In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

[MarcusAu]

Nixon - might well pull it off using somewhat underhanded methods.

Calvin Coolidge - wooden enough to absorb quite a bit of damage.

[mordacious1]

I would be more interested to see which First Lady would come out on top in a knife fight. I’d probably go with Obama, she’s like a Wookie with a bad attitude. Nancy was a proficient back-stabber though and Mary Todd was an insane bitch.

[MarcusAu]

Betty Ford - in a drunken rage.

[jugheadnaut]

As to the whole 'angry fan' response, it's really not up to me to prove it doesn't exist, it's really up to people who think searching YouTube for 'angry fan response' constitutes evidence of a general angry response to demonstrates this is anywhere representative.

OK, you stick with the Pauline Kale-esque "I don't know anyone who's angry, so how can there be general fan anger" as your primary evidence, and I'll stick to the many hundreds of YouTube videos. I think, in no small part due to its triviality, this debate has wound down.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Just over two hours of Peterson on the Lindsay Shepherd affair.

We have the Cunties for baddies. Do we have awards for Pit Person of the Year?

Honorary Pitizenship? I'm for that.

[jugheadnaut]

A fun little amuse-bouche for the New Year: In a Mass Knife Fight to the Death Between Every American President, Who Would Win and Why?

Polk and Pierce in an alliance to the end.

[TheMudbrooker]

Betty Ford - in a drunken rage.

Laura Bush - she already has a body count.

[mordacious1]

I wouldn’t be so quick to honor Lindsay with pitizenship. I believe I remember her stating that, while being horribly treated by these assholes, she actually agreed with them on the social justice issues (pronouns, etc), which is one reason she was shocked to have been attacked in such a manner. Kudos for her stance on academic freedom, but she may have drunk the kool-aid. I’d be happy to be proven wrong on this.

[rayshul]

i would watch a movie of that knife fight

[Ape+lust]

Barbara Bush will gut and curb stomp anybody who annoys her. IOW, everybody.

But, if she isn't interested in a knife fight, she'll simply outlive all the First Ladies alive today.

[Shatterface]

As to the whole 'angry fan' response, it's really not up to me to prove it doesn't exist, it's really up to people who think searching YouTube for 'angry fan response' constitutes evidence of a general angry response to demonstrates this is anywhere representative.

OK, you stick with the Pauline Kale-esque "I don't know anyone who's angry, so how can there be general fan anger" as your primary evidence, and I'll stick to the many hundreds of YouTube videos. I think, in no small part due to its triviality, this debate has wound down.

Fine, Ill stick with Pauline Kale, you stick with ranting twats on the internet.

[MarcusAu]

Kael

[jugheadnaut]

Kael

Yep, going through a bad spelling stretch. Also screwed up on 'deus ex machina' earlier. Had it as 'deux ex machina' which seems like it may translate to what two guys would do to a sex robot.

[free thoughtpolice]

Body count? Hillary has murdered dozens. Vince Foster was nowhere near the first. And as we all know she had Mark Rich murdered then tried to pin the email hacking on the Russians. She iced Jinmy Hoffa but nobody talks about it.
She would win the deadliest first lady ever. Hands down.

[TheMudbrooker]

Body count? Hillary has murdered dozens. Vince Foster was nowhere near the first. And as we all know she had Mark Rich murdered then tried to pin the email hacking on the Russians. She iced Jinmy Hoffa but nobody talks about it.
She would win the deadliest first lady ever. Hands down.

Laura's is a confirmed kill, she ran a stop sign and greased a former high school classmate when she was a young woman back in Texas.

[jugheadnaut]

Body count? Hillary has murdered dozens. Vince Foster was nowhere near the first. And as we all know she had Mark Rich murdered then tried to pin the email hacking on the Russians. She iced Jinmy Hoffa but nobody talks about it.
She would win the deadliest first lady ever. Hands down.

Seth Rich, you mean. Marc Rich was the major Democratic donor Bill Clinton pardoned on his last day in office. He died in Switzerland of natural causes a few years ago.

[John D]

A fun little amuse-bouche for the New Year: In a Mass Knife Fight to the Death Between Every American President, Who Would Win and Why?

Andrew Jackson or Teddy Roosevelt. Maybe Abraham Lincoln if Jackson and Roosevelt duke it out.

