourself.
    Way to stick up for the nerd. You're the most virtuous kid on the playground
  65. #2015
    I mean dude, every few days you post something about how someone on the left said or did and how outraged you are about it. And no-one wants to take the bait and it's not cause we agree with you it's because we think it'd be a waste of time.
  66. #2016
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Are you being a tolerant human being if you say "i prefer people in my neighborhood share my culture?"
    You're not being tolerant or intolerant, you're simply expressing a preference; maybe it's being a bit closed-minded but w/e. The problem comes when you demand everyone in your neighborhood shares your identity and reject anyone who doesn't; that's intolerance.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    "i prefer the people that I work with speak the same language as I do"
    Sure, but is this a big problem in the US though? You can't communicate with people at work? 'Cause I live very close to London which is one of the most diverse cities in the world and everyone I work with speaks English and when I go to London it's never an issue that I can't get something done because the other guy doesn't speak English. So is this really costing you sleep?


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    So if you prefer "common values", what do you do about other, diverse, values?
    Define 'values'. To me that equates to being law abiding and generally a decent citizen. And there's a lot more diversity within a group on those kinds values than between groups. Not all the good people wear white hats, so to speak.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 09-11-2018 at 07:12 PM.
  67. #2017
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Way to stick up for the nerd. You're the most virtuous kid on the playground
    Thanks. And way to lose your shit for no reason.
  68. #2018
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    suddenly you're all about "both sides being wrong" and "truce" and yadda yadda yadda.
    See this is where you missed a trick. When someone admits to being wrong, that's a gift. The winning play is to reciprocate and build a bridge, not pour gas on the bridge and light a match.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    My ex wife did that. More rings than belichick
    I know it's hard to believe, but some people you don't like sometimes get some things right.
  69. #2019
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Sure, but is this a big problem in the US though? You can't communicate with people at work?
    Yup.

    Between halloween and Thanksgiving, my company needs to hire some 500 temporary employees.

    In some cities, like South Bend Indiana, were I need like 10 people, I can do that speaking just english.

    In Orlando, where I need 150 people, I need a spanish-speaking interviewer, I need job applications in spanish, I need onboarding materials, insurance forms, and company handbooks, in spanish.
  70. #2020
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,456
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    I'm just gonna say that poopy is knocking it out of the park on this page, since using sports analogies will surely make me look less nerdy.
    I don't feel I need to improve upon any of the times he answered in my stead.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Way to stick up for the nerd.
    Not enough superlatives in that sentence, IMO.
  71. #2021
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I'm just gonna say that poopy is knocking it out of the park on this page, since using sports analogies will surely make me look less nerdy.
    I don't feel I need to improve upon any of the times he answered in my stead.
  72. #2022
    I'm not seeing how Poop is being very successful here. The challenge put to him was to cite chapter and verse from TC's show that demonstrates overt racism

    Is he a shameful bigot for asking "Is Diversity really our strength? What does that even mean?"

    Explain your answer
  73. #2023
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,456
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I'm not seeing how Poop is being very successful here. The challenge put to him was to cite chapter and verse from TC's show that demonstrates overt racism

    Is he a shameful bigot for asking "Is Diversity really our strength? What does that even mean?"

    Explain your answer
    It's because you are not paying attention to what Poopy's said. He's eloquently explained why answering that question is a waste of everyone's time.

    TC was playing the fool about what diversity means. The other side played the fool about calling him a racist.
    It was fabricated melodrama intended to be entertaining and it worked.

    What I find a bit off is that you are clearly a smart person, but you see people arguing ridiculous points and you immediately take a side. Why? Especially when the argument happens in a forum which is designed to fabricate arguments and obscure humanity. Isn't it clear to you that neither side in that show is expressing anything remotely close to a responsible, adult perspective?

    Poopy said it well here:
    The more general problem I have is the fact that so many people try to make everyone on the other side look like scum and then get butthurt and outraged when the other side does the same to them. It's just getting really old. And it's both sides, the left is as bad as the right.

    I'll add that it's you, too, Nanners. You're not really interested in defending anything TC says on television as a defensible, responsible perspective are you?
  74. #2024
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    What I find a bit off is that you are clearly a smart person, but you see people arguing ridiculous points and you immediately take a side. Why?
    See, you're doing it too. Why is it a "ridiculous point"? TC asked a question. instead of answering it, you're saying "it's ridiculous"! Granted, that's more sensible than saying "That's racist!". But in either case, you've neglected to explain WHY it's such a ridiculous question.

    Especially when the argument happens in a forum which is designed to fabricate arguments and obscure humanity. Isn't it clear to you that neither side in that show is expressing anything remotely close to a responsible, adult perspective?
    If this is your perception of TC's show, then it's obvious that you've never seen TC's show.

    Poopy said it well here:
    The more general problem I have is the fact that so many people try to make everyone on the other side look like scum and then get butthurt and outraged when the other side does the same to them. It's just getting really old. And it's both sides, the left is as bad as the right.
    This is demagogue bullshit. It's not "both sides". The left and right are not 'just as bad' as one another. When someone on the right disagrees with someone on the left, it's because they think the person on the left is wrong. When someone on the left disagrees with someone on the right, it's because they think the person on the right is evil. Huge difference. And it's a real problem.

    To shrug that off and say "nah, both sides are terrible" is to be completely, and DANGEROUSLY, naive.

    I'll add that it's you, too, Nanners. You're not really interested in defending anything TC says on television as a defensible, responsible perspective are you?
    Completely false. I find TC to be exceptionally intelligent, thought provoking, and compelling. I'm also extremely impressed by his willingness to civilly debate. I'm disappointed that so few people from the opposition take him up on it.

    TC was playing the fool about what diversity means.
    Again, you've obviously never seen the guys show. If you're trying to tell me that TC is anything other than 'authentic', then I would request that we please continue this conversation after you've left the paint huffing party.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 09-12-2018 at 09:25 AM.
  75. #2025
    MMM, are you living in a cave? Seriously?

    TC asked a question. That's all. And no one is even willing to engage in a discussion about it. They'd rather just decry him as racist. And you know that's not enough. If TC doesn't change his act, they'll keep this up until he's de-platformed, like so many other people with conservative viewpoints.

    Someone drew a cartoon depiction of Serena William's tantrum. That guy is getting death threats. And still, NO ONE has explained WHY the cartoon is racist!

    That's just the news THIS WEEK. And it's only Wednesday!

    So that's my problem. You want to know why I'm so miffed about this stuff? It's because there are agencies in academia, journalism, and the judiciary that are dead-set on implementing this post-modern/marxist hybrid philosophy. And to do that, they have to eliminate free speech.

    You've certainly heard "Hate speech is not free speech". Whoever you hear saying that needs a slap. I'm serious....find that person, and slap them.

    Maybe I'm more sensitive to this stuff than others here because i have children. It actually matters to me what gets taught in schools. It matters to me what the next generation will be like. I'm legitimately concerned that there will be armed conflicts in US cities, perhaps a nationwide civil war, in the next two decades. I put the odds of such a thing as high as 25%.

    Therefore, I think it's extremely important to call out the left for their oppressive and intolerant positions with regard to conversations. This attempt to silence TC is a great example. Answer the man's question, and it would go a long way toward harmony and tolerance in this country. Keep throwing around the R-word, and we will have civil war.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •