Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Philwelch » Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:37 pm UTC

King Author wrote:It's incredibly glib to say, "ah, yeah, there were a buncha nutjob anti-Bush protesters back in the day -- they're all the same." BUSH TORTURED DUDES. He started a war for personal profit!


I admit, it's hard to accept my argument if you are one of the deranged Bush haters.

I hasten to point out that Obama has started his own quagmire in Afghanistan, and is still holding many of Bush's illegal prisoners with no demonstrated intention to release them. Furthermore, many of the most deranged allegations against the Bush administration--that they would unconstitutionally hold onto power after the 2008 elections, or that they would attack Iran or use nuclear weapons--never came to pass. The fact that there are worthwhile things to criticize Bush for does not change the fact that many of Bush's critics were every bit as deranged as many of Obama's critics.

King Author wrote:The rabid anti-Bush protesters had legitimate reasons to be rabid (the guy was a warmonger and did I mention torturer?).


There's no qualitative difference between Bush, Bill Clinton before him, and Barack Obama after him. All have engaged in warmongering, extraordinary rendition, and illegal imprisonment of human beings.

The fact is, none of you liberals marched in the street denouncing Clinton's bombing campaigns against Sudanese aspirin factories, Chinese embassies, and Serbian hospitals. You were too busy damning the Republicans for impeaching him to even notice when he started wars simply to distract national attention away from his philandering and perjury. Where are the complaints that Clinton's enforcement of economic sanctions against Iraq killed more Iraqi civilians by starvation and poverty than Bush did in six years of warfare? Where are the complaints that Clinton cowardly sat on his hands while the Rwandan Hutus committed genocide against their Tutsi countrymen? Where were you when Clinton tried to outlaw strong encryption, when he created the pseudo-legal doctrine of extraordinary rendition, where he sent federal agents to murder Vicki Weaver while she held her infant child?

The only logical conclusion is that you lot don't even care about human rights. You're just partisan, and like any partisan, you criticize the Republicans for being Republicans, just as Republicans criticize Democrats for being Democrats. You are one and the same. And once you ramp up the level of hatred and partisanship and derangement, it stays ramped up on both sides.

King Author wrote:And this is nothing new. The exact same thing happened with Nixon; people who were young during his years became disillusioned with government due to his extreme corruption, so the next candidate to come along from the other side was looked at as a beacon of hope, a change for the better.


You mean Carter? That's funny...after just about four years of Carter, the next candidate to come along from the other side was looked at as a beacon of hope, a change for the better.

King Author wrote:And the whole "Oh me yarm Obama is a cult of personality" bitching is nonsense, too -- remember Kennedy, anyone? Kennedy was young, charismatic, atheletic and attractive and had a young, charismatic, fashionable, attractive wife; it's the same with the Obamas. Idiots who live and die by celebrity gossip, think TMZ is the best invention ever and are direly concerned with whether Brangelina might be adopting again are obviously going to be more interested in such a president than in a wrinkly, boring old man and his stiff, Stepford wife. So what of it?


The entire basis of celebrity gossip is based around discovering the personal flaws of celebrities. It's an entirely different thing--the standard TMZ story is that Hasselhoff fell off the wagon again or that Brangelina are breaking up. It's a very cynical venture. JFK was a womanizing speed freak--I think his public image was the exact opposite of the celebrity gossip culture. (To be fair, there is, as of yet, no clear evidence that Obama has anywhere near the level of personal flaws that JFK did.)

That's not the culture around Obama, either. The culture around Obama is based on unquestioning admiration. Yes, Kennedy had a cult of personality too, but he didn't live long enough to take advantage of it. In terms of policy, JFK was the same as LBJ except with less emphasis on civil rights--and once you put an uglier face on largely the same policies, you build up enough resentment to elect Nixon.

Atlas. wrote:Joe Biden and his gas station comments and Larry Bird who was a full fledged KKK member.


Joe Biden is a gasbag. Enough said.

Robert Byrd is the senior senator from West Virginia, and a former Klansman. Larry Bird played for the Boston Celtics.
Last edited by Philwelch on Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:40 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Decker
Posts: 2071
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:22 pm UTC
Location: Western N.Y.

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Decker » Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:39 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
Atlas. wrote:Belial,
Yes but in your explanation you just said everyone is racist down deep and it really doesn't matter if they act like it or not because they still are racist. At that point there is no more use arguing if that’s what you think. And there would be no point to defend conservatism from the racism charge because they aren't any worse than anyone else.


Because you're still trying to judge people. You're trying to determine who the racists are. And the answer is: it's everyone to some degree. And if that's not a terribly satisfying or useful answer, there's a reason: the question you're asking is nearly useless.

Other people in the conversation are trying to judge ideas, words, and actions. Trying to determine what is racist. They would appear to have the correct tree. I suggest barking up it.

Or, you know, what he said.

I really shouldn't be assuming what someone is thinking. Bad habit.
I was angry with my friend. I told my wrath. My wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe. I told it not. My wrath did grow.

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby clintonius » Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:48 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:Where were you when Clinton... sent federal agents to murder Vicki Weaver while she held her infant child?

I personally was about to begin the second grade. Most adults in the nation were considering whether to vote for him or re-elect Bush senior. Funny that he'd be able to send federal agents to Idaho as the Governor of Arkansas.
kira wrote:*piles up some limbs and blood and a couple hearts for good measure*
GUYS. I MADE A HUMAN.
*...pokes at it with a stick*

User avatar
Will
There are about a million things I can do from behind
Posts: 2256
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:12 pm UTC
Location: St. Heraldwulf's Stone
Contact:

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Will » Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:52 pm UTC

clintonius wrote:
Philwelch wrote:Where were you when Clinton... sent federal agents to murder Vicki Weaver while she held her infant child?

I personally was about to begin the second grade. Most adults in the nation were considering whether to vote for him or re-elect Bush senior. Funny that he'd be able to send federal agents to Idaho as the Governor of Arkansas.

See, and here I was wondering how a second-grader would be able to send federal agents to Idaho.
Meaux_Pas: Is it fucking Taint Sunday or something?
liza: Screw y'all, I'm going to the moon

User avatar
Atlas.
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 2:07 am UTC
Location: Midwest

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Atlas. » Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:12 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
Because you're still trying to judge people. You're trying to determine who the racists are. And the answer is: it's everyone to some degree. And if that's not a terribly satisfying or useful answer, there's a reason: the question you're asking is nearly useless.

Other people in the conversation are trying to judge ideas, words, and actions. Trying to determine what is racist. They would appear to have the correct tree. I suggest barking up it.


Then I would define a racist as anyone who immediately judges or looks down upon another person simply because the color of their skin. A racist is someone who thinks they are better than someone else based on the color of their skin and looks at entire groups of people rather than at the individual. But I still am not sure that everyone is a racist to some degree. I think it is safe to say that we all unfairly judge people and some do it more often than others, but that seems to me more like human nature. I think for it to be racist the judgment has to be based on skin color, not just ignorance and a momentary personal failing.
"I don't believe in a no win situation" Captain James T. Kirk

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26531
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby SecondTalon » Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:17 pm UTC

The fact is, none of you liberals marched in the street denouncing Clinton's bombing campaigns against Sudanese aspirin factories, Chinese embassies, and Serbian hospitals. You were too busy damning the Republicans for impeaching him to even notice when he started wars simply to distract national attention away from his philandering and perjury. Where are the complaints that Clinton's enforcement of economic sanctions against Iraq killed more Iraqi civilians by starvation and poverty than Bush did in six years of warfare? Where are the complaints that Clinton cowardly sat on his hands while the Rwandan Hutus committed genocide against their Tutsi countrymen? Where were you when Clinton tried to outlaw strong encryption, when he created the pseudo-legal doctrine of extraordinary rendition, where he sent federal agents to murder Vicki Weaver while she held her infant child?

Going backwards - US Marshals under Bush Sr... (but let's blame Barr for that) what with it happening in August and the election not being until November, much less Clinton taking office in 1993, a full 5 months after the incident...
Rwanda - You are right. Clinton did drop the ball on that one. So did the UK, France, Germany, Brazil, Australia, Canada, the UN, Russia... But let's just blame Clinton for not sending Team US World Police into action. Fair.
Enforcing the sactions that.. Bush Sr put in place. There's really no good way out of that one. If you enforce them, you fuck over the Iraqi people. If you don't enforce them, you let Sadam do his thing AND give your political opponents ammunition to use against you. Tough call.
Serbian Hospitals - I assume you refer to the United Nations Protection Force? Where the COs were Indian, Swedish and French? Or are we talking about the Tuzla portion of IFOR? Help me out here with the specifics.
Chinese Embassy Bombings - The NATO one? You're right, the CIA fucked that one up.
The Sudanese Aspirin Factory - You're selling it short...it made all kinds of antibiotics and other medicines. Still, blow people up, or lock them up.. tough call. I mean, if you suspect a place is making weapons of mass destruction yet all tests show no evidence for it, you can bomb it, ignore it, or ask the local government to take care of it. It's not like you can just invade the country in question, overthrow the government and set up a new one. That'd be WACKY! But no, seriously, Clinton fucked that up.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Belial » Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:20 pm UTC

Atlas. wrote:
Belial wrote:
Because you're still trying to judge people. You're trying to determine who the racists are. And the answer is: it's everyone to some degree. And if that's not a terribly satisfying or useful answer, there's a reason: the question you're asking is nearly useless.

Other people in the conversation are trying to judge ideas, words, and actions. Trying to determine what is racist. They would appear to have the correct tree. I suggest barking up it.


Then I would define a racist as anyone who immediately judges or looks down upon another person simply because the color of their skin. A racist is someone who thinks they are better than someone else based on the color of their skin and looks at entire groups of people rather than at the individual. But I still am not sure that everyone is a racist to some degree. I think it is safe to say that we all unfairly judge people and some do it more often than others, but that seems to me more like human nature. I think for it to be racist the judgment has to be based on skin color, not just ignorance and a momentary personal failing.


You're still offering a mostly useless answer to a mostly useless question.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Decker
Posts: 2071
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:22 pm UTC
Location: Western N.Y.

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Decker » Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:24 pm UTC

Atlas. wrote:
Belial wrote:
Because you're still trying to judge people. You're trying to determine who the racists are. And the answer is: it's everyone to some degree. And if that's not a terribly satisfying or useful answer, there's a reason: the question you're asking is nearly useless.

Other people in the conversation are trying to judge ideas, words, and actions. Trying to determine what is racist. They would appear to have the correct tree. I suggest barking up it.


Then I would define a racist as anyone who immediately judges or looks down upon another person simply because the color of their skin. A racist is someone who thinks they are better than someone else based on the color of their skin and looks at entire groups of people rather than at the individual. But I still am not sure that everyone is a racist to some degree. I think it is safe to say that we all unfairly judge people and some do it more often than others, but that seems to me more like human nature. I think for it to be racist the judgment has to be based on skin color, not just ignorance and a momentary personal failing.

I would argue that people don't have to be aware that they're making their judgement based on skin color. It can be a subconcious thing. They will make excuses about how they think and they will belive it. Arguably, this form of racism is more dangerous that people who know they are making judgements based on skin color.
I was angry with my friend. I told my wrath. My wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe. I told it not. My wrath did grow.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Philwelch » Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:43 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:Serbian Hospitals - I assume you refer to the United Nations Protection Force? Where the COs were Indian, Swedish and French? Or are we talking about the Tuzla portion of IFOR? Help me out here with the specifics.


I'm referring to the bombing of Serbia under the overall command of Wesley Clark during the Clinton administration. That war was not sanctioned by the UN. As a direct result of Clinton's political decision to neither deploy ground troops nor in most cases deploy aircraft at a low enough altitude to be at risk of antiaircraft fire, the accuracy of the bombing campaign was compromised, leading directly to the loss of civilian lives and the destruction of neutral property.

I'm not interested in some academic debate about whether Clinton or Bush was worse. My only point is this: there is no qualitative difference between them, both of them are equally guilty of aggressing against foreign soil, taking enemy lives, and even subjecting prisoners to torture, either directly or through the practice of extraordinary rendition.

Bush started a war for profit. Clinton started a war to distract the country from the question of whose mouth his penis was in and how truthful he was about the matter when questioned under oath. Neither is a just cause for war.

From these facts, we are forced to conclude that many liberal criticisms of Bush (he started a war for personal gain, he disrespects civil liberties, he is a pathological liar) are not, in fact, genuine and honest criticisms because these same liberals refuse to apply the same criticisms to Clinton. Hence, the criticisms of Bush are and remain pure partisan politics, just like the criticisms of Obama.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Vaniver » Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:53 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:White people do not hate black people in the same way that they hate other white people,
Really? Someone hates Jews differently from how they hate blacks?

Or are Jews not white people, now, despite being white? What if we're talking about the Irish, instead? Eastern Europeans? French? Germans?

Group hatreds are not magic when they're based on race, class, or sex. Those are just convenient and readily identifiable groups, and thus the ones with the most properties associated with them. Having a low view of lawyers is no different, fundamentally, from having a low view of blacks- the only real difference is how accurate your observations and your groupings are.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:those prejudicial narratives that compose our cultural racism — can be taken apart separately, and in many cases much more easily, than the basic fact of hatred itself.
Emphasis mine.
Race relations in particular communities are the aggregate of individual relations, and change over time as the individuals change over time. There were many communities that were predominantly white but accepted blacks- until Southern blacks, with a different culture from both Northern whites and Northern blacks, rolled into town, when race started to become an issue.

Racism is 'prejudice' in the sense that, on meeting a new person, you make judgments about them based off the signals they project, and several of those signals are personal characteristics they can't change, like sex or origin or skin color. But it's not prejudice in the sense that your interpretation of those signals appears out of thin air. Signs saying "Irish need not apply" didn't show up before any Irish started applying- they showed up after managers found themselves turning down or firing so many Irish that they decided to stop bothering. Many Jewish organizations throughout the US had outreach programs for new immigrants which attempted to acculturate them to the US quickly, not so much for the benefit of the immigrants as to prevent the public from associating Jews with poor, smelly foreigners.

Only when discussing racism in the abstract academic sense does it become "person A's feelings toward people who have property B" rather than "Bob's feelings towards the people who play loud music when he's trying to sleep." Now, it's certainly unfair to individuals to lump them into groups and judge them based off of group membership, and hasty generalizations are logical fallacies. But to imagine that someone concocts feelings about blue people, and then meets blue people and applies those feelings to them, bears little resemblance to what actually happens.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Dream » Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:56 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:Bush started a war for profit. Clinton started a war to distract the country from the question of whose mouth his penis was in and how truthful he was about the matter when questioned under oath. Neither is a just cause for war.

Bullshit. There was no situation of any international importance in Iraq when Bush started his invasion plans, and he invented one to satisfy himself. Clinton merely took advantage of an existing situation to deflect attention away from a partisan witch hunt that could actually have cost him the presidency.

I blame Clinton for many military crimes and blunders in the Balkans, but he didn't do it because of his affair, of the lies about it. He just took cowardly advantage of an international crisis to avoid taking a stand against the unreal standards of behaviour in US politics. I blame Bush for the entire Iraq War and everything in it. There's a little difference between the two.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Philwelch » Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:02 pm UTC

Dream wrote:
Philwelch wrote:Bush started a war for profit. Clinton started a war to distract the country from the question of whose mouth his penis was in and how truthful he was about the matter when questioned under oath. Neither is a just cause for war.

Bullshit. There was no situation of any international importance in Iraq when Bush started his invasion plans, and he invented one to satisfy himself.


There was a system of sanctions that was untenable in the long term, combined with an opportunity to build a democracy in an area of the world that desperately needs one. Establishing a democracy somewhere in the Middle East--where it can influence the rest of the region for the better--was a significant long term national security gain, but it will take decades until we can see whether or not that worked out.

Dream wrote:Clinton merely took advantage of an existing situation to deflect attention away from a partisan witch hunt that could actually have cost him the presidency.


There is no shortage of "existing situations" that a president can turn into a war with enough plausible deniability. Clinton just had a better PR team.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Vaniver » Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:13 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:Establishing a democracy somewhere in the Middle East--where it can influence the rest of the region for the better--was a significant long term national security gain, but it will take decades until we can see whether or not that worked out.
Um, there already is a Western-style democracy in the Middle East. I'm not sure its track record suggests that it influences the rest of the region for the better.

Western democracy is the outward demonstration of cultural values and cultural capital. Unless you have the cultural values and cultural capital, then the democracy doesn't do anything but reflect the current state of cultural values and cultural capital- which, for most of the developing world, is rather ugly (and few parts of the developed world are pretty, though most are far prettier).
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Philwelch » Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:19 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Philwelch wrote:Establishing a democracy somewhere in the Middle East--where it can influence the rest of the region for the better--was a significant long term national security gain, but it will take decades until we can see whether or not that worked out.
Um, there already is a Western-style democracy in the Middle East. I'm not sure its track record suggests that it influences the rest of the region for the better.


Quite right--what was needed was an Arab democracy.

I'm not saying it worked out (ask again next decade), but it's as worthwhile a long-term policy objective as any.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Dream » Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:23 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:Um, there already is a Western-style democracy in the Middle East

I'm not sure if you're talking about Israel here, but there's also Lebanon and Turkey, both of which have regular free and fair elections. Neither would be even close to my idea of a properly working representative Democracy, but then, that's an exceeding rarity anywhere in the world.
Philwelch wrote:Clinton just had a better PR team.

Clinton didn't lie to start the war in the Balkans. It was already going on, and Western intervention was almost an absolute necessity to prevent it from spreading and leading to terrible crimes against humanity. That there were terrible crimes anyway, because Clinton and others wouldn't actually put an Army in harm's way, and while still causing massive damage to Serbia is why I detest Clinton's handling of that war. The Iraq War was entirely and completely the fabrication of a small group of Bush Administration insiders. It was founded on lies told to mask an ideological and messianic fervour to attack that country. The Balkan war was a hamfisted intervention in an already existing conflict, however one that was by many metrics absolutely necessary. If you can't see any difference between the two besides PR, you have a twisted view of these things.

Philwelch wrote:Quite right--what was needed was an Arab democracy.

Say them with me: Lebanon. Turkey.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:29 pm UTC

Regardless of definitions of racism and 90's politics, Carter's statement was a needless playing of the race card.

"Most of the anger is motivated by racism" serves only to inflame the partisan hackery, drowning out the actual issue. Someone really needs to explain to Carter what "Don't Feed The Trolls" means.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:31 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:Really? Someone hates Jews differently from how they hate blacks?

Gruh. I meant that a person's hatred of black people as a group (or Jews as a group, or whatever) is different from hating people on an individual level.

Vaniver wrote:But it's not prejudice in the sense that your interpretation of those signals appears out of thin air.

Well, no, but they don't just come from flawed observations, either. Stereotypes are often taught to people who aren't even given a chance to observe or interact with the stereotyped group. For example, many of my classmates regard lesbian teachers at our school as pedophiles, despite a lack of actual incidents to suggest this. This attitude is much more credibly traced to socialization, such as media representations and the prejudices of peers and parents, than to hasty generalization.

Anyway, I don't see how you got that interpretation out of my use of the word "prejudicial," or how it's particularly relevant to the need for confronting racism.

Heisenberg: So, ignore racism and maybe it will go away?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Philwelch » Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:44 pm UTC

Dream wrote:
Philwelch wrote:Clinton just had a better PR team.

Clinton didn't lie to start the war in the Balkans. It was already going on, and Western intervention was almost an absolute necessity to prevent it from spreading and leading to terrible crimes against humanity.


The war in Iraq was already going on as well--since the Clinton administration, Iraq was regularly bombed by coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones. This was partially meant to enforce a regime of economic sanctions that had killed countless people. The sanctions were not tenable in the long run for equally humanitarian reasons. Would you rather the sanctions--and Saddam's rule--continued all this time?

The fact is, Clinton intervened in Serbia for reasons quite unrelated to any legitimate policy rationale for the war. In Iraq, there was an equally legitimate policy rationale for war. The fact that the administration talked about WMD instead of directly addressing the more legitimate rationales for the war is, as I have said, bad PR. The real reasons for both wars was political--the fact that Clinton's PR team seized on a more plausible and believable excuse behind the War of Bubba's Blowjob than Bush's PR team seized on for the War of You Tried To Kill My Daddy is of no real consequence.

Dream wrote:
Philwelch wrote:Quite right--what was needed was an Arab democracy.

Say them with me: Lebanon. Turkey.


Say it with me: Turks are not Arabs.

Lebanon was not a democracy until Syria ended their domination of Lebanon, which happened...heh...a couple years after the invasion of Iraq. So score one for Bush.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Malice » Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:04 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:
Dream wrote:
Philwelch wrote:Clinton just had a better PR team.

Clinton didn't lie to start the war in the Balkans. It was already going on, and Western intervention was almost an absolute necessity to prevent it from spreading and leading to terrible crimes against humanity.


The war in Iraq was already going on as well--since the Clinton administration, Iraq was regularly bombed by coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones. This was partially meant to enforce a regime of economic sanctions that had killed countless people. The sanctions were not tenable in the long run for equally humanitarian reasons. Would you rather the sanctions--and Saddam's rule--continued all this time?


Yes, actually. Saddam's rule was bad. But we were already in a war that needed our attention. At any given time there are dozens of places around the world that might be helped by military intervention, but it's not our job to be the global police. None of them are good enough excuses to leave the job we were doing in Afghanistan undone.
Image

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Garm » Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:19 pm UTC

Phil, you seem to think that things like the Balkan's war is some how equivalent with Iraq and that insofar as politics is concerned the left is just as culpable as the right when it comes to the conflicts of the last 20 years. Not so, I say. As is happening now, the left, for the most part, shows a remarkably steady moral compass. There is a real tendency right now to try to equivocate the crimes of the past 8 years by making these false comparisons between public reaction to historical events and their modern counterparts. I think that such comparisons are shallow, misleading, and ultimately wrong.

Right now you're conflating the Iraq War and the Bosnian conflict, going so far as to say that the NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia was a "Wag The Dog" scenario to distract from the burgeoning Lewinsky scandal. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Dayton Accords that ended the crisis in the Balkans and resulted in the U.S. putting peace keeping troops in U.N. safe zones were signed into effect in 1995. The second period of NATO intervention in the region is probably what you're referring to. The Kosovo bombing lasted from March of 1999 to June of the same. The Lewinsky scandal broke January 17, 1998 and ended with President Clinton being brought up for impeachment on December 19, 1998 which kind of misses our dog wag target dates. So basically... you're fucking wrong. Clinton's popularity remained high because there weren't really many casualties from either of the NATO bombing campaigns or the peace keeping missions (32 dead in total, 2 of those considered combat deaths). Despite this popularity, liberals opposed the war in Bosnia which is pretty consistent with the peace and granola crowd. Sure, we cheered when Milosevic surrendered and was shipped off to The Hague, and we cheered when Saddam was finally brought into custody (his subsequent hanging after a kangaroo court was decidedly third world but whatevs) but that doesn't mean we agreed with how we brought them to justice. We also protested the Iraq war (and the whole run of of falsehoods that got us there) vigorously despite being called a million man "focus group." Meanwhile on the right, the reaction to the Yugoslavia interventions was overwhelmingly negative despite it's supposed humanist aim. The support of the Iraq war was near deafening involving jingoistic phrases and evocations of the cowboy era and the "good war" of World War II (or just something about ragheads).

So you're okay with equivocating the Iraq war with the Bosnian/Kosovo crisis and are willing to say that perjuring oneself over an affair is worse than torturing people and spinning a web of falsehoods to inspire a nation into a costly and deadly war. I just can't believe it. You've got other equivocations and think the whole subject is worth exploring because it's created a taint on our national dialog (as if that wasn't sullied enough already). It seems to me like you and whole legions like you are willing to believe that a couple hippies on a street corner (and Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart) calling Bush a liar is the same as the vast array of right wing pundits who wail and gnash their teeth at everything Obama says (or B. Clinton. Why the fuck are we still talking about him like everything's his fault. He hasn't been in office for nearly nine years). There's all this idiocy and it' just makes me sad.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
Flagpole Sitta
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:27 pm UTC
Location: luminiferous æther
Contact:

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Flagpole Sitta » Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:30 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:But to imagine that someone concocts feelings about blue people, and then meets blue people and applies those feelings to them, bears little resemblance to what actually happens.


No, actually, it doesn't. Some of the worst racist/homophobic people I've met have never met a racial/sexual/gender minority in their life.

Good lord. The number of people I know who have never so much as smelled a trans person in their life and then make those stupid ass-jokes about being tricked into bed by a "man."
Poxic is, like, awesome. She's my favorite.

Kapojinha is pretty awesome too. <3

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Philwelch » Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:43 pm UTC

Garm wrote:Phil, you seem to think that things like the Balkan's war is some how equivalent with Iraq and that insofar as politics is concerned the left is just as culpable as the right when it comes to the conflicts of the last 20 years.


I'm not interested in an exact comparison. For the record I think Bush was worse than Clinton, but Clinton was a right bastard too.

Garm wrote:The Kosovo bombing lasted from March of 1999 to June of the same. The Lewinsky scandal broke January 17, 1998 and ended with President Clinton being brought up for impeachment on December 19, 1998 which kind of misses our dog wag target dates. So basically... you're fucking wrong.


Clinton bombed Afghanistan and Sudan in August 1998, within days of his heavily publicized testimony to the grand jury and his address on national TV confessing his affair with Lewinsky.

Clinton bombed Iraq in December of 1998, during his impeachment hearings.

Within weeks of his acquittal in the Senate, the bombings of Serbia began.

Garm wrote:Clinton's popularity remained high because there weren't really many casualties from either of the NATO bombing campaigns or the peace keeping missions (32 dead in total, 2 of those considered combat deaths).


Because Clinton deliberately held back, reducing the effectiveness (and risks) of the US intervention to gain political favor. The increased number of civilian deaths was a direct result, but one with few political consequences to Clinton.

Garm wrote:So you're okay with equivocating the Iraq war with the Bosnian/Kosovo crisis and are willing to say that perjuring oneself over an affair is worse than torturing people and spinning a web of falsehoods to inspire a nation into a costly and deadly war.


As it happens, Clinton and NATO probably overstated the extent of the genocide being committed by Milosevic. So there's your "spinning a web of falsehoods to inspire a nation into a costly and deadly war" (well, costly and deadly for Serbian civilians, less so for Americans).

Also, Clinton initiated the policy of extraordinary rendition, in which terror suspects are illegally kidnapped and sent overseas so that other countries can torture them on our behalf.

Not equivalent. But similar. And as always, no one cares about torture and warmongering as long as their boy's the one doing it.

Obama hasn't released all of the illegal Gitmo prisoners yet, either. Where's your liberal outrage? Where is your god now?
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:48 pm UTC

Flagpole Sitta wrote:
Vaniver wrote:But to imagine that someone concocts feelings about blue people, and then meets blue people and applies those feelings to them, bears little resemblance to what actually happens.


No, actually, it doesn't. Some of the worst racist/homophobic people I've met have never met a racial/sexual/gender minority in their life.

But they didn't come up with those ideas out of the blue, either. It's not like somebody just decided that Peruvians can shoot lasers out of their eyes, and then treated all Peruvians as though they could. They heard stories about the mighty Peruvians and their propensity for laserings, and decided to run with it.
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Sep 25, 2009 12:06 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:But to imagine that someone concocts feelings about blue people, and then meets blue people and applies those feelings to them, bears little resemblance to what actually happens.
I think you're overlooking the fact that discriminatory practices are of great utility to both society at large and the individuals who use them. One of the reasons we have narratives in the south like the black men preying on white women is because it was a useful narrative to express frustration and anger directed toward black people after the end of the Civil War. It had no basis in reality (I've yet to see any statistic on rape that provides evidence that black men were more prone to raping white women then white men were prone to raping white women), but it served a very distinct, very useful cultural function.

And ultimately, that's what it's about: What is of use to you? What serves your purpose for identity? What beliefs provide you with a consistent, functional world view? What beliefs grant you access to friends and fellowships? I don't doubt that part of racism involves demonizing certain characteristics you've observed in the various minorities you've met - but the explanation you're giving is very incomplete. I mean, to hijack the No-Irish-Need-Apply example - do you think every businessman who posted that sign had experience with Irishmen? Obviously not; well, did every single one of them get told that they shouldn't trust Irishmen by someone who's opinion they trusted? Well, maybe. But doesn't it seem more likely that demonizing Irishmen served a useful cultural purpose - granting you friendship and comraderie between those who also demonized Irishmen, allowing you to hoist your problems on a spectral boogyman, etc?

What I'm saying is that, from a rather selfish perspective, racism is a very useful thing. I agree that some of it has basis in personal experience, but I think the vast majority of racism is just a function of its incredible utility as a cultural and social instrument.

User avatar
Flagpole Sitta
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:27 pm UTC
Location: luminiferous æther
Contact:

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Flagpole Sitta » Fri Sep 25, 2009 12:56 am UTC

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:
Flagpole Sitta wrote:No, actually, it doesn't. Some of the worst racist/homophobic people I've met have never met a racial/sexual/gender minority in their life.
But they didn't come up with those ideas out of the blue, either. It's not like somebody just decided that Peruvians can shoot lasers out of their eyes, and then treated all Peruvians as though they could. They heard stories about the mighty Peruvians and their propensity for laserings, and decided to run with it.


Well, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that what Vaniver said is horribly, horribly wrong. He's making out like racism stems from negative experiences with the oppressed minority, when it just doesn't.

The only reason a someone would be willing to give such ludicrous stories about Peruvians and weight is if they already had some preexisting prejudice.
Poxic is, like, awesome. She's my favorite.

Kapojinha is pretty awesome too. <3

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:12 am UTC

Flagpole Sitta wrote:Well, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that what Vaniver said is horribly, horribly wrong. He's making out like racism stems from negative experiences with the oppressed minority, when it just doesn't.
To be fair, yes, racism can stem from negative experiences with the oppressed minority - and I have no doubt that racism is often shaped by negative experiences with oppressed minorities - but beyond that, racism is a useful thing. So even if you weren't hating black people for whatever random reason a black guy gave you to hate black people, you would still hate black people, because it's very useful for you to hate black people.

Consider the example of Jews throughout Europe; at one point, usury was (more or less) banned by the Catholic Church - Jews had access to a market of money-lending that no one else had access to (which was a good thing, since all other markets were closed to them). The antisemitic notion that Jews are money-grubbing bankers came about by a situation outside their direct control - where their occupational mobility was limited and one of the only lucrative forms of business they were offered was in the form of money-lending. People had negative experience with Jews as a result of this (people tend to have negative experiences with money-lenders, and guess what - the majority of money-lenders are now Jewish), which shaped and guided the type of hatred that Jews experienced.

But even if all this hadn't happened, people would have still hated Jews - because it was useful to hate Jews. The culture and circumstances of a minority gives shape to racism, but racism persists regardless of its form because of its utility.

MrGee
Posts: 998
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:33 pm UTC

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby MrGee » Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:36 am UTC

Hooray Jimmy...way to uphold Obama's insistence on sticking to the issues instead of engaging in reckless namecalling.

O WATE

User avatar
Flagpole Sitta
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:27 pm UTC
Location: luminiferous æther
Contact:

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Flagpole Sitta » Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:40 am UTC

No. Look. Racism always comes out because of the false perceptions of the racist person. No exceptions. Anything else is victim blaming. I have no more to say about this here, because it's off topic.

Edit: Added a comma
Last edited by Flagpole Sitta on Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:43 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Poxic is, like, awesome. She's my favorite.

Kapojinha is pretty awesome too. <3

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:42 am UTC

MrGee wrote:Hooray Jimmy...way to uphold Obama's insistence on sticking to the issues instead of engaging in reckless namecalling.

O WATE

Is racism not an issue anymore, then?

King Author wrote:I don't think Carter was saying, "my opponents are racist, don't listen to them," I think he was saying, "these specific folks here are racist -- this is disgusting, seriously America, wtf?"
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

MrGee
Posts: 998
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:33 pm UTC

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby MrGee » Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:56 am UTC

Right, racism is obviously nonexistent and should never be talked about. That's obviously what I meant.

Here are some other useless things Carter could have said:

Some Muslims are terrorists!
Some Blacks are lazy!
Some cashiers at Wendy's mix up your order!

What fucking good does it do, exactly? If Carter had SPECIFIC people in mind who made obviously racist statements, they should be put down in the harshest possible way. Otherwise it's just fearmongering.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Philwelch » Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:19 am UTC

Flagpole Sitta wrote:No. Look. Racism always comes out because of the false perceptions of the racist person. No exceptions. Anything else is victim blaming. I have no more to say about this here, because it's off topic.


If a group of people is oppressed in certain way (for instance, denied education), you might get a true perception of those people as being uneducated. But if your perspective is too narrow, you don't necessarily see the oppression itself, only the results thereof. A less direct example is when people are oppressed into poverty and desperation, since the effects of poverty and desperation--crime, for instance--is easier to intellectually separate from their causes.

No racial group is congenitally predisposed to stupidity or criminality, of course, but racism itself can create a racially identifiable underclass of people who are forced into that position by oppression. If someone perceives the existence of such an underclass without identifying the oppression responsible for creating that underclass, that may indeed be a "false perception", but only out of incompleteness.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:35 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:No racial group is congenitally predisposed to stupidity or criminality, of course, but racism itself can create a racially identifiable underclass of people who are forced into that position by oppression. If someone perceives the existence of such an underclass without identifying the oppression responsible for creating that underclass, that may indeed be a "false perception", but only out of incompleteness.
Ironic but perhaps controversial (?!) aside: One of the results of racism, sexism, and homophobia is that the targets will often begin to internalize the values projected on them. In short, stereotypes lead to pressure to fulfill stereotypes. And then, when you have people who end up filling those stereotypes, that in turn reinforces the stereotype even further, which leads to a greater pressure...

I don't think this is the core mechanism behind racism, but it's worth noting.

MrGee
Posts: 998
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:33 pm UTC

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby MrGee » Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:10 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Philwelch wrote:No racial group is congenitally predisposed to stupidity or criminality, of course, but racism itself can create a racially identifiable underclass of people who are forced into that position by oppression. If someone perceives the existence of such an underclass without identifying the oppression responsible for creating that underclass, that may indeed be a "false perception", but only out of incompleteness.
Ironic but perhaps controversial (?!) aside: One of the results of racism, sexism, and homophobia is that the targets will often begin to internalize the values projected on them. In short, stereotypes lead to pressure to fulfill stereotypes. And then, when you have people who end up filling those stereotypes, that in turn reinforces the stereotype even further, which leads to a greater pressure...

I don't think this is the core mechanism behind racism, but it's worth noting.


What he said. Racism -> hopelessness -> inferiority -> racism

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Ixtellor » Fri Sep 25, 2009 12:56 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:Where were you when Clinton sent federal agents to murder Vicki Weaver while she held her infant child?


1) Clinton did NOT send any agents to murder anyone. He just happened to be President when this occured. Is he personally responsible for every crime committed by the 4 million people who are technically working for him?

2) Re-enactment.

Vicki Weaver "Randy, whats going on?"
Randy Weaver "Oh me and our son Sammy were killing cops, and Sammy got shot"
Vicki Weaver "Oh crap, what should we do now?"
Randy Weaver "Get a gun and be prepared to kill every cop you see"
Vicki Weaver "Sounds good, let me just put all the kids in another room, so they don't get hit by bullets while you and me are trying to kill cops"

Sniper bullet kills vicki weaver.

The shot was an illegal shot, the sniper was charged, but then the charges were dropped because of sovereignty.

3) Moral of the story. Don't try to kill cops or they will probably shoot back. A secondary moral, if you want to be a good mother and protect your children, dont have them sitting behind you while your prepareing to shoot cops.
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26531
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby SecondTalon » Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:10 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:
Philwelch wrote:Where were you when Clinton sent federal agents to murder Vicki Weaver while she held her infant child?


1) Clinton did NOT send any agents to murder anyone. He just happened to be President when this occured. Is he personally responsible for every crime committed by the 4 million people who are technically working for him?
As has already been pointed out, the only way Clinton could have been President when it occurred is if Clinton had a fucking time machine. So unless you're suggesting that Bill Clinton is somehow a time-travelling crimefighter from THE FUTURE.....
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:12 pm UTC

This would explain so much, though... the meaning of "is," his ability to testify before having sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky, etc.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Belial » Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:15 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:This would explain so much, though... the meaning of "is," his ability to testify before having sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky, etc.


He went back and snatched an earlier version of himself who hadn't (yet) had sexual relations with that woman, and had him testify.

It was mostly for his own conscience, though, as he already knew no one would believe him.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Ixtellor » Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:31 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:
Ixtellor wrote:
Philwelch wrote:Where were you when Clinton sent federal agents to murder Vicki Weaver while she held her infant child?


1) Clinton did NOT send any agents to murder anyone. He just happened to be President when this occured. Is he personally responsible for every crime committed by the 4 million people who are technically working for him?
As has already been pointed out, the only way Clinton could have been President when it occurred is if Clinton had a fucking time machine. So unless you're suggesting that Bill Clinton is somehow a time-travelling crimefighter from THE FUTURE.....


Well "Clinton did NOT send any agents to murder anyone" is in fact true.

Apparently after hearing conspiracy theorists and libertarian wackos say for 15+ years Clinton murdered the Weavers, I guess I just assumed he was president at the time. I was mistaken, and thank you for correcting that oversight.

I still don't feel sorry for the Weavers. I have a motto "Don't shoot at cops" and typically don't feel sympathy for people that violate that motto of mine.

Thanks again for pointing out that oversight.

Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Philwelch » Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:15 pm UTC

Federal courts have ruled in favor of the Weavers. I know you're not in favor of shooting at cops, even when the cops shoot at you first, but some people are not so eager to allow themselves to be summarily executed.

The fact that you take the ATF's side in this affair makes you a fascist. Full stop.

I have a motto, too: "don't commit entrapment, and if you do commit entrapment, don't shoot civilians with sniper rifles". That one applies to cops.

This one applies to attorney generals: "don't promote murderers, fire them and file charges against them".
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Ixtellor » Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:18 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote: I know you're not in favor of shooting at cops, even when the cops shoot at you first, but some people are not so eager to allow themselves to be summarily executed.


Right. Thats why everytime a police officer yells (AND I QUOTE) "Stop! US Marshall"
I run away and grab a gun, then hold up a defensive position in my house.

Or when my attack dog tries to go after cops... as I trained him to do... and a cop actually defends himself and shoots the dog.. I shoot at cops. Cops have no right to shoot vicious dogs, so I always shoot cops if they shoot dogs.

I think everyone agrees its reasonable to kill cops if they shoot your dog. Right?

Philwelch wrote:don't commit entrapment, and if you do commit entrapment, don't shoot civilians with sniper rifles".


Non-Sequitor.

They didn't shoot the Weavers because they were avoiding entrapement... thats what trials are for... they shot the weavers because the weavers were cop killers who refused to surrender to authorities.

Do you actually believe the cops intented to apprenhend the Weavers then summarily execute them in a ditch somewhere?

It was a petty fucking charge and they didn't even face the death penelty much less life in prison.

Anytime a cop says "your under arrest" you don't shoot the cop. You fight it in court. And there is no doubt the Weavers would have won because the warrant had the wrong court dates on it.

Ixtellor

P.S. It is my understanding the Weavers won damages for the death of Vicki, and got NOTHING for the death of their son, who shoots at cops. I wager if the police had just waited a few more minutes the police would have won, due to self defense. The fact they fired on sight, is what they did wrong. Not that the Weavers were a peaceloving family who were trying to cooperate, they were purposefully not cooperating, and it escalated into Sammy shooting cops while Randy ran back to get more guns.
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests