-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 07:47:39 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Endless Summer Quarterly
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Campaign 2016
Pages: 1 ... 48 49 50 51 52 [53] 54 55 56 57 58 ... 81   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Campaign 2016  (Read 523228 times)
0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #1300 on: July 27, 2016, 01:57:48 PM »

Thanks for the well wishes! Well Paul Manafort seems to have wormed his way into the campaign at the expense of Corey Lewenski to drive Trump in a more Russian direction, hell Trump's speech at the RNC was Putin-lite!
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #1301 on: July 27, 2016, 02:07:10 PM »

Emily - first, don't assume everyone who retires to a beach community or is a expat is a predatory animal.  That is guilty before innocent. Does it happen? It happens at all strata of society in every country and those human rights violations are not being prosecuted appropriately as "crimes against humanity" in The Hague.  Human trafficking is the worst and I am not disagreeing about that.  There is a path to residency in the US, particularly under VAWA. [Violence Against Women Act.]  It allows for temporary visas to be issued under The Act.  
 
Second, I am well aware some of those issues from my Master's work and hundreds of immigrant students. They are not particular to Central America. There is plenty of human trafficking in the States. It was not high on the priority list until awareness has been raised by advocacy groups and law school amicus briefs which have been given significant coverage and VAWA (a US law) extends to Immigration to grant status.  It is a partial humanitarian solution to the problem.  

http:sites.law.lsu.edu/amicus-curiae/tag/human-trafficking/

Third, get off the pot with your "white privilege" PC theory. Out of Theodore W. Allen in the 60's. Another Marxist theory. It stokes and creates division. And it is racist and by the way, it is old. It is regressive.  You don't know me or my DNA. If you want to point to a particular instance, link some info so we can all share and learn, from it rather than rant.  I look at things in a racially-neutral light.  

Fourth, Catholic Charities does a great deal of organized immigration work and advocacy.  Other local groups, which I never said I "approved of," only am "aware of their existences," as they assist immigrants with immigration status upgrades.

Fifth, the "white people ladder" - more racist talk.  My ancestors came to the States, dirt poor, hung together as a family and took the lowest level jobs, served in the military, and worked their way up. Both sides were discriminated against, for nationality, and in some instance for religion.  

It is not one's color. It is one's situation of being trafficked, regardless of race. Those girls are being trafficked for sex. Boys are trafficked. For sex. Not as a result of race.    

Six, I am not judging US citizens living as expats. Cute little retirees?  Age-ist.  Most have to live in the States for a certain time every year, at least for tax purposes.  And, don't accuse me of having a double standard. I believe in a legal "standard."  I believe in the law.  It does not make me wrong.  

You're telling me I'm "incorrect, again?"  I don't think so.  LOL

Just say you don't agree; that works.    
As I said, there are people not engaged in pedophilic slavery, but if you live there, and you're from the US, you know someone who is. And if you don't accept that socially, you're outcaste from the expat community. It's the way it is. All of your retirees are engaging and facilitate a pedophilic slave culture.
And to the point, once again, these are "illegals" living in their country. So while you are willing to support very broad negative pictures, and a dehumanizing label, for illegal residents in the US, if it's US Americans living illegally in other countries, suddenly they're retirees in a beach community or church-sponsored whatever. And you object to generalizing about them?? And you talk about guilt before innocence about them??? Have a look at your comments above about immigrants to the US.


For your third point, now it's divisive to point out that US Americans are predatory illegal immigrants elsewhere while they complain about predatory illegal immigrants at home? Divisive are racism and the amazing double standards you are willing to apply to white terrorist vs non-white terrorists and US Citizens living illegally elsewhere vs. non US citizens living in the US.  Pointing out racism and those double standards may feel divisive to you, but it's not the source of the division.

There was a white people ladder. Do you deny that? Do you deny that non-white people were often barred from immigrating when there were no quotas on white people?

And once again, in your sixth point you exhibit your double standard. You are "not judging US citizens living as expats" who are living illegally in various countries, but you are judging non-US citizens living as expats here. When's the last time you referred to people living illegally in the US as expats? I'm going to guess never. You sure do judge, and you judge with a double standard.
Emily - you are addressing someone who filed many petitions to the social service authorities for suspected sexual abuse among my students.  The concept is not lost on me.
"All of your retirees are engaging and facilitate a pedophilic slave culture." - What kind of an over-broad statement is that?  Not everyone living abroad is living there illegally.  Many hold dual citizenships. Are there networks in C.A. who engage in human trafficking? Is that news? This does not require just a US response.  It requires a global response and The Hague to take these cases.  JMHP


Read what you quoted I said. Then read your response. - Non sequitur.
I did not say everyone there is living there illegally. - straw man
I wasn't talking about trafficking networks. I was talking about retirees whom you call 'expats' who form communities in Central America that consist mainly of illegal immigrants, (so let's call them 'illegals' for fairness' sake, shall we?) and several of whom, in each of these communities, every single one, has bought a teenager for sex. And they live in that community, with all the other illegals, fully accepted. They go to their parties. They hang out together in the bars. They join the fishing competitions. They are fully welcomed by the others in the community, who know that they own an underage sex slave.
So they are ALL complicit. Period. And if you point it out to anyone in the community, gently, you get smirks and hand waves. Secretly some people will tell you it bothers them. But they won't say so publicly or do anything about it. And they'll still hang out socially with the pederasts.
If you point it out with any assertiveness publicly, you will get very aggressive and public pushback with no public dissenting voices.
You can keep defending it or wishing it away or calling it generalizing all you want, but first, in this case, it's actually not an incorrect generalization. This is true about every single person living in those communities; second, you were perfectly comfortable above making sweeping generalizations about others, why are you so careful not to make generalization about the Illegals in Central America?




It seems that you do not support vetting those who come into the country, including those who carry potential diseases that your own child could pick up. Are you aware that there are cases of TB that are active, and carried into the country? Vermont has been noted.    
False straw man.



What does skin tone have to do with ideology that conflicts with the Constitution? The race card is inappropriate.  
Christianity conflicts with the constitution but I don't see you complaining about Christian immigrants.


You have no idea what I support. You don't know me.  

Responding to your words.


A white-people step ladder?  Seriously?  The GI Bill was my father's path to college, grad school and post-grad. That is privilege?  Learning English in the street because his parents were only learning English in order to assimilate and be Americans?  Are you kidding me?  Where is the privilege?  

Straw man. We were talking about immigration policy.
But, I think we all benefited from the "disruptions" in the '60s. Or would you prefer that the Civil Rights movement never happened?
Yeah, I guess your dad had it worse than those living under Jim Crow.


Double standard? Because I believe that potential immigrants need to follow the process that is in place? What would you substitute or propose for the process?  I have asked no fewer than 3 times.  Our difference is that I believe in a legal uniform standard; one with which you don't agree.
Again, straw man. Double standard because of the way you talk about white vs. non-white terrorists and because of the way you talk about "illegals" here and "expats" there.
Also, you have expressed that the process in place is insufficient, have you not?
I'm fine with the status quo on immigration. It's BoB's corporations that are drumming up this anti-immigrant lather to distract from the fact that their employees are more productive than ever but aren't getting the benefits of that productivity because it's being used for executive pay raises and stock-holder dividends.
It's working very well. As usual, poor brown people are receiving the blame while rich white people are stealing your labor.



And, 235 days since Hillary had a news conference.  Why not?
Probably because she has learned, sensibly, not to trust the media.


[/quote]
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #1302 on: July 27, 2016, 02:11:35 PM »

Two words:  JILL STEIN.

That could be the curveball in this race. Jill Stein.  Wow.

After Bernie got the shaft, hundreds left the venue and it was not reported.  Some guy recorded, uploaded, commented, and now people are being bussed in to fill those seats left empty by Bernie's delegates. Nomiki Konst, a Sanders supporter and contributor to Fox, also reported seeing people bussed in to fill the seats.  In politics it is called "wallpaper."

https://you.tu.be/zGRo1mH2_8w

 
That video was made in the down time after the nomination and before the evening events. Dinner time. Look at the videos of the evening speeches. The place was packed.
http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/2016/07/26/87594288/

Delegates walk out of DNC in protest.
Yup. A few did. I didn't deny it. I was just pointing out that you were spreading a dishonest video that shows huge numbers of empty seats at dinner time claiming that that represents the walk out. But, again, if you look at videos from later in the evening, the place is full. So your first video is a gross exaggeration of the magnitude of the walk out.
No it is not dishonest.  It is not a gross exaggeration. In this matter, the camera does not lie, nor does the Facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/occupy-wall-st/dnc-walkout-qa/1186764278058001

Russia Today

https://www.rt.com/usa/353468-sanders-delegates-walk-out-dnc/

Dayton Daily News

http://www.daytondailynews.com/videos/news/dnc-bernie-supporters-walkout/vDq2dw/

The Daily Beast

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/07/26/bernie-supporters-walk-out-on-dnc.html?via=mobile&source-copyurl

Hillary Campaign Plans to shush Tongue Berniacs During Vote

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/201/07/26/hillary-campaign-plans-to-control-berniacs-during-vote.html

And, I disagree that the "dinner bell" caused the exodus.   Wink

This was wholly-orchestrated.