Washington was a major fucking badass. He was a woodsman, surveyor, spy, and general. And, he commanded his army from the front. Total badass

[mordacious1]

I don’t think Washington has the teeth for this kind of fight.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Andy Jackson did kill people with knives.

[Easy J]

Jackson & Teddy would be my top picks. Both were physically well equipped, naturals at physical combat, & wouldn't hesitate to move in & handle business. Teddy boxed a bit & did Judo on top of his scrappy history so I give him an edge for having a mind for technique & method.

Lincoln wrestled a bit in his youth, had steady nerves, & was strong & rangy as hell.

Washington was tall, strong, & proven in combat.

In general, I'd favor the older Presidents over the more modern ones, too. Physical courage was prized in political leaders back then & daily life was tougher & more physical, too. Men grew up using knives & scrapped a bit more in general.

If you lower the bar to American politicians, Cassius Marcellus Clay (Lincoln's Minister to Russia) would be my top pick out of a much tougher crowd. He was basically a more violent version of Andrew Jackson & was renowned for using Bowie knives to settle disputes.

http://bowieknifefightsfighters.blogspo ... tucky.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassius_M ... olitician)

[RebeccaB]

The inimitable Carol Tavris does it again - talks good sense, I mean.
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/me ... b47722e097

[MarcusAu]

Potholer just re-uploaded a video with corrections too.... that must put him in the running for Skeptic God Emperor.

I do enjoy Potholer's content, and the way in which he demonstrates the skeptic method when investigating a subject. But I think in the end Youtube is overwhelmed by multiple voices which create content more frequently and with a stronger 'drama' hook to get people's interest.

Similarly - Justicar & Noel Plum are not regular enough to be the superstars they might be. Thunderf00t has his blind spots, and his style is a bit repetitive (though he has done good work in the past). Wildwood Claire has not made a new video since 2015. Sam Harris is spotty (or biased if you prefer).

It seems also that many people have become a bit jaded with the old content - most would probably not still follow channels that focused on subjects such as: creationism, lost civilisations (Mu!), religion in general, UFOs or bigfoot.

Politics or SJWs can generate the white heat of controversy - and commentary can be made quickly with little (or no) empirical investigation. We have been living in the age of talking heads 'infotainment' for over 30 years at this point.

Not that I am demanding everyone else to change - it may have to be my new year's resolution to try to focus a bit less on the entertainment side of things (which ultimately means less Youtube & twitter, I suppose).

So - no masters, no emperors (god or otherwise)...you know the drill.

[Brive1987]

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Body count? Hillary has murdered dozens. Vince Foster was nowhere near the first. And as we all know she had Mark Rich murdered then tried to pin the email hacking on the Russians. She iced Jinmy Hoffa but nobody talks about it.
She would win the deadliest first lady ever. Hands down.

Thanks for the reminder. One of my New Years resolutions is going to be to finally read Hitch's "No one Left to Lie to".

[InfraRedBucket]

I wouldn’t be so quick to honor Lindsay with pitizenship. I believe I remember her stating that, while being horribly treated by these assholes, she actually agreed with them on the social justice issues (pronouns, etc), which is one reason she was shocked to have been attacked in such a manner. Kudos for her stance on academic freedom, but she may have drunk the kool-aid. I’d be happy to be proven wrong on this.

Well having reviewed the transcript, she didnt specifically say she agreed with them (ie th, assholes). She said, in the recording of the Inquisition, under quite a lot of pressure , and clearly upset and near to tears, that she "disagreed" with Petersen but "followed" him. That's non specific because quite a few of us disagree with him on certain issues or his approach but keep an eye on his output..
But even if it was on the pronouns point, as people have stated here, Petersen doesn't actually say he wouldnt use a person's preferred pronoun. It's the imposition of the law to enforce what people use that he objects to . This is point a lot of people , including Lindsay (and myself at one time) , can miss. She's since been on Petersen's show.
And get this: If you see what she tweets and positively retweets with comments (in the only social media platform she is on ) she is clearly as close to Petersen's criticism as you can be , in all but name - she refers to the "authoritarian left", "holiler than thou SJWs", for example and more stuff if you check her twitter timeline.

If the pit strapline is "Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors ", then Shepherd surely, by accident or design , has done so in spades.

It is always possible that someone held up for certain actions can disappoint. A few years back Louse Mensch was suggested for her dissection of the Tim Hunt affair , but she has done and said some really stupid things , more stupid than good, IMO.

[piginthecity]

I wouldn’t be so quick to honor Lindsay with pitizenship. I believe I remember her stating that, while being horribly treated by these assholes, she actually agreed with them on the social justice issues (pronouns, etc), which is one reason she was shocked to have been attacked in such a manner. Kudos for her stance on academic freedom, but she may have drunk the kool-aid. I’d be happy to be proven wrong on this.

Well having reviewed the transcript, she didnt specifically say she agreed with them (ie th, assholes). She said, in the recording of the Inquisition, under quite a lot of pressure , and clearly upset and near to tears, that she "disagreed" with Petersen but "followed" him. That's non specific because quite a few of us disagree with him on certain issues or his approach but keep an eye on his output..
But even if it was on the pronouns point, as people have stated here, Petersen doesn't actually say he wouldnt use a person's preferred pronoun. It's the imposition of the law to enforce what people use that he objects to . This is point a lot of people , including Lindsay (and myself at one time) , can miss. She's since been on Petersen's show.
And get this: If you see what she tweets and positively retweets with comments (in the only social media platform she is on ) she is clearly as close to Petersen's criticism as you can be , in all but name - she refers to the "authoritarian left", "holiler than thou SJWs", for example and more stuff if you check her twitter timeline.

If the pit strapline is "Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors ", then Shepherd surely, by accident or design , has done so in spades.

It is always possible that someone held up for certain actions can disappoint. A few years back Louse Mensch was suggested for her dissection of the Tim Hunt affair , but she has done and said some really stupid things , more stupid than good, IMO.

Yep. The pit is not the Horde, all in lockstep and "wheeling and firing" as in PZ's childish imagination. The pit is that subset of humanity who refuse to be bullied by the emotional blackmail of the regressives. Anybody who stands their ground against being called a this-ist or a that-aphobe is a pitizen.

[Sunder]

Whoever Peez is quoting, I can't say I disagree with too much of the second paragraph, although I do consider much of it to be pie-in-the-sky thinking. I think Dems reforming themselves would be a good thing not simply for the sake of crushing Republicans, which is all Peez seems to want, but because such reforms would be a good thing in and of themselves. The more probable outcome though seems to be neither party reforms itself and they just keep trading positions in a constant race to the bottom as the public tries to decide who they hate the least this week.

[Old_ones]

We have two parties in the states and neither of them is good. The Democratic party is full of ineffectual simps, has SJWs on its ideological fringe (who are slowly poisoning the outlook of the whole party) and mostly represents moneyed interests at the expense of everyone else. The Republican party, on the other hand, is a dumpster fire full of AIDS. The Republicans have deluded themselves into thinking that the solution for every problem is a giant tax cut for billionaires. They are also cynical, anti-democratic and corrupt to the core, and occasionally start wars for which there is no justification. And they are anti-science. And they spend most of their (taxpayer funded) time and energy fulminating about abortion.

Peez is wrong as usual, but he isn't wrong about the quality of the Republican party, or the need to contain their damage. What we need in the US is a competitor to the Republican party which has a right-leaning bent but isn't full of braindead, reflexively destructive godbots. The Republican party does need to go away, but the answer isn't one party Democratic rule, which would also be a fucking disaster.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Whoever Peez is quoting, I can't say I disagree with too much of the second paragraph, although I do consider much of it to be pie-in-the-sky thinking. I think Dems reforming themselves would be a good thing not simply for the sake of crushing Republicans, which is all Peez seems to want, but because such reforms would be a good thing in and of themselves. The more probable outcome though seems to be neither party reforms itself and they just keep trading positions in a constant race to the bottom as the public tries to decide who they hate the least this week.

Note the assumption that strengthened democratic freedoms = support for the Dems. I don't see any particular reason why universal healthcare, sensible regulation of Wall Street and such like could not be taken up by a reformed GOP. Have the left not learned what happens when unions become too powerful? I think it is quite obvious that the left and right keep each other in check and disaster would be the likely consequence if one side were to gain sufficient power to indulge themselves unfettered. PZ is incapable of entertaining the idea that the opposition have value.

[shoutinghorse]

Sargon has bailed out of Kilroy.

https://i.imgur.com/3nO1Fu1.png

[jet_lagg]

I wouldn’t be so quick to honor Lindsay with pitizenship. I believe I remember her stating that, while being horribly treated by these assholes, she actually agreed with them on the social justice issues (pronouns, etc), which is one reason she was shocked to have been attacked in such a manner. Kudos for her stance on academic freedom, but she may have drunk the kool-aid. I’d be happy to be proven wrong on this.

I'm basing this entirely off her appearance with Peterson on Louder with Crowder, but I believe her disagreement with Peterson on pronoun use stemmed from a misunderstanding of his position. This is easy enough a mistake even before you tack on culture crusaders actively poisoning the discourse. Someone says they'd prefer to be called he rather than she and you just shrug and say sure. Easy enough. Peterson refusing (and from what I understand he wouldn't actually refuse in a situation like the one just described) comes across as strange and rude. Like Candace Owens insisting on calling Blaire White a man.

[jet_lagg]

:nin: Bah

[Kirbmarc]

We have two parties in the states and neither of them is good. The Democratic party is full of ineffectual simps, has SJWs on its ideological fringe (who are slowly poisoning the outlook of the whole party) and mostly represents moneyed interests at the expense of everyone else. The Republican party, on the other hand, is a dumpster fire full of AIDS. The Republicans have deluded themselves into thinking that the solution for every problem is a giant tax cut for billionaires. They are also cynical, anti-democratic and corrupt to the core, and occasionally start wars for which there is no justification. And they are anti-science. And they spend most of their (taxpayer funded) time and energy fulminating about abortion.

All true, but I'd add that Democrats occasionally start or contribute to conflict for which there is no justification in the eyes of the public, but plenty of justification in the eyes of their favorite lobbies/pressure groups. The military-industrial complex and the Saudi lobby, for example, are pretty bipartisan.

[Sunder]

Note the assumption that strengthened democratic freedoms = support for the Dems. I don't see any particular reason why universal healthcare, sensible regulation of Wall Street and such like could not be taken up by a reformed GOP.

I think the assumption is that Dems pushing popular ideas would make them popular by association, which is probably correct. And as cynical as I am about the Dems being able to pull any of this off I think it's far more likely than Republicans doing a complete 180. We're already well past the point where their own past policy from their own think tanks taken up by increasingly right-leaning Dems is indelibly labeled as Marxist socialism.

[Kirbmarc]

Note the assumption that strengthened democratic freedoms = support for the Dems. I don't see any particular reason why universal healthcare, sensible regulation of Wall Street and such like could not be taken up by a reformed GOP.

I think the assumption is that Dems pushing popular ideas would make them popular by association, which is probably correct. And as cynical as I am about the Dems being able to pull any of this off I think it's far more likely than Republicans doing a complete 180. We're already well past the point where their own past policy from their own think tanks taken up by increasingly right-leaning Dems is indelibly labeled as Marxist socialism.

I think that PeeZee is 100% right about two things: the US really need an improved, 2010s-compatible version of New Deal policies (aimed at reducing the power of corporate lobbies, better regulating financial transitions and promoting more functional welfare/healthcare) and US tax codes need to be re-written to stop giving benefits to corporate interests at the expense of everyone else.

Actually I have to say that the two paragraphs in Brive's tweet aren't as bad as the last sentence might make them look: I don't think that a "one party state" is necessary to get those things done, a massive series of Democratic electoral victories thanks to a more social democratic series of Democratic policies might make at least some of those much-needed reforms happen.

What puzzles me is how PeeZee thinks that his own brand of SocJus ideologues will be able to or even simply interested in implementing those reforms. The SocJus movement gives little thought to large-scale economics, it's all about "quotas in tech/business/politics" or "rape culture on campus", which are a very high-end middle-class/upper class issue. The BernieBros are the one who are supporting the reforms Myers seems to dream of, the Clintonites and their SJW entourage are actually far more corporation-friendly.

[Kirbmarc]

Indeed the "culture wars" which the SocJus loves are a big opportunity for corporate lobbies to virtue-signal: from Starbucks to Google plenty of special interests which don't have any incentives to raise corporate taxes or close tax loopholes are staunch supporters of the Internet Progressives like Anita Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn or other "pop culture commentators". I don't think that those corporate interests will stand behind a movement which wants to accomplish Myers' dreams.

[Kirbmarc]

Imagine if Clinton had been elected president of the US, but she had cut taxes to corporate interests and wrecked the ACA just like Trump did. People like Myers wouldn't have dared to criticize her, they'd have been too busy gushing over how finally The Patriarchy had been smashed.

Ultimately the biggest problem with the SocJus it's not with its goals, but with its epistemological problems (basing all on post-modern "deconstruction", "awareness" and cultural/language wars) and the shallowness and pettiness that those problems cause in SocJus fans.

[DrokkIt]

I wouldn’t be so quick to honor Lindsay with pitizenship. I believe I remember her stating that, while being horribly treated by these assholes, she actually agreed with them on the social justice issues (pronouns, etc), which is one reason she was shocked to have been attacked in such a manner. Kudos for her stance on academic freedom, but she may have drunk the kool-aid. I’d be happy to be proven wrong on this.

Well having reviewed the transcript, she didnt specifically say she agreed with them (ie th, assholes). She said, in the recording of the Inquisition, under quite a lot of pressure , and clearly upset and near to tears, that she "disagreed" with Petersen but "followed" him. That's non specific because quite a few of us disagree with him on certain issues or his approach but keep an eye on his output..

I honestly think she meant it as in "I don't agree with him per se", the underlying principle being that showing something is not the same as condoning it. Pretty much what I would fall back on given that A: she was under a lot of pressure and B: her interlocutors are casually taking the position that screening Peterson is indeed the same as agreeing with him.

[shoutinghorse]

The socialist utopia of London. .. Acid attack capital of the world. How very progressive.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5224998/a ... cking-map/

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Shephard said she disagreed with Peterson that 'they' could not be used in the first person singular, and it seems she thought Peterson refused to use 'he' or 'she' when addressing transients.* When both were on Crowder, she seemed to recognize she'd mistaken Peterson's actual positions.


* I'm guessing this will be the next terminology change in the PC Red Queen nonsense, so I'm getting ahead of the curve.

[Shatterface]

People like Peezus are parochial. They have no interest in the rest of the us told. It's why they turn a blind eye to Islamism. It's also why they believe that having a woman in charge would issue in an era of peace and prosperity. They don't look outside their own borders to see how having two female prime ministers in the U.K. hasn't created the feminist utopia his logic dictates it would.

[Shatterface]

Bollocks.

People like Peezus are parochial. They have no interest in the rest of the world.

[shoutinghorse]

Book burning next. :shhh:

[Really?]

[Sunder]

The SocJus movement gives little thought to large-scale economics, it's all about "quotas in tech/business/politics" or "rape culture on campus", which are a very high-end middle-class/upper class issue.

It's Trickle Down for the regressive sect. If we focus on giving more benefits to already-relatively-privileged women and minorities near the top of the social ladder, benefits will somehow accrue to women and minorities everywhere.

[Old_ones]

We have two parties in the states and neither of them is good. The Democratic party is full of ineffectual simps, has SJWs on its ideological fringe (who are slowly poisoning the outlook of the whole party) and mostly represents moneyed interests at the expense of everyone else. The Republican party, on the other hand, is a dumpster fire full of AIDS. The Republicans have deluded themselves into thinking that the solution for every problem is a giant tax cut for billionaires. They are also cynical, anti-democratic and corrupt to the core, and occasionally start wars for which there is no justification. And they are anti-science. And they spend most of their (taxpayer funded) time and energy fulminating about abortion.

All true, but I'd add that Democrats occasionally start or contribute to conflict for which there is no justification in the eyes of the public, but plenty of justification in the eyes of their favorite lobbies/pressure groups. The military-industrial complex and the Saudi lobby, for example, are pretty bipartisan.

Yeah, that is absolutely true. Every US administration does something with the military which is controversial. Democrats do tend to show more restraint, though. We got Iraq from Bush and Libya and the drone wars from Obama. I would call these things mistakes, but Iraq was one of the very worst mistakes in US military history.

[mordacious1]

Lindy needs Frazier, Niles and Martin (Crane joke).

[Kirbmarc]

We have two parties in the states and neither of them is good. The Democratic party is full of ineffectual simps, has SJWs on its ideological fringe (who are slowly poisoning the outlook of the whole party) and mostly represents moneyed interests at the expense of everyone else. The Republican party, on the other hand, is a dumpster fire full of AIDS. The Republicans have deluded themselves into thinking that the solution for every problem is a giant tax cut for billionaires. They are also cynical, anti-democratic and corrupt to the core, and occasionally start wars for which there is no justification. And they are anti-science. And they spend most of their (taxpayer funded) time and energy fulminating about abortion.

All true, but I'd add that Democrats occasionally start or contribute to conflict for which there is no justification in the eyes of the public, but plenty of justification in the eyes of their favorite lobbies/pressure groups. The military-industrial complex and the Saudi lobby, for example, are pretty bipartisan.

Yeah, that is absolutely true. Every US administration does something with the military which is controversial. Democrats do tend to show more restraint, though. We got Iraq from Bush and Libya and the drone wars from Obama. I would call these things mistakes, but Iraq was one of the very worst mistakes in US military history.

Absolutely. I sometimes think that if Dubya hadn't invaded Iraq maybe another president (Republican or Democrat) would have done something as dumb in the Middle East later. The US foreign policy in the Middle East doesn't answer to reason but simply to lobbies (especially the petro-Saudi lobby).

Iraq was a special flavor of idiocy, though, one that even the Saudis were potentially wary of. It was a war based on ridiculous lies, which violated international law, led to the death of tens of thousands of people over basically nothing, and destabilized the entire region with ripple effects that we're still seeing today. Dubya should have been impeached and prosecuted, instead people call him a hero today because he (indirectly) criticized Donald Trump.

[Shatterface]

I'm not convinced the Democrats wouldn't have also invaded Iraq. It was Labour who took the UK into war.

[Kirbmarc]

Also plenty of slimy neocons who advocated for the Iraq War (from Max Boot to David Frum to Bill Kristol) are now trying to recycle themselves as "the anti-Trump resistance" ( :lol: ). Max Boot even came out "woke" yesterday. Double LOL.

Those people helped George W. Bush to justify the invasion of Iraq but now are trying to look progressive and "cool" again. Trump is a major asshole, an incompetent idiot and has dangerously authoritarian leanings along with shady sympathies for the "alt-right", but these clowns should never be near to a position of power again.

Their attempts to slink back by presenting themselves as part of the sane alternative to Trump should fool no one, they're just as destructive, incompetent and dangerous as him, only more educated and less sympathetic to the online alt-right. If they became influential again we'd have more invasions in the name of "exporting democracy", only this time maybe Max Boot would try to justify invading, say, Syria by saying that the jihadist anti-Assad groups he supports are actually Woke Anti-Colonialist Oppressed People, since he's now friendly to the SocJus :bjarte:

[Brive1987]

PZ wants to “destroy” the GOP, “crush” Trump and imprison his family. He wants reform not for greater good but to “crush” (that word again) ZOG, oh I mean, the capitalist class and from this vacuum he wants one party rule for a generation. A party built on mobilised and weaponised minorities.

Yeah. I’d have a problem with that.

[Kirbmarc]

The SocJus movement gives little thought to large-scale economics, it's all about "quotas in tech/business/politics" or "rape culture on campus", which are a very high-end middle-class/upper class issue.

It's Trickle Down for the regressive sect. If we focus on giving more benefits to already-relatively-privileged women and minorities near the top of the social ladder, benefits will somehow accrue to women and minorities everywhere.

Yup. And it's just as bullshit as normal Trickle Down, with the added hypocrisy of those people calling themselves socialists. At least Reagan genuinely thought that his choices would have made middle and lower class American more prosperous by liberalizing the economy, the SocJus fans preach welfare and assistance but then only care about women and minorities with "X studies" degrees (i.e. themselves) getting jobs as diversity officers.

[CommanderTuvok]

That Commie professor from Drexel is resigning....or was he fired?

He blames "white supremacists", of course. Remember, this is the guy, who in between defending Chavez and other goons, tweeted out his desire to see "white genocide for Christmas". Instead, he has found "unemployment for Christmas". Lol.

https://i.imgur.com/OblyyuV.jpg

[shoutinghorse]

I'm not convinced the Democrats wouldn't have also invaded Iraq. It was Labour who took the UK into war.

Yeah but it was Kennedy followed by Johnson, both democrats, who escalated US involvement in Vietnam whilst Wilson, labour, kept the UK out of it.

[Really?]

That Commie professor from Drexel is resigning....or was he fired?

He blames "white supremacists", of course. Remember, this is the guy, who in between defending Chavez and other goons, tweeted out his desire to see "white genocide for Christmas". Instead, he has found "unemployment for Christmas". Lol.

https://i.imgur.com/OblyyuV.jpg

Oh, so "outrage campaigns" are a bad thing now. Huh.

[deLurch]

Vicky, if we're both in the UK, unless you're on a VPN, how come I'm blocked?
Can you view the updated version?

https://HOOKtube.com/watch?v=07NMglQX6gE

I knew it. She's a hooker.

(Don't tell Steersman. We won't be able to get a word in edgewise... or anything else edgewise for that matter.)

[deLurch]

Just over two hours of Peterson on the Lindsay Shepherd affair.

We have the Cunties for baddies. Do we have awards for Pit Person of the Year?

Honorary Pitizenship? I'm for that.

The Solid Cunt award.

[Old_ones]

I'm not convinced the Democrats wouldn't have also invaded Iraq. It was Labour who took the UK into war.

They had a full 8 years to do it under Clinton and for some reason they failed to. If you think Gore would have done it, I think the burden of proof is on you to show why.

There wasn't any reason to tie Iraq to 9/11 and we all knew that was the case at the time. The Iraq invasion was not recommended to Bush and his cronies by intelligence, they misused intelligence to support the course of action they wanted. Noting that Labour supported Bush neglects the question of motivation.

[free thoughtpolice]

We have two parties in the states and neither of them is good. The Democratic party is full of ineffectual simps, has SJWs on its ideological fringe (who are slowly poisoning the outlook of the whole party) and mostly represents moneyed interests at the expense of everyone else. The Republican party, on the other hand, is a dumpster fire full of AIDS. The Republicans have deluded themselves into thinking that the solution for every problem is a giant tax cut for billionaires. They are also cynical, anti-democratic and corrupt to the core, and occasionally start wars for which there is no justification. And they are anti-science. And they spend most of their (taxpayer funded) time and energy fulminating about abortion.

All true, but I'd add that Democrats occasionally start or contribute to conflict for which there is no justification in the eyes of the public, but plenty of justification in the eyes of their favorite lobbies/pressure groups. The military-industrial complex and the Saudi lobby, for example, are pretty bipartisan.

Yeah, that is absolutely true. Every US administration does something with the military which is controversial. Democrats do tend to show more restraint, though. We got Iraq from Bush and Libya and the drone wars from Obama. I would call these things mistakes, but Iraq was one of the very worst mistakes in US military history.

Absolutely. I sometimes think that if Dubya hadn't invaded Iraq maybe another president (Republican or Democrat) would have done something as dumb in the Middle East later. The US foreign policy in the Middle East doesn't answer to reason but simply to lobbies (especially the petro-Saudi lobby).

Iraq was a special flavor of idiocy, though, one that even the Saudis were potentially wary of. It was a war based on ridiculous lies, which violated international law, led to the death of tens of thousands of people over basically nothing, and destabilized the entire region with ripple effects that we're still seeing today. Dubya should have been impeached and prosecuted, instead people call him a hero today because he (indirectly) criticized Donald Trump.

The events in question, if Bush would have been black.

[Really?]

I'm not convinced the Democrats wouldn't have also invaded Iraq. It was Labour who took the UK into war.

They had a full 8 years to do it under Clinton and for some reason they failed to. If you think Gore would have done it, I think the burden of proof is on you to show why.

There wasn't any reason to tie Iraq to 9/11 and we all knew that was the case at the time. The Iraq invasion was not recommended to Bush and his cronies by intelligence, they misused intelligence to support the course of action they wanted. Noting that Labour supported Bush neglects the question of motivation.

I am not exactly going to give Democrats brownie points for not invading Iraq pre 9-11. That is like saying Trump deserves a cookie for not invading Japan.

Besides. Enough Democrats were more than happy to facilitate the invasion of Iraq. They were either incompetent or believed in the mission.