"Stop calling groups of voters stupid”

by Guest Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:27 pm

To paraphrase the movie publicists, if you follow only one Twitter account in 2017, make it this one.
Chris Arnade is a former Wall Street bond trader who observed first-hand how the financial industry has screwed ordinary people. He now travels the US chronicling the stories of struggling people in left-behind communities.

Follow
Chris Arnade @Chris_arnade
[ltr]1. Let's hope 17 is year political writers/pundits stop calling groups of voters stupid or idiots. & understand how deeply offensive that is[/ltr]

1:39 PM - 2 Jan 2017

2 Jan
Chris Arnade @Chris_arnade

[ltr]5. Disagree on substance & outcomes. On how their views impact country as a whole. Don't disagree based on ugly characterization of a group[/ltr]

Follow
Chris Arnade @Chris_arnade
[ltr]6. One of my biggest disappointments of last year was seeing progressives (my group!) dismiss entire groups of voters as lesser.[/ltr]

2:02 PM - 2 Jan 2017

Follow
Chris Arnade @Chris_arnade
[ltr]7. Denying socio- eco context to entire groups. Imo going against everything progressives are supposed to be about: understanding ALL people[/ltr]

2:06 PM - 2 Jan 2017

Yes. I’ve seen and heard too many nominal progressives doing just this. The first step to winning majorities in coming elections is to stop doing it.

http://hurryupharry.org/2017/01/02/stop-calling-groups-of-voters-stupid/

by Original Quill Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:19 pm

I agree not all voters are stupid. Clinton received about 64.2 million votes to Trump's 62.2 million. Only 62.2 million are stupid.

by Guest Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:24 pm

Original Quill wrote:I agree not all voters are stupid. Clinton received about 64.2 million votes to Trump's 62.2 million. Only 62.2 million are stupid.

So are you saying anyone that makes a mistake is now per say stupid?
You effectively claiming intellect based off a single vote and nothing else.
Which has no foundation.

I did not want Trump to win who happens to be the biggest conman we have seen in history since Joseph Goebbels, but he bought into the fear factor when many on the left did not want to engage any of the public concerns. If they had of done and instead of calling them stupid, Trump would not be President.

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:28 pm

Thorin, stupid people really do exist, and most of them voted for Trump.

Funny thing is, most of them really have a problem with PC language, yet are so upset about the left calling it like it is.

by Guest Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:38 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:Thorin, stupid people really do exist, and most of them voted for Trump.

Funny thing is, most of them really have a problem with PC language, yet are so upset about the left calling it like it is.

But they will claim they are calling it as it is. So who is right?

If fear is the bases and with no foundation for the argument. Then who is right Ben?

It was not stupidity as to why people voted for Trump, but emotions. Fear based emotions and for the fact the left can and often do, try to deny real problems. If they spoke openly about issues/concerns and then reasoned better ways to solve these problems. Instead of pushing them to the side. Trump would never have been elected. He played off the fears people had and also a hell of a lot of lies. Thus playing to the very emotions of people. That does not make them stupid, just naive.

Hence the point of the article and why it is wrong to label people who just need real solutions to real problems in the world today.

by Original Quill Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:40 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:I agree not all voters are stupid. Clinton received about 64.2 million votes to Trump's 62.2 million. Only 62.2 million are stupid.

So are you saying anyone that makes a mistake is now per say stupid?
You effectively claiming intellect based off a single vote and nothing else.
Which has no foundation.

I did not want Trump to win who happens to be the biggest conman we have seen in history since Joseph Goebbels, but he bought into the fear factor when many on the left did not want to engage any of the public concerns. If they had of done and instead of calling them stupid, Trump would not be President.

My momma always said: Stupid is as stupid does.

62.2 million American people are demonstrably stupid.

by Guest Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:42 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

So are you saying anyone that makes a mistake is now per say stupid?
You effectively claiming intellect based off a single vote and nothing else.
Which has no foundation.

I did not want Trump to win who happens to be the biggest conman we have seen in history since Joseph Goebbels, but he bought into the fear factor when many on the left did not want to engage any of the public concerns. If they had of done and instead of calling them stupid, Trump would not be President.

My momma always said: Stupid is as stupid does.

62.2 million American people are demonstrably stupid.

If the consensus is that people are stupid for a belief. Where do you want to draw the line on gauging intelligence?

You also plagiarized that from the Forest Gump

by Guest Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:05 pm

What people need to ask themselves is this.

As seen above people are also allowing emotions more than reason to get the better of them by their answers. This is easily explained.

You do not help change views by calling someone stupid for their mistakes. If we taught our children every time they did something we saw as wrong, stupid. We would ultimately fail as their teachers. The best way we can parent is to guide our children and to allow them to decide for themselves. Like the article states, it goes against every progressive principle to class people stupid for their mistakes and yet as seen here the left are doing this.

I don't class either Ben and Quill stupid for their responses. Far from it, they clearly are both intelligent but being easily drawn into making poor emotional responses. Instead of reasoned ones. We explain to a child why someone is wrong with reason not emotions. So even if you think someone is stupid, how is calling them stupid going to achieve any change?

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:16 pm

I agree that it doesn't help to call people stupid, but on the other hand, I don't really care how they feel because they hurl names at the left constantly. They should at least be able to take what they dish out.

by Guest Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:25 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:I agree that it doesn't help to call people stupid, but on the other hand, I don't really care how they feel because they hurl names at the left constantly. They should at least be able to take what they dish out.

They often do not take what is dished out, but who is the better person if you respond in kind?

Nobody

If the view to change was based on beating down people with insults. Then negative emotions triumphs over reasons. When it is reason that has always triumphed over hate. Hence why we have seen so much progression. To pander to those who are led by hate to succumb to their hate. Plays into their hands. You end up doing what you most fear. End up hating yourself.

I have come to learn that when light heated humour and reason is used, those like the regressive Far Left and the Alt-Right cannot handle this. They end up being more and more insulting and come off looking conditioned to what they have read and not able to think for themselves.

I do not agree with some things on the left and right. I try to find middle ground and for the greater good of people through compromise. History has shown that it is reason that has helped bring about progression. Not tit for tat hate.

by nicko Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:35 pm

Over 17 million people in Britain have been called stupid because they voted for Brexit, Bit like you are on about ----yes?

by Guest Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:42 pm

nicko wrote:Over 17 million people in Britain have been called stupid because they voted for Brexit, Bit like you are on about ----yes?

Does not make them stupid people, as how can it?
They may well have made a stupid mistake by voting Brexit and only time will tell.
That again does not make them stupid per say.
They may end up also having made the right decision and been actually clever, only time will tell.

I myself think to leave the EU is a mistake, more so based on defense, security and our economy etc.

Now for a fact, not all people who voted for Brexit our racists and once I thought that those who are racists, a percentage of Brexit voters did. This was in error. We have a percentage of remainers who are racists against Jews who did not vote for Brexit. Which shows how perceptions can be wrong. People did vote on Brexit more so with emotions again than reason in the main.

by eddie Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:30 pm

Perhaps "stupid" is the wrong word. Perhaps "misguided" is more apt.

by Guest Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:38 pm

eddie wrote:Perhaps "stupid" is the wrong word. Perhaps "misguided" is more apt.

Better, if as long as its backed up with sound reason and not negative emotions.
Something is only misguided often based on hindsight, but it can be predicted as being misguided with again sound reason. Though you would not attempt to even claim they are misguided with such reasoning before its outcome. When our own reasoning can end up being wrong. So even misguided should not be applied to the actual decision or vote for example, but aspects that have led to that the decision or the path we have chosen can be reasoned, as being misguided.

by eddie Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:40 pm

There was something I posted up that had a similar message to this, it was a video....I'll try and find it

by eddie Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:42 pm

Here it is

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t18569-president-trump-the-left-are-to-blame

by Guest Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:46 pm

eddie wrote:Here it is

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t18569-president-trump-the-left-are-to-blame

That is hindsight though Eddie and also reasoned perceptions

Some good points made but its not the full picture.

Clearly other aspects played a part.

For one, the campaign against Clinton, fake news, the expose of the emails that split the democrat vote of Clinton and Sanders supporters, but he makes some telling points. That did play a part on those fueled by fear and how the Center ( the Democrats are not left wing) failed to address them.

by Original Quill Sat Jan 07, 2017 2:55 am

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

My momma always said: Stupid is as stupid does.

62.2 million American people are demonstrably stupid.

If the consensus is that people are stupid for a belief. Where do you want to draw the line on gauging intelligence?

You also plagiarized that from the Forest Gump

Yeah...I meant to plagiarize the phrase from the film.

I don't believe in intelligence...I believe the mind is like any other muscle or organ, use it or lose it. People that we call unintelligent are really only lazy.

There are ways of disciplining oneself to be unstupid: purge selfishness; have reasons for claims; look to substance rather than metaphysics; never be satisfied with an answer; and never, never just get swept along with the currents of the mob.

That last one is what I feel infected the Trump movement...people just were willing to fall for anything loud enough, iconoclastic enough, rude enough, and destructive enough. There's a reason why a child destroys all his toys, and that is what we saw in the last election. It was a response...and you have to understand what it was a response to.

It was a response to all of the betrayals felt by pussy-grabber's supporters. A war predicated on lies, complete with kidnapping, rape, torture, murder and concentration camps...and this time we were the Germans. A president who is black...and America has never reconciled with it's own racism...My Gawd! A near miss with the next Great Depression...with a black president being the one who saved us. Repeated violence in a society that won't forgo their love of killing toys. A society that draws the pc line just once too often. People whose parents never taught them character, just start breaking everything in the toy box.

After a while these people want to throw away thinking, and say fook it. So they do. There's stupidity in their very rejection of intelligence...kinda self-admitted, wouldn't you say? I'm done thinking...I'm going to destroy my toys for a while. But it's also stupidity in my assessment...as in, the opposite of intelligence. It's stupidity in the results they will reap. And finally, it's stupidity like the world was when it went into the dark ages. Ya know...rejecting the mind as an instrument of survival.

How many ways...let me count them...

by Guest Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:08 am

You are being as emotive as Trump supporters in your response

You offer no reason but emotions

Look at your answers, its anger.

What does that achieve?

How does anyone learn from your reply, other than you are angry at how people have become conditioned?

Is that not your own failing here?

Look at the language you use to describe people and even worse in a sexist derogatory notion. I take that as you must come from an older generation than I , with the pussy term. Or more gun ho American.

You are not showing signs of intelligence here, just anger and showing that anger on people who had different beliefs to you.

That is no different to those who hate say for example Muslims.

You then use further emotive language based around conflict. When people die in conflict, but you then invoke the worst crimes as if they were endemic in Iraq. Which is also fabricated. Look where inaction has gotten the US over Syria?

Hundred of thousands dead and millions displaced that dwarfs anything like Iraq. Weigh up the options here. Inaction here through fear of upsetting Muslims has ended up killing far more Muslims through real stupidity. One that claims that not helping people suffering genocide is not that nations problem.

Its no good excusing this inaction off past mistakes.
How can it be a mistake to rid someone like Saddam, who was instrumental in the deaths of 500,000 of his own people let alone the hundreds of thousands dead in the war with Iran?

Its like saying, that allowing Hitler to maintain power would have saved lives. Its not only absurd but is blaming hundreds of thousands of deaths on the US for freeing the Iraqi people. When they never caused this. Iran and Saudi did, in a proxy war. Should we have taken this position in Bosnia as you suggest?

Remember, Saddam, was a mass murderer.

You are only offering up to me emotions

by Original Quill Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:11 am

Ben Reilly wrote:I agree that it doesn't help to call people stupid, but on the other hand, I don't really care how they feel because they hurl names at the left constantly. They should at least be able to take what they dish out.

My gawd...you took the words right out of my mouth. I don't care...I'm not trying to be constructive in any way. It's not just that the pussy-grabbers hurl names...it's that you can't care when you are the only one who cares. "Stop calling groups of voters stupid” 2190311264

"Stop calling groups of voters stupid” 2190311264

America has been reduced to the level of the McConnell-Boehner doctrine: root for America to fail as long as the other side is in power. If you try to rise above that level, you're just being a loser.

by Guest Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:14 am

Original Quill wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:I agree that it doesn't help to call people stupid, but on the other hand, I don't really care how they feel because they hurl names at the left constantly. They should at least be able to take what they dish out.

My gawd...you took the words right out of my mouth. I don't care...I'm not trying to be constructive in any way. It's not just that the pussy-grabbers hurl names...it's that you can't care when you are the only one who cares.

America has been reduced to the level of the McConnell-Boehner doctrine: root for America to fail as long as the other side is in power. If you try to rise above that level, you're just being a loser.

Then by the above, you have become, what you most fear

You have succumbed to emotions, negative emotions.

Do you teach children that they are stupid when they are wrong?

If the answer is yes, then I suggest, you are out of touch with reality

Slavery never ended by cussing people.

It ended with reason

by Original Quill Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:22 am

Thorin wrote:You are being as emotive as Trump supporters in your response

You offer no reason but emotions

Look at your answers, its anger.

What does that achieve?

O my gawd...a grandmotherly psychologist.

I know much better than you what I'm feeling...and what America needs. It needs surgery. And in order to perform surgery, you must cut...that is, do damage to the tissue to get inside.

America needs to fail. We need to let the division started by Trump go full course...and allow the collapse. Liberals need to let things happen so that the pussy-grabbers see the consequences. No more Obama to save the nation from the next great depression... the American auto industry... end the wars... get bin Laden. This time the surgery must be to allow the collapse. Only in failure can we rebuild.

What Obama has allowed is for the pussy-grabbers to avoid their own consequences. As Benb points out, they only continue to lie, avoid logic, and betray themselves. It's typical liberal pablum, letting that happen. It's time for a little tough-love for them.

It ain't gonna get better without surgery.

by Original Quill Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:28 am

Thorin wrote:Look where inaction has gotten the US over Syria?

Who the fook gives a damn about Syria? It's half a world away, and what goes on there is none of our business. For sure, America is not going to stand for another foreign adventure that allows generals to test their toys, and capitalists to make their money, on nothing but an enterprise of killing babies. My taxes won't go to it, and our children won't enlist for it. We are at the end of America's limits.

Send them a stern letter and be done with it.

by Guest Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:29 am

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:You are being as emotive as Trump supporters in your response

You offer no reason but emotions

Look at your answers, its anger.

What does that achieve?

O my gawd...a grandmotherly psychologist.

I know much better than you what I'm feeling...and what America needs. It needs surgery. And in order to perform surgery, you must cut...that is, do damage to the tissue to get inside.

America needs to fail. We need to let the division started by Trump go full course...and allow the collapse. Liberals need to let things happen so that the pussy-grabbers see the consequences. No more Obama to save the nation from the next great depression... the American auto industry... end the wars... get bin Laden. This time the surgery must be to allow the collapse. Only in failure can we rebuild.

What Obama has allowed is for the pussy-grabbers to avoid their own consequences. As Benb points out, they only continue to lie, avoid logic, and betray themselves. It's typical liberal pablum, letting that happen. It's time for a little tough-love for them.

It ain't gonna get better without surgery.

ad hominem

When you want to debate my points. Then let me know

Really not interested in dick measuring

by Guest Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:30 am

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:Look where inaction has gotten the US over Syria?

Who the fook gives a damn about Syria? It's half a world away, and what goes on there is none of our business. For sure, America is not going to stand for another foreign adventure that allows generals to test their toys, and capitalists to make their money, on nothing but an enterprise of killing babies.

Send them a stern letter and be done with it.

So you then do not care about genocide

So answer my question on Bosnia?

by Original Quill Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:34 am

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Who the fook gives a damn about Syria? It's half a world away, and what goes on there is none of our business. For sure, America is not going to stand for another foreign adventure that allows generals to test their toys, and capitalists to make their money, on nothing but an enterprise of killing babies.

Send them a stern letter and be done with it.

So you then do not care about genocide

So answer my question on Bosnia?

It's not that I don't care about genocide. It's that we can't do anything about it. America is not this unlimited commodity. We are at the end of the limits. The lies that got us there...we cannot afford. We cannot afford another $17-trillion debt. We cannot sacrifice our children anymore. We cannot afford another great depression such as we faced in October, 2008. It's over.

by Guest Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:38 am

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

So you then do not care about genocide

So answer my question on Bosnia?

It's not that I don't care about genocide. It's that we can't do anything about it. America is not this unlimited commodity. We are at the end of the limits. The lies that got us there...we cannot afford. We cannot afford another $17-trillion debt. We cannot sacrifice our children anymore. We cannot afford another great depression such as we faced in October, 2008. It's over.

But that is a fabrication

We stopped the genocide from being far worse in Bosnia.

So you do not care about all Humans and are only thinking like a nationalist

Only care for Americans then?

You are ending up allowing for the murder of thousands of children everyday by your naviety

by Original Quill Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:42 am

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

O my gawd...a grandmotherly psychologist.

I know much better than you what I'm feeling...and what America needs. It needs surgery. And in order to perform surgery, you must cut...that is, do damage to the tissue to get inside.

America needs to fail. We need to let the division started by Trump go full course...and allow the collapse. Liberals need to let things happen so that the pussy-grabbers see the consequences. No more Obama to save the nation from the next great depression... the American auto industry... end the wars... get bin Laden. This time the surgery must be to allow the collapse. Only in failure can we rebuild.

What Obama has allowed is for the pussy-grabbers to avoid their own consequences. As Benb points out, they only continue to lie, avoid logic, and betray themselves. It's typical liberal pablum, letting that happen. It's time for a little tough-love for them.

It ain't gonna get better without surgery.

ad hominem

When you want to debate my points. Then let me know

Really not interested in dick measuring

And how ad hominem are you being?

Thorin wrote:You are being as emotive as Trump supporters in your response

Pretty ad hominem, eh? If you're going to be pious, you'd better have clean hands.

by Guest Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:43 am

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

ad hominem

When you want to debate my points. Then let me know

Really not interested in dick measuring

And how ad hominem are you being?

Thorin wrote:You are being as emotive as Trump supporters in your response

Pretty ad hominem, eh? If you're going to be pious, you'd better have clean hands.

Your answers are being emotive

That is not saying you are emotive

Poor reasoning

So again go back and answer my points and stop evading

by Original Quill Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:49 am

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

It's not that I don't care about genocide. It's that we can't do anything about it. America is not this unlimited commodity. We are at the end of the limits. The lies that got us there...we cannot afford. We cannot afford another $17-trillion debt. We cannot sacrifice our children anymore. We cannot afford another great depression such as we faced in October, 2008. It's over.

But that is a fabrication

We stopped the genocide from being far worse in Bosnia.

We did nothing in Bosnia. Sensible people were in charge, and we didn't go in with a blunderbuss.

Thorin wrote:So you do not care about all Humans and are only thinking like a nationalist

Only care for Americans then?

You are ending up allowing for the murder of thousands of children everyday by your naviety

You can only do so much.

What do you suggest? More guns? More weddings bombed? More babies killed? I'm pretty sure your not thinking of going in with warm puppies and candy for the kids. So yeah...you are going to stop the genocide by adding more genocide. Logical. Rolling Eyes

IT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM! There's nothing there that more guns are going to fix, and we need to stay out.

by Original Quill Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:52 am

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

And how ad hominem are you being?

Pretty ad hominem, eh? If you're going to be pious, you'd better have clean hands.

Your answers are being emotive

That is not saying you are emotive

Poor reasoning

So again go back and answer my points and stop evading

Ad hominem This is not about me. Or, if you want to change the subject and make it about me, I'll accept that I won and go to bed.

by Guest Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:53 am

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

But that is a fabrication

We stopped the genocide from being far worse in Bosnia.

We did nothing in Bosnia. Sensible people were in charge, and we didn't go in with a blunderbuss.

Thorin wrote:So you do not care about all Humans and are only thinking like a nationalist

Only care for Americans then?

You are ending up allowing for the murder of thousands of children everyday by your naviety

You can only do so much.

What do you suggest? More guns? More weddings bombed? More babies killed? I'm pretty sure your not thinking of going in with warm puppies and candy for the kids. So yeah...you are going to stop the genocide by adding more genocide. Logical.

IT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM! There's nothing there that more guns are going to fix, and we need to stay out.

So you are a nationalist and only think of caring for your own people with the borders of your country.

We are one human species

The US played a huge part in stopping the genocide, which the hate brigade of the Islamist world easily forgets. You are being no different from Trump and Brexit supporters, who want to only look out for the people in their countries. 11 million children die each year. So by your view, we should never give aid to countries that need help or those that are starving or need medical aid?

Yes?

You say its not your problem? Since when di you represent the human race?

by Guest Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:54 am

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Your answers are being emotive

That is not saying you are emotive

Poor reasoning

So again go back and answer my points and stop evading

Ad hominem This is not about me. Or, if you want to change the subject and make it about me, I'll accept that I won and go to bed.

If you think you have won, give yourself a pat on the back

I will however just point out your continued deflections from the point at hand

You have still have not addressed my original points

by Original Quill Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:14 am

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

We did nothing in Bosnia. Sensible people were in charge, and we didn't go in with a blunderbuss.

You can only do so much.

What do you suggest? More guns? More weddings bombed? More babies killed? I'm pretty sure your not thinking of going in with warm puppies and candy for the kids. So yeah...you are going to stop the genocide by adding more genocide. Logical.

IT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM! There's nothing there that more guns are going to fix, and we need to stay out.

So you are a nationalist and only think of caring for your own people with the borders of your country.

No, I'm a realist. There's simply nothing we can do. All we can do is murder, rape, torture and put more people in concentration camps...all things we did in Iraq. I think that's a waste of money, and lives.

There are simply certain things that we just can't stop. Earthquakes? Floods? A huge fire? If those people want to waste their own kind, I'm realistic enough to acknowledge that we can't do anything more than add to the fire. So...stay out.

Theron wrote:We are one human species

The US played a huge part in stopping the genocide, which the hate brigade of the Islamist world easily forgets. You are being no different from Trump and Brexit supporters, who want to only look out for the people in their countries. 11 million children die each year. So by your view, we should never give aid to countries that need help or those that are starving or need medical aid?

Yes?

You say its not your problem? Since when di you represent the human race?

And you think your argument is being logical?

For half a century we've lived with the myth that weapons designed to create death are actually shields of life. It's a fabrication. All I am doing is, like, telling you the earth is not flat. I'm bringing truth and reality to your world. YOU CAN'T KILL...AND EXPECT TO STOP THE KILLING.

It follows that if we go into a war zone with more weapons of death, we are only going to kill...not shield anyone. It's time we put that myth to sleep. You can't stop the fire...and you sure are not going to stop it by throwing more fuel on it.

by Original Quill Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:19 am

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Ad hominem This is not about me. Or, if you want to change the subject and make it about me, I'll accept that I won and go to bed.

If you think you have won, give yourself a pat on the back

I will however just point out your continued deflections from the point at hand

You have still have not addressed my original points

Ad hominem. Get back to the point or go to sleep.

by Guest Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:20 am

Original Quill wrote:

No, I'm a realist. There's simply nothing we can do. All we can do is murder, rape, torture and put more people in concentration camps. I think that's a waste of money, and lives.

There are simply certain things that we just can't stop. Earthquakes? Floods? A huge fire? If those people want to waste their own kind, I'm realistic enough to acknowledge that we can't do anything more than add to the fire. So...stay out.

And you think your argument is being logical?

For half a century we've lived with the myth that weapons designed to create death are actually shields of life. It's a fabrication. All I am doing is, like, telling you the earth is not flat. I'm bring truth and reality to your world. YOU CAN'T KILL...AND EXPECT TO STOP THE KILLING.

It follows that if we go into a war zone with more weapons of death, we are only going to kill...not shield anyone. It's time we put that myth to sleep. You can't stop the fire...and you sure are not going to stop it by throwing more fuel on it.

We can stop wars because the US, along with Nato and the EU can
So your point falls at the first hurdle
How on earth do you think he US invaded Iraq?

The point still stands

Your inaction kills far more babies than you think bombs do

Genocide and war in Syria has led to over half a million dead, and 2 million wounded and 9 million displaced.
The later of which has led to the rise of dissention in the EU and could quite possible end up seeing its collapse.

So your deflection on war is not only shortsightd but by the very means of doing nothing, ensures the increase of human death. Not only by war in these conflicts, but by the fact we sit by and watch how thousands starve to death

So your inaction is ending up killing a hundred times more people and ensuring popularity for the right.

by Guest Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:20 am

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

If you think you have won, give yourself a pat on the back

I will however just point out your continued deflections from the point at hand

You have still have not addressed my original points

Ad hominem. Get back to the point or go to sleep.

Ad hominem again

by Original Quill Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:38 am

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

No, I'm a realist. There's simply nothing we can do. All we can do is murder, rape, torture and put more people in concentration camps. I think that's a waste of money, and lives.

There are simply certain things that we just can't stop. Earthquakes? Floods? A huge fire? If those people want to waste their own kind, I'm realistic enough to acknowledge that we can't do anything more than add to the fire. So...stay out.

And you think your argument is being logical?

For half a century we've lived with the myth that weapons designed to create death are actually shields of life. It's a fabrication. All I am doing is, like, telling you the earth is not flat. I'm bring truth and reality to your world. YOU CAN'T KILL...AND EXPECT TO STOP THE KILLING.

It follows that if we go into a war zone with more weapons of death, we are only going to kill...not shield anyone. It's time we put that myth to sleep. You can't stop the fire...and you sure are not going to stop it by throwing more fuel on it.

We can stop wars because the US, along with Nato and the EU can
So your point falls at the first hurdle
How on earth do you think he US invaded Iraq?

By use of a lie about WMD's in Iraq. It's the only way that the capitalists could get the oil. That issue simply makes my point: look what we got. We bought more trouble than we could afford. The other team did it, but look...they brought us to the second Great Depression in October 2008. They made us into kidnappers, rapists, murderers and concentration camp keepers. They unleashed the next iteration of racism and world genocide in awakening the Muslim civil war.

Do you realize that we had to LIE TO START A WAR? Most people can do that with no trouble at all. At least Trump won't have to lie...he's openly saying he's going in to get the oil.

Thorin wrote:The point still stands

Your inaction kills far more babies than you think bombs do

I don't have a weapon. Primarily, it's because I could only use it to kill. I don't kill. What were you saying about my inaction?

Thorin wrote:Genocide and war in Syria has led to over half a million dead, and 2 million wounded and 9 million displaced.
The later of which has led to the rise of dissention in the EU and could quite possible end up seeing its collapse.

So your deflection on war is not only shortsightd but by the very means of doing nothing, ensures the increase of human death. Not only by war in these conflicts, but by the fact we sit by and watch how thousands starve to death

So your inaction is ending up killing a hundred times more people and ensuring popularity for the right.

And this was not even an earthquake. This was a man-made disaster, in opening up wounds that are 1,200-years old. Yesterday it was al-Qaeda, the day before, the Taliban, now it's ISIL and Syria...these are only the little fires. You can stop them, but it's like trying to catch the bubbles in a pot of boiling water. If you do get one, so what...there are hundreds more cropping up all around.

The source of this fire are the seething divisions within the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. I don't think you want to kill all of them.

by Guest Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:49 am

Let me give you a little history lesson Quill.