Bill gave a nice folksy speech last night.  Even he may not be able to rescue her.  (reminds me of a song - "Rescue me...")  LOL
Roll Eyes.
Again, straw man. Again, I didn't say some didn't protest. I said that the video you linked to lied about the magnitude.
And it did, because it showed the dinner time empty seats.
As I've said, look at the later video. It was a full house.
 Huh

PS. The estimates range from "a few dozen" to "a hundred, maybe a hundred and fifty".
NOT what is depicted in that video.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2016, 03:05:58 PM by Emily » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #1303 on: July 27, 2016, 02:13:00 PM »

Thanks for the well wishes! Well Paul Manafort seems to have wormed his way into the campaign at the expense of Corey Lewenski to drive Trump in a more Russian direction, hell Trump's speech at the RNC was Putin-lite!
Trump's son has said that the bulk of the Trump investors are Russians.
Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #1304 on: July 27, 2016, 02:14:31 PM »

It's really telling how Trump has to move to Russia to keep his scams going, and people thought Mitt Romney was bad in 2012....
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1305 on: July 27, 2016, 02:21:27 PM »

Wonder if Russians would be allowed to move here illegally under Trump...
Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #1306 on: July 27, 2016, 04:27:53 PM »

Thanks for the well wishes! Well Paul Manafort seems to have wormed his way into the campaign at the expense of Corey Lewenski to drive Trump in a more Russian direction, hell Trump's speech at the RNC was Putin-lite!
SB - Corey became a liability with that assault incident with the woman reporter. 

Manafort is smooth and an election pro. 

They needed a change.   Wink
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #1307 on: July 27, 2016, 04:52:03 PM »

Wonder if Russians would be allowed to move here illegally under Trump...

Billy - Each month, countries are given a number of applications that will go through. 

This is issued every month. 

https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Bulletins/visabulletin_July2016.pdf

The countries are listed around page 13 or so. There are a lot of laws to refer to.

There is a separate law for NACARA - which is Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central America Relief Act passed in 1997.  This is a wiki overview.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Adjustment_and_Central_American_Relief_Act     

(mobile version)



Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #1308 on: July 27, 2016, 05:51:58 PM »

Emily - first, don't assume everyone who retires to a beach community or is a expat is a predatory animal.  That is guilty before innocent. Does it happen? It happens at all strata of society in every country and those human rights violations are not being prosecuted appropriately as "crimes against humanity" in The Hague.  Human trafficking is the worst and I am not disagreeing about that.  There is a path to residency in the US, particularly under VAWA. [Violence Against Women Act.]  It allows for temporary visas to be issued under The Act.  
 
Second, I am well aware some of those issues from my Master's work and hundreds of immigrant students. They are not particular to Central America. There is plenty of human trafficking in the States. It was not high on the priority list until awareness has been raised by advocacy groups and law school amicus briefs which have been given significant coverage and VAWA (a US law) extends to Immigration to grant status.  It is a partial humanitarian solution to the problem.  

http:sites.law.lsu.edu/amicus-curiae/tag/human-trafficking/

Third, get off the pot with your "white privilege" PC theory. Out of Theodore W. Allen in the 60's. Another Marxist theory. It stokes and creates division. And it is racist and by the way, it is old. It is regressive.  You don't know me or my DNA. If you want to point to a particular instance, link some info so we can all share and learn, from it rather than rant.  I look at things in a racially-neutral light.  

Fourth, Catholic Charities does a great deal of organized immigration work and advocacy.  Other local groups, which I never said I "approved of," only am "aware of their existences," as they assist immigrants with immigration status upgrades.

Fifth, the "white people ladder" - more racist talk.  My ancestors came to the States, dirt poor, hung together as a family and took the lowest level jobs, served in the military, and worked their way up. Both sides were discriminated against, for nationality, and in some instance for religion.  

It is not one's color. It is one's situation of being trafficked, regardless of race. Those girls are being trafficked for sex. Boys are trafficked. For sex. Not as a result of race.    

Six, I am not judging US citizens living as expats. Cute little retirees?  Age-ist.  Most have to live in the States for a certain time every year, at least for tax purposes.  And, don't accuse me of having a double standard. I believe in a legal "standard."  I believe in the law.  It does not make me wrong.  

You're telling me I'm "incorrect, again?"  I don't think so.  LOL

Just say you don't agree; that works.    
As I said, there are people not engaged in pedophilic slavery, but if you live there, and you're from the US, you know someone who is. And if you don't accept that socially, you're outcaste from the expat community. It's the way it is. All of your retirees are engaging and facilitate a pedophilic slave culture.
And to the point, once again, these are "illegals" living in their country. So while you are willing to support very broad negative pictures, and a dehumanizing label, for illegal residents in the US, if it's US Americans living illegally in other countries, suddenly they're retirees in a beach community or church-sponsored whatever. And you object to generalizing about them?? And you talk about guilt before innocence about them??? Have a look at your comments above about immigrants to the US.


For your third point, now it's divisive to point out that US Americans are predatory illegal immigrants elsewhere while they complain about predatory illegal immigrants at home? Divisive are racism and the amazing double standards you are willing to apply to white terrorist vs non-white terrorists and US Citizens living illegally elsewhere vs. non US citizens living in the US.  Pointing out racism and those double standards may feel divisive to you, but it's not the source of the division.

There was a white people ladder. Do you deny that? Do you deny that non-white people were often barred from immigrating when there were no quotas on white people?

And once again, in your sixth point you exhibit your double standard. You are "not judging US citizens living as expats" who are living illegally in various countries, but you are judging non-US citizens living as expats here. When's the last time you referred to people living illegally in the US as expats? I'm going to guess never. You sure do judge, and you judge with a double standard.
Emily - you are addressing someone who filed many petitions to the social service authorities for suspected sexual abuse among my students.  The concept is not lost on me.
"All of your retirees are engaging and facilitate a pedophilic slave culture." - What kind of an over-broad statement is that?  Not everyone living abroad is living there illegally.  Many hold dual citizenships. Are there networks in C.A. who engage in human trafficking? Is that news? This does not require just a US response.  It requires a global response and The Hague to take these cases.  JMHP


Read what you quoted I said. Then read your response. - Non sequitur.
I did not say everyone there is living there illegally. - straw man
I wasn't talking about trafficking networks. I was talking about retirees whom you call 'expats' who form communities in Central America that consist mainly of illegal immigrants, (so let's call them 'illegals' for fairness' sake, shall we?) and several of whom, in each of these communities, every single one, has bought a teenager for sex. And they live in that community, with all the other illegals, fully accepted. They go to their parties. They hang out together in the bars. They join the fishing competitions. They are fully welcomed by the others in the community, who know that they own an underage sex slave.
So they are ALL complicit. Period. And if you point it out to anyone in the community, gently, you get smirks and hand waves. Secretly some people will tell you it bothers them. But they won't say so publicly or do anything about it. And they'll still hang out socially with the pederasts.
If you point it out with any assertiveness publicly, you will get very aggressive and public pushback with no public dissenting voices.
You can keep defending it or wishing it away or calling it generalizing all you want, but first, in this case, it's actually not an incorrect generalization. This is true about every single person living in those communities; second, you were perfectly comfortable above making sweeping generalizations about others, why are you so careful not to make generalization about the Illegals in Central America?




It seems that you do not support vetting those who come into the country, including those who carry potential diseases that your own child could pick up. Are you aware that there are cases of TB that are active, and carried into the country? Vermont has been noted.    
False straw man.



What does skin tone have to do with ideology that conflicts with the Constitution? The race card is inappropriate.  
Christianity conflicts with the constitution but I don't see you complaining about Christian immigrants.


You have no idea what I support. You don't know me.  

Responding to your words.


A white-people step ladder?  Seriously?  The GI Bill was my father's path to college, grad school and post-grad. That is privilege?  Learning English in the street because his parents were only learning English in order to assimilate and be Americans?  Are you kidding me?  Where is the privilege?  

Straw man. We were talking about immigration policy.
But, I think we all benefited from the "disruptions" in the '60s. Or would you prefer that the Civil Rights movement never happened?
Yeah, I guess your dad had it worse than those living under Jim Crow.


Double standard? Because I believe that potential immigrants need to follow the process that is in place? What would you substitute or propose for the process?  I have asked no fewer than 3 times.  Our difference is that I believe in a legal uniform standard; one with which you don't agree.
Again, straw man. Double standard because of the way you talk about white vs. non-white terrorists and because of the way you talk about "illegals" here and "expats" there.
Also, you have expressed that the process in place is insufficient, have you not?
I'm fine with the status quo on immigration. It's BoB's corporations that are drumming up this anti-immigrant lather to distract from the fact that their employees are more productive than ever but aren't getting the benefits of that productivity because it's being used for executive pay raises and stock-holder dividends.
It's working very well. As usual, poor brown people are receiving the blame while rich white people are stealing your labor.



And, 235 days since Hillary had a news conference.  Why not?
Probably because she has learned, sensibly, not to trust the media.


[/quote]\
Emily - do you really think that the initial period of time that a person resettles in another country is an easy one? It does not matter who you are. Maybe if you are rich you have an easier time.  There are often language issues, money issues, assimilation issues, etc.  Few have it easy.  Those are real-life experiences that I can access in my own family.  Don't dismiss them, please.

They are common to those millions who came on ships to the US and whose names and ships they crossed on, can be accessed on certain websites like Ellis Island. And even if the Immigration laws were not as formalized until 1952, there were procedures in place such as medical screening, especially drug-resistant TB.  You absolutely dismiss that need. 
And Zika from C.A and S.A., which has had reported cases in Spain. That is a medical issue and has nothing to do with race or religion.  What is the solution?   

We used to often use the book or the movie of American Tail, where Linda Ronstadt was brilliant, to think and discuss what some of those who came before us experienced, in school.  Or Titanic where the low-class were in "steerage." It is a "visual" for that experience that my ancestors did not dwell upon, but attempted to put behind them once they arrived here. Others come on planes now. 

There is a reluctance to assimilate, pledge allegiance, and learn the language of this country.  I think that is a huge problem.  If you go to Israel, I am told that you must learn Hebrew while you are in an orientation phase of re-settling there. You say that you are fine with the status quo on immigration but that does not appear to be the case. 

Why are you suggesting that the Civil Rights movement should not have happened?  That is an outrageous statement. You dd not live during that time. You might have read about it in a book, according to the writer's interpretation.  Do you think that boomers were unaffected by inequality or were non-responsive?  It is that generation who acted on these issues and Vietnam. 
     
And, I would argue that it is improper to argue whether it is appropriate to discuss Christian immigrants but they are clearly being persecuted and singled out for persecution because of this "Crusader" dynamic and it is also true of Jewish people.  They are singled out for mass murder.  There are plenty of brown Christians and brown Jews. You appear to hung up on race and frame your argument in racial terms when race-neutrality is a goal, as is gender-neutrality.  People are people.   

Bernie was shafted. It is hard to fathom that after the email dump from wiki-leaks (from a guy who is persecuted as a whistle-blower) are being discussed not for the content but how they became available.  Bernie said the party was partial and they are to be neutral.  It is beyond me that you can defend them and ratify their criminality. I am ashamed of my party for stooping so low to guarantee a win.  Bernie shone a necessary light on the lack of transparency.   

Drumming up anti-immigrant lather? There are aggravated felonies being committed by some who have been deported multiple times.  "Aggravated felony" is what gets you deported.  Not like your family members who were here 5 years and got to be citizens;  I bet they were law-abiding. That is why after the 5-year window, they were all set.  Do you think it is ok, that those who commit aggravated felonies and who are deported and return, should be allowed to remain in the US? 

Over-paid execs?  Here, we agree.   
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #1309 on: July 27, 2016, 06:08:49 PM »

ISIS  and affiliates have declared a war on "Crusaders/Jews"  worldwide and have effectuated attacks in multiple countries by way of instructive video via social media with either bombs made from household materials, (like pressure cookers at the Boston Marathon) to avenge others (a broad group) and to impose their legal system from a radical sect going back centuries.  Comparing McVeigh to ISIS does not make sense to me.  These attacks are coming every day, sometimes twice a day.  

There is an ideology in conflict with our culture and practices.  We give women the right to vote, and self determine.  They don't ask permission of a man to do anything.  They are free.  Gay people are not thrown off buildings.  Those ideas clash with our laws.  There can be no conflict.  The US Constitution is the law of the land.  Period.  We don't follow the laws of another religion because we don't recognize the mixing of religion and law.  They are separate.  

I agree with a great deal of the responses to this initial post but I would just like to throw in my two cents in regards to this particular quotation. What you are saying about the US is true insofar as it pertains to American soil. But to say that the ideology of ISIS is in conflict "with our culture and practices" is unfortunately not entirely correct. After all, the US is a major contributor to Saudi Arabia, which is probably the most extreme fundamentalist country in the world. And, in fact, a great deal of ISIS's support comes from Saudi Arabian elites. It may be that the country supports the kind of freedom that you describe domestically but it actively supports the kind of repression that you describe in the international sphere. So, in my view, the reality is not quite the conflict that you describe.

ISIS is a deplorable and monstrous organization to be sure and we should be thinking of realistic ways to eliminate them. That said, when you consider what I have noted above, along with the US's atrocious foreign policy record, and the fact that the US virtually created the circumstances out which ISIS could flourish on multiple occasions, demonstrates that the country simply does not have the moral standing to take the issue on in any legitimate way.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #1310 on: July 27, 2016, 06:35:14 PM »

ISIS  and affiliates have declared a war on "Crusaders/Jews"  worldwide and have effectuated attacks in multiple countries by way of instructive video via social media with either bombs made from household materials, (like pressure cookers at the Boston Marathon) to avenge others (a broad group) and to impose their legal system from a radical sect going back centuries.  Comparing McVeigh to ISIS does not make sense to me.  These attacks are coming every day, sometimes twice a day.  

There is an ideology in conflict with our culture and practices.  We give women the right to vote, and self determine.  They don't ask permission of a man to do anything.  They are free.  Gay people are not thrown off buildings.  Those ideas clash with our laws.  There can be no conflict.  The US Constitution is the law of the land.  Period.  We don't follow the laws of another religion because we don't recognize the mixing of religion and law.  They are separate.  

I agree with a great deal of the responses to this initial post but I would just like to throw in my two cents in regards to this particular quotation. What you are saying about the US is true insofar as it pertains to American soil. But to say that the ideology of ISIS is in conflict "with our culture and practices" is unfortunately not entirely correct. After all, the US is a major contributor to Saudi Arabia, which is probably the most extreme fundamentalist country in the world. And, in fact, a great deal of ISIS's support comes from Saudi Arabian elites. It may be that the country supports the kind of freedom that you describe domestically but it actively supports the kind of repression that you describe in the international sphere. So, in my view, the reality is not quite the conflict that you describe.

ISIS is a deplorable and monstrous organization to be sure and we should be thinking of realistic ways to eliminate them. That said, when you consider what I have noted above, along with the US's atrocious foreign policy record, and the fact that the US virtually created the circumstances out which ISIS could flourish on multiple occasions, demonstrates that the country simply does not have the moral standing to take the issue on in any legitimate way.
CSM - I agree completely about Saudi Arabia and those other countries, who have funded this horrific effort. And have been complicit in this mess. I have not gone there. The back-channels are mind-boggling. The corruption is worse. But, I do think the extreme ideology is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution as far as gender equality that is in practice and not in theory.  Women can't self-determine. Gays are thrown off the highest building. And there is a desire to impose their standards of life, on the rest of the world.  That is incompatible with our sense of liberty.   

The US is not perfect.  They must do better. I guess my biggest problem is that there is a reluctance to address the war with ISIS.  People say that these attacks are out of frustration from the military inroads.  It sounds more like damage control to me.  Two attacks a day is the new normal.  Should we accept this? They blew it in Iraq by not leaving a reserve of soldiers to help stabilize the area, just to fulfill a campaign promise.  Sometimes you have to adapt to the circumstances and that is the wiser course. Campaigning is different than getting into the job once you are elected and "learn the ropes." Sometimes you have to admit that you cannot fulfill all your campaign promises.  Obama did a poor job in that area. Admitting a mistake is a sign of a great leader and not a weak one.

As I watch this Democratic convention, I worry about the direction of education being dumbed-down, national security, etc., and the smoke-screen of whether an air conditioner is wrecking the environment when these hypocrites take separate jets (husband and wife) to arrive at the same destination to discuss the environment.  Then "preach" to the citizens and try to throw a guilt-trip on them to distract from their own failures. 

Thanks, CSM, for the post.  The world is a mess.         


 
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #1311 on: July 27, 2016, 06:57:37 PM »


Emily - do you really think that the initial period of time that a person resettles in another country is an easy one?

 Roll Eyes Of course not. What were we talking about? hmmm. The LEGAL immigration process and the notion that because YOUR parents followed that LEGAL process, that it's only fair that current immigrants do the same, which, as I've been saying, is a false analogy because the LEGAL process is different. It was much easier (the LEGAL process was much easier) for my grandparents and your father. But you can keep distracting with your father's travails that have nothing to do with the topic, if you like.
So, to follow your tangential trail. My mother's parents immigrated dirt poor from Ukraine. Separately; they met here. My grandmother got to France by foot and hitchhiking and taking buses when she could afford them. She took more than a year to get from home to France, taking odd jobs along the way. Then she lurked around until she could get work on a ship going to the US.
She never mastered English. She dug up and sold fish bait to get by during the depression. So waah waah waah hard times boo hoo hoo. But you know what? Her kids were white. Things turned around in one generation.

She had fewer immigration restrictions because of her ethnicity and there were no laws restricting what her kids could do based on her race. You are denying the impact of race when there were actual LAWS DISCRIMINATING BASED ON RACE.

Israel is a state based on a being a home for people of a single religion. How inappropriate is that for a model in the US?

Assimilate smashimilate. In New England there were French-language public schools for generations for the French Canadian diaspora. My mom grew up in an east European neighborhood. Scandinavians and Germans and Irish and Italians built their own neighborhoods that took many generations to assimilate. Some still haven't.
Seems assimilation becomes more important to a lot of Americans when the immigrants are brown.


Why are you suggesting that the Civil Rights movement should not have happened?  That is an outrageous statement. You dd not live during that time. You might have read about it in a book, according to the writer's interpretation.  Do you think that boomers were unaffected by inequality or were non-responsive?  It is that generation who acted on these issues and Vietnam.  


I have no idea what you're talking about here. I will say that my father and many of his friends were active in the civil rights movement so I didn't just "read about it in a book." Otherwise I have no idea what your point is here.
edit - and, this notion you have that you have to BE THERE to understand something might make sense intuitively, but it's actually not true. And, of course, people who "were there" usually understand things less than the people who learn about events academically, because when you're there you only perceive through your personal prism.

   
And, I would argue that it is improper to argue whether it is appropriate to discuss Christian immigrants but they are clearly being persecuted and singled out for persecution because of this "Crusader" dynamic and it is also true of Jewish people.  They are singled out for mass murder.  There are plenty of brown Christians and brown Jews. You appear to hung up on race and frame your argument in racial terms when race-neutrality is a goal, as is gender-neutrality.  People are people.  
Just pointing out another double standard. If race-neutrality is the goal, perhaps you should examine your double standards more closely to see how you are missing the goal.
Also, if it's two things, they are not being singled out. And Christians and Jews are not particularly being targeted, if you are talking about ISIS.


Julian Assange is persecuted as a rapist.
I would love for you to show me one email from the DNC that indicates criminality.

There are MORE aggravated felonies being committed by US citizens. Funny that all your talking points come from the party you don't consider "your party."
And once again, you are generalizing about immigrants. Should I do what you did?
How can you say all the immigrants commit aggravated felonies. That is generalizing and it is unacceptable. Most of them are just expats raising their children.[/quote]
« Last Edit: July 28, 2016, 12:05:36 AM by Emily » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #1312 on: July 27, 2016, 07:07:29 PM »

ISIS  and affiliates have declared a war on "Crusaders/Jews"  worldwide and have effectuated attacks in multiple countries by way of instructive video via social media with either bombs made from household materials, (like pressure cookers at the Boston Marathon) to avenge others (a broad group) and to impose their legal system from a radical sect going back centuries.  Comparing McVeigh to ISIS does not make sense to me.  These attacks are coming every day, sometimes twice a day.  

There is an ideology in conflict with our culture and practices.  We give women the right to vote, and self determine.  They don't ask permission of a man to do anything.  They are free.  Gay people are not thrown off buildings.  Those ideas clash with our laws.  There can be no conflict.  The US Constitution is the law of the land.  Period.  We don't follow the laws of another religion because we don't recognize the mixing of religion and law.  They are separate.  

I agree with a great deal of the responses to this initial post but I would just like to throw in my two cents in regards to this particular quotation. What you are saying about the US is true insofar as it pertains to American soil. But to say that the ideology of ISIS is in conflict "with our culture and practices" is unfortunately not entirely correct. After all, the US is a major contributor to Saudi Arabia, which is probably the most extreme fundamentalist country in the world. And, in fact, a great deal of ISIS's support comes from Saudi Arabian elites. It may be that the country supports the kind of freedom that you describe domestically but it actively supports the kind of repression that you describe in the international sphere. So, in my view, the reality is not quite the conflict that you describe.

ISIS is a deplorable and monstrous organization to be sure and we should be thinking of realistic ways to eliminate them. That said, when you consider what I have noted above, along with the US's atrocious foreign policy record, and the fact that the US virtually created the circumstances out which ISIS could flourish on multiple occasions, demonstrates that the country simply does not have the moral standing to take the issue on in any legitimate way.
CSM - I agree completely about Saudi Arabia and those other countries, who have funded this horrific effort. And have been complicit in this mess. I have not gone there. The back-channels are mind-boggling. The corruption is worse. But, I do think the extreme ideology is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution as far as gender equality that is in practice and not in theory.  Women can't self-determine. Gays are thrown off the highest building. And there is a desire to impose their standards of life, on the rest of the world.  That is incompatible with our sense of liberty.  

The US is not perfect.  They must do better. I guess my biggest problem is that there is a reluctance to address the war with ISIS.  People say that these attacks are out of frustration from the military inroads.  It sounds more like damage control to me.  Two attacks a day is the new normal.  Should we accept this? They blew it in Iraq by not leaving a reserve of soldiers to help stabilize the area, just to fulfill a campaign promise.  Sometimes you have to adapt to the circumstances and that is the wiser course. Campaigning is different than getting into the job once you are elected and "learn the ropes." Sometimes you have to admit that you cannot fulfill all your campaign promises.  Obama did a poor job in that area. Admitting a mistake is a sign of a great leader and not a weak one.

As I watch this Democratic convention, I worry about the direction of education being dumbed-down, national security, etc., and the smoke-screen of whether an air conditioner is wrecking the environment when these hypocrites take separate jets (husband and wife) to arrive at the same destination to discuss the environment.  Then "preach" to the citizens and try to throw a guilt-trip on them to distract from their own failures.  

Thanks, CSM, for the post.  The world is a mess.        


 

a man is a man if he have but a hose on his head but after meat comes mustard. But who's got the cowbell? Everyone cannot have a nose like a shoeing horn.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2016, 08:23:54 PM by Emily » Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #1313 on: July 27, 2016, 08:42:42 PM »

ISIS  and affiliates have declared a war on "Crusaders/Jews"  worldwide and have effectuated attacks in multiple countries by way of instructive video via social media with either bombs made from household materials, (like pressure cookers at the Boston Marathon) to avenge others (a broad group) and to impose their legal system from a radical sect going back centuries.  Comparing McVeigh to ISIS does not make sense to me.  These attacks are coming every day, sometimes twice a day.  

There is an ideology in conflict with our culture and practices.  We give women the right to vote, and self determine.  They don't ask permission of a man to do anything.  They are free.  Gay people are not thrown off buildings.  Those ideas clash with our laws.  There can be no conflict.  The US Constitution is the law of the land.  Period.  We don't follow the laws of another religion because we don't recognize the mixing of religion and law.  They are separate.  

I agree with a great deal of the responses to this initial post but I would just like to throw in my two cents in regards to this particular quotation. What you are saying about the US is true insofar as it pertains to American soil. But to say that the ideology of ISIS is in conflict "with our culture and practices" is unfortunately not entirely correct. After all, the US is a major contributor to Saudi Arabia, which is probably the most extreme fundamentalist country in the world. And, in fact, a great deal of ISIS's support comes from Saudi Arabian elites. It may be that the country supports the kind of freedom that you describe domestically but it actively supports the kind of repression that you describe in the international sphere. So, in my view, the reality is not quite the conflict that you describe.

ISIS is a deplorable and monstrous organization to be sure and we should be thinking of realistic ways to eliminate them. That said, when you consider what I have noted above, along with the US's atrocious foreign policy record, and the fact that the US virtually created the circumstances out which ISIS could flourish on multiple occasions, demonstrates that the country simply does not have the moral standing to take the issue on in any legitimate way.
CSM - I agree completely about Saudi Arabia and those other countries, who have funded this horrific effort. And have been complicit in this mess. I have not gone there. The back-channels are mind-boggling. The corruption is worse. But, I do think the extreme ideology is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution as far as gender equality that is in practice and not in theory.  Women can't self-determine. Gays are thrown off the highest building. And there is a desire to impose their standards of life, on the rest of the world.  That is incompatible with our sense of liberty.  

The US is not perfect.  They must do better. I guess my biggest problem is that there is a reluctance to address the war with ISIS.  People say that these attacks are out of frustration from the military inroads.  It sounds more like damage control to me.  Two attacks a day is the new normal.  Should we accept this? They blew it in Iraq by not leaving a reserve of soldiers to help stabilize the area, just to fulfill a campaign promise.  Sometimes you have to adapt to the circumstances and that is the wiser course. Campaigning is different than getting into the job once you are elected and "learn the ropes." Sometimes you have to admit that you cannot fulfill all your campaign promises.  Obama did a poor job in that area. Admitting a mistake is a sign of a great leader and not a weak one.

As I watch this Democratic convention, I worry about the direction of education being dumbed-down, national security, etc., and the smoke-screen of whether an air conditioner is wrecking the environment when these hypocrites take separate jets (husband and wife) to arrive at the same destination to discuss the environment.  Then "preach" to the citizens and try to throw a guilt-trip on them to distract from their own failures.  

Thanks, CSM, for the post.  The world is a mess.        


 

Re: Saudi Arabia. I think you miss my point. You note that the treatment of women and homosexuals in Saudi Arabia "is incompatible with our sense of liberty" but this is simply false when you consider the fact that the US supports this behaviour, in no small way, by substantially funding the Saudi dictatorship. Given that, we have to assume that "our sense of liberty" carries with it a notion that it is okay to reinforce, support, stabilize and, in many cases, prop up harsh repressive regimes. In my view, that's not a particularly good sense of liberty. And Saudi Arabia is but one example a harsh, repressive regime getting decisive US support.

Regarding ISIS, you ask the question, "should we accept this?" It brings to mind an interesting case: that is the US involvement in Nicaragua in the 1980s. This was another example of the US supporting a military dictatorship over left-wing political organization whose leadership in Nicaragua had been raising the standards of living in the country. The US responded to these achievements with extraordinary brutality, including officially committing to carrying out a terrorist campaign in the region. Nicaraguans undoubtedly asked themselves, "should we accept this?" and indeed took the case to the World Court, who condemned the United States for "unlawful use of force" and called for an end to US violence in the region. The United States ignored the World Court and continued. Once that happened, the UN Security Council called for a resolution for countries to observe international law. The United States vetoed the resolution as well as two General Assembly resolution calling for the US to adhere to the World Court's decision.

The answer of "should we accept this?" when it came to the violence perpetrated by the US against Nicaragua was effectively answered by the US and the answer was "yes." Now this happens to be an example where this question was essentially asked and answered although it is by no means the only time the question could have been asked. So for example, the people of El Salvador could have asked this question when the US-trained military dictatorship was slaughtering tens of thousands of people there. Or the Guatemalans could have asked that question when the US-supported dictatorship was carrying out its scorched earth campaign, leading to about a hundred thousand deaths. Or the people of East Timor could have asked themselves that question when the US-backed Indonesian dictatorship committed genocide there and killed a third of the population. Indeed, the Indonesians themselves could have asked this question when the US-backed coup that brought the dictator Suharto into power resulted in the deaths of 700,000 Indonesians. Skipping over dozens of other examples, the families of the victims of the current drone campaigns could ask themselves that question, given the fact that the drone attacks are primarily directed at innocent civilians.

The fact is that these countries don't typically ask this question of "should we accept this?" After all, the Nicaraguan case is an excellent example that demonstrates that when the most powerful state in the world is the one carrying out atrocities, you simply have to accept it because the weak are not supposed to defend themselves against the powerful, as the Nicaraguan case shows.

Again, as I believe I addressed above, I do think that ISIS should be eliminated. They are a monstrous, horrific organization. With that in mind, I think they should be eliminated by those who are actually in a position to do so, and I don't think that that's unfeasible.

Your point that the US blew it in Iraq "by not leaving a reserve of soldiers to help stabilize the area" ignores the fact that the seeds of ISIS were sewn well before that point, mainly when the Bush Administration took the two central groups living in Iraq who had previously been living together relatively peacefully and set them against each other in an attempt to generate what would appear to outsiders as democracy-in-action. Then the US-run prison systems effectively became the place where mass organization took place. As The Guardian reported, a senior ISIS member noted how “We could never have all got together like this in Baghdad, or anywhere else. ... It would have been impossibly dangerous. Here, we were not only safe, but we were only a few hundred metres away from the entire al-Qaida leadership.” The fact is whether the military had remained in the country or not, the movement had been growing since the invasion of 2003.

Your discussion about Democratic failures is an interesting one. Clearly the problem goes beyond parties. But in my opinion, while I disagree with the actions and lament most bitterly the rise of horrible organizations like ISIS, I would not designate these policies failures. Failure would suggest that the action that was supposed to happen didn't happen. Or conversely that something that was not supposed to happen did happen. In reality, the rise of ISIS was predicted by the world's top experts on terrorism. In October of 2002, in the lead up to the Iraq war, the FBI observed “that a war with Iraq could trigger new domestic terrorism risks.” Meanwhile, Jean-Louis Bruguiere, “the leading French investigation magistrate in charge of counter-terrorism affairs,” observed that “Attacking Iraq would intensify Islamic terrorism, not reduce it.” The Bush Administration were aware that the invasion of Iraq would more than likely increase the risk of Islamic terrorism but that was of secondary concern to the goals of the invasion, which, given all of this, was plainly not to reduce the security threat posed by the country. In that case, that's not a failure, but correctly-predicted consequence of the invasion.

Furthermore, quite recently, Michael Flynn, a crucial military official in the War in Terror, pointed out that the US government was aware their counter-Assad policies would more than likely lead to the establishment of a "caliphate by Islamic extremist in Eastern Syria" as Glenn Greenwald concluded. And as Greenwald goes on to observe, that is "exactly what happened." Again, this is not a failure. This is precisely the consequences predicted by the policies that the government enacted.

So to sum up, yes, ISIS should be stopped but if there is a double standard at work, then the scourge of terrorism will not effectively be stopped at all. In fact, there would just be another threat, potentially a much worse one, waiting to fill the spot. Second, if anyone should stop ISIS, it should be those who are in a position to do so - both a pragmatic position and a moral position. And if that is the case then we have to begin to ask some very hard questions about who that should be.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2016, 08:52:17 PM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #1314 on: July 27, 2016, 10:18:57 PM »

And here's what American Christians do when you aren't looking:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/how-uganda-was-seduced-by-anti-gay-conservative-evangelicals-9193593.html
https://www.thenation.com/article/its-not-just-uganda-behind-christian-rights-onslaught-africa/

This next one has an interesting note. I've been wondering (before the Trump thing) about the growing fondness for Putin among the evangelical right:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-kaoma-uganda-gays-american-ministers-20140323-story.html
here's a quote:
Later this year, the World Congress of Families — an Illinois-based conservative umbrella organization — will convene in Russia. As the group's leader, Larry Jenkins, put it: "We're convinced that Russia does and should play a very significant role in defense of the family and moral values worldwide. Russia has become a leader of promoting these values in the international arena."

So, as Trump's tweets are dog-whistles to white supremacists, his pro putin stuff is a dog whistle to anti-gay extremists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html
http://www.twocare.org/from-uganda-to-south-korea-the-global-vanguard-of-christian-anti-lgbt-activism-the-new-apostolic-reformation/
http://www.politicalresearch.org/resources/reports/full-reports/colonizing-african-values/

Christianity is an ideology in conflict with our culture and practices. Those ideas clash with our laws.  There can be no conflict.  The US Constitution is the law of the land.  Period.  We don't follow the laws of that religion because we don't recognize the mixing of religion and law.  They are separate. 
Perhaps we should ban Christian immigration and Christians already here should be entered in a government database and carry ID. We should also question each one to make sure they aren't planning something. And they know who among them are doing these things. They need to cooperate and speak out.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2016, 11:56:30 PM by Emily » Logged
LostArt
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 914



View Profile
« Reply #1315 on: July 28, 2016, 05:58:23 AM »

ISIS  and affiliates have declared a war on "Crusaders/Jews"  worldwide and have effectuated attacks in multiple countries by way of instructive video via social media with either bombs made from household materials, (like pressure cookers at the Boston Marathon) to avenge others (a broad group) and to impose their legal system from a radical sect going back centuries.  Comparing McVeigh to ISIS does not make sense to me.  These attacks are coming every day, sometimes twice a day.  

There is an ideology in conflict with our culture and practices.  We give women the right to vote, and self determine.  They don't ask permission of a man to do anything.  They are free.  Gay people are not thrown off buildings.  Those ideas clash with our laws.  There can be no conflict.  The US Constitution is the law of the land.  Period.  We don't follow the laws of another religion because we don't recognize the mixing of religion and law.  They are separate.  

I agree with a great deal of the responses to this initial post but I would just like to throw in my two cents in regards to this particular quotation. What you are saying about the US is true insofar as it pertains to American soil. But to say that the ideology of ISIS is in conflict "with our culture and practices" is unfortunately not entirely correct. After all, the US is a major contributor to Saudi Arabia, which is probably the most extreme fundamentalist country in the world. And, in fact, a great deal of ISIS's support comes from Saudi Arabian elites. It may be that the country supports the kind of freedom that you describe domestically but it actively supports the kind of repression that you describe in the international sphere. So, in my view, the reality is not quite the conflict that you describe.

ISIS is a deplorable and monstrous organization to be sure and we should be thinking of realistic ways to eliminate them. That said, when you consider what I have noted above, along with the US's atrocious foreign policy record, and the fact that the US virtually created the circumstances out which ISIS could flourish on multiple occasions, demonstrates that the country simply does not have the moral standing to take the issue on in any legitimate way.
CSM - I agree completely about Saudi Arabia and those other countries, who have funded this horrific effort. And have been complicit in this mess. I have not gone there. The back-channels are mind-boggling. The corruption is worse. But, I do think the extreme ideology is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution as far as gender equality that is in practice and not in theory.  Women can't self-determine. Gays are thrown off the highest building. And there is a desire to impose their standards of life, on the rest of the world.  That is incompatible with our sense of liberty.  

The US is not perfect.  They must do better. I guess my biggest problem is that there is a reluctance to address the war with ISIS.  People say that these attacks are out of frustration from the military inroads.  It sounds more like damage control to me.  Two attacks a day is the new normal.  Should we accept this? They blew it in Iraq by not leaving a reserve of soldiers to help stabilize the area, just to fulfill a campaign promise.  Sometimes you have to adapt to the circumstances and that is the wiser course. Campaigning is different than getting into the job once you are elected and "learn the ropes." Sometimes you have to admit that you cannot fulfill all your campaign promises.  Obama did a poor job in that area. Admitting a mistake is a sign of a great leader and not a weak one.

As I watch this Democratic convention, I worry about the direction of education being dumbed-down, national security, etc., and the smoke-screen of whether an air conditioner is wrecking the environment when these hypocrites take separate jets (husband and wife) to arrive at the same destination to discuss the environment.  Then "preach" to the citizens and try to throw a guilt-trip on them to distract from their own failures.  

Thanks, CSM, for the post.  The world is a mess.        


 

a man is a man if he have but a hose on his head but after meat comes mustard. But who's got the cowbell? Everyone cannot have a nose like a shoeing horn.

 LOL
Logged
bachelorofbullets
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


View Profile
« Reply #1316 on: July 28, 2016, 06:54:39 AM »


Quote
I agree with a great deal of the responses to this initial post but I would just like to throw in my two cents in regards to this particular quotation. What you are saying about the US is true insofar as it pertains to American soil. But to say that the ideology of ISIS is in conflict "with our culture and practices" is unfortunately not entirely correct. After all, the US is a major contributor to Saudi Arabia, which is probably the most extreme fundamentalist country in the world. And, in fact, a great deal of ISIS's support comes from Saudi Arabian elites. It may be that the country supports the kind of freedom that you describe domestically but it actively supports the kind of repression that you describe in the international sphere. So, in my view, the reality is not quite the conflict that you describe.

ISIS is a deplorable and monstrous organization to be sure and we should be thinking of realistic ways to eliminate them. That said, when you consider what I have noted above, along with the US's atrocious foreign policy record, and the fact that the US virtually created the circumstances out which ISIS could flourish on multiple occasions, demonstrates that the country simply does not have the moral standing to take the issue on in any legitimate way.

Choco, just because the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are allies does not mean our cultures and government are compatible...they are not.  Saudi government is based on Islamic law (sharia), not freedom and democracy (U.S. Constitution).  That being said, we have been allies forever, both in war (gulf war) and in economy (oil and weapons).  The Saudi monarchy has been crucial supporting the war against terror.  So the two cultures can respect each other and maintain alliances, without necessarily sharing the same views, that's just called getting along.   



Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #1317 on: July 28, 2016, 07:30:44 AM »


Quote
I agree with a great deal of the responses to this initial post but I would just like to throw in my two cents in regards to this particular quotation. What you are saying about the US is true insofar as it pertains to American soil. But to say that the ideology of ISIS is in conflict "with our culture and practices" is unfortunately not entirely correct. After all, the US is a major contributor to Saudi Arabia, which is probably the most extreme fundamentalist country in the world. And, in fact, a great deal of ISIS's support comes from Saudi Arabian elites. It may be that the country supports the kind of freedom that you describe domestically but it actively supports the kind of repression that you describe in the international sphere. So, in my view, the reality is not quite the conflict that you describe.

ISIS is a deplorable and monstrous organization to be sure and we should be thinking of realistic ways to eliminate them. That said, when you consider what I have noted above, along with the US's atrocious foreign policy record, and the fact that the US virtually created the circumstances out which ISIS could flourish on multiple occasions, demonstrates that the country simply does not have the moral standing to take the issue on in any legitimate way.

Choco, just because the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are allies does not mean our cultures and government are compatible...they are not.  Saudi government is based on Islamic law (sharia), not freedom and democracy (U.S. Constitution).  That being said, we have been allies forever, both in war (gulf war) and in economy (oil and weapons).  The Saudi monarchy has been crucial supporting the war against terror.  So the two cultures can respect each other and maintain alliances, without necessarily sharing the same views, that's just called getting along.  




I think what he's saying is that it's a deep and enduring part of our culture and way of life to support and enact  terrorism and dictatorship abroad. So making high-minded statements about the failings of other cultures while that is part of  our culture is a misguided double standard.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2016, 11:49:15 AM by Emily » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #1318 on: July 28, 2016, 07:41:04 AM »

ISIS  and affiliates have declared a war on "Crusaders/Jews"  worldwide and have effectuated attacks in multiple countries by way of instructive video via social media with either bombs made from household materials, (like pressure cookers at the Boston Marathon) to avenge others (a broad group) and to impose their legal system from a radical sect going back centuries.  Comparing McVeigh to ISIS does not make sense to me.  These attacks are coming every day, sometimes twice a day.  

There is an ideology in conflict with our culture and practices.  We give women the right to vote, and self determine.  They don't ask permission of a man to do anything.  They are free.  Gay people are not thrown off buildings.  Those ideas clash with our laws.  There can be no conflict.  The US Constitution is the law of the land.  Period.  We don't follow the laws of another religion because we don't recognize the mixing of religion and law.  They are separate.  

I agree with a great deal of the responses to this initial post but I would just like to throw in my two cents in regards to this particular quotation. What you are saying about the US is true insofar as it pertains to American soil. But to say that the ideology of ISIS is in conflict "with our culture and practices" is unfortunately not entirely correct. After all, the US is a major contributor to Saudi Arabia, which is probably the most extreme fundamentalist country in the world. And, in fact, a great deal of ISIS's support comes from Saudi Arabian elites. It may be that the country supports the kind of freedom that you describe domestically but it actively supports the kind of repression that you describe in the international sphere. So, in my view, the reality is not quite the conflict that you describe.

ISIS is a deplorable and monstrous organization to be sure and we should be thinking of realistic ways to eliminate them. That said, when you consider what I have noted above, along with the US's atrocious foreign policy record, and the fact that the US virtually created the circumstances out which ISIS could flourish on multiple occasions, demonstrates that the country simply does not have the moral standing to take the issue on in any legitimate way.
CSM - I agree completely about Saudi Arabia and those other countries, who have funded this horrific effort. And have been complicit in this mess. I have not gone there. The back-channels are mind-boggling. The corruption is worse. But, I do think the extreme ideology is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution as far as gender equality that is in practice and not in theory.  Women can't self-determine. Gays are thrown off the highest building. And there is a desire to impose their standards of life, on the rest of the world.  That is incompatible with our sense of liberty.  

The US is not perfect.  They must do better. I guess my biggest problem is that there is a reluctance to address the war with ISIS.  People say that these attacks are out of frustration from the military inroads.  It sounds more like damage control to me.  Two attacks a day is the new normal.  Should we accept this? They blew it in Iraq by not leaving a reserve of soldiers to help stabilize the area, just to fulfill a campaign promise.  Sometimes you have to adapt to the circumstances and that is the wiser course. Campaigning is different than getting into the job once you are elected and "learn the ropes." Sometimes you have to admit that you cannot fulfill all your campaign promises.  Obama did a poor job in that area. Admitting a mistake is a sign of a great leader and not a weak one.

As I watch this Democratic convention, I worry about the direction of education being dumbed-down, national security, etc., and the smoke-screen of whether an air conditioner is wrecking the environment when these hypocrites take separate jets (husband and wife) to arrive at the same destination to discuss the environment.  Then "preach" to the citizens and try to throw a guilt-trip on them to distract from their own failures.  

Thanks, CSM, for the post.  The world is a mess.        


 

Re: Saudi Arabia. I think you miss my point. You note that the treatment of women and homosexuals in Saudi Arabia "is incompatible with our sense of liberty" but this is simply false when you consider the fact that the US supports this behaviour, in no small way, by substantially funding the Saudi dictatorship. Given that, we have to assume that "our sense of liberty" carries with it a notion that it is okay to reinforce, support, stabilize and, in many cases, prop up harsh repressive regimes. In my view, that's not a particularly good sense of liberty. And Saudi Arabia is but one example a harsh, repressive regime getting decisive US support.

Regarding ISIS, you ask the question, "should we accept this?" It brings to mind an interesting case: that is the US involvement in Nicaragua in the 1980s. This was another example of the US supporting a military dictatorship over left-wing political organization whose leadership in Nicaragua had been raising the standards of living in the country. The US responded to these achievements with extraordinary brutality, including officially committing to carrying out a terrorist campaign in the region. Nicaraguans undoubtedly asked themselves, "should we accept this?" and indeed took the case to the World Court, who condemned the United States for "unlawful use of force" and called for an end to US violence in the region. The United States ignored the World Court and continued. Once that happened, the UN Security Council called for a resolution for countries to observe international law. The United States vetoed the resolution as well as two General Assembly resolution calling for the US to adhere to the World Court's decision.

The answer of "should we accept this?" when it came to the violence perpetrated by the US against Nicaragua was effectively answered by the US and the answer was "yes." Now this happens to be an example where this question was essentially asked and answered although it is by no means the only time the question could have been asked. So for example, the people of El Salvador could have asked this question when the US-trained military dictatorship was slaughtering tens of thousands of people there. Or the Guatemalans could have asked that question when the US-supported dictatorship was carrying out its scorched earth campaign, leading to about a hundred thousand deaths. Or the people of East Timor could have asked themselves that question when the US-backed Indonesian dictatorship committed genocide there and killed a third of the population. Indeed, the Indonesians themselves could have asked this question when the US-backed coup that brought the dictator Suharto into power resulted in the deaths of 700,000 Indonesians. Skipping over dozens of other examples, the families of the victims of the current drone campaigns could ask themselves that question, given the fact that the drone attacks are primarily directed at innocent civilians.

The fact is that these countries don't typically ask this question of "should we accept this?" After all, the Nicaraguan case is an excellent example that demonstrates that when the most powerful state in the world is the one carrying out atrocities, you simply have to accept it because the weak are not supposed to defend themselves against the powerful, as the Nicaraguan case shows.

Again, as I believe I addressed above, I do think that ISIS should be eliminated. They are a monstrous, horrific organization. With that in mind, I think they should be eliminated by those who are actually in a position to do so, and I don't think that that's unfeasible.

Your point that the US blew it in Iraq "by not leaving a reserve of soldiers to help stabilize the area" ignores the fact that the seeds of ISIS were sewn well before that point, mainly when the Bush Administration took the two central groups living in Iraq who had previously been living together relatively peacefully and set them against each other in an attempt to generate what would appear to outsiders as democracy-in-action. Then the US-run prison systems effectively became the place where mass organization took place. As The Guardian reported, a senior ISIS member noted how “We could never have all got together like this in Baghdad, or anywhere else. ... It would have been impossibly dangerous. Here, we were not only safe, but we were only a few hundred metres away from the entire al-Qaida leadership.” The fact is whether the military had remained in the country or not, the movement had been growing since the invasion of 2003.

Your discussion about Democratic failures is an interesting one. Clearly the problem goes beyond parties. But in my opinion, while I disagree with the actions and lament most bitterly the rise of horrible organizations like ISIS, I would not designate these policies failures. Failure would suggest that the action that was supposed to happen didn't happen. Or conversely that something that was not supposed to happen did happen. In reality, the rise of ISIS was predicted by the world's top experts on terrorism. In October of 2002, in the lead up to the Iraq war, the FBI observed “that a war with Iraq could trigger new domestic terrorism risks.” Meanwhile, Jean-Louis Bruguiere, “the leading French investigation magistrate in charge of counter-terrorism affairs,” observed that “Attacking Iraq would intensify Islamic terrorism, not reduce it.” The Bush Administration were aware that the invasion of Iraq would more than likely increase the risk of Islamic terrorism but that was of secondary concern to the goals of the invasion, which, given all of this, was plainly not to reduce the security threat posed by the country. In that case, that's not a failure, but correctly-predicted consequence of the invasion.

Furthermore, quite recently, Michael Flynn, a crucial military official in the War in Terror, pointed out that the US government was aware their counter-Assad policies would more than likely lead to the establishment of a "caliphate by Islamic extremist in Eastern Syria" as Glenn Greenwald concluded. And as Greenwald goes on to observe, that is "exactly what happened." Again, this is not a failure. This is precisely the consequences predicted by the policies that the government enacted.

So to sum up, yes, ISIS should be stopped but if there is a double standard at work, then the scourge of terrorism will not effectively be stopped at all. In fact, there would just be another threat, potentially a much worse one, waiting to fill the spot. Second, if anyone should stop ISIS, it should be those who are in a position to do so - both a pragmatic position and a moral position. And if that is the case then we have to begin to ask some very hard questions about who that should be.
CSM - there is an intense and immense amount of information here.  The key to this is how does it translate to the person going to the polls to make an informed decision to vote for the person most likely to start turning this around.  The US does not sanction nor support this behavior.  As far as what can be done, who knows?  What might be done is in the economic domain, as the West becomes more energy independent. Already there are some changes which is affecting their bottom line. It appears that there are policy changes that purportedly suggest that there is a forward look towards future economy that is not oil-dependent.  It may be all that forces change.  It also appears that there was some support for 9/11 and much of that which has followed.  

There are a certain amount of international relationships and cooperation which must be conducted as a world power just to have a dialogue among nations.  You cannot deal with countries that you cannot engage in discussion.  We had a long Cold War. But, it should not be a business-as-usual approach and quid pro quo among government figures or those who are connected to them, to barter either national resources or other products so long as there are the human rights violations that go on.  

We cannot change their culture which does not recognize women as equal.  Nor can we change their attitude with regard those who are gay.

NACARA - for immigration purposes was enacted in 1997, whatever the motivation, to provide relief from being deported, after an application is filed. There is no response to your 3rd paragraph with whatever military campaigns have been carried out by the US.  I am not defending those actions.  But in order to effectuate this, there is inner corruption within each of the regions to allow it.  Generally, it takes two to tango.  Those who carry out business with these countries must be done with scrutiny. And that might come down severely with American business but it shows a dynamic of complicity.  

ISIS or the J-V team as Obama called them, in a dismissive and cavalier approach to his military strategy not informed by military people but by those who would choke and stifle the effort in the Middle East.  Effort is a poor term.  Do we need all that opium from Afghanistan now that we have thousands dead from overdoses? What hand does Big Pharma have in this?  Who stands to lose an income stream if relations are cut off? Follow the money and the lobbyists.

How has this driven (and perpetuated) this war and who are the parties with the congressional influence to have this war continue?
There are war economies and disaster economies which the Clinton Foundation has exploited. (Clinton Cash movie.)

And I agree that it is more than a failure of one party.  The French intel was correct.  And the French would have joined but for a dirty secret I heard come from Bernard Kouchner, the head of Doctors without Borders (Médecins sans Frontiers) the week prior to the invasion at a seminar, at the Harvard School of Public Health...there was an oil deal with Russia and Total Fina Elf, and though apparently looking to support the Americans as a result of the WWII Nazi rescue, their hands were tied and would/could not participate.  

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/02/facts-on-who-benefits-from-keeping-sadaam-hussein-in-power

Even if based on humanitarian reasons, (which should have superseded any other pretext) the Bush invasion was entirely based on deception.  I do not disagree with the Iraq assessment. Bush knew and he did it anyway and Clinton backed this. Yes, this caliphate concept has been long-simmering...there should have been a trial in The Hague, (as should there be universal trials under International Criminal Codes, in my opinion) for Crimes Against Humanity. I did not agree with the Bush-court nonsense and execution.  It would have engendered more support to be under the scrutiny of other nations'  to present testimony concerning his war crimes.  It would have removed any indicia of a bag-job conviction by removing the trial to The Hague.  Same with Bin Laden. Take them alive and put them on trial in the international arena. Some nations do not trust the US and perhaps, rightfully so.      

There need to be economic changes where policy is not driven by those who are self-serving, with private interests.  I think people need to realize that most Americans are unaware of much of the chicanery that has taken place over time and may have a too-rosy image of the States.  Raising awareness is not easy.  People can understand corrupt email nonsense. But, they are not generally up-to-speed with foreign policy and how it has been policy-driven from business-driven, and now multi-national complex organizations.

The most powerful US policy is for the Middle East would be to be able to say..."We don't need your oil."  The oil need-dependency has driven much of this. Part of the solution I think is economic and does not require any old-world colonial empire basis.   I don't agree with the "take the oil" concept.  It belongs to that nation's people.    

If Saudi Arabia, Jordan (who had a pilot burned alive by ISIS) and others were resolved to rout these animals, it would happen quickly.  Everyone needs to stop ISIS. And we need to stop providing defense for countries who don't pay for it either monetarily or with armed forces support. Sweat equity works for me.  

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article-patrick-goodenough/us-pays-3b-un-more-185-other-countries-combined

Interesting discussion, CSM.  Wink

Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #1319 on: July 28, 2016, 08:13:17 AM »


Emily - do you really think that the initial period of time that a person resettles in another country is an easy one?

 Roll Eyes Of course not. What were we talking about? hmmm. The LEGAL immigration process and the notion that because YOUR parents followed that LEGAL process, that it's only fair that current immigrants do the same, which, as I've been saying, is a false analogy because the LEGAL process is different. It was much easier (the LEGAL process was much easier) for my grandparents and your father. But you can keep distracting with your father's travails that have nothing to do with the topic, if you like.
So, to follow your tangential trail. My mother's parents immigrated dirt poor from Ukraine. Separately; they met here. My grandmother got to France by foot and hitchhiking and taking buses when she could afford them. She took more than a year to get from home to France, taking odd jobs along the way. Then she lurked around until she could get work on a ship going to the US.
She never mastered English. She dug up and sold fish bait to get by during the depression. So waah waah waah hard times boo hoo hoo. But you know what? Her kids were white. Things turned around in one generation.

She had fewer immigration restrictions because of her ethnicity and there were no laws restricting what her kids could do based on her race. You are denying the impact of race when there were actual LAWS DISCRIMINATING BASED ON RACE.

Israel is a state based on a being a home for people of a single religion. How inappropriate is that for a model in the US?

Assimilate smashimilate. In New England there were French-language public schools for generations for the French Canadian diaspora. My mom grew up in an east European neighborhood. Scandinavians and Germans and Irish and Italians built their own neighborhoods that took many generations to assimilate. Some still haven't.
Seems assimilation becomes more important to a lot of Americans when the immigrants are brown.


Why are you suggesting that the Civil Rights movement should not have happened?  That is an outrageous statement. You dd not live during that time. You might have read about it in a book, according to the writer's interpretation.  Do you think that boomers were unaffected by inequality or were non-responsive?  It is that generation who acted on these issues and Vietnam.  


I have no idea what you're talking about here. I will say that my father and many of his friends were active in the civil rights movement so I didn't just "read about it in a book." Otherwise I have no idea what your point is here.
edit - and, this notion you have that you have to BE THERE to understand something might make sense intuitively, but it's actually not true. And, of course, people who "were there" usually understand things less than the people who learn about events academically, because when you're there you only perceive through your personal prism.

   
And, I would argue that it is improper to argue whether it is appropriate to discuss Christian immigrants but they are clearly being persecuted and singled out for persecution because of this "Crusader" dynamic and it is also true of Jewish people.  They are singled out for mass murder.  There are plenty of brown Christians and brown Jews. You appear to hung up on race and frame your argument in racial terms when race-neutrality is a goal, as is gender-neutrality.  People are people.  
Just pointing out another double standard. If race-neutrality is the goal, perhaps you should examine your double standards more closely to see how you are missing the goal.
Also, if it's two things, they are not being singled out. And Christians and Jews are not particularly being targeted, if you are talking about ISIS.


Julian Assange is persecuted as a rapist.
I would love for you to show me one email from the DNC that indicates criminality.

There are MORE aggravated felonies being committed by US citizens. Funny that all your talking points come from the party you don't consider "your party."
And once again, you are generalizing about immigrants. Should I do what you did?
How can you say all the immigrants commit aggravated felonies. That is generalizing and it is unacceptable. Most of them are just expats raising their children.
[/quote]
Emily - my parents are not immigrants - my grandparents are/were.  We are 3rd generation.  It is not a dissimilar experience to work one's way across a country to get where you want to be.  What difference is race where there is extreme hardship?  She was privileged?  I think not.  You are using race as a defense and a weapon. Race baiting is ugly.

The business of human trafficking(slave trading) was and is still business-driven. The whale oil industry is inextricably connected as is the tobacco farming industry, Caribbean island rum running, and the insurance industry who underwrote them. I don't hear you calling out the business that drove it and the complicity in the countries which engaged in trafficking human beings.  It was a cooperative effort, the job-description matching with the desire for free labor.  

And, I don't hear you calling out the London businessmen who kidnapped Irish girls, aged 13-16 for sex-ploitation and eventual death by 17 from TB or syphilis as written about in "Promenade dans Londres" by Flora Tristan. Slavery has been universal - and virtually no race has been excluded. It is no different from the underbelly you cite in Central America.  Slaves, in every skin hue. ISIS keeps slaves as well. Slavery is universally evil.  We don't need to pick and choose whose version is worse.
 
Those who came to the US are not to blame, nor should be guilted out by the old 70's commie revolutionaries whose theories you appear to espouse.  Are you blaming your poor-but-resourceful Ukranian grandma for your DNA? It disrespects her struggle.  

« Last Edit: July 28, 2016, 08:14:26 AM by filledeplage » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #1320 on: July 28, 2016, 08:42:06 AM »

Two words:  JILL STEIN.
That could be the curveball in this race. Jill Stein.  Wow.

After Bernie got the shaft, hundreds left the venue and it was not reported.  Some guy recorded, uploaded, commented, and now people are being bussed in to fill those seats left empty by Bernie's delegates. Nomiki Konst, a Sanders supporter and contributor to Fox, also reported seeing people bussed in to fill the seats.  In politics it is called "wallpaper."

https://you.tu.be/zGRo1mH2_8w

 
That video was made in the down time after the nomination and before the evening events. Dinner time. Look at the videos of the evening speeches. The place was packed.
http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/2016/07/26/87594288/

Delegates walk out of DNC in protest.
Yup. A few did. I didn't deny it. I was just pointing out that you were spreading a dishonest video that shows huge numbers of empty seats at dinner time claiming that that represents the walk out. But, again, if you look at videos from later in the evening, the place is full. So your first video is a gross exaggeration of the magnitude of the walk out.
No it is not dishonest.  It is not a gross exaggeration. In this matter, the camera does not lie, nor does the Facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/occupy-wall-st/dnc-walkout-qa/1186764278058001

Russia Today

https://www.rt.com/usa/353468-sanders-delegates-walk-out-dnc/

Dayton Daily News

http://www.daytondailynews.com/videos/news/dnc-bernie-supporters-walkout/vDq2dw/

The Daily Beast

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/07/26/bernie-supporters-walk-out-on-dnc.html?via=mobile&source-copyurl

Hillary Campaign Plans to shush Tongue Berniacs During Vote

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/201/07/26/hillary-campaign-plans-to-control-berniacs-during-vote.html

And, I disagree that the "dinner bell" caused the exodus.   Wink

This was wholly-orchestrated.

Bill gave a nice folksy speech last night.  Even he may not be able to rescue her.  (reminds me of a song - "Rescue me...")  LOL
Roll Eyes.
Again, straw man. Again, I didn't say some didn't protest. I said that the video you linked to lied about the magnitude.
And it did, because it showed the dinner time empty seats.
As I've said, look at the later video. It was a full house.
 Huh

PS. The estimates range from "a few dozen" to "a hundred, maybe a hundred and fifty".
NOT what is depicted in that video.

The DNC advertised on Craigslist for 700 Actors to fill empty convention seats.

https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2016/07/28/dnc-advertises-on-craiglist-for-700-actors-to-fill-empty-convention-seats/

Hill-arious!  LOL

Wonder if it gave SAG credits?  LOL
« Last Edit: July 28, 2016, 08:43:08 AM by filledeplage » Logged
thorgil
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 416


GREAT post, Rab!


View Profile
« Reply #1321 on: July 28, 2016, 08:43:05 AM »

FdP, thanks for further clarifying your ideas. I'm referring to the post ending with the reference to Emily's grandma.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2016, 08:50:00 AM by thorgil » Logged

DIT, DIT, DIT, HEROES AND VILLAINS...
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #1322 on: July 28, 2016, 08:53:52 AM »


Emily - do you really think that the initial period of time that a person resettles in another country is an easy one?

 Roll Eyes Of course not. What were we talking about? hmmm. The LEGAL immigration process and the notion that because YOUR parents followed that LEGAL process, that it's only fair that current immigrants do the same, which, as I've been saying, is a false analogy because the LEGAL process is different. It was much easier (the LEGAL process was much easier) for my grandparents and your father. But you can keep distracting with your father's travails that have nothing to do with the topic, if you like.
So, to follow your tangential trail. My mother's parents immigrated dirt poor from Ukraine. Separately; they met here. My grandmother got to France by foot and hitchhiking and taking buses when she could afford them. She took more than a year to get from home to France, taking odd jobs along the way. Then she lurked around until she could get work on a ship going to the US.
She never mastered English. She dug up and sold fish bait to get by during the depression. So waah waah waah hard times boo hoo hoo. But you know what? Her kids were white. Things turned around in one generation.

She had fewer immigration restrictions because of her ethnicity and there were no laws restricting what her kids could do based on her race. You are denying the impact of race when there were actual LAWS DISCRIMINATING BASED ON RACE.

Israel is a state based on a being a home for people of a single religion. How inappropriate is that for a model in the US?

Assimilate smashimilate. In New England there were French-language public schools for generations for the French Canadian diaspora. My mom grew up in an east European neighborhood. Scandinavians and Germans and Irish and Italians built their own neighborhoods that took many generations to assimilate. Some still haven't.
Seems assimilation becomes more important to a lot of Americans when the immigrants are brown.


Why are you suggesting that the Civil Rights movement should not have happened?  That is an outrageous statement. You dd not live during that time. You might have read about it in a book, according to the writer's interpretation.  Do you think that boomers were unaffected by inequality or were non-responsive?  It is that generation who acted on these issues and Vietnam.  


I have no idea what you're talking about here. I will say that my father and many of his friends were active in the civil rights movement so I didn't just "read about it in a book." Otherwise I have no idea what your point is here.
edit - and, this notion you have that you have to BE THERE to understand something might make sense intuitively, but it's actually not true. And, of course, people who "were there" usually understand things less than the people who learn about events academically, because when you're there you only perceive through your personal prism.

   
And, I would argue that it is improper to argue whether it is appropriate to discuss Christian immigrants but they are clearly being persecuted and singled out for persecution because of this "Crusader" dynamic and it is also true of Jewish people.  They are singled out for mass murder.  There are plenty of brown Christians and brown Jews. You appear to hung up on race and frame your argument in racial terms when race-neutrality is a goal, as is gender-neutrality.  People are people.  
Just pointing out another double standard. If race-neutrality is the goal, perhaps you should examine your double standards more closely to see how you are missing the goal.
Also, if it's two things, they are not being singled out. And Christians and Jews are not particularly being targeted, if you are talking about ISIS.


Julian Assange is persecuted as a rapist.
I would love for you to show me one email from the DNC that indicates criminality.

There are MORE aggravated felonies being committed by US citizens. Funny that all your talking points come from the party you don't consider "your party."
And once again, you are generalizing about immigrants. Should I do what you did?
How can you say all the immigrants commit aggravated felonies. That is generalizing and it is unacceptable. Most of them are just expats raising their children.
Emily - my parents are not immigrants - my grandparents are/were.  We are 3rd generation.  It is not a dissimilar experience to work one's way across a country to get where you want to be.  What difference is race where there is extreme hardship?  She was privileged?  I think not.  You are using race as a defense and a weapon. Race baiting is ugly.
Again, FdP, if the country that they immigrated to actually had laws discriminating based on race how can you deny that race is relevant? You call making reference to actual laws that encoded racial discrimination "using race as a defense and a weapon" and "race baiting". This is tantamount to saying we should lie about our history and pretend things were equal when they LEGALLY were not.  

I read a very interesting article yesterday about how conscious lying has entered our political discourse as a standard practice and I see many examples of this in this thread. There are statements repeated over and over in this thread though they've been proven, within the same thread, to be false. So if the person who said them didn't know they were untrue to begin with, by the time they repeated it, they did. But they made the conscious decision to lie. Perhaps they believe that repeating the lie will make it true. Perhaps they just enjoy muddying the conversation. I'm not sure. But you are actually lying here. You know there were laws in place enforcing race-based discrimination, yet you keep claiming that race had no impact. That can only be characterized as a lie. And then you use the tactic of shaming to try to get people not to say the truth.
This is a huge problem in our political discourse.

The business of human trafficking(slave trading) was and is still business-driven. The whale oil industry is inextricably connected as is the tobacco farming industry, Caribbean island rum running, and the insurance industry who underwrote them. I don't hear you calling out the business that drove it and the complicity in the countries which engaged in trafficking human beings.  It was a cooperative effort, the job-description matching with the desire for free labor.  

And, I don't hear you calling out the London businessmen who kidnapped Irish girls, aged 13-16 for sex-ploitation and eventual death by 17 from TB or syphilis as written about in "Promenade dans Londres" by Flora Tristan. Slavery has been universal - and virtually no race has been excluded. It is no different from the underbelly you cite in Central America.  Slaves, in every skin hue. ISIS keeps slaves as well. Slavery is universally evil.  We don't need to pick and choose whose version is worse.
 
Those who came to the US are not to blame, nor should be guilted out by the old 70's commie revolutionaries whose theories you appear to espouse.  Are you blaming your poor-but-resourceful Ukranian grandma for your DNA? It disrespects her struggle.  



Perhaps you haven't heard me calling those things out because they haven't been relevant to the topic.

"commie' lol.
And I have no disrespect for my grandmother's struggle. I also have respect for honesty.  And so did she. She wouldn't want me to deny that her family had better opportunities than others because of the ACTUAL REALITY of discriminatory laws.  She didn't like lies and she particularly didn't like it when people didn't acknowledge their advantages. In fact, a lie like that would've gotten me a good whack by her cane.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2016, 09:08:11 AM by Emily » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #1323 on: July 28, 2016, 09:02:44 AM »

Two words:  JILL STEIN.
That could be the curveball in this race. Jill Stein.  Wow.

After Bernie got the shaft, hundreds left the venue and it was not reported.  Some guy recorded, uploaded, commented, and now people are being bussed in to fill those seats left empty by Bernie's delegates. Nomiki Konst, a Sanders supporter and contributor to Fox, also reported seeing people bussed in to fill the seats.  In politics it is called "wallpaper."

https://you.tu.be/zGRo1mH2_8w

 
That video was made in the down time after the nomination and before the evening events. Dinner time. Look at the videos of the evening speeches. The place was packed.
http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/2016/07/26/87594288/

Delegates walk out of DNC in protest.
Yup. A few did. I didn't deny it. I was just pointing out that you were spreading a dishonest video that shows huge numbers of empty seats at dinner time claiming that that represents the walk out. But, again, if you look at videos from later in the evening, the place is full. So your first video is a gross exaggeration of the magnitude of the walk out.
No it is not dishonest.  It is not a gross exaggeration. In this matter, the camera does not lie, nor does the Facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/occupy-wall-st/dnc-walkout-qa/1186764278058001

Russia Today

https://www.rt.com/usa/353468-sanders-delegates-walk-out-dnc/

Dayton Daily News

http://www.daytondailynews.com/videos/news/dnc-bernie-supporters-walkout/vDq2dw/

The Daily Beast

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/07/26/bernie-supporters-walk-out-on-dnc.html?via=mobile&source-copyurl

Hillary Campaign Plans to shush Tongue Berniacs During Vote

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/201/07/26/hillary-campaign-plans-to-control-berniacs-during-vote.html

And, I disagree that the "dinner bell" caused the exodus.   Wink

This was wholly-orchestrated.

Bill gave a nice folksy speech last night.  Even he may not be able to rescue her.  (reminds me of a song - "Rescue me...")  LOL
Roll Eyes.
Again, straw man. Again, I didn't say some didn't protest. I said that the video you linked to lied about the magnitude.
And it did, because it showed the dinner time empty seats.
As I've said, look at the later video. It was a full house.
 Huh

PS. The estimates range from "a few dozen" to "a hundred, maybe a hundred and fifty".
NOT what is depicted in that video.

The DNC advertised on Craigslist for 700 Actors to fill empty convention seats.

https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2016/07/28/dnc-advertises-on-craiglist-for-700-actors-to-fill-empty-convention-seats/

Hill-arious!  LOL

Wonder if it gave SAG credits?  LOL
Your link doesn't go to anything but a page showing an obviously propagandist site, but nothing regarding craiglist.
And, again, this was another obvious attempt to spread a lie.
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #1324 on: July 28, 2016, 09:28:18 AM »

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/wow-dnc-advertisers-actors-fill-seats-dnc-convention/
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 48 49 50 51 52 [53] 54 55 56 57 58 ... 81   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.988 seconds with 22 queries.