Not starting threads about obliviously wrong stories from ownthelibs.com would be a start.
Printable View
Not starting threads about obliviously wrong stories from ownthelibs.com would be a start.
I agree with wiggin's criticism of the chaperone. The school and the parents should have had higher expectations and better rules for the students' behaviors, and the chaperone shouldn't have allowed them to chant or 'engage' in what was clearly an escalating mob-type situation. :bored:
Was it though? No punches were thrown. No piss bottles were hurled. While the Black Hebrew whack jobs were verbally toxic, that isn't illegal and apparently are well known in the area for talking shit but not actually being violent.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Kids on a chaperoned school field trip shouldn't have gotten involved. Adults can do whatever they want, free speech and all that. But the adult chaperone was in charge of minors, and should have known that teenagers don't always know how to avoid conflict, but can be drawn to it (out of curiosity), often with bad results.
Maybe you're objecting to the term "mob-type" and would prefer "herd mentality" instead. :bored:
You realize they were literally there to be part of a political event, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Yes. A political event (anti-abortion) that was already highly charged, with a history of confrontation and conflict. You don't send a group of kids to a "pro-life" march with a chaperone who gives permission for them to chant, as if it's a school pep rally, let alone stare-down a Native Tribal elder drumming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Those kids were put in a situation they didn't know how to deal with and weren't prepared for. And they had a shitty chaperone. Even their conservative Catholic pro-life message failed. :bored:
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/...mpression=true
I am shocked to read of a cop helping Nazis.
If you think you're speaking to public figures, I think I need to tell you something right now, so that you don't waste any more time: you're speaking to a non-public person on an internet forum, and I haven't called for violence against these kids. If you believe I have, then you're imagining things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
It's perfectly reasonable to disregard context if it can be determined to not be salient or alter the analysis substantially. I note that you've lost your shit over a "nothing story", to the point of making up nonsense and trying to pull me into an imaginary fight.Quote:
The only reason we are talking about what turned out to be a tempest in a tea pot is because you and Loki brought it up, and the only reason you knew about it was because it was already a fire storm. In reality, it was a nothing story, blown way out of proportion, and the consequences for those involved are still unclear. For someone who is harping on context, you seem to pick and choose when it applies very selectively.
That is evidence supporting a pervasive culture of bigotry: a series of individual students' accounts of the treatment they were subjected to by other students, a series of accounts of the behaviour of Covington students during encounters with students from other schools, and the school's apparent failure to do anything about it, despite their much-vaunted ideals. I'm not particularly surprised someone like you would reflexively reach for a convenient "just a few bad apples" kind of argument; that's what makes you so useful to those who benefit from the protection of society's willful blindness. But that is beside the point; my reason for posting that link was to add nuance to Loki's assertion in the Trump thread about the behavior depicted in the video being an illustration of "Trump's America". My view was and still is that, though many of these people may have fully embraced Trump, their behavior predates Trump. They represent a contingent of conservatives that may always be drawn to Trump-like demagogues, so long as those demagogues have the right enemies and support the right kinds of bigotry.Quote:
As you have noted, you can form any bad opinion you want. What it gains you to jump to these conclusions without evidence I am not sure, but I suppose there is something to be said for smug righteous judgment, perceived moral superiority, and indignation. If there is evidence for a pervasive culture of bigotry, please provide it. What I have read from you are individual accounts, often times involving extra curricular activities, of students.
You've spent the past few posts engaging in a classic display of tribal aggression, and you've repeatedly attempted to rope me into your imaginary tribal fight, so I suggest you do something about the beam in your own eye first.Quote:
I am open to the possibility I have an incomplete picture of the school, (from what I have seen the black face claims seems flimsy, but is probably the most troubling). In fact, I know I do. I am not arguing is that the school is perfect, it's students and staff blameless, their motivations pure - all I am comfortable saying is that I don't know - and neither do you. I haven't interacted with anyone at the school, I am not privy to the inner workings of the school, I am not aware of the consequences and punishments that might or might not have been meted out for student behavior. Because there is so much that is unknown, what is gained by jumping the gun and painting everyone with the same brush? A fleeting feeling of disdain and the approval of your tribe? Do you somehow believe that guilt must be shared in order to make change?
I have my priors, and you have yours. The videos--and even the accounts of the culture of the school--don't really move the needle in any particular direction for either of us.Quote:
I am open to the possibility that my intellectual framework is deficient in identifying larger structural or institutional issues. It is not just possible, it is a certainty that there are systemic injustices that need to be addressed. What I am not comfortable with is claiming systemic injustice without proof. Perhaps my standard is too high - but what I think is more likely is yours is too low, or non existent.
No, my argument is that I hadn't seen OG post anything of that sort, and I was focused on the claim about the kids ending up surrounding Philips. Having been contradicted, you obviously felt the urge to move the goalposts so that you could find something--anything--to punish me for. Then you flipped out like a little baby and decided to continue making an idiot of yourself when I said that I disagreed with the account posted in the thread OG linked to, after reading it, because obviously that didn't satisfy your primitive tribal need to punish the enemy.Quote:
Let me get this straight. Your argument is I should have known that you didn't perform even the most basic fact check of what you were saying, and then when I went back and showed you what it was that you were tacitly agreeing to support, that somehow it was my fault for not knowing that you couldn't be bothered to make sure you weren't making an idiot out of yourself.
That is certainly how you're acting.Quote:
Not only that, but by doing so I was claiming that you and OG were the same liberal hydra-person, and that I am delusional
I said you're acting like you don't know how time works when you tried to continue berating me, accusing me of dishonesty and of endorsing a view that I disagreed with even after I'd offered my explanation and also expressed my disagreement with that person's account. This latest remark of yours makes me wonder, once again, whether or not you know how time works. Once you know something, it's really dumb to pretend to rewind the clock so that you can pretend you don't know.Quote:
and have no concept of how time works - instead of the reality of simply taking what you had written at face value at the time you said it.
Clearly not advantageous to your case.Quote:
Luckily, as you have said prior, we have a record of what was actually written, and when.
At this point, it's clear you yourself have lost track of what it is you're trying to argue. It is hilarious to see you pursuing this line of attack, by the way, given your own asinine defense of the analysis presented in the melodramatic fanfic video you posted.Quote:
I understand that you seem to make a habit out of jumping to conclusions and not performing even rudimentary checks as to the veracity of what you are posting when it confirms your biases. That you think that somehow is a defense and a failing of mine illustrates just how little you care about accuracy. Best of all is attempting to gaslight the forum into accepting that you hadn't in fact said what you said - well, I suppose that's why I have no problem thinking you are not only not arguing in good faith, you are purposefully being dishonest. We know you aren't stupid Minx, quit pretending to be.
This may be difficult for you to understand, given that you perceive everything that happens here through your tribal lens, but snark and caricatures are both more effective when they're somewhat accurate. I generally don't make overbroad generalizations from N=1, except from the perspective of someone who is either extremely skilled at disregarding evidence, or extremely skilled at eliminating evidence by conflating it. Nor are any of my priors based on a single anecdote. In the context of an informal discussion, a large number accounts should be regarded as N > 1, or at least equal to however many accounts can be found or implied (ie. if one person's account describes several cases of a particular kind of behaviour). I frequently post links to stories about individual anecdotes that I consider to be illustrative, but if I post a hundred such anecdotes it's kinda dumb to then suggest that they amount to a single piece of evidence. Forests are made up of many trees; if I post ten thousand different photos of individual trees from different forests, that doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a forest.Quote:
Absolutely, most of my statements are a sincere expression of my views, feelings, and thought processes. The ones where I make overbroad statements, while calling my opposition childish things like asshats and pieces of shit are simply (bad?) caricatures of what you have consistently written in these forums.
Yes, the students appear to have surrounded Philips, and gotten up in his face, shortly after he walked up to them. You keep trying to pretend you're agnostic while implicitly demanding we accept your subjective categorical interpretation of the facts, but we clearly disagree about what the facts are--and, in your case, what the facts are alleged to be.Quote:
Again, you willfully choose mischaracterize both my argument and me. Even after the facts came out, OG was still saying that the students surrounded Philips and were getting up in his face. The news media reported the same thing. I am not privy to what you knew and when you knew it. I am privy to what was being reported at the time, and what was said here.
Even in early reports it was clear from Philips's own words that he chose to intervene, for reasons he himself provided, and the mob-like behaviour of the students is apparent in all the videos. A mob doesn't stop being a mob just because you approach it. Their mockery isn't less distasteful because Philips walked up to them. More importantly, what Philips says he heard the students say doesn't become less distasteful because Philips made the decision to intervene. Some no doubt disbelieve him, but I currently have no compelling reason to not believe he heard what he says he heard.Quote:
Being surrounded by students when you walk into their midst is not the same as being surrounded by students while minding your own business, or in the middle of a march. Students getting into your face is not the same as approaching them, squaring off with them, and beating a drum in their face.
Doesn't appear to dispute that he was basically surrounded by the kids.Quote:
With headlines from the NYT, (since corrected but still available on google) like: Boys in 'Make America Great Again' Hats Mob Native Elder at ...
Carelessly ambiguous reporting about exactly when it happened (claiming it happened during the march rather than shortly after the march had concluded) and about Philips's service record, but does not dispute the mockery.Quote:
Which they appear to have been. More importantly, the part about being surrounded formed part of a quote: HH stated that they were kind of, like, surrounded by the kids.Quote:
Oh, I see what you're doing. You're taking "full of" to mean "100% filled, exclusively". That is certainly one way to interpret what I said, but, tell me, if I were to tell you you're full of shit, would you take that to mean that I believe you're a walking, talking, typing human-shaped bag full of nothing but feces? In informal conversations, saying that a Y is "full of" X is, more often than not, another way to say, "There are a lot of X:es in Y." Since you clearly have a problem with my phrasing, allow me to clarify my previous statement: there is a Catholic boys' school by the name of Covington High School, where there are a lot of racist, homophobic and sexist bigots.Quote:
Right - you have never once said that, "there was a Catholic boys' school--full of racist, homophobic and sexist bigots,"
Even if one's position is that supporting Brexit makes a person an asshole, one must concede that 48% of UK voters did not support Brexit. Around half or more of the people in UK are deeply opposed to Brexit and disapprove of its consequences, especially for themselves personally but also for others. Unfortunately, a majority of active British voters ultimately did join forces with racists, xenophobes and other assholes, enabling these groups and giving them their tacit approval, while a plurality of voters ultimately persuaded a party (later, govt) to commit to xenophobic policies such as the hostile environment--which has had a tremendous human cost--and the promise to severely restrict immigration to just tens of thousands per year; and such a large portion of the British public favours jingoism, racism, and xenophobia that such things have become the bread and butter of the most successful members of the British press, and viable platforms for too many British politicians and pundits who now openly engage in the most despicable rhetoric. Just a few bad apples, no forest to see here.Quote:
or for that matter that the entire country of Britain, made up of millions of individuals with all manner of different beliefs, are on aggregate assholes.
Again, what you said was:Quote:
Nothing to see here folks. Minx would never make sweeping generalizations of large swaths of people in order to justify his frequent raging outbursts.
If you can't keep up with your own remarks, I don't know how to help you.Quote:
The unfortunate corollary to what appears to be your position is that people can be 100% guilty without evidence or reason. I would guess that boy was already guilty in your mind because he wore a red hat. He was guilty because he was protesting abortion. Sadly I suspect what he did or did not do, does not really matter to you. He is guilty because the mob said so.