When there was originally peaceful protests in Syria and the world could have done something. Obama, who will go down as the best domestic President and the worst foreign policy. Bowed down to Putin aggression. Just as happened within the Crimea. If he US, the UN (who spend all their time bashing Israel) had of supported and called for independent elections and forced Russia to back down. There would still be hundreds of thousands of Syrians alive today. Obama failed them and his action led to thousands of people murdered.

Not only that, but millions displaced. Obama was weak against Putin and bowed down to aggression. Which the knock on effects has seen millions displaced and seen the EU on he brink of collapse. Hardly any would have been displaced, if the world had of reacted.

Inaction led o the suffering of millions of lives and an influx off this crisis of hundreds of thousands of migrants jump on the refugee bandwagon from Syrian. The US fought for its own independence and now has sat by whilst the Russians gain control. With manipulating who obtains power. In their favour. Action then, would have saved thousands.

Yes Bush lied to start a war, against a person responsible for genocide. The US rid him and what thanks did they get? The Saudi's and Iran, use the area for a proxy war. Of which Iran gained control. So the lie was wrong to go to war with Iraq, but there is zero arguments against removing saddam. Unless you think those suffered under him through murder and persecution. Should have continued. The reality is the number of deaths from US bombing in Iraq is minuscule. A few hundred. The thousands were caused by the insurrection caused by Iran and Saudi

So your earthquake is nothing more than misdirection and you have still not answered my points. Your reasoning has allowed half a million dead by inaction and more to follow.

Night

by Original Quill Sat Jan 07, 2017 5:03 am

Thorin wrote:Let me give you a little history lesson Quill.

When there was originally peaceful protests in Syria and the world could have done something. Obama, who will go down as the best domestic President and the worst foreign policy. Bowed down to Putin aggression. Just as happened within the Crimea. If he US, the UN (who spend all their time bashing Israel) had of supported and called for independent elections and forced Russia to back down. There would still be hundreds of thousands of Syrians alive today. Obama failed them and his action led to thousands of people murdered.

Not only that, but millions displaced. Obama was weak against Putin and bowed down to aggression. Which the knock on effects has seen millions displaced and seen the EU on he brink of collapse. Hardly any would have been displaced, if the world had of reacted.

Inaction led o the suffering of millions of lives and an influx off this crisis of hundreds of thousands of migrants jump on the refugee bandwagon from Syrian. The US fought for its own independence and now has sat by whilst the Russians gain control. With manipulating who obtains power. In their favour. Action then, would have saved thousands.

Yes Bush lied to start a war, against a person responsible for genocide. The US rid him and what thanks did they get? The Saudi's and Iran, use the area for a proxy war. Of which Iran gained control. So the lie was wrong to go to war with Iraq, but there is zero arguments against removing saddam. Unless you think those suffered under him through murder and persecution. Should have continued. The reality is the number of deaths from US bombing in Iraq is minuscule. A few hundred. The thousands were caused by the insurrection caused by Iran and Saudi

So your earthquake is nothing more than misdirection and you have still not answered my points. Your reasoning has allowed half a million dead by inaction and more to follow.

Night

Your long history lesson is a little short on knowledge of the law. Under Article I of the US Constitution, only Congress can initiate a war. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, U.S. Constitution. President Obama has had a Syrian war bill on the desk of Congress since 2013. The Republicans have refused to sign it, or even call it up for a vote. Dr. Obama is a constitutional scholar who teaches Law at the University of Chicago, not some buckaroo Republican who lies to start wars.

All of your misgivings about those Syrian babies that have been killed? Put them on the door step of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker John Boehner. Obama never got the chance to help them.

by Guest Sat Jan 07, 2017 7:32 am

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:Let me give you a little history lesson Quill.

When there was originally peaceful protests in Syria and the world could have done something. Obama, who will go down as the best domestic President and the worst foreign policy. Bowed down to Putin aggression. Just as happened within the Crimea. If he US, the UN (who spend all their time bashing Israel) had of supported and called for independent elections and forced Russia to back down. There would still be hundreds of thousands of Syrians alive today. Obama failed them and his action led to thousands of people murdered.

Not only that, but millions displaced. Obama was weak against Putin and bowed down to aggression. Which the knock on effects has seen millions displaced and seen the EU on he brink of collapse. Hardly any would have been displaced, if the world had of reacted.

Inaction led o the suffering of millions of lives and an influx off this crisis of hundreds of thousands of migrants jump on the refugee bandwagon from Syrian. The US fought for its own independence and now has sat by whilst the Russians gain control. With manipulating who obtains power. In their favour. Action then, would have saved thousands.

Yes Bush lied to start a war, against a person responsible for genocide. The US rid him and what thanks did they get? The Saudi's and Iran, use the area for a proxy war. Of which Iran gained control. So the lie was wrong to go to war with Iraq, but there is zero arguments against removing saddam. Unless you think those suffered under him through murder and persecution. Should have continued. The reality is the number of deaths from US bombing in Iraq is minuscule. A few hundred. The thousands were caused by the insurrection caused by Iran and Saudi

So your earthquake is nothing more than misdirection and you have still not answered my points. Your reasoning has allowed half a million dead by inaction and more to follow.

Night

Your long history lesson is a little short on knowledge of the law. Under Article I of the US Constitution, only Congress can initiate a war. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, U.S. Constitution. President Obama has had a Syrian war bill on the desk of Congress since 2013. The Republicans have refused to sign it, or even call it up for a vote. Dr. Obama is a constitutional scholar who teaches Law at the University of Chicago, not some buckaroo Republican who lies to start wars.

