• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
The Old Hack

Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Troacctid said:
34 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

So again I ask, why does our president and media bend over backwards to avoid talking about the elephant in the room?

Because it would actively hinder our objectives to do so?

I'm still unclear on what we get out of walking on eggshells around radical islam.  Drachefly posted a whole article on why we should do it and what we supposedly get out of it, but as you can see I was not impressed.  It seems like coddling the easily-inflamed feelings of those whose whole point is attempting to assert control over our actions.  It feels like appeasement and co-dependence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re - military action vs Iran - depends what was needed at the time, but I think I covered that enough in the last comment for it to be pretty clear. If their facilities are not dug in enough to require a full invasion, bombs would suffice.

If we'd given the Greens the help... we don't know what would have happened, but as I've said it all happened so fast and the degree of support we would have had to have provided is so extreme that I simply cannot believe that you can think the objections you've made to the previous point and make this objection at the same time.

Egypt had a very firm division of power between the military and the civilian government. The civilian government was not in charge of the military. No entity was in charge of both sides of Egypt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2016 at 3:17 PM, Vorlonagent said:

1, 4:
It's important not to muddy the waters here.  Islamic terrorism is a thing.  It's a phenomenon.  It has unique in goals (and some methods) from other forms of terrorism and political violence we may observe or experience.  We're focused on Islamic terrorism at the moment. 

5.
I agree.  So why was the Obama administration so reluctant to admit islamic terrorism is islamic (or sometimes is terrorism)?  The people killed in the Florida nightclub were killed by radical islamists and it was an act of terror.  Both government and the news media initially tried to ignore the "islamic terror" part and tried to change the topic to gun control.

6.
I disagree, because religious intolerance isn't a focused thing.  All religions compete to some degree so all are a little bit guilty of this, save possibly some of the far east faiths which are awfully laid back about belonging to multiple faiths besides theirs. 

The author also commits the sin of equivalence.  When you lump all acts of religious intolerance together, harshness of the individual acts of intolerance are de-emphasized.  That's why I say "muddying the waters."  Radical islam distinguishes itself in the degree it is willing to do harm.  It merits being called out on that.

So again I ask, why does our president and media bend over backwards to avoid talking about the elephant in the room?

4 Focusing like that is the reason domestic terrorists were allowed to seize federal, land paralyze a town, and destroy historical artifacts for several weeks. The focus should be to protect against all enemies foreign and domestic.

5 Here is the problem in a nutshell we wan't the terrorist gone but a holy war would be counterproductive. The average person unfortunately does not seem to differentiate a radical islamist from your average Muslim despite distinct and important differences between the two and it's far easier to whip them into a frenzy of hatred than it is to talk them out of it.

6. Given the general overemphasis on such acts committed in the name of Islam either by groups or individuals and the general de-emphasis on those committed other groups which already exists, I could not disagree with you more. Neither race nor creed nor ethnicity nor nationality nor sex nor gender nor sexuality nor political affiliation nor economic status are reason to subject someone to intolerance and intimidation of any form and t does not matter if one person or a group of people involved in subjecting an individual or group to that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, PSadlon said:

4 Focusing like that is the reason domestic terrorists were allowed to seize federal, land paralyze a town, and destroy historical artifacts for several weeks. The focus should be to protect against all enemies foreign and domestic.

5 Here is the problem in a nutshell we wan't the terrorist gone but a holy war would be counterproductive. The average person unfortunately does not seem to differentiate a radical islamist from your average Muslim despite distinct and important differences between the two and it's far easier to whip them into a frenzy of hatred than it is to talk them out of it.

6. Given the general overemphasis on such acts committed in the name of Islam either by groups or individuals and the general de-emphasis on those committed other groups which already exists, I could not disagree with you more. Neither race nor creed nor ethnicity nor nationality nor sex nor gender nor sexuality nor political affiliation nor economic status are reason to subject someone to intolerance and intimidation of any form and t does not matter if one person or a group of people involved in subjecting an individual or group to that

4, 6.  I never meant to suggest that we, the US, or the world focus on Radical Islam to the exclusion of every other kind of terrorism.  But I'd add that not everybody deserves equal attention either.  Islamic terrorism distinguishes itself.  They're #1.  And by a large margin.  We should act like it.

This also brings up the definition of "what is a terrorist?"  Is it any form of political violence or disruptive disregard for the law?  What identifies the domestic terrorists you refer to *as* "terrorists"?

 

5.  The longer we wait to confront Radical Islam, the closer to a holy war it will be.  We have a president and news media that are reluctant to speak the name of the Enemy.  I'd be less concerned it that didn't also reflect a reluctance to act against the Enemy.  Islamic Terrorism is never going away as long as people of Obama's mindset are in control.  They simply do not want to do confront it.  It is reflected in their language choices.

We can be clearer who the enemy is when we talk about them.  Who and what Radical Islam is and isn't.  But even the unbiased facts are scary.  In the teens of percents of Syrian refugees are sympathetic to Radical islam.  Doesn't mean they are terrorists because sympathy and action are two different things, but it begs the question of what percentage of them are or could become radicalized.  It's bothersome to think that taking in refugees is a near-sure bet that we're taking in terrorists. 

Donald Trump advocates closing the door to islamic refugees because of the realization that there will be terrorists mixed in with them.  He raises a valid point, even if his manner of delivery turns around and obscures it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On July 25, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Vorlonagent said:

Islamic Terrorism is never going away as long as people of Obama's mindset are in control.  They simply do not want to do confront it.  It is reflected in their language choices.

We can be clearer who the enemy is when we talk about them.  Who and what Radical Islam is and isn't.  But even the unbiased facts are scary

They do not want to confront it? 

What would a confrontation that you think WOULD work look like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2016 at 6:08 PM, Troacctid said:

It's literally the opposite of appeasing ISIS. "Radical Islam" is what they prefer us to say.

How does calling them "Radical Islam" benefit them? 

On 7/23/2016 at 9:23 PM, ijuin said:

ISIS also wants us to believe that they represent all Muslims, so rhetoric such as Trump's proposal to ban all Muslim immigration is playing right into their hands.

Much depends on who gets blamed.  If the terrorists get blamed for genuine refugees being locked out of better circumstances, that starts to open a division between radical islam and majority islam.  That division needs to happen.

On 7/24/2016 at 7:51 PM, Drachefly said:

Re - military action vs Iran - depends what was needed at the time, but I think I covered that enough in the last comment for it to be pretty clear. If their facilities are not dug in enough to require a full invasion, bombs would suffice.

If we'd given the Greens the help... we don't know what would have happened, but as I've said it all happened so fast and the degree of support we would have had to have provided is so extreme that I simply cannot believe that you can think the objections you've made to the previous point and make this objection at the same time.

Egypt had a very firm division of power between the military and the civilian government. The civilian government was not in charge of the military. No entity was in charge of both sides of Egypt.

I haven't seen anything concrete from you about what sort of military action against Iran you think would be effective.

We wouldn't have known what would have happened if we'd helped the Greens.  It is hard to imagine worse than what did happen to the Greens.

I'm sorry.  The rest of your comment uses too much indirection for me to follow.  Please re-phrase.

How does Egypt's civilian/military division of power keep the civilian government from lending aid to radical islamic groups?  To repeat: are you saying that the US could absolutely count on the military side of Egypt to block any attempt by the Islamic Brotherhood to aid radical islamic groups like ISIS?  If not, what is the significance of the independence of the Egyptian military?  How would it have limited the terror options of the Isamic Brotherhood (short of the military staging a coup, of course).
 

1 hour ago, Drachefly said:

They do not want to confront it? 

What would a confrontation that you think WOULD work look like?

It boils down to we fight them here or we fight them there.

An open and free society cannot defend itself from repeated terrorist attacks without ceasing to be open and free.  Terror attacks in the US and EU are making that point right now.  If you disagree with my assertion, there's a lot of options available.  You can treat terrorism as a law-enforcement problem.  This is how the US Left tends to think about terrorism and we can see our openness and freedom in the US starting to go away (RE: Edward Snowden).  Moreover you can't beat an enemy while leaving her or his bases of operation intact.  They will simply go home, lick their wounds and come back.

Because I don't believe fighting them here is or ever will be effective without losing the freedoms we want to keep (maybe not even then), there is no choice but to fight them there in the mideast, Africa and perhaps asia.  That means invasion and confrontation on the ground.  It means going into Iran and beating on their uranium centrifuges with sledgehammers.  It means going into Iraq and Syria and taking the fight to ISIS.  It means destroying the Taliban bases in northern Pakistan.  The unavoidable civilian casualties are in the hundred-thousands.  This choice has awful, nasty, ugly consequences.

We (the West, not just the US) might have had other options 20 or 30 years ago, but we wasted them lionizing terrorist leaders (RE: Yassir Arrafat) and responding to attacks by teaching our citizens to sit quietly in their seats during a hijacking and loudly lamenting our past "imperialism" sins.  We're seen as weak and indecisive.  Militarily insignificant entities honestly think they can win a war against us because *we* have told them they can.  Every time the Obama administration or news media outlet covered up a terror attack with phrases like "man-caused disaster" or "workplace violence" (or just withheld information such as the religion of the attacker when they were islamic), the future body count that will be required to win the war against islamic terrorism goes up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen anything concrete from you about what sort of military action against Iran you think would be effective.

