Total posts: 2,799
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I don't think those were major cities. The death toll from both total was about 120,000-200,000. Their 1940 population for the country was over 70 million. Upwards of .3% of their total population.
I don't know enough about the Dresden one, so I'll take your word for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Maybe not directly.But nonetheless it was you who referred to unequal people.I'm surprised that you fail to see the comparisons.Perhaps being brought up and conditioned in a U.S. bubble has clouded your judgement somewhat.
Perhaps you could say where any of my statements were wrong instead of trying to slander my ideas and allude to Nazis.
Certain groups during certain time periods will assimilate and benefit/hurt the country more than other groups from different countries. What is incorrect about that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
WWII didn't occur because of sentiments about immigration, though. I fail to see the relationship.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
My questions were not addressing peaceful process. The addressed morality of bombing downtown Dresden. It was not necessary or moral to do so.Both bombs as used was immoral.
I don't appreciate the use against civilian targets.
The Germans were already screwed as is, but the Japanese still had quite a bit of power.
What would be a "morally superior option"? A land invasion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I would debate they were not justified as there were options to demostrate to the Japanese in other ways, instead of dropping them on a city.
I don't know about that. We used one bomb of unprecedented strength and decimated an entire city. They refused to surrender until after the second and we lied and said we had more. I doubt any conventional means outside of completely conquering them would have been sufficient.
Yeah, again, if there were peaceful means of dealing with Nazis, they may have been preferable. They tried appeasement, but that didn't work. After they conquered Poland, they realized an armed conflict was the only option.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
All is fair in love and war? Huh?Was bombing of downtown market of Dresden Germany necessary? Was it morally superior?Same goes for atomic bombs dropped on Japan? Was the first necessary and morally superior? Was the 2nd necessary and morally superior?Is non-violence ---ex Ghandi--- morally superior?
No, not all is fair in love and war.
Atom bombs were debatably justifiable. It ended a war that would have otherwise required a full invasion and more non-nuclear bombing. Lots of deaths would have been done there, maybe even more than occurred with the atomic bombs.
Non-violence is preferable but not always possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Except if you are spray-tanned orange. Orange man bad....very bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
If you mean in the mueller investigation then I would agree. We didn't know if a crime had been committed. If you mean in the Ukraine scandal, then that isn't true. The call transcript shows a crime.
I was referring to the Mueller investigation.
Meuller detailed multiple counts of obstruction. There is alot of evidence for those. For the ukraine scandal, trump has openly ordered people not to testify, they hid documents, they threatened witnesses etc. The obstruction is pretty clear there too.
That was a typo. I meant Schiff said there was clear evidence of collusion. I usually listen to conservatives, who are obviously biased, but I heard he didn't really impede the investigation. I think Mueller said something to that effect at the hearings.
I don't want the courts to be a weapon. They weren't intended to be one. They are currently being used as one by the republicans. So it is the republicans who have changed the nature of the court by packing it with young, ideologues. Even going so far as to breach precident and refuse to hold hearings to help them do this. Trying to restore the court is the right thing to do. Trying to "conserve" the corrupted version the republicans are working to make is the exact opposite of what was intended.
They shouldn't be used as a weapon. The Republicans shouldn't be doing it now and the liberals shouldn't have done it before. It is more retaliatory than anything, which doesn't absolve them.
They might have. But the amendment doesn't say anything about that. It explicitly says it is for a well regulated militia. So you are arguing we should ignore what the amendment says in favor of what you want to interpret they meant. Even though they didn't say what you want to believe they meant.
Militias consist of citizens. Militias can be used to fight of a tyrannical government or foreign threats. I think it was intended for both.
They were afraid that a large military could be abused. They wanted to keep the military as small as possible to prevent this abuse. And now people who claim to respect the founding fathers are doing the exact opposite.
Well, we have bigger militias(more people with guns) to keep our bigger military in check. I do think our military is a bit too large, though.
Who, when, what damage? I'm guessing you think "damage" is upholding people's rights.
No, they are blocking essentially everything Trump tries to do on immigration. They are abusing the system of checks and balances. Some should be stopped (I'm sure you'll point to the supposed Muslim ban), but many others shouldn't yet are because they disagree.
