Jump to content

Tuco

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3363
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tuco

  1. I think the Dems lose more they gain if they start backing off something like gay marriage. Again, this isn't the Dem leadership deciding how to change the world; the world changed and the Dems are reacting. Unless our culture shifts back enough, supporting gay rights will remain part of any path to winning. It's hard to imagine culture shifting back that much quickly, but, as they say, "nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition."
  2. The left/right shifts are meaningless unless you are talking specific issues. In general, I think any shift to the left on any policy is attributed to the Dems, even if neither the main party nor a Presidential candidate pushes it. Where the dems have pulled to the right, it reflects a shift in the country or a push by a few dems or liberal groups. So, the Dems aren't setting the agenda in either situation. LBGTQIA+ (etc.) --The dems have definitely shifted left. In 2008, civil unions in lieu of gay marriage was the party line. Trans rights? Not even on the radar. The Dems shifted because it was the right position to have, and frankly America as a whole shifted. There is no shifting back, thankfully. Black Lives Matter (police brutality) - There really isn't a policy here and I think the Dem organization as a whole has ducked the issue. But, individual dems and affiliated groups have definitely signaled a willingness to reign in cops. So, it is frequently seen as a shift with the Democrats. DEI/race issues - Again, it's pretty light on policies. I think the Minority-Owned/Women-owned contractor policies have existed in federal contracting for a while, generally with bipartisan support. (That's a guess, since it doesn't typically get argued about.). The bigger shift left has been in corporate America, not anything driven by the Democratic Party. Gun Control - The dems have definitely shifted to the right. Shit, I remember when there was meaningful debate about controlling hand guns. Now, shooting trophies seems to be a benefit for being a VP nom. The Democrats have crumbled on this issue. Maybe that reflects the direction the country has gone, despite the frequent murder of children. Tax /Trade Policy - Yeah, shifted way right. Support for Israel - unchanged, maybe a bit to the right over the last 30 years. But there are enough individual Dems and associated groups that have pushed back on Israel, so it creates the appearance of a shift in the Dem party. Health Care - on the whole, not really changed since Hillary Clinton in the early 90s. The difference is that Obama actually got something set up. At this point, it seems like Dems are consolidating the support for Obamacare, but no wide-spread push for a better system.
  3. I know I consider it a personal failure of the pilots that the bomb didn't completely destroy the infrastructure under a mountain. They should have flown harder.
  4. The biggest surprise about electing a Socialist in NYC is that the rest of the country would have assumed the mayor of NYC was always a socialist. This is irrelevant. Nobody cares. And that Vermont Senator came pretty came damn close to winning the nomination two cycles in a row. That says way more about the Democratic Party as a whole.
  5. Dammit, now the Republicans are going to say we elected a Socialist in New York City. We're doomed. Doomed I tell I ya! Next thing you know we'll have a Socialists Senator from Vermont.
  6. I smoked a bowl after a Midnight Hammer once; got the munchies so bad I ate an entire Dessert Storm.
  7. Did Kruschevchev nuke the US? I would be convinced that Bibi's fear of getting nuked was more genuine if actually did something, anything, to deescalate the conflict with Iran. His one and only response to that fear is to attack them - their uranium operations, ok, but also their leadership, their TV stations, etc. Those actions obviously continue to harden and deepen the conflict. Even Reagan negotiated with the USSR. Bibi pushes hard against any deal between the US and Iran. And despite this terror of a glowing Tel Aviv, they continue to expand their territory with illegal settlements and brutalize the Palestinians living there. These are not the actions of a frightened government. Yeah, no one wants a nuclear Iran, but to me it's pretty clear that Bibi wants to keep that threat always 6 months to two years aways so he always has an excuse.
  8. My argument is that "strategy of destroying Israel" does not equate to a commitment to nuke Israel, despite how the rhetoric is generally presented. Edit: ...and Iran's role in 10/7 if far from proven fact.
  9. The genocide by American-backed Israel should prove that we hate Muslims.
  10. So, that's in response to me saying that Iran (or specifically Ahmadinejad) never said anything to indicate they would nuke Israel, given the chance. I'm still not seeing it in there. The "we have managed to obtain the capacity to destroy the impostor Zionist regime" isn't on the Wiki page you quoted, but I did find it on the Times of Israel article. It would be nice if the original source "IRGC's Sepah news site" was available to see the original context. But, can we agree that Iran didn't "manage to obtain the capacity to destroy the impostor Zionist regime" in 2019? As far as the typical rhetoric, the TofI article did start out: And, listen, Iran is full of shit, right. As stated originally, they are shitty. But of the types of statements - the "wipe Israel of the map" vs. "we love Jews" - which gets play in the US Press? What percentage of Americans do you think would be surprised about Khamenei's statements above. When I say propaganda, that's what I mean: the version of Iran that Americans sees is filtered, and therefore a half-truth at best.
  11. Disgusting.
  12. And hopefully you understand that position is part of the propaganda we have been fed. The translations are frequently in the most inflammatory ways possible. Anyone remember Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel of the map"? He wanted to blow them up, right? But it's not a Farsi idiom. Per wikipedia: And that's not some super-radical idea. Many countries do not recognize Israel (the government that is in charge of the land) has the right to exist. That doesn't mean they have expressed a desire to nuke the land and the people. Nuking Israel doesn't free Palestine or Jerusalem, it just destroys them. It serves no purpose. It makes no sense. It is not something Iran is threatening to do. In order to believe that is Iran's plan, you have to have already decided Iran's decisions are completely illogical and suicidal. *Sidenote: Ahmadinejad is probably the worst, total shitstain fucker they've had as President in the last 25 years. He said plenty of dumb, terrible inflammatory shit, including questioning the Holocaust. But he never said anything to indicate he would nuke Israel given the opportunity. It's also worth noting he was elected after we invaded Iraq and were on their doorstep. We always push them to stupid fuckers like him.
  13. Hamas should absolutely be blamed for the brutal, barbaric murders of innocent people in Israel, specifically for the October 7 attacks, but others as well. Israel should be blamed for perpetuating a genocide in Gaza. Japan should be blamed for starting a war and then failing to end it, while they traded their people for better terms. So, yeah, they should be blamed for the number of deaths required to end it. Whether they should be blamed for Nagasaki and Hiroshima depends on whether you believe those were necessary to end the war. I think it's reasonable that Hiroshima could have ended it, had the US provided enough time for Japan to understand the damage. So, personally I think Nagasaki is on the US, but I get that opinions may differ. Hopefully we can all agree that it wasn't Italy's responsibility. I think we are way past the number of deaths required to be useful in stopping another October 7th attack. At this point, it's about revenge, expansion, and ethnic cleaning. It's genocide and Israel is entirely, 100% responsible for it.
  14. It was a response to blaming Iran for Israel systematically killing unarmed civilians in Gaza. It is the only reasonable response.
  15. "...and this is your brain on propaganda."
  16. Once she hits the water, she's like a mermaid. But the feet don't completely transform back on dry land. More Cabin in the Woods than Ariel.
  17. After it gets worse.
  18. When you presents those points as a justification for pre-emptive, military, deadly strikes on Iran, it implies that somehow those points are the criteria or reasonable justification for carrying out such strikes. I think that is partial truth, and therefore misleading. Let's start with your add on post: Okay. Do you think there is any ethical difference between killing civilians of a "western democracies" (a term which gets more meaningless by the day) and civilians of some other form of government? (I would argue that civilians in a democracy actually have more culpability in their government's actions than those of a theocracy.) Do you think there is an ethical difference how you kill civilians - terrorism or with intentional targeting by the military? Who was worse - the French Resistance murdering Nazi collaborators or Nazi soldiers lining up civilians and gunning them down? And, for my last question - over the last year, who do you think has intentionally killed more civilians - Israel or Iran? So, to me, the last point is obviously biased to justify the action.
  19. I can believe it, but I am curious to your reasoning. Care to expand?
  20. Do you really need a definition for propaganda? Do you acknowledge the continuous stream of propaganda regarding Iran for the last 50 years? Yep, sure, reasons. Iran's government sucks. No question or argument on that. But, do you not acknowledge the propaganda?
  21. If you’re worried about a dirty bomb, there is plenty of non radioactive shit that will kill you just as dead and much easier to transport. The focus on dirty bombs is just buzz word nonsense. And, of course, targets in Israel would be easier and higher priority.
  22. The last thing Bibi wants is a stable Iranian government that represents the will of its people and its sanctions lifted. (Saudi Arabia would also vote no on that scenario.) A chaotic, impoverished, suffering Iran makes for the best security for Israel and Saudi Arabia. So that is what will happen. Maybe they get a civil war out of it (for which we declare as progress towards a free Iran), but more likely it will just be continued bombings, destroying infrastructure and destabilizing the country. It’s harder to convert an adversary than it is to keep them weak.
  23. Pato for the win.
  24. Thank god we kept Saddam from getting nukes. Totally worth it.
  25. That I doubt. Israel is not going to try to occupy a country of 80 some million people that is not adjacent to their borders. Israel would much more likely fuel a prolonged civil war.
×
×
  • Create New...