And I should probably take a moment to let you know that you are not actually talking to Nick Sandmann right now. Which means that our conversation is involving individuals who weren't directly involved in the event - you know, typically how discussions in online forums regarding current events work. These conversations regularly involve events, statements, and people who aren't actively participating in the conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
This must come as a shocking development for you, I know.
Where is the evidence that the school failed to do anything about it, within the scope of their sphere of responsibility? Where are the numbers that show how widespread this is, and how many instances are the same students acting as provocateurs. If you have one student that goes out of their way to offend everyone they meet, does that indicate a pervasive culture of bigotry? I can think of a number of kids that I went to high school with that would fit that definition. And you are right - it is possible to miss the forest for the trees, however you can also construct an imaginary forest by showing the same tree ten thousand times from different angles. Without more information, there is no way of knowing what you are doing - however that doesn't seem to give you any pause. Again, what is to be gained?Quote:
That is evidence supporting a pervasive culture of bigotry: a series of individual students' accounts of the treatment they were subjected to by other students, a series of accounts of the behaviour of Covington students during encounters with students from other schools, and the school's apparent failure to do anything about it, despite their much-vaunted ideals. I'm not particularly surprised someone like you would reflexively reach for a convenient "just a few bad apples" kind of argument; that's what makes you so useful to those who benefit from the protection of society's willful blindness. But that is beside the point; my reason for posting that link was to add nuance to Loki's assertion in the Trump thread about the behavior depicted in the video being an illustration of "Trump's America". My view was and still is that, though many of these people may have fully embraced Trump, their behavior predates Trump. They represent a contingent of conservatives that may always be drawn to Trump-like demagogues, so long as those demagogues have the right enemies and support the right kinds of bigotry.
--
This may be difficult for you to understand, given that you perceive everything that happens here through your tribal lens, but snark and caricatures are both more effective when they're somewhat accurate. I generally don't make overbroad generalizations from N=1, except from the perspective of someone who is either extremely skilled at disregarding evidence, or extremely skilled at eliminating evidence by conflating it. Nor are any of my priors based on a single anecdote. In the context of an informal discussion, a large number accounts should be regarded as N > 1, or at least equal to however many accounts can be found or implied (ie. if one person's account describes several cases of a particular kind of behaviour). I frequently post links to stories about individual anecdotes that I consider to be illustrative, but if I post a hundred such anecdotes it's kinda dumb to then suggest that they amount to a single piece of evidence. Forests are made up of many trees; if I post ten thousand different photos of individual trees from different forests, that doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a forest.
I see now that I didn't clearly give you the plaudits you very obviously feel you needed for not defending what is pretty obviously indefensible. Good for you Minx! Now that you have gotten your pat on the head, can we move on to what was actually at issue? Which wasn't that you finally went back to correct the record, (Nicely done!) it's that you decided to take a stand which you obviously should not have taken based on your clearly nonexistent understanding of what you were agreeing to:Quote:
No, my argument is that I hadn't seen OG post anything of that sort, and I was focused on the claim about the kids ending up surrounding Philips. Having been contradicted, you obviously felt the urge to move the goalposts so that you could find something--anything--to punish me for. Then you flipped out like a little baby and decided to continue making an idiot of yourself when I said that I disagreed with the account posted in the thread OG linked to, after reading it, because obviously that didn't satisfy your primitive tribal need to punish the enemy.
I said you're acting like you don't know how time works when you tried to continue berating me, accusing me of dishonesty and of endorsing a view that I disagreed with even after I'd offered my explanation and also expressed my disagreement with that person's account. This latest remark of yours makes me wonder, once again, whether or not you know how time works. Once you know something, it's really dumb to pretend to rewind the clock so that you can pretend you don't know.
OG did in fact post something in the latest conversation that far surpassed the bizarre commentary on the video I posted - more on that later - and in your very next sentence you not only seem to confirm your endorsement of that fact, but you say it is supported by the available evidence. Now, while we are all very proud of you for finally deciding to perform even the most basic fact check of what it was you were endorsing, the dramatic irony of failing to understand that you were actively engaged in exactly the same lapse of judgments that foisted this "controversy" into the public view in the first place is still lost on you. Deciding to take a stand without first understanding what it is you are standing for isn't a virtue, it is being foolhardy.Quote:
...but afaict OG has not posted anything in this latest conversation that even comes close to the weird-ass fanfic of your video. Endorsing a narrative isn't a problem in and of itself--and you don't believe it is either, or you wouldn't be trying to shoehorn this conversation into your own pet meta-narrative. My criticism of the video was based on my assessment that the narrator was saying really dumb things that were very clearly not supported by the available evidence.
I don't think you are being dishonest because you didn't take the time to understand what it was you were saying - that was just being sloppy and careless. I think you are being dishonest because of how you chose to acknowledge your mistake, and then attempt to reframe the conversation as though you were somehow the victim.
Let's look at the sum total of my "defense" of the melodramatic fanfic video that you seem so hung up on: (emphasis added)Quote:
At this point, it's clear you yourself have lost track of what it is you're trying to argue. It is hilarious to see you pursuing this line of attack, by the way, given your own asinine defense of the analysis presented in the melodramatic fanfic video you posted.
Now can you kindly explain just what in the hell you are going on about? You want to talk about losing the plot - pot, kettle calling.Quote:
I posted the video only to show him walking up and into to the crowd, and not for the ridiculous play-by-play analysis of what happened.
...I can't help but notice your correct criticism of the video's creative narrative...
As I said, the video was posted only to show him walking up and into the group. It was the one that popped up on Youtube when searching for it. Did the text somehow obstruct that for you, or are you tilting at straw windmills?
Thankfully, we don't need to rely on your mealy-mouthed defense of these articles. Retractions have been posted, headlines changed, and editors notes added for a reason. Words have meaning, and whether or not you choose to acknowledge it, they were used poorly, or perhaps less charitably deceptively in almost all instances of early reporting.Quote:
Yes, the students appear to have surrounded Philips, and gotten up in his face, shortly after he walked up to them. You keep trying to pretend you're agnostic while implicitly demanding we accept your subjective categorical interpretation of the facts, but we clearly disagree about what the facts are--and, in your case, what the facts are alleged to be.
Even in early reports it was clear from Philips's own words that he chose to intervene, for reasons he himself provided, and the mob-like behaviour of the students is apparent in all the videos. A mob doesn't stop being a mob just because you approach it. Their mockery isn't less distasteful because Philips walked up to them. More importantly, what Philips says he heard the students say doesn't become less distasteful because Philips made the decision to intervene. Some no doubt disbelieve him, but I currently have no compelling reason to not believe he heard what he says he heard.
Doesn't appear to dispute that he was basically surrounded by the kids.
Carelessly ambiguous reporting about exactly when it happened (claiming it happened during the march rather than shortly after the march had concluded) and about Philips's service record, but does not dispute the mockery.
Which they appear to have been. More importantly, the part about being surrounded formed part of a quote: HH stated that they were kind of, like, surrounded by the kids.
Also, this was not an undocumented event. There are literally hours of video from multiple different angles, taken by people on both sides of the issue. The video has been analyzed and poured over by both supporters of the kids, and those who support Philips. I have yet to see anything supporting his claim of xenophobic or racist chanting (well, except for the racist, xenophobic things said by the BHI - but we all know that those don't count). Is it possible it happened and hasn't yet been seen, or wasn't documented. Yes. Is it possible that it never happened and Philips was mistaken or intentionally being misleading? Yes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary I would tend to believe that which can be shown, which is that those chants did not happen, or were not widespread enough to be easily discerned. I understand why it is that you may prefer to ignore that evidence though.
Funnily enough, I define an asshole as a person who is behaving like an asshole. Actively and consistently engaging in bigoted, gaping asshole-ish behavior like making harmful sweeping generalizations based on limited evidence, labeling large groups of people - entire countries even - in derogatory ways, and then clutching at their pearls when their piss poor behavior is called out, but you do you.Quote:
Oh, I see what you're doing. You're taking "full of" to mean "100% filled, exclusively". That is certainly one way to interpret what I said, but, tell me, if I were to tell you you're full of shit, would you take that to mean that I believe you're a walking, talking, typing human-shaped bag full of nothing but feces? In informal conversations, saying that a Y is "full of" X is, more often than not, another way to say, "There are a lot of X:es in Y." Since you clearly have a problem with my phrasing, allow me to clarify my previous statement: there is a Catholic boys' school by the name of Covington High School, where there are a lot of racist, homophobic and sexist bigots.
Even if one's position is that supporting Brexit makes a person an asshole, one must concede that 48% of UK voters did not support Brexit. Around half or more of the people in UK are deeply opposed to Brexit and disapprove of its consequences, especially for themselves personally but also for others. Unfortunately, a majority of active British voters ultimately did join forces with racists, xenophobes and other assholes, enabling these groups and giving them their tacit approval, while a plurality of voters ultimately persuaded a party (later, govt) to commit to xenophobic policies such as the hostile environment--which has had a tremendous human cost--and the promise to severely restrict immigration to just tens of thousands per year; and such a large portion of the British public favours jingoism, racism, and xenophobia that such things have become the bread and butter of the most successful members of the British press, and viable platforms for too many British politicians and pundits who now openly engage in the most despicable rhetoric. Just a few bad apples, no forest to see here.
Again, what you said was:
If you can't keep up with your own remarks, I don't know how to help you.
As a side note, does anyone think the initial video would have gone viral if the students hadn't been wearing MAGA hats? While there are a number of stupid reasons for the media to watch to latch onto this story I actually think the biggest reason is just routine "let's try to hurt Trump!"
Its understood that you're too lazy to actually read the thread but there were few remarks made about this being related to the teens being trump supporters. As has already been linked to and discussed, the hats are seen as a symbol of hate and racism, not just a political advertisement. One of the reasons the Twitter accounts got so popular so quickly is because people we're pointing out where the kids were sneaking in the white power symbol that 4chan made popular.
Now if you're seeing a connection between what the hat has come to mean and your average trump supporter, well, reality can be a bitch some times.
Oh my god you actually think the OK/PERFECT emoji is a symbol of white power? You don't understand 4chan at all do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
:popcorn:
I wonder if those boys are old enough to shave, or if they've seen those Gillette ads.
There's that total lack of comprehension popping up again. It's almost as if you use it as an excuse to not defend your claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I don't know who's dumber—the "lol u can't have a bachelor of arts in a science" guy, or the irredeemable meatheads that voted him into Congress. It's a tight race.
Twitter Link
Wow. There aren't enough Picard Facepalms on the internet to respond to that one.
The sheer shock of “Are you serious? Is this really serious? This is really happening here?” . . . Welcome to 2019. :bulb:
:haha:
Modern American conservatism has become sad and kinda gross:
Twitter Link
The 'traditional' Republican Party is dead. It's been replaced by Trumpistas...who don't give a damn about fiscal responsibility, budget debts or deficits, "Free Markets", limits on Executive Powers, or even Rule of Law. Those things used be bedrock principles of 'conservatives', but their fit within the GOP has disappeared as it became the Trump Party.
The Trump Party wants to keep 'conservatives' under their wing by convincing them that they share a cultural identity. Since we've embraced identity politics, that makes sense as a strategy -- and Trump is a master at taking the pulse of society, and exploiting it -- because he's an entertainer and brilliant scam artist.
He knows we have short attention spans, prefer to get our "news" in short bursts (from friends of friends on social media, or from Fox & Friends on Fox News), and we like to be entertained. Memes and tropes work well. Just don't dig too deep into the weeds, facts might burst the bubble. :rolleyes:
The Trump Dynasty will create a New Republican Party....while preserving "conservative" values.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...n-party-2019-9
:picard:
Twitter Link
This man is a fucking racist. The people in that audience are racists. If you're watching this and thinking he has a point, that there's something good about what he's saying, something to defend, you're probably a racist.