No I don't. I don't think using the courts as a weapon is a good idea. I think that stacking them either way is bad.
Good, we agree. But, currently the Supreme Court is tied, with Roberts very slightly leaning our way. Trump may very well pick a moderate if a spot opens to replace far-left Ginsburg, but I kinda doubt it. The country is too partisan for that right now.
These 2 ideas are contradictory. You aren't against change, but you are against changing things that you have a problem with. That is why you would change it.
Things should be how they were intended to be. If something was altered, say for instance, how much power the federal government has been given. I would alter it to become a more federalist document, which is how it was meant to be. I am for bringing it back to how it should have been if applicable. If something new and unapplicable arises, I write updates around how it would have been interpreted. I don't want to misrepresent your side, but it seems you want to materially alter the document. For instance, the states were meant to be in charge of education. You then created the Department of Education, which is the exact opposite of how it should be.
If it isn't working for people, it should be changed. The founding fathers were intelligent men, but they lived a long, long time ago. They lived in a world where slavery was considered good and women weren't considered people. Letting them decide how we should live is dumb. If their ideas don't work any more, they need to be discarded.
Slavery wasn't considered good....that was where the 3/5 Compromise came in. Considering women equal citizens and slavery illegal are perfectly compatible with the conservative view. They just weren't possible at the time. The Founding Fathers knew tyranny at the hand of a government first-hand. They knew how to avoid it, which is why they supported federalism and the checks and balances we have. But both parties (although I would put more blame on your side) consistently put more power in the hands of the president, one singular man, which then allows him to have way too much power. Executive Orders were meant to guide laws, but then Obama, in an extreme show of partisan politics, pushed through a massive amnesty EO for illegal immigrants. That is an abuse of power and purely partisan.
That is a nice idea in theory. But in practice what that means is that the rich control our lives. If the government doesn't decide what the rules are, the rich and powerful will decide it instead. I would much rather have a government, that I have a say in, deciding things than some billionaire asshole deciding things and having no say in what the rules are.
Well, we are in agreement that lobbying/special interests are a huge issue. If we curtail their ability to manipulate politicians or at the very least, take away power from politicians, how can they control our lives? Also, you all support unelected bureaucrats having enormous power over our lives. How is that any different?
That isn't evidence of stacking. i don't disagree that it is possible there is stacking there, but that just shows who appointed them. If the people appointing them weren't picking ideologues then who appointed them is completely irrelevant. We know for a fact that republicans have actively been working to stack the courts with hard right wing people and picking young candidates so that they will stay there a long time. That is stacking.
I don't know if it is possible to determine which of these appointees are ideologues, but at the very least, I'm sure we can agree that a president will appoint a candidate that they believe will vote for their side more often than not, yes? They believe their side is correct, so it would be foolish for them not to. Even assuming they aren't ideologues, then, more often than not they will reach liberal rulings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
It did go super off topic. Could you link to the video so I can get some context?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What is wrong with echoing the 1930s? Not all immigrants are equal, and I provided why I think that. Do you think they were wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm not sure what your point is. Not all immigrants are equal. Some have cultures that are more friendly to ours, which makes them more likely to assimilate to our culture. Some groups, generally from first-world nations, have strong skills that will make our economy more efficient and create more jobs.
Not to mention, during previous immigration waves, we didn't have such a robust welfare state. Immigrants coming here expected to work to provide for themselves, rather than expecting the government to take care of them. They learned our language, which many immigrants today are refusing to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I was specifically referring to American citizens and politicians throughout history.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Disgusted doesn't leave his home unlocked. He is fine having his country ravaged because he doesn't consider his country to be his home.
Although, I think he isn't even American. So, I don't know why he thinks he can tell us how to live.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I said 'simmer down'.
When you have taken a deep breath and stopped seething with rage, come back to have a discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
1) we know there was crimes before the obstruction.2) no. If they are investigating and you obstruct that investigation, that is in and of itself a crime. If you obstruct an investigation, you are committing a crime even if what they were looking into wasn't a crime.
