• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About phillysailor

  • Rank
  1. To the extent they protest and even are prepared to aggressively defend themselves and others against forces of hatred I support them. To the extent the Antifa groups advocate setting fires and breaking windows I think they are breaking laws and deserve their day in court and possible conviction, etc. I understand their arguments equating the systemic racism of our institutions with the tactics of a police state, but do not agree with it. I will not, however, equate them with Nazis and white supremacists. My brain can understand the moral distinction between the groups. Because they advocate for the equal treatment of ALL peoples, and not just a minority, Antifa's motives are democratic and egalitarian. They are anti authoritarian, which annoys many posters on this thread, whereas fascists want the state to subjugate minorities to fulfill their goals. This is evil in governance, but can have limited appeal to those with an authoritarian streak.
  2. I think you are creating straw men to fight. If you believe that people have equal rights to speech that does not require others to lose their rights, then you are opposed to white supremacists and fascists. On that spectrum of opposition are those who would condone aggressive or violent means, but not lethal of resistance. Some of these are so-called "Antifa", some are old veterans of foreign wars, and some simply feel that sometimes you have to take matters into your own hands. On another note, I didn't know the Boston March was an expression of unified solidarity of Americans opposed to alt-right hate speech. That's great to see. Good to see unity against the enemies of good civic order.
  3. Your impressive ability to simplify arguments to this ridiculous degree makes you appear to only understand simplistic arguments. Unless you would prefer your arguments to be considered ridiculous. Reductio ad absurdum
  4. Should naked aggression and hate speech leave everyone cowering in fear? Or should Americans take action to defend against those who would intimidate minorities and the powerless? It isn't hard to determine who is causing the problems. Without Nazis there would be no Antifa. Without varicella, there is no chicken pox rash... the use of vaccines works much better than scraping off the resultant lesions. Unless you can begin to offer effective remedies, you can't possibly produce positive change. Blaming society's response to hatred won't ever be as effective as ridding ourselves of the hate. By making them equivalent, you say "both sides are wrong, both sides bear responsibility." Nope. Racism and anti semitism caused this.
  5. I'm sorry you are feeling so persecuted. Therefore, why don't you give up trying to convince people by argument, and go back to making false and outrageous comparisons. It's less effective, but requires less effort and thought. I think you are letting yourself off the hook if you simply generalize and say you oppose everything the Democrats stand for. They are Americans, and many of their concerns are yours as well. You share more than you admit, but resistance for the sake of resistance simply leads to a quagmire. That's been our MO for over a decade now, and I'd think something easy, like fighting Nazis and racism, could be the common effort which unites us. But I think you are so conditioned to hate and oppose liberals that you won't let it happen.
  6. Ok, I see what you mean. I'm saying that only those opposing these people are entitled to be called "Americans." If you are marching on the side of the racists and the anti-Semites then you aren't a real American. But I thought they had decided to march under a different flag? Either a Confederate flag or a the Swastika of the German Reich. It appeared to me that betrayed their loyalties were not with my country. Would you argue differently? That's fine, but I stand by my observation and until they "pledge allegiance to the flag, one nation" they can be considered traitors.
  7. Fine, then get out and march with all those other hordes of Conservatives organizing in protest of racism and white supremacy. Oh wait. We haven't seen ANY YET. Get a fucking clue my friend. You are imagining some groundswell of support other than the people out there protesting racism and white supremacy. You call them BLM and lefty protestors, I call them Americans. And then you say I'm guilty of labeling people. What a fucking hypocrite. The only people I've labeled are those chanting hate speech and those siding with them.
  8. OK, which policy currently advocated by the Democrats do you oppose? Making healthcare affordable and comprehensive? Saying racism is bad and that marchers carrying torches & chanting anti-Semitic slogans should be opposed by all legal means available? Advocating to protect the environment and understand the causes of climate change by using science? Remember, 3 Dems voted for Gorsuch, proving they were better Americans than you are by voting on the issue, not for their party. You could learn about patriotism from them.
  9. Yes, two sides are expressing opinions. Smells like free speech. If you want to stand on the side chanting, "One people, one nation, end immigration," "Jews will not replace us," "White lives matter," and "Blood and soil" go ahead. If you are opposed to those chants, stand on the other. So, are you a racist and an anti-semite? Or are you an American, proud of our values and our history of fighting Nazis and ending lynching and giving all men and women the vote? Go ahead and pick a side. We "progressives" just have an easier decision to make, because our choices are made clear by our morals. Lacking them, or being racist makes the choice harder. Good luck.
  10. Benghazi! Hillary's Emails were driving the car!
  11. 1. He's had innumerable chances. He's obviously never going to pivot to being presidential 2. He doesn't respect the role the office should have. He doesn't act in a unifying way, he appears to be corrupt, his regulatory stance will jeopardize our health and environment. He brings ridicule and disrespect upon himself on the international stage. Although he was elected, he is still calling Hillary and Democrats the problem. 3. You are repeating yourself, this is just a rehash of #2 Dissent without substance is putting party before country. Truly the GOP stance as defined by Voinovich, “If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.” Democrats are arguing on substance, backed by the dissent of CEO executives, ACLU, ethics experts and governmental watchdogs, senior Republicans, governors, mayors and civic leaders. You have made no substantive point, you are just putting party before country. Typical dab
  12. False analogies drawn from the imagination of a helpless victim are all you have left. Sad! Go fetch us another! Good boy.
  13. Trump whistled the supremacist tune, he chose to inflame tensions over immigrants stealing jobs. He recognized in Bannon a route to a groundswell of formerly neglected voters, the alt-right racist millions who together are a powerful voting block. Trump has decided to gain personal fame and fortune by celebrating the divisions which tear our societal fabric apart, and has doubled down on the hate and increased attention upon it, strengthened it. He and his administration have sought to increase the divide between rich and poor, and through healthcare, education, finance and regulatory stances want to create even more inequity. This, combined with obvious incompetence when dealing with foreign leaders and the military, is maladministration of our country. That he stands to profit handsomely from the whole exercise means that Americans will be quite justified in supporting impeachment once Mueller delivers evidence or wrongdoing, because he can just categorize and outline what is already known about Trump's administration's myriad examples of mixing politics and personal & business finances to prove the case requires judgement.
  14. Impeachment is a political process. If he is politically incorrect, to the degree that he commits maladministration, that IS an impeachable offense. According to leading Republicans (Corker) and business execs, Arts & Humanities leaders, foreign policy leaders, former presidents, present governors, mayors, generals, chiefs of police and ethics experts, Trump's opinions are harmful to the nation. As a citizen, he was free to exercise his freedom of speech, but his office is one where yelling "Fire!" (or "Fire and Fury") can get people killed in a hurry, or cause economic disruption in health care, or alter geopolitics. I think the office of the presidency is one where circumspect speech is required. Trump has weighed in one topics such as the Central Park Five as a citizen, but as President he needs to show greater control.
  15. I literally said that I did make it up. Hee hee! IDMTSU But as to your point, I think there are significant token responses which have been taken, and these have added up to make real progress made in many, many ways. And once made, cannot be taken back. But now many historians seem to resent this progress, and are making the point, "ENOUGH with change. We are done changing our ways, and they should be grateful for all these things that are better." But BLM or the NYT (or phillysailor) just point to another instance of (perceived) racism, and its off to the change treadmill for these historians. They are tired of change, of losing their version of history & are feeling persecuted.