Red Dreams
Full Member
Ryan is quite fair.
He will take money to kill anyone with his 'Health Care' bill.
He will take money to kill anyone with his 'Health Care' bill.
He's just saying all this to win votes, he's going to pivot to the centre any day now.
That's an exaggeration.
Na mate, just wait, it's just for his voters. It's coming. Aaany time nowIs it safe to assume we're not going to get the "he'll moderate soon" bullshit anymore?
Explain. I'm personally willing to accept that statement given the circumstances. Anyone chanting "blood and soil" can go to hell.
Produced by the War Dept - in full: https://archive.org/details/DontBeaS1947
Smith is a general exception on Fox though, he goes without sayingI don't think it is.
We've seen some examples such as Krauthammer, Smith and Wallace being regular critics of this president along with the 2 of the hosts being critical on The Specialists tonight.
But this is just a tiny percentage of the overall content of the Fox channel.
Smith is a general exception on Fox though, he goes without saying
Anyone who didn't leave the second "Jews will not replace us" chants started didn't get caught up for reasons they don't understand.However, the idea that every person in that rally is a Neo-nazi and/or a bad person by default is erroneous. Some people are not firmly on one side or the other and get caught up in a movement for reasons they don't understand, but certainly don't qualify as them being a supporter of the core ideology inspiring it.
100%. Anyone that is a self-professed neo-Nazi, white supremacist etc. is a wankstain of the highest order. A gathering which has that as the majority group should be vilified in the strongest possible manner.
Trump is also a racist, bigoted, corrupt, ignorant knobend who no doubt sympathises with them and may well support their cause. However, I do think he has a small point worth making, and it's the one she's taking issue with. He's making it for all the wrong reasons, and he's right to be called out on it, but I think it's important to use words carefully and I don't think she did.
To say that all Neo-nazis are bad people is true, in my perspective. However, the idea that every person in that rally is a Neo-nazi and/or a bad person by default is erroneous. Some people are not firmly on one side or the other and get caught up in a movement for reasons they don't understand, but certainly don't qualify as them being a supporter of the core ideology inspiring it.
To me this is a beautiful video:
Is he a bad person when he considers joining the movement? Is he a good person when he's forced to confront the issues in it and he repudiates it? I'm of the viewpoint that things are not black and white in either case. I also take the view that a black and white perspective, with a careless attitude to the facts and an inflammatory communication style is part of the problem. There's some evidence to support that too.
He's getting ripped for comparing with George Washington...........but isn't the comparison he was making that Washington owned slaves true?
To say that all Neo-nazis are bad people is true, in my perspective. However, the idea that every person in that rally is a Neo-nazi and/or a bad person by default is erroneous. Some people are not firmly on one side or the other and get caught up in a movement for reasons they don't understand, but certainly don't qualify as them being a supporter of the core ideology inspiring it.
Plus as a history buff I'm not a fan of judging past actions by present values, or destroying historical artifacts, even if they were erected in defiance of equality for all. Place a marker next to it that provides context. But I understand where other people come from on this issue.
1. He suggested that the mother of the woman who was killed by the neo-Nazi thinks that both sides are to blame. So he's trying to make us believe that the mother who's daughter was protesting against the far right was not blaming the far right.
2. He said he didn't want to blame one side until he had all the facts. Well, in the past it's never stopped him from blaming Muslims before having all the facts.
3. For a politician there can be no question of moral ambiguity when it comes to the far right, and especially so for a politician from a country with a history of racial inequality.
Anyone who didn't leave the second "Jews will not replace us" chants started didn't get caught up for reasons they don't understand.
If they were there to protest the removal of a statue of a traitor put there to memorialize treason in the name of the subjugtion of an entire race of people then yes, they're a bad person.
Pro tip for wannabe protestors, if the crowd you're joining are waving swastika, KKK and confederate flags, chanting 'Jews will not replace us' and are armed like a low rent militia mob, then they're probably not very nice people.
Difference is this protest was actually quite coherent. They all had the chants down, they dressed the same, they were chanting the same thing, they had their little torches, they were making the same derpy faces. It wasn't say a huge anti-austerity protest where you can easily spot the marxists, the socialists, or people simply want specific cuts to stop. Or an anti-war protest, where you can easily spot the pacifist to people who simply disagree with this war and so on.You're working under the assumption that it was all one homogenous, consolidated group working as part of a coherent movement, in practice and in ideology. Things are a bit messier and more fragmented than that.
My family were involved in any number of political and social protests during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Some were involved for the wrong reasons too, unfortunately. While I know you position yourself as being very politically active, I have no doubt you were not involved in the volume of significant protests some of them were.
From their experience I can say without question that the assumption that homogenous groups working in a coherent, consolidated protest is often very far from the reality. It's convenient to believe otherwise, of course, but the facts have a way of cutting through that.
That's looking at it through the lens of a very rational perspective, which by default is inherently flawed because people are incredibly irrational. As a result the reality is nowhere near as straightforward. Cognitive dissonance has a strong pull on all of us. As demonstrated in the video.
People have to take responsibility for their actions. If you just happen to be walking by and decide to stand in a group of people while they kick someone to death, you take on responsibility for part of that action. If you go on a protest march for something morally repulsive then you take on some of the responsibility. If that person is there because they believed their favourite right wing talk show host, then that doesn't mean they get a free pass. People make choices, and they have to live with them.
A gathering which has that as the majority group should be vilified in the strongest possible manner.
I just think the labelling of individuals within it is, in some cases, overly simplistic and intellectually lazy. I think the way this conversation has gone reiterates that. At a broader level it's also likely to be unhelpful to the greater cause, as per the UNESCO report I cited.
The labelling of people present serves a very real purpose. It tells the public that taking part in such a diabolical gathering opens you up to instant vilification and public shaming. This is good. This is how we persuade people who might be sucked into extremism that they should stay away without having to wait until further down the line when they end up spreading hate and potentially jailed or dead.
Even though the man called Mexicans all sorts of things and couldn't go 2min without talking about how Muslims would blow up America unless the travel ban was put in place I still feel as this is the moment where he truly laid out all his cards on the table. Before he could point to for example the gang violence and drug import in the US and the ISIS attacks in Europe and go, 'this is why we need the wall and the travel ban', and while all of it was very transparent he could still get away with it.
But now he has not once, but twice showed where he truly stands by defending those Nazi cnuts, and there is no poor excuse to hide behind anymore. Thankfully he seems to be getting more criticism for this than ever before and hopefully more senators and other officials will be lining up to say that he's way out of line.
I can't for the life of me understand where he's going with this and what he's trying to do though.
We're arguing the same central point but disagree on key details. The conversation isn't going anywhere useful because we're talking in abstract terms and avoiding specific points so let's just agree to disagree.
Here's a refresher for everyone. It's Trump's interview when he pretended to be a guy called John Miller. I've just re-read it and it's hilarious.
I've seen more than a few people saying he was more coherent when he was younger, well he sure as hell wasn't here. It's definitely worth a read just because it's so insane. The man is so insecure he has to pretend to be someone else to big himself up Ahhhhhh, poor man, he's had a broken mind for years and I don't think anybody ever had the nerve to tell him. If they did he sure as feck didn't do anything about it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...razier-than-you-think/?utm_term=.747f04fc0f44
Jesus wept he's intolerable.
Who fecking does this?