I don't think we knew of any crimes before the obstruction. Schiff said there was clear evidence of obstruction, which they never found. It is hard to keep track. It is hard to obstruct justice when justice isn't being served, but I think Barr said they would only pursue those charges if they actually found collusion. This whole Russia and now Ukraine business is just boring and all over the place.
I'm pretty sure you are lying, either to me or to yourself. If the court was packed with liberal judges reinterpreting the law against what you wanted, you would want reform. But because it has been packed with conservative judges you are totally fine with it.
This is the difference between liberals and conservatives. When it is used against me, I get pissed. When something is used against liberals they get pissed and change everything to suit their whims at the moment. The whole point of being a conservative is to conserve things. So... not lying to anyone.
But that was not how it was intended at all. That was a later interpretation. The start of that amendment makes it clear that the purpose is for a "well regulated militia". It had nothing to do with preventing tyranny. It was to prevent america needing a regular military.
You don't think a bunch of guys who just fought off a tyrannical government using guns would intend this law to prevent tyranny via guns? A militia can defend against threats, both foreign and domestic. We had a federal military back in the early 1800s when many Founding Fathers were still alive. You would think they would have done away with it then, since it was no longer needed for that purpose.
The point is that if it is a life long appointment and you only appoint hard right (or left) wing ideologies, then they will continue to rule one way for decades. And that is exactly what the republicans are doing. They put hard right wing people on it who will never (or rarely) stray from the republican interpretation.
And we have had long periods of radically liberal appointments. Your activist judges have done so much damage in federal courts, and now that some people are going to reverse that, you automatically have a problem with it. It is obvious you have no regard for our court system, our Constitution, or really anything American. You just support whatever gets the ends you want. If that means having a stacked liberal court, you would support life terms. If there are a lot of conservative judges, you would support rotating courts.
This is a really weird thought process. You appear to be advocating for never updating laws or rules beyond what a group of upper middle class white men wrote hundreds of years ago, despite those laws having been changed dozens of times already. When society or technology advances and the constitution is no longer doing what is needed, you update the law. You don't use it as a weapon to fight against progress.
I don't play your identitarian games. Why does their class, race, and gender matter? I am not against change, I am against upending something the second you have a problem with. If there was something they couldn't have planned for, I would make a law through a conservative lens. Same if I change a law. That means maximizing personal liberty and limiting government interference. There is a huge difference between simply updating versus doing the opposite of what it was intended to do and gut it so the federal government can control most aspects of our lives.
I'm not aware of liberals doing that. It is extremely clear the republicans have been. but you seem to be fine with that.
I would prefer moderates get added by every president. Here is some proof of liberal stacking:
In 2018, of the 13 federal appeals courts, 4 had Republican-appointed majorities.
Obama appointed 55 federal judges in his 8 years, and Trump is taking them back ideologically-speaking.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
It is funny considering he was the "change" candidate. Odd how we hate him for almost entirely different reasons.
I would think you would like his stimulus spending, attempts for Obamacare, increase of taxes, etc.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
his base is deluded into thinking he is somehow similar to Obama because he was his VP.
Every president does a thing called "balance the ticket". The VP is almost nothing like the President. Why they think Biden is like Obama is beyond me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, they pissed themselves when Trump said he would sent migrants to sanctuary cities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Isolationism, paranoia and xenophobia your home is safe with right wing "christian" Americans
Yes, I am an isolationist. Are you an interventionist?
Paranoia? How so?
Xenophobia? I want immigrants who won't be a public charge. That generally means we shouldn't let in third-world immigrants. In what world is fiscal responsibility xenophobic?
What does "Christianity" and "right-wing" have to do with anything?
Please, next time, plan out your response so you can express your thoughts coherently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Historically we have had periods where we let in a lot of immigrants and then we close off immigration for a bit. We are long due to close the borders for a time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
*America 2025*
When you bring in the third-world, you get third-world problems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, there are large enclaves of unassimilated immigrants in the Southwest. Unless you stop adding a few hundred thousand every year, they will never assimilate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Yeah, I have begun to see how little they care about the constitution. It is just a nuisance to them.
Created:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
No problem. Hope I was helpful.
Created:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Thanks for the thread. I have been in a pm discussion with whiteflame about refugees, and we are getting a little caught up on the weight that national interest has over preventing humans rights abuses. I very strongly believe in putting my country-people first, but it is an idea that is hard to justify through arguments.
Anyway, we agreed on the definition that national interest is something that benefits your nation. I guess it could come down to 'how much'. The nation is State A's people. By taking that extra land, they are working to benefit the lives of their people.
It really comes down to whose perspective you are looking at this from. State A wants to improve the lives of its people, making it justifiable to them. State B just had its people killed, so they would think State A is in the wrong. From an outsider perspective, I would say that killing for economic reasons is wrong, but again, it is hard to fault people who want to improve their people's lives
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Ok, I guess we shall go with 'more together'. Let's just pretend that is what I meant to say the entire time.
Created:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
This does make it a bit interesting because you are arguing for the "moral justification". I am very anti-war, myself.
On a base-level, it would be quite difficult to justify the actions of State A. They could in some instances be justified, though. Maybe State B began the war, and once they thought they would lose, tried to end it on peaceful terms. State A might go severely into debt from this war they didn't want to start, and as a result, cannot provide for healthcare, education, and police for its own people. They need some economic benefit to make sure their country doesn't fall into anarchy. In that case, I could see a decent argument for pressuring State B. I might think their tactics are extreme, but if hundreds of thousands of their people might starve, die of disease, and never receive an education, wouldn't you be more on their side?
Created:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Did you send a message?
I would generally say that, from the perspective of the country committing the act, it would darn near always be justified.
Let us use the Cold War perspective of politicians at the time. Their thoughts were: should we allow potential communist domination of the planet, which will destroy our people's way of life, subject our people to starvation, and rob them of their rights. Or, should we overthrow a leader to prevent that?
Should we steal this country's resources to make money, or should we let our people starve and live in squalor?
That type of thing. If you are someone who isn't in one of the countries involved, you can make your decision on if you thought it was justified. But if you have the chance to improve the life of your country-men, you cannot really be faulted for trying. From an outside perspective, you can be utilitarian about it if you want, but if the US uses a policy that supports our interests, I will support it.
Created:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Yeah, that definition works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Your question was "Name one thing an entire country consciously agrees."No. Don't know why you wanted me to answer it.
Because if you need everyone to agree on something to be considered unified, that would mean that literally no country on earth is unified.
I would say we are more unified than a country having a civil war, wouldn't you? Even though we aren't in perfect agreement about political issues?
Created:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Good examples. I would say both are justified.
I mean, socialism has historically killed millions of people, so we were probably honestly working in their interests as well. Pinochet, for example, overthrew the socialist leader because people were starving. He implemented policies that led to good economic growth. But honestly, with how corrupt those countries are, many of the leaders were likely not democratically-elected in the first place.
On the second example, it isn't our responsibility to end all human rights abuses in the world. If we can benefit from simply not ending something that we have no responsibility to end, then good on us. Saudi Arabia is making progress though. Women can drive now, so I guess that is cool.
Created:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
I don't see how the individualism/collectivism frame applies here. It seems like in-group/out-group is the better frame. Is it ok to severely hurt the out-group (foreigners) to pursue the interest of the in-group (members of the state)?
I was referring more to the domestic idea of 'national interest'. Can you hurt some people in your country to help others and still consider it in the national interest?
Now that I re-read things a bit, I think I get where you were coming from. Were you referring to the behavior of a state in its own domestic affairs? I guess I never made explicit that when I talk about 'pursuing the national interest' I'm talking about international affairs.
Ah yes. I think it is still important to consider exactly what the 'national interest' is. Who is considered when an act is determined to be in the 'national interest'?
As I said, typically committing atrocities incurs international outrage, which gets you sanctioned. That is not in the national interest. War is generally not in the national interest. Could you provide a realistic example of doing something immoral that would benefit the aggressive country?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
What he said is wrong is a matter of values.So you are saying even though Nick is anti-American history he is still American?
He still has American citizenship. We have a freedom of speech as American citizens. So, even doing something immoral and anti-American, you still keep your citizenship.
If you want me to find something that everyone in America agrees on, I physically cannot. I can find trends that the majority of people are in agreement about.
Consciously just means that it is something they choose to believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
But isn't he still an American?
In terms of literal citizenship, yes. In a more philosophical sense, he could or could not be. I don't know if he is maliciously lying or if what he said was wrong at all.
So your statement that Americans are unified cannot be substantiated?t
Not by your definition, no. Like I said, there are even big disagreements among conservatives. There are disagreements among Jews and Christians. These are groups of millions. America has 317 million people, so it would be incredibly difficult to find something they all agree on. Not to mention, you would have to interview 317 million people to actually know if they are 'unified' which would be very difficult to do.
How can Americans be unified if you can't point to a single example of unification of any kind?
How about after the 9/11 terrorists attacks. That was a time of national unity. But you'd say that because one jihadist in our country was happy about it, that means we weren't unified.
Name one thing an entire country consciously agrees.
Created:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
And then it really comes down to whether you are an individualist or collectivist. Are you okay with violating the rights of small groups for the good of the rest of people? Or, do you think that infringements on personal liberty are against the national interest?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
You absolutely inferred it. You said it in response to liberals being called immoral hypocrites.
But whatever, what is your question? If the bombs were justified?
Created:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
I can't think of a repugnant act that would further our interests.
You would suffer international backlash for committing human rights abuses, and getting sanctioned isn't in the national interest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You said "Accepting this history" makes you an American. Is Nick Fuentes still an American if he deals with Historical Revisionism?
I don't know what Nick Fuentes said. If he is knowingly lying and wrong, I'd say that is rather anti-American of him.
Give me a specific simple example that Americans are unified on something.The conditions would be:- Has to include every single American- Unified as in everyone agrees on something.If this is not met there isn't a single thing that all Americans agree on.If you are going to say Christmas. Think about it and if you want to add that in again then do it but know that I already have a counter to that.
There is nothing that every single American agrees on. Some people think the earth is flat and vaccines give people autism and those are easily disproven. So, I cannot say a thing about culture that every citizens can agree about. You mentioned Christmas...90% of Americans celebrate it. It isn't uniquely American, but it is something that most of us agree to celebrate.
I didn't mean to mischaracterize and say we need to agree on everything. You mentioned things Americans disagree on, and it appeared you were saying that disagreements mean we aren't unified.
Created:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
The point of a nation is to serve its people by looking out for its interests and preserving their rights. If doing something for another country can measurably help your nation's citizens, do it. If it helps the others at a cost to your people, don't do it.
It generally comes down to: is it an investment or cost to your country-people. It wouldn't only be immoral to bring a cost your people, it would be a failure of government.
Unless there are no needs expressed by your people, such as hunger and poverty, under what right can you take THEIR money and give it out to other people?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
That's not exactly what happened. We cut off their oil because they were invading China without justification and committing heinous slaughters and mass rapes. This was after they had already stolen a province from China by turning it into a puppet state under the pretense that it was an independent country. We had every reason to cut off their oil. In fact, it could easily be argued that it would have been immoral to not cut off their oil supply.
I'm with Senor Parrot on this one. I forgot that we also froze their assets. That war hawk knew exactly what he was getting us into.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
That's not exactly what happened. We cut off their oil because they were invading China without justification and committing heinous slaughters and mass rapes. This was after they had already stolen a province from China by turning it into a puppet state under the pretense that it was an independent country. We had every reason to cut off their oil. In fact, it could easily be argued that it would have been immoral to not cut off their oil supply.
I'm with Senor Parrot on this one. I forgot that we also froze their assets. That war hawk knew exactly what he was getting us into.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And that blasted Andrew Jackson, always going to war. ;)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Or in otherwords, there were shitters on both sides
Yeah, pretty much. They both make rules for short-term convenience and then cry when it is used against them. Gotta love politics! :D
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
You were pointing out the bombs as though they were a Republican thing that we need to justify.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, basically everyone is oblivious that we forced them into attacking Pearl Harbor. We gave them most of their oil, and then we cut them off.
They call us the war mongers, but Obama sent thousands of more soldiers to the Middle East and increased drone strikes.
PoS hypocrites.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Same goes for atomic bombs dropped on Japan? Was the first necessary and morally supperior? Was the 2nd nesccessary and morally superior?
Truman was a Democrat, my dude.
Created: