Total posts: 1,949
For a laugh, read the New York Times’s supposedly searching account of the Justice Department’s decision to pursue Mr. Trump for Jan. 6 crimes. After failing to find the expected financial or other ties between the Trump circle and Jan. 6 rioters, “the department’s leadership had no alternative but to steer the investigation into choppy, uncharted waters: They shifted focus to election fraud.”
Notice the words “had no alternative.” Actually the department had an alternative, which any agency has when an investigation doesn’t pan out: End the investigation.
“Trump’s Conviction and Biden’s Worst Decision” - WSJ
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Like what?
Exactly. Non Republicans have a hard time coming up with examples of things to be proud of.
Edit: I even made a reference to this pride in America in post 4. You seem very closed off to the answers I provide to your questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No hard feelings after almost 200 years, I guess…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
A number of US citizens emigrated to Canada to help England in the Battle of Britain. They were known as the Eagle Squadron.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
JFK said, “Ich bin ein Berliner.” I don’t see those sorts of things as a renunciation of loyalty to the US.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Well, I guess the ethos I have observed in the GOP as it currently stands is: “Despite its flaws currently and historically, there is much to be proud of in America.”
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
We have a few posters who value quantity over quality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Neither do I.
Then I’m not sure what your excuse is for imagining what by all appearances is a nonsense, weed induced hypothetical. Produce actual, real life people’s views to demonstrate how my pithy comparison is completely off base. Or we can merely agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Sorry, I don’t smoke pot. I deal in what actually exists as opposed to weed induced hypotheticals such as yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
As long as you demand a fair trial prior to the execution, then justice is served.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
They didn’t mention a trial in the OP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Sure, Professor Non Sequitur.
Created:
Posted in:
They claim to believe in the US legal system, but they want to skip past the indictment, trial, verdict and go straight to the death penalty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
As if he has any cookies to give away, nobody has any cookies in communism.
Probably not, but they do offer a delightful cracker:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
No concession on my part has been offered or is necessary as I was never arguing that it was morally justified in the first place. That was YOU putting words in MY mouth.
This would be my argument on the subject of moral justification in territorial disputes:
P1: Moral justification in territorial disputes is irrelevant if no nation is completely morally justified historically being situated where it is currently.
P2: No nation is completely morally justified historically being situated where it is currently.
C: Moral justification in territorial disputes is irrelevant.
It’s really just Savant’s post 13 in syllogistic form. Note that no one even attempted to answer his question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
So my posts have been relevant to the thread topic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
When I discussed something other than moral justification, you said it was irrelevant to the topic of this thread, which is about the historical territorial dispute between the Native American populations and European settlers. In effect, you are saying that moral justification is the only relevant aspect of this topic.
I ask again (only expecting a Whopper, really): how is this so?
I ask again (only expecting a Whopper, really): how is this so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
In your post 57, you claimed (without real basis actually) that moral justification is the only relevant aspect of territory disputes. How is this so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You claimed the relevance of moral justification when it comes to seizing or holding territory. How is moral justification relevant to the efficacy of holding or acquiring territories historically?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Please explain how territory is defended purely via moral justification.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Do you think the allies won WWII because they were morally justified?
*crickets*
Your concession by silence to the inefficacy of moral justification is noted. If you are ever carjacked— or bicycle or tricycle jacked as the case may be— you will no doubt be shouting “Hey, this is theft! You are NOT morally justified in doing this!!” Yes, you will no longer have your ride, but you will have the deep satisfaction of knowing that the thief was clearly not morally justified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Oh, you get to define the topic now? How convenient for you, not even being the OP and all. At BK, you can have it your way!
Do you think the allies won WWII because they were morally justified?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Yet you insist that you aren’t twisting my words. That is the laughable bit. I never, anywhere used the words “morally justified.” That’s your twist.
As you refuse to get it, I will spell it out for you: I am describing the world as it IS in reality, not as you, me, nor anyone WISHES it were. Do you see the difference?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
How do you propose to debunk that? Snarkiness does not a refutation make…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
I mean, it's true. You can do that.
Yes, even when he twists one’s words (which is almost all of the time), the strawman is STILL an undeniable truism in this case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Paper beat your rock, sorry.
“The pen is mightier”
However, when one tries to cut up that paper with scissors, then the rock inevitably rears its ugly head…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
If I wanted a Whopper, I would have ordered one from you, Burger.King.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
The native peoples of this continent (and it’s not the only one) had intertribal battles over land and resources. There is also evidence that the native peoples of recent history took land from even earlier inhabitants in much more distant history.
