Jump to content


Photo

Security Policy Implications Of A Trump Presidency


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1874 replies to this topic

#1861 Paul G.

Paul G.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,532 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 12 July 2017 - 1720 PM

It's called rapid fire and is frequently used by the rabid right to confuse and obfuscate.  Moving goal posts is also a common practice.The only important thing is to keep pinging that the government is the enemy and we have to do away with it. What follows is of course left blank.
 
Frankly, up to the 1980s the US middle class was uniformly of the opinion that government did favorable things, even if they did not necessarily benefit you or me personally.
 
This has since been overturned by the 'me' generation, who missed out or failed Civics class ages ago: "I have mine, f**k you if you don't have yours."


Completely agree. Many Americans have confused selfishness for individual liberty.

#1862 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 12 July 2017 - 1930 PM

How is Fast and Furious relevant to silencing the media? I agree Holder should have lost his job but I'm not seeing the connection.


So you're JUST concerned about silencing the media here? Government agencies acting over and above their purview or outside of the law infringing upon citizens rights isn't a concern. Ok.


Same deal Citizens United; a horrible court decision that if I recall Barry berated the SCOTUS for; what is your point?


So you think that the Feds Should be able to limit the display of a movie critical of a candidate during the election cycle?

Oh, well if you're ONLY concerned about 1st amendment rights of the MEDIA organizations but fuck the rest of the citizenry and their rights...ok... well, ya got me there.


I similarly don't understand the relevance of the EPA or the SCOTUS ruling vis-a-vis Obama's treatment of media either.
The IRS behaved badly in this case. I would have supported an investigation into Obama influencing them at the time.


And you'll note that there was no real effective investigation on that.

#1863 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 12 July 2017 - 1935 PM

Frankly, up to the 1980s the US middle class was uniformly of the opinion that government did favorable things, even if they did not necessarily benefit you or me personally.


It changed because the people in government stopped doing favorable things and started fucking with people because they could and they were from the Fed government.

 

This has since been overturned by the 'me' generation, who missed out or failed Civics class ages ago: "I have mine, f**k you if you don't have yours."


Those of us who DID take Civics know that when the feds start acting like they're from the NKVD and get to do what they want, to whom they want, when they want, it's no longer applicable under standard US Civics practices Ken.

You leave a key bit out Ken. Yes. People like me have what is ours. We worked for it. We paid for it. It's IN THE CONSTITUTION. 5th amendment.

So, yes, Fuck you because you think you can take it because you're from the government and you want it for your agency's own use or to give to someone you think is more deserving.


Were you sick the day they covered the 5th amendment in Civics Ken? I wasn't.

Edited by rmgill, 12 July 2017 - 1936 PM.


#1864 JWB

JWB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,013 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:everything (almost)

Posted 12 July 2017 - 2051 PM

19894666_10155649185789548_4696206604463



#1865 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,962 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 12 July 2017 - 2238 PM

 

Frankly, up to the 1980s the US middle class was uniformly of the opinion that government did favorable things, even if they did not necessarily benefit you or me personally.


It changed because the people in government stopped doing favorable things and started fucking with people because they could and they were from the Fed government.

 

This has since been overturned by the 'me' generation, who missed out or failed Civics class ages ago: "I have mine, f**k you if you don't have yours."


Those of us who DID take Civics know that when the feds start acting like they're from the NKVD and get to do what they want, to whom they want, when they want, it's no longer applicable under standard US Civics practices Ken.

You leave a key bit out Ken. Yes. People like me have what is ours. We worked for it. We paid for it. It's IN THE CONSTITUTION. 5th amendment.

So, yes, Fuck you because you think you can take it because you're from the government and you want it for your agency's own use or to give to someone you think is more deserving.


Were you sick the day they covered the 5th amendment in Civics Ken? I wasn't.

 

Were you sick when you wrote this tripe, Gill? FY too.



#1866 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,038 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 12 July 2017 - 2243 PM

 

 

Frankly, up to the 1980s the US middle class was uniformly of the opinion that government did favorable things, even if they did not necessarily benefit you or me personally.


It changed because the people in government stopped doing favorable things and started fucking with people because they could and they were from the Fed government.

 

This has since been overturned by the 'me' generation, who missed out or failed Civics class ages ago: "I have mine, f**k you if you don't have yours."


Those of us who DID take Civics know that when the feds start acting like they're from the NKVD and get to do what they want, to whom they want, when they want, it's no longer applicable under standard US Civics practices Ken.

You leave a key bit out Ken. Yes. People like me have what is ours. We worked for it. We paid for it. It's IN THE CONSTITUTION. 5th amendment.

So, yes, Fuck you because you think you can take it because you're from the government and you want it for your agency's own use or to give to someone you think is more deserving.


Were you sick the day they covered the 5th amendment in Civics Ken? I wasn't.

 

Were you sick when you wrote this tripe, Gill? FY too.

 

 

I think Ryan's "FY" was not personally directed here, but more likely directed to that kind of bureaucrat from some infamous agencies.

Could have been written better, perhaps.


Edited by sunday, 12 July 2017 - 2244 PM.


#1867 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,962 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 12 July 2017 - 2249 PM

He's a sick puppy.



#1868 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,189 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 13 July 2017 - 0055 AM

 

It's called rapid fire and is frequently used by the rabid right to confuse and obfuscate.  Moving goal posts is also a common practice.The only important thing is to keep pinging that the government is the enemy and we have to do away with it. What follows is of course left blank.
 
Frankly, up to the 1980s the US middle class was uniformly of the opinion that government did favorable things, even if they did not necessarily benefit you or me personally.
 
This has since been overturned by the 'me' generation, who missed out or failed Civics class ages ago: "I have mine, f**k you if you don't have yours."


Completely agree. Many Americans have confused selfishness for individual liberty.

 


Copy that.

image is related

aPBbgdQ_700b.jpg



#1869 FALightFighter

FALightFighter

    Red-Legged Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,357 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 13 July 2017 - 0600 AM

Rightful liberty means that some people, perhaps many people, are going to make abhorrent choices. As long as those choices don't infringe on the rightful liberty of others, that is the cost of freedom. Sure its abhorrent to refuse to do business with another because of their race- but no individual has the right to a business transaction with another. It is over-reach of gov't power to ban certain transactions just as it is over-reach to mandate certain transactions. Gov't's monopoly of force means that its other actions must be strictly limited, or you have tyranny, regardless of the form of the gov't.

 

A USian federal gov't that abided strictly within the constraints emplaced by the Constitution- not one that takes any action it can twist the Constitution into allowing- is certainly valuable and justifiable. We've departed from that so greatly and for so long that even talking about it no longer makes sense to a great portion of the population.



#1870 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,189 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 13 July 2017 - 0823 AM

Not "tyranny" - "majority rule" - that's what it is if a democratically legitimated government becomes intrusive.

The way to go then is to vote differently - not to pretend that the government is a "tyranny".

 

See, that's why I see little difference between libertarians and anarchists.

 

A useful test to identify "tyranny" is the violation of human rights.

To sanction employers who reject applicants because they sabotage peace and prosperity in the society by discriminating against citizens is not against human rights. It's what governments do that pursue a post-medieval society. Always remember, what discrimination an employer does with the pretence of "liberty" is clearly against the idea of "liberty" of the victim.

Just imagine an unofficial, economy-driven instead of government-driven apartheid system. That's perfectly possible in libertarian paradise, but clearly not a society coined by liberty.



#1871 Paul G.

Paul G.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,532 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 13 July 2017 - 0833 AM

http://mihsislander....ttis-interview/

 

Interesting interview with the SECDEF by a high school student that got his personal phone number through a published photo.

 

Some key quotes:

 

On the political divide in this country.  "I don't care for ideological people. Its like those people just want to stop thinking."

 

On defeating extreme ideologies. "I think ideologies can be countered by showing people a better education and hope for the future. "

 

On countering Iran.  "What you have to do eventually is what then Sec. of State Hillary Clinton did, which was to move sanctions, economic sanctions, against them and force them to the negotiating table because they want to stay in power."

 

On the Middle East.  "[President Obama] unfortunately didn't always have the best advisors or he didn't listen to his Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, so we missed some opportunities there."



#1872 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 13 July 2017 - 0958 AM

Were you sick when you wrote this tripe, Gill? FY too.



Were you sick when you tried to conflate dislike of confiscatory and obstructive government with marxist values of equality of outcome?

#1873 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 13 July 2017 - 1004 AM

Is conversion of the point to personal attacks a form of 'moving goal posts'?

I'm sick because I think government agents ought to act within the limits of the constitution? If that's sick then we should all be so lucky as to contract that disease.


Funny that you lot are complaining about issues people have with government overreach in the Trump thread where you've been doing nothing but ping the government.

Edited by rmgill, 13 July 2017 - 1006 AM.


#1874 JWB

JWB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,013 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:everything (almost)

Posted 13 July 2017 - 1202 PM

Not "tyranny" - "majority rule" - that's what it is if a democratically legitimated government becomes intrusive.

The way to go then is to vote differently - not to pretend that the government is a "tyranny".

 

See, that's why I see little difference between libertarians and anarchists.

 

A useful test to identify "tyranny" is the violation of human rights.

To sanction employers who reject applicants because they sabotage peace and prosperity in the society by discriminating against citizens is not against human rights. It's what governments do that pursue a post-medieval society. Always remember, what discrimination an employer does with the pretence of "liberty" is clearly against the idea of "liberty" of the victim.

Just imagine an unofficial, economy-driven instead of government-driven apartheid system. That's perfectly possible in libertarian paradise, but clearly not a society coined by liberty.

Except in the USA government is not supposed to be intrusive no matter who has been elected. Government in the USA exists primarily to prevent coercion and not to employ it. Without government (anarchy) then coercion becomes the end state of mob rule. Anarchists want non-governmental coercion. Libertarians want there to be no coercion at all. Totally opposite ideologies.



#1875 MODERATOR

MODERATOR

    Moderator

  • MODERATOR
  • PipPip
  • 1,657 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Everywhere. From the inner workings of the id, to the M60A2's TC Cupola.
  • Interests:New Forum Order

Posted 13 July 2017 - 1208 PM

OK - enough of the name-calling.  Thread locked.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users