General Politics Discussion (III) [ARCHIVED] • Page 681

It's probably something about how tax credits are the real socialism or some such shit.

 

I don't see "justification" when that question is posed.

 

Not to sound too David here, but some things are still indefensible, despite causation.

 

Do you agree that terrorism begets more terrorism and that the understanding of that is probably imperative in any discussion of understanding/stopping/solution? I think that's what the question is usually aimed at, not justification of the outcome, but understanding of the creation and cycle.

 

I'm sure they'll be happy to hand them over, as soon as the audit is complete....

 

Honestly I bet he just doubles down on the lie and "refuses" to turn them over rather than just admit he was making it up. He'd rather obstruct a Cogressional investigation than admit to his weak thuggery.

 

I hope he doubles down on it and keeps talking about these tapes that may or may not exist which would start more investigations into the existence of "tapes" and somehow that leads us to the holy grail of "tapes"

 

Nothing wrong with sounding too David, I'm smart!

 

"Ryan denies GOP would try to impeach Dem accused of same actions as Trump"

professional shit eaters

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/336957-ryan-republicans-wouldnt-be-trying-to-impeach-democratic-president-accused-of

 

He saying: given that a massacre occurred, how would you feel if you experienced this? Would it create a loss that leads to you lashing out? Would it radicalize you? Would it make you search for any outlet with which to respond to the perpetrators of the violence against your family? That's what he is saying. It isn't a justification, it is as simple as saying "put yourself in another person's shoes". Bottom line. Both you and the comedian chose to read into it that he's referring to ISIS, rather than speaking to the larger issue of how terrorism is bred in an environment in which you're colonized and colonial violence is being visited upon you on a daily basis. Often-times the response to colonial violence manifests in a regressive manner and in other cases it does not. But, anyway. If a black man killed a cop and the cop's family, then proceeded to perpetrate violence against other people, you would say "given what America continues to do to black people, I can make out why this happened. What would you, white person, do if you lived like this?" It wouldn't be justifying the behaviour, it'd be placing the behaviour within the context of oppression. That's what Aslan was doing. The rejection of it, as well as the interpretation, is a form of politics that sides with empire, because it is effectively saying: there is no need to understand why this is happening. It is because these people are evil. All these groups are all the same and so on and so on. We need to continue our imperial violence, which goes unquestioned, but see any attempt to understand the other side's violence as off limits, because it has to be, because they have to be made to submit. I reject that interpretation entirely.

 

You're more of a Ralph Wiggum than a Fredo, homeboy.

 

I'm actually Robb Stark, it pains me to say.

Except I'm convinced I'll live in the end...so more like Jon Snow. Pragmatic to the point where it can piss off allies sometimes. Though I guess that's just like Robb Stark and the only difference is Jon had a red priestess in the area to fix what happens when you're too pragmatic

 

Oh, Jesus Christ. The comparison isn't one to one, obviously. It's about how oppression and colonial violence creates more violence.

This reads like something off of Fox News, honestly. There's no nuance, there's no understanding, it is obvious that he was referring to ISIS and there's little that can change your mind. You're dead-set on it, not because of anything resembling an argument, but some caricature of a world in which the violence comes from, I don't know, Islam being evil or something, as opposed to it being a product of colonialism. You're actually justifying the colonialism by choosing not to understand the question. And yes, it is a choice.

 

Onion Fact Checks: Former FBI Director James Comey's Senate Testimony

 

Goldman Sachs CEO is trolling Trump. The world is weird af.

 

Would Trump voluntarily testifying because of his ego be the single dumbest thing anyone has ever done?

 

I get the sense that if there was a way he could be forced to impeach without being arrested or sent to trial, he would do it in a heartbeat and say "oopsies!"