If their facilities are not dug in enough to require a full invasion, bombs would suffice.

... that is concrete.

We wouldn't have known what would have happened if we'd helped the Greens.  It is hard to imagine worse than what did happen to the Greens.

Okay, I've gone and done a good bit more reading about this. Before I was reacting to the 2012 events, but now I think you meant the 2009 events. In that light, my objection doesn't make so much sense. But there's another perfectly good one - 

there was a major, MAJOR risk that all we'd accomplish is galvanizing the populace against us. Certain Green elements wanted our help, but many others very vocally did not. Of those that directly contacted us requesting aid, we had nowhere near the evidence required to tell how central their opinion was, or even that the letter wasn't a honeypot laid by the state police so they could blame us for everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may not suggest that directly but many act like other forms do not matter as much and unfortunately some of your language and stand make it look like you might have those sort of stands whether or not you do.

As far as doing something against Radical Islam I would love to hear a suggestion that has not been attempted without it backfiring upon us. Seriously I'm not kidding no of what we've tried has improved things. Not subtle attempts of manipulation. Not outright attacks. Not propping puppet regimes. Not overthrowing governments. All of this crap has only impressed upon them that we are not to be trusted. So has the rampant Islamophobia. And you know want the terrorist love the fact it's obvious others can't be trusted. They couldn't have received a better recruitment tool. One thing we have failed to try is consistently focus on defending against all forms of intolerance and intimidation regardless of source and type and not the stupid theater but actual defense. We might have to lay claim  to our missteps and misdeeds, to abandon our base cruelty, and to actually do some intelligent work. Of course that might piss them off but more because they may end up with less to use against us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Moderator: I am very sorry but I am afraid that I have to lock the thread for now. It has always been complicated for me to moderate and these days it is especially so.

I believe I have previously mentioned that I am from a refugee family. My father's side of the family escaped the extermination camps only by the thinnest of threads. This makes it incredibly difficult to observe the discussion of refugees and the attendant problems with them. I still feel I should not actively participate here but the nature of current politics make it all but impossible not to mention those and similar issues. And I am simply not certain that I am capable of fairly judging when I am this intensely emotionally involved.

For that reason I am locking the thread. I realise this will be a disappointment to many but I do not see any good alternatives. Maybe it will become possible to unlock it again sometime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Moderator: I have decided to tentatively unlock this thread due to the fact that the current political situation is intense enough that people may desire to have a place to express concerns and because I am no longer in as shaken an emotional state as I was back when my friend had just died. Thus, I feel better able to manage moderating it. As always, I request of people to be especially careful with respecting the FAQ in this thread and to be equally careful in how they phrase their concerns here.

~tOH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it's a more or less a given that Trump will carry Oklahoma, I'm sorta depressed, no, change that, a lot depressed, but not in the long term depressing/bipolar way about his odds.  I was hopping it would be in the mid to high 80's.  Not freaking 98+%

I love my state, but some times I'm not to fond of Oklahoman people.  Still, 44  out of 100 people don't want Trump, so that's not as bad as it could be.   It's most 55 out a 100 people that bother me.  And I suspect that if I talked to them, about half the 44 would bother me.  But that still leaves oh, 1 in 5, maybe 1 in 4, more or less that aren't people that would bug the crap out of me.  I'm not a one1 issue voter, and I don't have litmus1 test, but people that are, on either the left or the right bug the hell out of me. 

1Other than being anti-vaccination.  That's a deal killer even if I like all your other positions.  And who are anti-vaccination seems to be scatter shotted over the whole of the political spectrum, so D vs R doesn't really figure into that.   So, yeah, I might be called a one issue voter, but it's not one of the typical single issues.  Genital politics2 in general are "ignore" or have little weight.  Pro or Con on damn near any side of the whole spectrum.   I want to know about your economic policies, stance on the national debt (which oddly, doesn't seem to have that much to do with your over all economic policy), foreign policy, military plans (also two that don't seem to be as tied together as they should be), militarized police (or police policy over all) and general security issues (also not as closely linked as you would think they would be)  as well.  Plus the normal right wing sort of things.  Which I assume y'all know so I'm not going to list them to avoid flame wars.  Please note that both the left and right positions on genital politics are give a weight of 1, maybe 2 on the 1 to 10 scale of importance to me.