All of your misgivings about those Syrian babies that have been killed? Put them on the door step of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker John Boehner. Obama never got the chance to help them.

And again my points are evaded

Who cares about the unconstitutional American system?

It elected Trump with a minority in popularity

Enough said

Obama sentenced hundreds of thousands of Syrians to death through his appeasement of Putin and Iran
As that bill did not allow for the use of ground forces, making he bill redundant and the fact it was two years into the conflict. It called for limited military uses up to 60 days of air strikes. That would have not saved many lives at all.

Now be a good chap and answer the points raised

If not, then stop wasting my time with completely poor deflections

The main point is that the writer of the opening article is 100% correct in what is wrong with some progressives today. They are not liberal's but illiberal's. I mean to even whitewash genocide in Syria as you did, then backtrack onto Obama, says it all. As to you its not the US's problem, reeks of nationalism. Where even worse you think you speak for millions of Americans. You are one of the reasons as to why Trump won the election it seems. Try learning from your mistakes and take on board some good advice

by Original Quill Sat Jan 07, 2017 11:53 am

Thorin wrote:And again my points are evaded

Who cares about the unconstitutional American system?

It elected Trump with a minority in popularity

Enough said

Yes, America is not a democracy. It is, however, a nation of laws.

If you want lawlessness, you've got an uphill climb. All those laws that Republicans love--for example, outlawing abortion--would be impossible because people would ignore them.

If you want to ignore the Constitution, others do not. You have no basis for criticism, when you have nothing to replace it. In fact, you have no basis for criticism at all. Those who follow the law do so by their choice. If you don't like it, that's your personal choice.

by Guest Sat Jan 07, 2017 11:58 am

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:And again my points are evaded

Who cares about the unconstitutional American system?

It elected Trump with a minority in popularity

Enough said

Yes, America is not a democracy. It is, however, a nation of laws.

If you want lawlessness, you've got an uphill climb. All those laws that Republicans love--for example, outlawing abortion--would be impossible because people would ignore them.

If you want to ignore the Constitution, others do not. You have no basis for criticism, when you have nothing to replace it.

All irrelevant.
The US has already stated intervened before. It was fear of a nucleon Iran and Putin, that Obama cowered from acting over. Also the unfounded fear helping Syrians, with ground forces, would create more Islamic extremism. Which is absurd, when as seen we helped Muslims before in Bosnia. Like I say Obama will go down as a great domestic President, but one of the worst foreign policy wise. US laws need changing by the fact it allows for someone with a minority of votes to become President in a national vote. I would start by redefining old out of date laws on your constitution.

by Original Quill Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:09 pm

Thorin wrote:Obama sentenced hundreds of thousands of Syrians to death through his appeasement of Putin and Iran As that bill did not allow for the use of ground forces, making he bill redundant and the fact it was two years into the conflict. It called for limited military uses up to 60 days of air strikes. That would have not saved many lives at all.

It was a WAR BILL! If Republicans wanted to negotiate the terms, there are ways and every legislator knows how.

The fact is that the Republicans didn't want to do anything that the black president proposed. So...they stalled the only hope that the Syrian babies had of living.

You just can't slide out of it. It's not a word game when babies are being killed. Republicans--who controlled Congress--under the McConnell-Boehner doctrine were willing to sell out America for the sake of party, why not foreign babies? I think it's a bit disingenuous to play obstructionism and then claim it's someone else's fault when something didn't get done.

Sorry, when the door is bolted and locked, you can't simply say you should have been on the other side. If Obama had ignored the Constitution, do you not think it would have been grounds for impeachment? Do you not think Republicans--who would do anything to see a black president fail--would not jump at the chance to bring impeachment up?

This goes right to the doorstep of the Republican Party.

by Guest Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:15 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:Obama sentenced hundreds of thousands of Syrians to death through his appeasement of Putin and Iran As that bill did not allow for the use of ground forces, making he bill redundant and the fact it was two years into the conflict. It called for limited military uses up to 60 days of air strikes. That would have not saved many lives at all.

It was a WAR BILL! If Republicans wanted to negotiate the terms, there are ways and every legislator knows how.

The fact is that the Republicans didn't want to do anything that the black president proposed. So...they stalled the only hope that the Syrian babies had of living.

You just can't slide out of it. It's not a word game when babies are being killed. Republicans--who controlled Congress--under the McConnell-Boehner doctrine were willing to sell out America for the sake of party, why not foreign babies? I think it's a bit disingenuous to play obstructionism and then claim it's someone else's fault when something didn't get done.

Sorry, when the door is bolted and locked, you can't simply say you should have been on the other side. If Obama had ignored the Constitution, do you not think it would have been grounds for impeachment? Do you not think Republicans--who would do anything to see a black president fail--would not jump at the chance to bring impeachment up?

This goes right to the doorstep of the Republican Party.

I suggest you read the bill.

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons (S.J.Res 21) is a United States Senate Joint Resolution that would authorize President Barack Obama to use the American military to intervene in the ongoing Syrian Civil War. The bill was filed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on September 6, 2013 in a specially scheduled pro forma Senate session that took place during the last week of the August recess.[1] The bill authorizes only 60 days of military action, with the possibility of a one-time extension of 30 days.[2] The bill also specifically prohibits the use of ground troops.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_the_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_the_Government_of_Syria_to_Respond_to_Use_of_Chemical_Weapons

So again even if this had passed, it would have only been airstrikes, which would not have stopped the genocide. So again.

Obama sentenced hundreds of thousands of Syrians to death through his appeasement of Putin and Iran
As that bill did not allow for the use of ground forces, making he bill redundant and the fact it was two years into the conflict. It called for limited military uses up to 60 days of air strikes. That would have not saved many lives at all.

by Original Quill Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:22 pm

Thorin wrote:The main point is that the writer of the opening article is 100% correct in what is wrong with some progressives today. They are not liberal's but illiberal's. I mean to even whitewash genocide in Syria as you did, then backtrack onto Obama, says it all. As to you its not the US's problem, reeks of nationalism. Where even worse you think you speak for millions of Americans. You are one of the reasons as to why Trump won the election it seems. Try learning from your mistakes and take on board some good advice

There's nothing wrong with liberals that a little divorce wouldn't fix. Frankly, I live in a state that is the 5th largest economy in the world, having recently surpassed France. I don't need the south or the midwest. Other than the northeast, I have no inclination to talk to the rest of the country, let alone insult them.

Now that's my kind of surgery. However, I am a patient man and if others want to waste time, I'll indulge them. But America has to fail before she can succeed...and fail big time. We must purge the underlying racism of America, the hooliganism of the RW, stop the war mongering...and a thousand other things that are too depressing to mention.

Vive le California libre!

by Guest Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:26 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:The main point is that the writer of the opening article is 100% correct in what is wrong with some progressives today. They are not liberal's but illiberal's. I mean to even whitewash genocide in Syria as you did, then backtrack onto Obama, says it all. As to you its not the US's problem, reeks of nationalism. Where even worse you think you speak for millions of Americans. You are one of the reasons as to why Trump won the election it seems. Try learning from your mistakes and take on board some good advice

There's nothing wrong with liberals that a little divorce wouldn't fix. Frankly, I live in a state that is the 5th largest economy in the world, having recently surpassed France. I don't need the south or the midwest. Other than the northeast, I have no inclination to talk to the rest of the country, let alone insult them.

Now that's my kind of surgery. However, I am a patient man and if others want to waste time, I'll indulge them. But America has to fail before she can succeed...and fail big time. We must purge the underlying racism of America, the hooliganism of the RW, stop the war mongering...and a thousand other things that are too depressing to mention.

Vive le California libre!

So when you do not get your way, you are basically calling for a revolution in California. So quite a selfish outlook and basing this off very little you have done, but the efforts of millions of others. Thus not being a proponent of democratic values. You deal with racism by tackling the actual problem by challenging such hate speech. As the article states, not to castigate people just because they were groomed and conditioned to vote for Trump. What the country needs now is unity and to weather out the storm of the next 4 years.

by Original Quill Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:32 pm

Thorin wrote:I suggest you read the bill.

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons (S.J.Res 21) is a United States Senate Joint Resolution that would authorize President Barack Obama to use the American military to intervene in the ongoing Syrian Civil War. The bill was filed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on September 6, 2013 in a specially scheduled pro forma Senate session that took place during the last week of the August recess.[1] The bill authorizes only 60 days of military action, with the possibility of a one-time extension of 30 days.[2] The bill also specifically prohibits the use of ground troops.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_the_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_the_Government_of_Syria_to_Respond_to_Use_of_Chemical_Weapons

So again even if this had passed, it would have only been airstrikes, which would not have stopped the genocide. So again.

No bill passes on its first pass. It doesn't matter what the proposal said...it was an opening.

The Republican Congress didn't want to open it up because they were hell-bent on McConnell-Boehner obstructionism. Now we've got dead Syrians on our hands. That leads directly to the obstructionist Republicans. I even predicted this would happen.

Now, I've fully covered all of the points you've raised--three times. Move on or risk boring us all.

by Original Quill Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:36 pm

Thorin wrote:So when you do not get your way, you are basically calling for a revolution in California. So quite a selfish outlook and basing this off very little you have done, but the efforts of millions of others. Thus not being a proponent of democratic values. You deal with racism by tackling the actual problem by challenging such hate speech. As the article states, not to castigate people just because they were groomed and conditioned to vote for Trump.

This is not about me. We've recently had to close the whole website because of the tendency of certain people toward personal insults. I hope you aren't one of those.

There's a lot of work to do, what with an imbecile coming in and no one capable of teaching him anything. This is a policy/issue discussion workplace. Get to work.

by Guest Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:37 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:I suggest you read the bill.

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons (S.J.Res 21) is a United States Senate Joint Resolution that would authorize President Barack Obama to use the American military to intervene in the ongoing Syrian Civil War. The bill was filed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on September 6, 2013 in a specially scheduled pro forma Senate session that took place during the last week of the August recess.[1] The bill authorizes only 60 days of military action, with the possibility of a one-time extension of 30 days.[2] The bill also specifically prohibits the use of ground troops.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_the_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_the_Government_of_Syria_to_Respond_to_Use_of_Chemical_Weapons

So again even if this had passed, it would have only been airstrikes, which would not have stopped the genocide. So again.

No bill passes on its first pass. It doesn't matter what the proposal said...it was an opening.

The Republican Congress didn't want to open it up because they were hell-bent on McConnell-Boehner obstructionism. Now we've got dead Syrians on our hands. That leads directly to the obstructionist Republicans. I even predicted this would happen.

Now, I've fully covered all of the points you've raised--three times. Move on or risk boring us all.

It completely matters when this was only in regard to chemical weapons. It has nothing on the shootings and bombings of civilian. Hence the Bill is flawed and would have been ineffective against the mass killings that have gone on in Syria. You have actually missed many of them, skipped about 75% of them. I do not also bow down to orders from posters. Either engage in the debate, or don't. That is up to you, but it shows you are clearly emotive to make demands of me.

by Sponsored content