This is for topical issues effecting our fair world... you can quit snickering anytime. Note: It is the desire of the leadership of SFDebris Conglomerate that all posters maintain a civil and polite bearing in this forum, regardless of how you feel about any particular issue. Violators will be turned over to Captain Janeway for experimentation.
Yukaphile wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:31 pm3) Well, I think Bush was a better person than Trump was, but I think he was a worse leader. That's my feeling.
Probably because it takes ~10 seconds of research to create a very compelling case for that conclusion.
Trump will have to start and lose at least 2 wars before he starts to muscle in on Bush's territory. And frankly, he's already far behind. By this point in his first term, Bush already had both of them well underway. Hell, even Obama had committed to the Libyan intervention by his third year.
Trump is intensely polarizing, and does tons of stupid stuff...but his body count is remarkably low....so far, anyway.
CmdrKing wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:57 pm
Without looking it up, the camps under Obama were not dissimilar to the facilities in Canada mentioned way upthread. Deeply unethical, needs a better solution post-haste, but not "sweet mother of fuck they want to kill these people" as they are now. And at the time I remember some people raising alarms, and agreeing they were a really bad idea, but not in a "scream at people over the internet" way. More a "hello liberal friends so like this is really bad and maybe we need someone more progressive than Obama yeah?" kinda way.
God I had so many arguments I wanted to have with liberal friends under a Clinton administration.
They weren't any better under Obama. Obama simply had the media covering for him. Obama got away with LITERAL MURDER (extrajudicial killing of US citizens) thanks to the media. Why do you think they wouldn't cover him for the camps?
Antiboyscout wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:14 pmThey weren't any better under Obama. Obama simply had the media covering for him.
Kind of. The camps probably weren't much different, but there were fewer of them, and people generally spent less time in them, because the Obama policy was to simply release people once they ran up against the Flores deadline. But "catch and release" is not a policy that plays super well with a lot of voters - something that Trump was able to very successfully exploit.
Yukaphile, here is the actual quote. Note some differences between what he said and what you said he said.
When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
CmdrKing wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:00 am
Who is this he?
“Poland” didn’t invite Ocasio-Cortez to tour the camps. Polish MEP Dominik Tarczyński of the Poland Comes First party (or possibly the Law and Justice party, both come up as results).
When you at some point belonged to a political party who evokes traditional fascist slogans my willingness to extend the presumption of good faith is nil. Indeed i’d assume the point is to provide fodder specifically for garbling “Polish MEP” into “Poland” as a tactic to aid a fellow far-right politician.
Somehow I'm skeptical of any claim you make of anyone being fascist.
Anyways, I used Dachau as the example specifically because it was the first and longest running camp. The point is to evoke not 1944 Germany, but 1934 Germany. Because honestly there is no other language I can find to stress that these things do not simply stop on their own. Comparing these camps to historical concentration camps is comparing apples to apple blossoms, if you will. That they already meet the full definition of concentration camp (while falling short of the definition of *extermination* camp, yes) emphasizes that yes, this requires active opposition and acknowledging them for what they are to stop.
No, it's just hyperbole, and transparently so.
Because despite the trolling, the 2nd Amendment is a laughable defense against true government overreach in the 21st century. A bit like using bows and arrows against Spanish armor and muskets.
Which still gave them a lot of trouble, incidentally. And somehow I doubt you'd suggest the Natives simply give up and lay down before the invading Europeans. I have to admit, I'm always entertained by the notion that, well, you might as well make sure there'd be no hope against a tyrannical government.
"Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace is fast enough."
-TR
The point remains the 2nd Amendment won't help you if the government wants to go full-blown totalitarian police state to the same levels of Nazi Germany or the USSR, or even worse.
"A culture's teachings - and more importantly, the nature of its people - achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves, or find themselves lacking."
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
Bow-and-arrow fire could still theoretically hit a Spanish conquistador in the neck or some other part not covered by armor, and IIRC some of the slings had sufficient power to strike effectively through helmets.
Compared to today, when a truly tyrannical government intent on crushing all dissent wouldn't even have to expose its agents to your rifle fire if they wanted you dead. All the rifles in the world wouldn't save you from a UCAV firing a Hellfire missile through your bedroom window.
"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism." - Sir Winston L. S. Churchill, Princips Britannia
Administrator of SFD, Former Spacebattles Super-Mod, Veteran Chatnik. And multiverse crossover-loving writer, of course!
It's our shared heritage. Our dreams of cowboy diplomatic and gun culture and vigilante justice. Sadly, that is impractical in an increasingly complex world that our original ancestors those today like to cite as being some kind of revered holy icons couldn't have foreseen, thus we need adapt and keep up. It's why I found those with the "bite off your nose to spite your face" view in 2016, refusing to vote because they were accelerationists hoping it would further lead to stuff like Fascism coming to America so that we could have a "revolution" to be so utterly insufferable and hopelessly stupid and naive. No different than the cowboy fanatics of the 19th century that were outlaws in the Old West.
"A culture's teachings - and more importantly, the nature of its people - achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves, or find themselves lacking."
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
Steve wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2019 7:52 am
Bow-and-arrow fire could still theoretically hit a Spanish conquistador in the neck or some other part not covered by armor, and IIRC some of the slings had sufficient power to strike effectively through helmets.
Compared to today, when a truly tyrannical government intent on crushing all dissent wouldn't even have to expose its agents to your rifle fire if they wanted you dead. All the rifles in the world wouldn't save you from a UCAV firing a Hellfire missile through your bedroom window.
I guess the Afghans who were extremists got Hellfired...
