Re: continuing proofs America is wacko [3]

by Eldorion Thu Jul 30, 2015 5:20 am

Pettytyrant101 wrote:It seems to me the US is largely irrelevant in deciding the direction of this- but oddly it doesn't seem to have noticed this fact.

If the reactions some of my old conservative college friends is anything to go by, the reasoning is that if Obama and Kerry had done ... something different ... the US could have been more of a leader and won more concessions from Iran since we should have had the stronger negotiating position. It's all very weak on specifics though. The role of the other powers is barely brought up at all, so I'm glad you mentioned it.

by Mrs Figg Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:07 pm

I have a nasty suspicion we are already in WW111 only we don't know it yet. That's because its not yet a conventional war we recognise and the shit hasn't hit the fan in Europe yet. but it will and we need all the allies we can get and that includes Iran.

by David H Thu Jul 30, 2015 5:45 pm

Yep. There's just no way to stabilize the region without bringing Iran to the table.

The trouble is, some parties thrive on the instability. Just look at how this treaty has united the hardliners in Baghdad with the hardliners in Jerusalem, and with the hardliners in D.C., all joining hands in opposition to the treaty.

It's clear they all have a common interest: they all get rich and powerful during times of war. Suspect

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jul 30, 2015 9:15 pm

I just watched Sarah Palin on Bill O' Reilly going on about the Planned Parenthood selling dead baby parts thing- and she made a lot of anti-abortion points as you would expect, and then when pressed by Bill stated the obvious- that the problem was they were trying to make money, in her own words, spoken meaning to condemn them for it- 'its a business'- she then amazingly went on to not follow though the logic of her own point- it should be an entirely tax payer funded public body which is therefore non-profit and no such insensitive would exist, and instead declared it as a reason for stopping any tax payer funding!
Its like she actually got 3/4 of the way through talking herself to a sensible conclusion based on her own facts, then fell over at the last hurdle and went for an option based on no facts.

by halfwise Thu Jul 30, 2015 9:22 pm

But your final option is abortion should exist and her final option is abortion should not exist. you can't reach the same conclusion with different a priori assumptions.

by halfwise Thu Jul 30, 2015 9:25 pm

Speaking of which, Trump has mentioned he'd like to have Palin in his cabinet. I seriously will have a hard time resisting the urge to vote for him if he makes it that far: the potential clownitorium in the making is reaching breath-taking proportions. You just want to make it happen and sit back to watch in awe.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jul 30, 2015 9:30 pm

But your final option is abortion should exist and her final option is abortion should not exist. - Halfy

I wasn't really considering the pro or anti angle of it, just the argument she presented- which was to state what the problem was- the selling of the organs, then to (correctly in my view) diagnose the cause- profit- but failed to follow through on the logical conclusion to that- which is remove the profit incentive, the only way to do that is to publicly fund and run it.

It just struck me as bizarre that she should both state the problem and the cause but pick a conclusion would does not in fact address the cause.

I am however pro-abortion but only because as a man I will never have to make that choice so I don't really feel like its any of my business to say what they should or should not do, and secondly for practical reasons, every time its been illegal anywhere its not gone away its just gone unethical, unobserved, and caused pain, suffering, distress and in the worst cases death- so like the drug argument it seems to me licensed and under the rule of law is better than illegal and under the rule of criminals.

by halfwise Thu Jul 30, 2015 9:36 pm

I don't think your logic is quite as clear cut as you think it is.

Your logic is
a. Profit motive is bad
b. give them money thus removing the profit motive.

her logic is
a. profit motive is bad
b. therefore they are even worse than we thought
c. remove any crutches like funding and starve the depraved criminals to death

If you have problems seeing her side, then pretend they are wall street traders, who for no reason you can fathom, are getting federal funding. You discover that, horror of horrors, they are making money off their trade. So stop funding the bastards!

Not that I agree with her, but I find the differences between liberal and conservative thought patterns to be amusing, and spend lots of time trying to figure them out.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jul 30, 2015 9:45 pm

But her conclusion was cut any public money- well if the problem is they are trying to make money, which is what she says, how does putting them in a position where to survive they have to make more money help?
Surely making them purely private sector and for profit is only feeding the problem she claims to trying to solve?
It doesn't seem to be make logical sense to me no matter your starting point. The first two stages do not lead to the conclusion in the third.

by David H Thu Jul 30, 2015 9:51 pm

halfwise wrote:
... but I find the differences between liberal and conservative thought patterns to be amusing, and spend lots of time trying to figure them out.

An interesting hobby! Smile

My first thought is to question if there actually is always (a) thought and (b) patterns. My sense is that what often passes for thought is actually no more than a jumbled regurgitation of talking points, is which case your time might be better spent looking for patterns in winning lotto numbers...

Do you happen to have a simple test for who is actually thinking and who isn't? THAT would be useful! Nod

by halfwise Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:06 pm

If they either withhold judgement until more evidence is presented or change their mind, then they are thinking. This eliminates about 80% of political opinions.

by azriel Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:11 pm

"who says I need a dentist ! "

continuing proofs America is wacko [3] - Page 11 Lioness%20wiv%20gun_zpsbxfph2jl

by David H Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:11 pm

I like it! cheers

Unfortunately the "change their minds" criterion is also sometimes referred to as "flip-flopping" and is usually enough to disqualify a candidate from office in the eyes of most [nonthinking] voters.

by David H Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:14 pm

azriel wrote:"who says I need a dentist ! "

Did you hear the Obama administration is now trying to talk to that dentist when they find him? He's getting far more fame than he bargained for Twisted Evil

http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/obama-cecil-the-lion-search-20150730

by azriel Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:16 pm

No Dave, I havent heard the News for ages actually. I find things out on here usually, or, face book Smile

by halfwise Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:18 pm

David H wrote:
Unfortunately the "change their minds" criterion is also sometimes referred to as "flip-flopping" and is usually enough to disqualify a candidate from office in the eyes of most [nonthinking] voters.

This is what drives me crazy about the American electorate. When flip-floppers of either side flip I tend to agree with them so long as it wasn't done under voter pressure.

by Mrs Figg Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:43 pm

that Trump. Rolling Eyes

how can so much ego be stuffed into one human head?

by halfwise Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:53 pm

The thing is, when Opra Winfrey asked Trump what he would do as president way back in 1988, he said basically the same things, but without all the crotchiteness and bitterness of an old man his ideas almost sounded acceptable. I think holding the ego in has embittered him.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/07/29/donald_trump_to_oprah_in_1988_america_a_debtor_nation_something_is_going_to_happen.html

by David H Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:30 pm

Mrs Figg wrote:that Trump. how can so much ego be stuffed into one human head?

also, it's not all stuffed in his head.... Rolling Eyes

by halfwise Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:31 pm

A rather illuminating article with links to even more comprehensive articles, on why the Republican party is being driven by the radicals, and sees no way out.

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/30/9074761/conservative-media-republican-party

The meat of it is here:

"Media doesn't need to win elections to profit

The problem is that right-wing media is in no way dependent on the political success of the GOP. In fact, it's almost the opposite: The more the party establishment fails to deliver on the far right's (wildly unrealistic) demands, the more the audience feels betrayed, and the angrier it gets. That means more clicks, more phone calls, more engagement. It is to right-wing media's great benefit for the party to engage in a series of dramatic, doomed protest gestures like shutting down the government or attempting to repeal Obamacare for the 47th time. It stokes the outrage machine.

Conservative media outlets and activists have entered into a self-reinforcing cycle of mutually supported radicalization. They have everything to gain by demonstrating their ideological purity and nothing to gain from compromise or nuance:

[Recently retired GOP Representative Tom] Latham and other Republicans complain [that] many in that media – in their zeal for audience share – willfully ignore the realities of a legislative process designed by the Founders to require deliberation, checks and balances, and compromise. "They will not take 80 percent – it’s got to be 100 percent or you’re not pure," Latham said. "They don’t give a damn about governing, or about anything than being pure themselves. And it’s causing more people to be concerned about primaries than ever before. I just don’t see – with continual pounding of the drums in the media and these outside groups – I don’t know how you function, I really don’t. I don’t know how you pass appropriation bills this year."

The party establishment encouraged the rise of the right-wing media and exploited the Tea Party for electoral advantage, but now it has awakened a monster it can't control."

by David H Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:40 pm

I'd buy that analysis. Also interesting to remember that the present right-wing media machine is a direct outgrowth of Reagan administration's deregulation of the FCC who used to enforce much clearer lines between news, commentary, and political speech.

by bungobaggins Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:03 am

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-30/new-hampshire-voters-explain-the-appeal-of-donald-trump

by David H Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:15 pm

This is just crazy! Shocked

EXCLUSIVE: Tough Questions for Feds After They Jailed an Innocent Man for Nine Years
By Dean Kuipers | Takepart.com

Attorney Mark Reichel has been waiting years for answers. Years, he says, during which “not a day goes by that I don’t think about the Eric McDavid case. What happened there was wrong in every way. We don’t live in that kind of country. This is a terribly frightening story in a free society.”

McDavid was released in January after serving nine years of a 20-year sentence on federal ecoterrorism charges. Documents had emerged, two months earlier, that were absent at his trial, including correspondence supporting his claim that he had been entrapped by an FBI operation involving a paid informant.

U.S. Attorneys new to the case had discovered the documents during a search through their predecessors’ file, which they performed in response to a habeas corpus petition challenging the government’s right to hold McDavid. At a court hearing in January, they said the failure to produce the 13 love letters between McDavid and an informant known as Anna—along with almost 3,000 other documents, including an email showing the government had asked to polygraph-test Anna and evidence that she had been coached in the love affair by a Behavioral Analysis Unit—was “inadvertent” and “a mistake.”

Six months later, Reichel was still screaming about the loss—or deliberate withholding—of the documents. He’s a big man, passionate about justice, and he gets worked up: “Who is going to believe they fucking misplaced that shit? I mean, seriously! And then, after he’s convicted nine years later you say, ‘Oh, here they are.’ Do they get that much deference?”

.........

May 2014 study Inventing Terrorists: The Lawfare of Preemptive Prosecution, published by civil liberties organizations Project SALAM and the National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms, found that 94.2 percent of all U.S. terror prosecutions from 2001 to 2010 involved defendants whose plots were wholly or partially manufactured by the FBI. “Most of the people convicted of terrorism related crimes posed no danger to the U.S. and were entrapped by a preventive strategy,” they write. The plots often rely on their targets’ need for money, food, apartments, cars. Or, in McDavid’s case, love.

It's a long sad story of a nonviolent young man whose crush on a young female FBI mole was cultivated for over a year as she tried to get him to blow something up and he kept refusing.

Sad

by bungobaggins Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:28 pm

Oh my god, what a bitch. That poor man.

by bungobaggins Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:43 pm

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/01/us/montana-couple-killed-after-helping-stranded-motorist.html?referrer=