So, how IS land owned? There’s a song which lays out the concept quite simply. It is titled “This Land Is My Land”:
This land is my land
It isn’t your land
I’ve got a shotgun
And you don’t got one
I’ll blow your head off
If you don’t get off
This land is private property.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There’s also another universally recognized rule: once within sight of a certain spot, the first person to call “Shotgun!” gets to sit in the front seat of that land.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, and I’m pretty sure that “law” still applies today… and it isn’t even limited to the human race!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I guess you could say that native americans back then had no recognized law regarding land ownership, but that is still because the US did not recognize their land ownerships.
Doesn’t this sound a bit circular to you? “Land belongs to a group when other groups recognize that the land belongs to that group.”
It seems that you simultaneously maintain the opposite: “Land belongs to a certain group even when another group neglects to recognize its ownership.” This is merely a meaningless assertion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
What makes land belong to a given group?
Created:
Posted in:
It appears that President Biden has already commented on the verdict:
“Biden acknowledged that the verdict in the trial “will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included.” He said that everyone “must acknowledge that the jury has spoken.””
Wow, that is a surprising response! Oh, wait… that was Biden’s take on the Rittenhouse “not guilty” verdict from years ago. Hopefully, he chooses his response more carefully on this one— no response at all would be ideal for his sake.
Created:
Posted in:
Ok guys, I simply have too many nicknames to go to waste. So… due to a distinct lack of popular demand, I’m doing a total nickname dump:
Lex Luthor, Double L, Double (S)tandards, Double (D)ouche, Douchus Maximus
Captain Queeg (from “The Caine Mutiny”), Captain Oveur (from “Airplane” and “Airplane II”)
Professor Non Sequitur aka Fellow Lacking Relevant Witticisms
Snidetalker aka White Guilt Walking
Brit Middler aka zitvector4
Unagi
HistoryBoof
IrrationalMadblocker aka “The cat that always comes back”
GayPurr-ee or The Libertarian Cynic
smugash3x
effedbuc
TheUnderboob
ADreamOfBestiality
ShitRaiser
Benjamin Yahoo
BK at the Mall
Masterb-8-a-bull
5CRU3ALL
criticAI-tim
WhamBamAmber
Bingo Baggins
While a guy should really never self nickname, in the interest of fair play I will suggest (drumroll): pissto71
Created:
Posted in:
Usually, people are atheist because they don’t believe in any gods.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
That’s a fair point— the UN does not seem to specify numbers at all. It seems to be simply assumed that a genocide involves large numbers because of the intent to eliminate (or severely reduce the population of) a people group. The point I’m making is that intent is key here. Is it Israel’s intent to wipe out the Palestinian people? I think not because:
A. Israel could have wiped them out long before now
B. Israel’s intent is to get back hostages
C. Israel’s intent is to neutralize the threat posed by Hamas
D. Hamas could stop this alleged genocide if they so desired
E. Hamas uses the human shield strategy
F. This is in direct response to the actions of Hamas on October 7
Created:
In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.[1][2]
But don’t let this stop ya’ll from merely speculating what the word means and what might constitute a real life example of it…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Thanks, but I cannot take credit for coming up with that wording.
Created:
Posted in:
A Republican is one who looks at Mount Rushmore and sees it as a monument to historic leaders who are worthy of respect. A Democrat looks at Mount Rushmore and sees a white supremacist monument built upon stolen land.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
It’s possible the tapes show many… eh… awkward… wha?
Created:
Posted in:
Although transcripts of Biden’s interview with Hur have been released, Garland is blocking the release of audio tapes of President Biden’s interview. The audio recording of President Biden speaking unrehearsed must be pretty disturbing to hear:
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
Not familiar with Alex O’Connor. What are his bonafides, his “claim to fame”? I watched a debate between William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll and came away very impressed with Carroll, for what it’s worth. And he seems like a genuinely nice guy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don’t think MLK was that loyal to either party.
Created:
Posted in:
LBJ was allegedly behind the Kennedy assassination, and that was within a political party rather than between the two opposing parties.
Created:
Posted in:
The proper response to 9/11 would have been to declare a cease fire with Al Qaida and the Taliban.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Good for you! You should be safe from death threats now.
Created: