192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
maporsche
 
  6  
Wed 7 Feb, 2018 02:28 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
At times they'll be charged with performing missions that I admire, other times they'll do things I oppose. And so on.


Yeah, I don't see why people can't hear this and understand that there is no contradiction.

I think what Comey did in Summer 2016 (eviscerate Hillary over emails) was probably the right thing to do given the way the FBI was being politicized by the House/Senate.

What he did days before the election, however was not the right thing to do IMO. They hadn't found anything that at the time (or in fact, days later) that justified inserting themselves the way they did into the election in the final hours.

I think he was right to keep the Trump investigation out of the public spotlight during the election too.
camlok
 
  -3  
Wed 7 Feb, 2018 02:34 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Sure, US intelligence and law enforcement have been implicated in many scandalous actions over the years. We all hated Hoover's FBI, but that was mostly because of Hoover himself. And the CIA and NSA were distrusted for many of the things you've listed. But these are organizations made up of people and directed by people. Guess what? People change. People die. Time goes on. It would seem really juvenile to hold on to some form of undying hatred .


It's hardly juvenile to hold people accountable for their war crimes and terrorism. Do you think Robert H Jackson would agree with you that Nazi/... war criminals not be held accountable for their war crimes?

US intelligence and law enforcement have been implicated in many "scandalous" actions over the years which illustrates clearly that US intelligence and law enforcement are criminal groups in their own right.

Your choice of 'scandalous' illustrates that you are an apologist for US war criminals and terrorists. These "scandalous actions" never end. They are ongoing as we speak. There has never ever been any pause.
layman
 
  -3  
Wed 7 Feb, 2018 03:14 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

I think what Comey did in Summer 2016 (eviscerate Hillary over emails) was probably the right thing to do given the way the FBI was being politicized by the House/Senate.


You mean exonerate, not eviserate.

And that's exactly why it was wrong, not right. She should have been eviscerated.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
hightor
 
  4  
Wed 7 Feb, 2018 03:33 pm
@camlok,
Quote:
It's hardly juvenile to hold people accountable for their war crimes and terrorism.

I agree.

What's juvenile is the tendency to personalize bureaucratic organizations to the point where there exists some perception of "institutional guilt". So you're a soldier who gets assigned to some infantry unit which had participated in a massacre of aborigines, or striking coal miners, or POW's a hundred years ago and you're supposed to "share in the guilt" or something.

Of course Nazi war criminals and people like Secretary of State Kissinger should be held accountable. But not individual law-abiding Germans three generations removed or effective and responsible people who happen to work in the State Department today.

Quote:
Your choice of 'scandalous' illustrates that you are an apologist for US war criminals and terrorists.

No, it just illustrates how over-sensitive you are. I never suggested that the scandals ever cease, only that it's unhelpful to make institutions freight the baggage of history when attention should be directed at the crimes being committed today.
camlok
 
  1  
Wed 7 Feb, 2018 03:35 pm
@maporsche,
Quote:
hightor wrote:
At times they'll be charged with performing missions that I admire, other times they'll do things I oppose. And so on.

maporsche: Yeah, I don't see why people can't hear this and understand that there is no contradiction.


There are myriad stunning contradictions. These agencies, arms of war criminal/terrorist US administrations are always involved, to some degree in war crimes, terrorism, ... .

Only the USA has ever been convicted of international terroism. Only the USA has illegally invaded sovereign nations over 70 times since WWII.

All these things are a complete contradiction of what the USA is supposed to be about.

When, as citizens of a rogue nation, the citizenry never does anything about its war criminal/terrorist administrations, it provides them, as it always has, with a green light to do it all again, to keep doing it as they are now doing it.
Below viewing threshold (view)
camlok
 
  1  
Wed 7 Feb, 2018 03:48 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
What's juvenile is the tendency to personalize bureaucratic organizations to the point where there exists some perception of "institutional guilt". So you're a soldier who gets assigned to some infantry unit which had participated in a massacre of aborigines, or striking coal miners, or POW's a hundred years ago and you're supposed to "share in the guilt" or something.


Do you think the Germans have retained all of the names for their infamous military groups?

Yes, military groups that have taken part in genocides, war crimes, etc should be disbanded and continually discredited as not being part of what the USA is. The problem is, that never happens. The soldiers who machine gunned the defenseless people at Wounded Knee, men, women and children, were awarded the highest honor by the US government and those awards have never been cancelled.

That just shows you that the will isn't there, propaganda rules supreme for the USA.

The man who stopped the My Lai massacre was shunned and ridiculed for most of his life after his bravery.

