Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Lord Dave

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 139  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 21, 2017, 12:05:54 PM »
Bannon survived Scaracucci by a couple of weeks. You are thing of Preibus.
No, I mean Bannon tried to keep Scaramucci from being hired and failed. 

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 21, 2017, 08:13:59 AM »
yeah all the people who said bannon implanted a mind control chip into trump's brain to dictate his feelings and actions must feel pretty dumb right now
I know, right?! Especially since they're largely the same people who said Putin was doing the same thing! Did the chips get into some sort of cyberwar? ???


Nah.  Its all about how well they kiss ass.  Putin wasn't able to kiss ass well enough.  And Bannon got out ass kissed by scaramoochi, who then got his ass kicked by Kelly.

3
Oh look, a download from a new user.


This isn't suspicious at aaallll....

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 18, 2017, 04:04:09 PM »
I don't think anybody is questioning the idea that Trump is batshit insane when it comes to radical Islamic terrorism.

Most of his supporters think he is reasonable about Islamic terrorism, and this his responses to them are justified. It's probably one of the main reasons they voted for him.


Many of his supporters think he's God's gift to America.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 18, 2017, 07:44:14 AM »
Yes, AFTER they assumed absolute power.  I mean before.  When the process of government was actually working.  How did they get enough seats in their senate to GET absolute power?

Some brief history here:



Enough to research more if you want to.
Yeah.  I guess I was a little out of order.  I thought the party had enough seats before the fire, and the fire was just a way to ensure no one questioned the bill giving the chancellor more power.




So... I had a thought.
Trump is supporting these confederate statues yeah?  But why?
He claims history but this is a history of losers.  People who failed.  Why is Trump trying to support monuments to history's losers?

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 17, 2017, 03:32:56 PM »
Yes, you are mistaken. It's not so much that what you've said is completely incorrect, but it's extremely incomplete. The Nazis obtained the extent of power they did through staged violent activities which they blamed on "the enemy", thus justifying the strengthening of the government and the elimination of political discourse.
But wasn't the main act the destruction of the german congress building via arson, blamed on a single dutch socialist, the only real act of violence that actually allowed the Nazi party to assume absolute power?

Quote
No, Dave, concentration camps were not a side-project of a private citizen who was convinced the Jews are making him poor. The violence was systemic, organised, and largely centrally controlled.
Yes, AFTER they assumed absolute power.  I mean before.  When the process of government was actually working.  How did they get enough seats in their senate to GET absolute power?

Quote
This is the problem with you talking before you've done your reading. The original media reports were appallingly skewed, and are now (nearly a week after the tragic events) finally moving from "violence was one-sided and oh no how dare Trump say otherwise" to "yes, there was violence on both sides, but..."

This BBC video is a good example of this new, revised narrative: https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews/videos/10155014210312217/

This situation perfectly illustrates why we should continue to oppose media spin. It actually works. Next stop: the media acknowledging that antifa is a terrorist organisation.
Fair enough.  I'll just go back to my usual "I don't care" attitude.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 17, 2017, 10:21:53 AM »
Yes. It really is that obvious. Now, certain subsections of the media are trying to deny this, despite it being so obvious. In my mind, news organisations should not cover up facts.
But are they?  I mean, I've just started reading it and even I knew that both sides were ready to fight.

Quote
And now you've returned to claiming that antifa were exclusively attacked by the white supremacists. This is not what happened. Each side started some of the clashes. Undeniably, the far-right started more of them, but to pretend that antifa was only there waiting to be attacked is disingenuous.

Also, let me remind you once more what your claim was: Your claim was that there is no evidence that antifa were violent.
A claim I have admitted to being incorrect due to my own ignorance.

Quote
Now you're talking about them waiting to kick someone's asses. It is blindingly obvious that you made your original comment without any understanding of the situation, and that you're trying to retcon your words into anything other than utter nonsense.
Yes, I said so.
Ignorance.
I haven't read anything about it.  Also, I've read very few actual articles on the subject so that's probably it.

Quote
Really? America became independent because a group of people with baseball bats decided to bash in the heads of an anticipated and public protest? I think it was a little bit more complicated than that, but perhaps growing up in a country with a semi-functioning education system has just blinded me to the woke truth.

Of course, I know what you're actually trying to say there. The USA became independent through violence. Therefore, violence is good! Of course, the Nazis also took control of Germany through violence, so if we apply the same reductionist logic, antifa are literally nazis. And, as we've established over the course of the last year, it is okay to punch a nazi.
Sort of.  I'm saying that the American colonies engaged in acts of public vandalism, destruction of private property, and eventually open conflict with military and civilian groups all in the name of freedom and protest.  From England's perspective, a bunch of ungrateful colonists decided to launch attacks and declare themselves independent as though a piece of paper and some dead soldiers made it so.  What made it so was when England stopped trying to fight them.

And unless I'm mistaken, the Nazi party did NOT take over via violence.  They were elected in a fair and open democratic election on a platform in which the economic hardships of the people were blamed on Europe and Jews, gypsies, gays, etc.. (it was totally Europe's fault though) and that together, they could rise up and become stronger.  And the clinch?  No one stopped them.  When they marched in the streets, no one marched against them.  When they rallied, no one stopped them.  When the Reichstag fire broke out and they ushered in the decree, no one stopped them.  Not even the Hitler hating president of Germany.  After that, it was legal to do whatever they wanted and they were able to arrest all their political opponents.  Then they made the Chancellor a dictator and that was that.

The violence against Jews and minority groups in Germany wasn't the result of the government saying "Go kill those Jews" it was the result of the government figure saying "Jews are the reason you're all poor!"

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 16, 2017, 09:43:30 PM »
Woah woah woah...


I never siad "self-defense"
I said defense.  As in "Defending America from bad people".
They came expecting a fight, I'm not denying that.  But they didn't go there to throw the first punch.

That would not be in line with past antifa behavior. Why are you so sure about that?
In honesty, I only read the washington post timeline but based on that, it sounds like it.  Otherwise the antifa protesters would have met the alt-right instead of waited for them.

Quote
Quote
Secondly, are you sure there were only 50ish nazis?  I mean, the whole rally wasn't "Save our Statue" since they chanted "we will not be replaced" and "Jews will not replace us" while marching.  "Blood and Soil" at other times.  AND they came armed too.  So they were looking for a fight.

No one denies that the alt-right faction wasn't looking for a fight. My biggest issue is that left-wing media became so fixated on the narrative that Trump is once again Hitler that they neglected to report on the far-left presence that almost always leads to violence whether there are literal Nazis there or not. Both stories are important to the degree that they are accurately and fairly reported. America does not have a racism problem so much as it has a polarization problem. Echo chambers will lead to civil strife not experienced by most people alive today. 
We totally have a racism problem.  Just look at the amount of unarmed black people killed by cops for proof.

Quote
Quote
Third: One man's terrorist is another man's patriot.  But against for people who want to oppress non-whites, I'm siding with the people against them.

If you're sure of their intentions sure. I would steer clear of Antifa as much as the alt-right. They both want bad things for a free, liberal society.
Would still take someone wanting to kill white supremacists and such vs someone who stands by while those groups march unopposed.



I said defense.  As in "Defending America from bad people".
Well, that's certainly a bizarre thing to bring up. We were discussing whether or not there was violence on both sides. You said that "it seems like the counter protesters were in a defensive stance and the white nationalists were more offensive." Now you're saying that you weren't actually referring to their stance in the clashes, but rather the motivation behind their violence. While not incorrect (I'm sure they thought they were doing a good thing - they wouldn't be doing it otherwise), it's quite irrelevant to what we were talking about.
Then of course there was violence on both sides.  The only way there couldn't be is if one side either wasn't there or was purely passive.  So yes, there was violence on both sides.  But when I see "violence" I look at the person actually seeking to harm vs the group seeking to stop harm. 

And perhaps I'm not being clear:
Defensive Stance, is like defending a fort.  You stand at a spot, wait for the enemy to come to you, and kick their asses.  THAT is what I meant.  Not just some ideology (though that's there) but also "We're gonna be here.  When you come, you're gonna try to fight us and we're gonna fight back" instead of "We're gonna march towards you and attack"

Quote
[again] I said defense.  As in "Defending America from bad people".
[...]
One man's terrorist is another man's patriot.
Are you saying you support domestic terrorism as long as the ideas behind the terrorism sound nice? Because that's honestly how that's coming across, and the only way I can respond to that is with strong personal judgements.
That is literally how America became independent.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 16, 2017, 12:51:06 PM »
Woah woah woah...


I never siad "self-defense"
I said defense.  As in "Defending America from bad people".
They came expecting a fight, I'm not denying that.  But they didn't go there to throw the first punch.




Secondly, are you sure there were only 50ish nazis?  I mean, the whole rally wasn't "Save our Statue" since they chanted "we will not be replaced" and "Jews will not replace us" while marching.  "Blood and Soil" at other times.  AND they came armed too.  So they were looking for a fight.


Third: One man's terrorist is another man's patriot.  But against for people who want to oppress non-whites, I'm siding with the people against them.


And Trump has, on several occasions during his campaign, advocated punching people in the face.




10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 16, 2017, 11:18:42 AM »
Sure. Defensive.



Look, I don't think anyone is denying that the far-right were the primary aggressors here who deserve an overwhelming majority of the blame. It's just that some extremists are trying to push it much further, and are receiving tacit support from some media outlets in doing so.
1. Posting a single image of a person in a helmet and holding a bat does not mean anything.

2. Assuming that's a legitimate picture of a counter protester... I'm failing to see your point.  Defensive does not mean you hunker down with a shield and pray they don't have guns(They did).  If cops need to defend someone from being killed, do they carry only riot shields or do they have batons as well?  Or even *gasp* guns?

3. I say defensive based on movement patterns, not armaments.  The counter protesters were largely stationary while the white supremacists marched towards them.

Finally:
The "Anti-Facists" are being labeled as bad.  Yet... why?  I mean, if any group deserves to be actually resisted with physical force, it's the god damn Nazis.  The way Trump talks, it's bad to punch Nazis yet we've seen he's totally ok with people punching journalists and annoying people at his rallies.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 16, 2017, 09:08:46 AM »
Ok, having read more, it sounds like "violence on both sides" is like saying:

"Look, the Nazi's are bad, but if you didn't try to fight back, you would have been fine."

Cause it seems like the counter protesters were in a defensive stance and the white nationalists were more offensive.

So while violence on both sides occurred, I'm gonna struggle with how a Republican can attack someone for defending themselves.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 16, 2017, 08:59:30 AM »
there is no evidence of violence (in that instance) from the counter protesters.
Wait, what? Where on Earth did you get that idea? There was violence on both sides, and I struggle to find any coverage that denies this. The only question here is that of the extent of the violence on each side (spoilers: the protesters were much more heavily armed than the counter-protesters, so when the clashes erupted it was a bit one-sided)
Ignorance.
I haven't read anything about it.  Also, I've read very few actual articles on the subject so that's probably it.

So both sides were in fisti-cuffs with each other then?
Or was it thrown objects?

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 16, 2017, 07:54:51 AM »
I think he (rightfully) doesn't want to invigorate the extreme left that is just as capable of being violent.

if i hadn't been alive and conscious for the 2016 election cycle, then i could maybe buy that.  i think he's just a pathetically amoral coward.

either way, let's not restrain ourselves from criticizing violent nazis because we're afraid of hypothetical future violence by someone else.

plus he could've just addressed that directly while also displaying a modicum of moral courage:

tweet #1: nazism and white nationalism are immoral.  fuck off, nazis.
tweet #2: hey "leftists" don't use this as an excuse to be violent.  violence is wrong my dudes.  you have to let others peacefully protest even if you think they're dicks.
tweet #3: here are the concrete steps we're gonna take to keep things cool and safe. 
tweet #4: including free capri suns for both sides.

I can imagine quite a few legitimate reasons for why Trump didn't want to address nazis et al. right away (other than pandering). One of them being that the nazi boogeyman is massively overblown by left-leaning media. How many actual nazis or white nationalists do you think there were in that protest? Sure, there were some I'd imagine, but certainly not all of them. And those some likely weren't involved in the violence at all.

Condemning hateful ideologies in general is fine and dandy, but let's not blame people for something they probably didn't do. Let's just condemn all violence in one statement and the ideologies in another, which is what happened.
The problem is that he condemned violence from both sides in one statement but there is no evidence of violence (in that instance) from the counter protesters.
And a white national did kill someone by trying to ram the counter protesters with his car.

This is basically victim shaming.  "If they weren't against me, then that guy wouldn't have tried to kill them with his car".

Now if we find out that the other side was attacking with violence as well and this was basically just escalation then sure.  But I haven't seen evidence of that yet.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 15, 2017, 05:19:37 AM »
And then there's people like this guy:
http://www.npr.org/2017/08/13/543259485/trump-supporter-he-called-for-unity-i-never-saw-obama-call-for-unity


They hate nazis and white supremesists because they don't know what they stand for. 

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: God is not a racist
« on: August 15, 2017, 05:06:02 AM »
This does not mean nuclear war.
It can literally be any war that goes on long enough.


Nuclear war would likely kill far more than 1/3rd of humanity with fallout and radiation.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: God is not a racist
« on: August 14, 2017, 04:47:15 PM »
Has there ever been a period of human history in the last 2000 years when nation hasn't risen against nation?

With Nuclear weapons ? < no, not really
Since when has the bible spoken of Nuclear Weapons?

btw: this verse in (Matthew 24) speaks about the future generation that is able to view all the mentioned signs happening simultaneously ...
if you lived in China in 1807 ... how long would it be before you got the word that there were riots in Virginia ?

It does not.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 13, 2017, 05:32:59 PM »
I assume you're being sarcastic, so let me ask you, what's contradictory about them?

Roundy's right.

The first one you claim Trump had to pick his words carefully to avoid making the left angry.
But in the second statement, you claim that they'd be angry no matter what.

So the first statement implies they can be kept from being angry.  The second implies they can't.

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 13, 2017, 01:16:54 PM »
Yep.  A tweet is all we'll get.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/896504109670567936

i love the sly implication that leftist protestors killed a police officer.
He didn't but read his whole twitter feed.
Someone's helping him write and give speeches.

Like this:
We must remember this truth: No matter our color, creed, religion or political party, we are ALL AMERICANS FIRST.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 13, 2017, 04:58:25 AM »
listening to trump try to condemn the charlottesville violence without offending white nationalists would be p funny if it weren't so pathetic


Yep.  A tweet is all we'll get.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 139  Next >