2If it's about rubbing two or more sets of genitals together and/or the out come of doing so, it's genital politics.  They been the major political issues of my lifetime and I'm tired of them. Even the Pope agrees with me there.  And if the Pope of the Church of Rome thinks it time to move on to other subjects, I think I'm safe to do so as well.

Really people there are more important things to deal with a short list might be
 


  1. Cops killing people (or to be more blunt, badly trained cops) (sort of gave away how I feel about that one)
  2. Gangs killing people in inner cites
  3. The war on (some) drugs 
  4. Inner cites in ruins. 
  5. People from the out side of the US wanting to kill us (for what ever reasons, some of which might even be valid, or at least understandable)
  6. People from out side of the US wanting to be inside the US, with out wanting to kill us.
  7. Statutory entitlement programs.  There is a reason why the fights are about "discretionary spending.  With out changing a rather large set of interlaced laws, a good chunk of the federal (and state) budgets can't really be changed.
  8. The economy in general
  9. Wealth consolidation (i.e.1% vs 99%)
  10. Health care (other than the #$!%# genital bit that every one got hung up on.)
  11. Mental health issues.
  12. Supreme court rulings (on things other #%$#@$% genitals)
  13. Copyright laws
  14. Gun issues.
  15. Global Warming
  16. Global Trade.
  17. Top Gear 2.0 being gone for ever and Top Gear 3.0 sucking rocks. (OK, not really an American problem)

Also note that I'm not saying which on this list is currently good or bad and needs changes but saying that they are more important to me than genital politics.  And yes, I know I'm cis straight white dude, so I can afford to take that position, but trust me, there are genital political issues that do effect me more than most other people, due to some, ah, lifestyle issues.

That being said, at least 9 of those have either a direct or fairly close indirect effect on my life.

 

Edited by mlooney
Grammer. Adding an important 'not' More grammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, mlooney said:
  1. Cops killing people (or to be more blunt, badly trained cops) (sort of gave away how I feel about that one)
  2. Gangs killing people in inner cites
  3. The war on (some) drugs 
  4. Inner cites in ruins. 
  5. People from the out side of the US wanting to kill us (for what ever reasons, some of which might even be valid, or at least understandable)
  6. People from out side of the US wanting to be inside the US, with out wanting to kill us.
  7. Statutory entitlement programs.  There is a reason why the fights are about "discretionary spending.  With out changing a rather large set of interlaced laws, a good chunk of the federal (and state) budgets can't really be changed.
  8. The economy in general
  9. Wealth consolidation (i.e.1% vs 99%)
  10. Health care (other than the #$!%# genital bit that every one got hung up on.)
  11. Mental health issues.
  12. Supreme court rulings (on things other #%$#@$% genitals)
  13. Copyright laws
  14. Gun issues.
  15. Global Warming
  16. Global Trade.
  17. Top Gear 2.0 being gone for ever and Top Gear 3.0 sucking rocks. (OK, not really an American problem)
  1. Agreed though I would argue their training isn't bad as bordering on criminal.
  2. Agreed though I don't know how one would accomplish it.
  3. It should have never been a war. Sure some drugs should be illegal or controlled but the supposed rhyme or reason we have to it now is BS.
  4.  I think this is largely a symptom of so many other issues, ignoring infrastructure, economic issues, education issues, social injustices, etc. Taking the root cause will allow us to deal with these symptoms.
  5. Two step solution: One: Strengthen internal security using methods similar to those more effective countries are employing, our current methods tend to fall into theater and Orwell with little in between. Two: No more nation building if we were not attacked and action needs to be taken outside our borders we go in as an equal member of a joint coalition of forces. We do this consistently. 
  6. This when handled well is a good thing. Too bad bad a certain subset of politician mindset is build a wall.
  7. I don't entirely disagree but some of the problem is more complex than some understand and some of those who attack or defend so called entitlement spending do so using or based on complete misinformation. All in all there needs to be real reform here based on actual facts rather the what's being toss around currently.
  8. We fix 9 we fix 8.
  9. I believe everyone has the right to make an honest an honest buck or million or even billion, the key term being honest. I believe just because something is not illegal does not make it honest. I believe there a responsibilities inherent in making that money especially any money above and beyond a decent living wage. And I believe many of the loopholes that  are open to  those who make well more than a decent living wage but not the average person should not exist. Furthermore If you are a large business and would like a tax relief in order to "expand infrastructure", "create jobs", etc. I do not believe you should get it up front. It should be contingent on you actually having meaningfully done so.
  10. We just need true universal healthcare period, the lies about people not paying for their healthcare, be thrice damned.
  11. I include this into the healthcare issue as well a vision and dental. It's really all a part of one's overall health and it's past time it was treated that way.
  12. We need to make sure we get justices who can rule on laws without political leanings but rather whether a law is Constitutional and harms the rights of people.
  13. We are over due for a complete set of reforms there including pay enough staff it keep up with everything.
  14. Gun ownership is a right but not an unlimited right, period. Like any such right it has responsibilities, and if you cannot fulfill those responsibilities your right probably should be abridged. These responsibilities should not be exceptionally onerous, being able to demonstrate one has the understanding and capacity to safely & responsibly handle a gun and does not have a history of criminal activity or mental instability. I also believe some weapon are more appropriate  for common people like handguns, shot guns and regular old hunting rifles. Crap like M16s & Uzis are tools of war. 
  15. Push initiatives to lower reliance on fossil fuels (alternate power generation, greater energy efficiency standards, increased hybrid option) at affordable prices.
  16.  I am for global trade so long as it is does in a way the that at least grows and protects US jobs, preferably without screwing over some other country in the process and ideally where everyone involved benefits from it.
  17. Agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I ask why you are "anti-vaccination"?  Because the guy who claimed they cause autism was proven to have deliberately falsified his data, and numerous studies since then have proven there is absolutely no link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

May I ask why you are "anti-vaccination"?  Because the guy who claimed they cause autism was proven to have deliberately falsified his data, and numerous studies since then have proven there is absolutely no link.

No no no no no.  I'm not anti-vaccination.  If a political figure is anti-vaccination they are dead to me.  Sorry if I came across the other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I grew up in Austin, the legendary "Blue Dot in a Sea of Red." Now I'm stuck in a suburb of Dallas, probably for the rest of my life. At least Dallas County is mostly blue—it's the suburbs and surrounding counties that are red.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Bleah.  One reason I can't picture deciding to live there.  Or a number of other states I could name.

Still 4 out of 10 people are saying they aren't voting for Trump plus a goodly number of what should be red voters (how did the conservatives get the commie color?1) just aren't voting, at least at the presidential level.  Oklahoma's scantron type ballets makes that easy.  Just don't draw the line.

1Yes, I know why.  It's CNN's fault.

Edit:

STOP PRESS:  Current polls make Oklahoma, 2nd Highest, after Alabama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mlooney said:

(how did the conservatives get the commie color?1)

1Yes, I know why.  It's CNN's fault.

I once had the distinct displeasure of being in a chat where a troll fine specimen of Conservative manhood kept calling me a Liberal... f-word aimed at denigrating my sexual orientation. When sufficiently annoyed, I started to refer to him as a Commie Monarchist. Wonderfully, he took the bait and asked me what the nether regions I meant.

I told him that since he came from the red part of the political spectrum, he was presumably a redcoat loyal to King George and a devoted communist. This annoyed him considerably. I admit I mainly did it because I was vastly amused by the inherent incompatibility between communism, monarchists and the US government.

ETA: Yes, I know I have stated I will not normally post here. I was tired and didn't realise what thread I was posting in. My apologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's still funny as hell. I love pointing out inconsistencies like that for particular annoying member of the ends of the political spectrum. "Why would a party so obsessed with commies accept red a the color of their party." & "If they're so anti-government, why do they want to be elected so bad?" have been especially low fruit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that considering the American flag is red, white and blue, that their political system can't be at least a 3 party system, so that when CNN displayed party coverage on the map, all the states would look like varying degrees of American flags, it would be a great way to promote patriotism.

 

And I'm going to take a cue from Hack and say I just woke up, coffee hasn't sunk in yet, and so I'm just typing what pops into my brain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, PSadlon said:

It's still funny as hell. I love pointing out inconsistencies like that for particular annoying member of the ends of the political spectrum. "Why would a party so obsessed with commies accept red a the color of their party." & "If they're so anti-government, why do they want to be elected so bad?" have been especially low fruit.

There have been some conservative republicans who have outright admitted that their goal in office is to make sure that government can't get anything done successfully.

Their logic is, they believe government should be as small as possible.  If government takes on a job, and does it, and does it well, then people will approve and will vote to let the government keep doing it.  Thus, bigger government.

On the other hand, if they sabotage and obstruct and conspire to make sure the government can't accomplish anything, then everyone will see the government failing or doing a bad job, and will believe them when they say that the government sucks and should be kept as small as possible.

The "greater good" of smaller government, in their minds, outweights all of the good that the government could possibly be doing if they weren't sabotaging it.  Sure, we could have health care for everyone, a good education, support for the elderly and infirm, but that would be Teh Evil Gummint!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now