Even for Cheney, this is uncommonly stupid and disgusting:
Twitter Link
Trump got rolled. Democrats had nothing to do with it.
She's auditioning for the worst Cheney. She's halfway there.
Imagine being Liz Cheney and still not being the worst Cheney. Well, I guess she has plenty of time to catch up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Meanwhile, in the caricature formerly known as the USA, where religion and state were once separate:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EG2l51HV...pg&name=medium
I don't what's more pathetic, that Pompeo and Barr are such pathetic fucking tryhards, or that they have such a dim view of the American public--or, at least, of conservatives. It's possible that they're trying to bolster their defenses against the rising threat of impeachment and possibly criminal charges, but someone should remind these idiots that God is a crappy defense attorney.
She's actually probably correct in part. The domestic situation is one of Trump's own making but if his Presidency was on stronger footing, Erdogan and the Turks might not have gone for it. The way Trump's decision has increased Republican support for impeachment lends further urgency to Turkey's activties since it makes impeachment that much more likely to occupy our policy-makers attention. It's certainly not the only factor though. Trump's previous praise of Erdogan and obvious comfort with dictators being aggressive and repressive also plays a part, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Well, too bad I guess; nazism obviously didn't teach Americans anything about how you destroy democracy.
Maybe, but he could still have thought a bit more about the alternative outcomes of his attempt to wag the dog. The long term effects of throwing the Kurds under the bus will express themselves in a rebalancing of the balance of powers in the region detrimental to American and Israeli interests.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Oops. Seems like he suddenly realised and is trying to get the cat back in the bag. And that with the armies of two countries on the move already.
I dunno. Think what little we know so far about the development of this mess suggests that the matter of impeachment is largely peripheral. Eg. https://www.axios.com/trump-erdogan-...8b3a51f26.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Trump has been openly telegraphing this for a year--he announced plans to leave late 2018 after all--as has Erdogan.
It is pathetic but not new. It's a continuation of the Moral Majority, the Faith and Family Voters, even CPAC. They'd be making speeches to White Evangelicals regardless of the impeachment inquiry -- something like 77% voted for Trump. They're a big part of his base that believe Trump is "divinely inspired". Pence and Pompeo and Huckabee Sanders included.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
They believe Christians have a moral obligation to back Trump. Even Bible verses (Render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's) are used to defend obedience to Trump as their Christian mandate. (Never mind that they take it out of context for Republican political purposes.) Pat Robertson used to preach the same until the Syrian pull-out .....then he said Trump risks losing his Heavenly Mandate for not protecting the Christian Kurds.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...mp-book-040920
Apparently Trump isn't alone in thinking he's The Chosen One. :donkey:
But on the State Department website?
The Sec. of State is a White Evangelical Christian....who makes speeches to The American Association of Christian Counselors....
Ever heard of the National Prayer Breakfast or "The Family"? Sorry to break the news, but religion and state have never been separate in the US. Especially not in the (R) party.
You can express your faith while holding public office. Non-deistic religions abound on the left all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Riiight. Imagine a Muslim Sec. of State "expressing his faith" by giving speeches to Islamic groups, then posting it on the official web site of the State Dept. Your double standards are astounding. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I wouldn't have a problem with it - assuming the Islamic groups weren't funding terrorists (which a lot seem to like doing).Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I just didn't think govt institutions' websites were in the habit of advertising a particular religious movement on their front pages, esp. not a movement so utterly corrupt and pathetic. At least with the prayer breakfast you can pretend it's for all religions that involve praying.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
"Thoughts and prayers". :bored:
Twitter Link
What a gutless fucking cretin.
He's just copying language used by Biden in the 90s. True statesman, respecting his elders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Curious if there's any objective you'd place above making the libs cry.