But this is small potatoes compared to the war crimes of all US presidents since WWII. Not a one has been held to account yet all are Class A war criminals by Nuremberg standards.
camlok
 
  2  
Wed 7 Feb, 2018 03:52 pm
@layman,
A dandy example of what y'all have in the USA as regards clear thinking, moral individuals.

This is hardly the exception, by and large, it's the rule.

It just normally isn't so voluble and clear in expressing the deep evil.
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
camlok
 
  1  
Wed 7 Feb, 2018 04:11 pm
I hope you are all very proud of what US propaganda/brainwashing has begotten in the minds and hearts of so many of your countrywomen.

How are you different than the Nazis and their supporters during the 1930s and early 1940s?
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -3  
Wed 7 Feb, 2018 04:11 pm
You can pick your favorite and argue for the rest of the year about which team, Eagles or Pats, had more "nice guys" on it.

Help yourself. But it's irrelevant.

Either way, the Eagles won the super bowl, and that's all that counts.

Just win, Baby!
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  0  
Wed 7 Feb, 2018 04:13 pm
This is the kind of deep evil that "the government of the people" has been supporting for well over two hundred years.
blatham
 
  2  
Wed 7 Feb, 2018 04:24 pm
@maporsche,
Quote:
She doesn't engage in any conversations on policies, which is what throws the biggest red flags in my direction.
Yes. Attacks on Hillary and the DNC (and somewhat less, the "biased MSM") appear to be her main oeuvre.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
nimh
 
  4  
Wed 7 Feb, 2018 04:42 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
You seem to include her and her statements in the category of "far left".

I literally just wrote, in this exchange, that "personally, I don't think the place she's coming from is either far left or right-wing".

Describing it as either would assume an ideological consistency that's not at hand. And I don't even mean that as any kind of slight to Lash. A lot of people have a more or less idiosyncratic mish-mash of (sometimes contradictory) political views and instincts. People like us with fairly down-the-line views are the exception, not the rule.

(I do wonder about ascribing a position to me that I literally just contradicted. An honest mistake I’m sure - but oddly relevant to the context of this convo, in a way! If I were to overthink it, I’d ponder the power of assumptions, and how they lead us to reclassify, if necessary, people’s views to better fit our preconceptions about what would seem logical or typical to us, etc.)

Blatham wrote:
That's a very big difference in ideological stance from the Lash we knew before the last election. Is that degree of shift more likely to you than my thesis?

Do you remember O'Bill? I forget what his exact A2K username was, but I'm still FB friends with him too. He was a brash if not abrasive supporter of George W Bush and the Iraq War, just like Lash. They were both different from the traditional conservatives in their zeal for revolutionary change and “people power” (however misperceived), yet both exulted in ridiculing liberals and Democrats as much as the most strident Republican. Just four years onward, he cheered on Obama. Last year he was a strident Bernie supporter. All of that was genuine.

The only difference is that his change(s) of heart tended to be more comprehensive, whereas in my impression Lash's newer views (which have come more gradually than you contend) have tended to layer more onto, and mix in with, still-potent underlying layers of conservative, viscerally anti-Democratic instincts. Though with him too, you can still see how the past and present fuse together when it comes to his views on "establishment Democrats" and such.

If anything, Bill's somewhat more (yet not fully) wholesale transformations are actually less natural than the contradictory mish-mashing — and yet, here we are. **** happens. People are weird. Yes, definitely more likely than the notion of investing a decade of posting in order to run a “false flag” operation on A2K, of all places, as right-wing troll posing as unpopular Bernie supporter.
blatham
 
  3  
Wed 7 Feb, 2018 04:44 pm
Don't you just adore this man (recipient of at least a quarter million from the fossil fuel industry)
Quote:
Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, wondered aloud Tuesday whether climate change might actually be good for humans in the long run — a proposition unsupported by the conclusions of climate science.

“We know that humans have most flourished during times of what? Warming trends,” Pruitt told KSNV’s Gerard Ramalho in an interview flagged by the Guardian. “So I think there’s assumptions made that because the climate is warming that that necessarily is a bad thing.”

“Do we really know what the ideal surface temperature should be in the year 2100, in the year 2018?” Pruitt went on. “That’s fairly arrogant for us to think that we know exactly what it should be in 2100.”
TPM
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  4  
Wed 7 Feb, 2018 04:45 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

She's about as "free" as a marionette doll and about as "moral" as an anarchist.

Lots of moral anarchists.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Wed 7 Feb, 2018 04:59 pm
@camlok,
camlok wrote:
The US has been trying to overthrow the sovereign government of Syria for over ten years. Just as the US has overthrown and tried to overthrow sovereign governments over 70 times just since WWII.

Your support for Assad's genocide of the Syrian people is horrific, repugnant, and disgusting.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.46 seconds on 09/18/2024 at 05:35:11