Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 17:22:04

I think once it comes out that he was involved in an actual exorcism, he's done.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/ ... _on_e.html

I wonder if our own resident Brown alum was aware of this.

by **drsmooth** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 17:30:09

Hasn't "anything someone ever did in college" essentially gone the way of "OMG they puffed a joint in college!" as a political career ender anymore?

by **drsmooth** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 17:35:14

I mean I'd be more concerned about a dumbass presiding as governor over dismantling programs some find valuable while ruling out revenue raising, all based on fantastic (exorcisable?) notions of how economics works (or doesn't).

Seems more pertinent somehow

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 17:36:23

Puffing a joint I think is a pretty common practice in college. Dorm room exorcisms I don't think happen that often. Also, writing about it and publishing seems a bit unusual. But I'd be happy to ask my classes about that on Monday.

by **Werthless** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 17:38:09

pacino wrote:Glenn Greenwald positing that we are hypocrites if we shame ISIL because drones.

No shades of morality with this idiot. Can't believe people read him.

I don't understand your criticism. It sounds like you are arguing that the acceptable tools of war depend on whether you agree with the wielder of said tools. Is that right? So ISIL is immoral for using drones because they are bad, but it is acceptable for the US to use drones?

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 17:42:27

Werthless wrote:
pacino wrote:Glenn Greenwald positing that we are hypocrites if we shame ISIL because drones.

No shades of morality with this idiot. Can't believe people read him.

I don't understand your criticism. It sounds like you are arguing that the acceptable tools of war depend on whether you agree with the wielder of said tools. Is that right? So ISIL is immoral for using drones because they are bad, but it is acceptable for the US to use drones?

I can't speak for PAC, but that makes sense in a political theory kind of way to me--we're back to the whole firebombing Dresden thing. Dirty hands and all that. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

by **drsmooth** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 17:49:41

TenuredVulture wrote:Puffing a joint I think is a pretty common practice in college. Dorm room exorcisms I don't think happen that often. Also, writing about it and publishing seems a bit unusual. But I'd be happy to ask my classes about that on Monday.

I heartily endorse your plan. Be sure to mention you're asking to resolve the issue with me :-D

by **Philly the Kid** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 18:01:09

This is sobering.

by **drsmooth** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 18:08:20

Werthless wrote:
pacino wrote:Glenn Greenwald positing that we are hypocrites if we shame ISIL because drones.

No shades of morality with this idiot. Can't believe people read him.

I don't understand your criticism. It sounds like you are arguing that the acceptable tools of war depend on whether you agree with the wielder of said tools. Is that right? So ISIL is immoral for using drones because they are bad, but it is acceptable for the US to use drones?

Greenwald's criticism is basically "hey, don't wag fingers at Izzies for intentionally burning people alive for propaganda purposes because we sometimes use drones to fire missiles and missiles sometimes burn people up so we're the same". Yea, and they drive cars and we drive cars too, so back off, right?

you were just kidding about your confusion right, because jfc otherwise

by **drsmooth** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 18:19:48

Here's an exerpt from Greenwald's sanctimonious rambling:

....One could plausibly maintain that there is a different moral calculus involved in (a) burning a helpless captive to death as opposed to (b) recklessly or even deliberately burning civilians to death in areas that one is bombing with weapons purposely designed to incinerate human beings, often with the maximum possible pain....

But there is nonetheless something quite obfuscating about this beloved ritual of denouncing the unique barbarism of ISIS....

While it’s understandable that being forced to watch the savagery on video prompts strong emotions (although, again, hiding savagery does not in fact make it less savage), it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the ritualistic expressed revulsion has a definitive utility....

The constant orgy of condemnation aimed at this group seems to have little purpose other than tribal self-affirmation

Thanks Glenn for supplying our apparently obligatory regular dosage of reflexively contrarian assholery

by **pacino** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 18:58:42

i imagine GG has a thesaurus by his desk as he types

by **pacino** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 19:01:26

TenuredVulture wrote:
Werthless wrote:
pacino wrote:Glenn Greenwald positing that we are hypocrites if we shame ISIL because drones.

No shades of morality with this idiot. Can't believe people read him.

I don't understand your criticism. It sounds like you are arguing that the acceptable tools of war depend on whether you agree with the wielder of said tools. Is that right? So ISIL is immoral for using drones because they are bad, but it is acceptable for the US to use drones?

I can't speak for PAC, but that makes sense in a political theory kind of way to me--we're back to the whole firebombing Dresden thing. Dirty hands and all that. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

ISIL isn't using drones to burn people alive, far as I can tell. And acceptable use of weaponry is a time-tested agreement between nations in a time of war.

GG is saying we can't criticize an aspect of ISIL because we use drones on other countries while he attempt to combat terrorism. As I've written about numerous times here I worry about our usage of drones in actually combatting the problem and also the actual process by which we deem people worthy of killing, but we still have every right to condemn ISIL.

by **pacino** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 22:07:36

Apparently, Mike Bloomberg had a criticism of Obama...he didnt 'connect' with people enough.

Even dajafi has to admit this quite a pot, kettle situation

by **phatj** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 22:36:06

Speaking of dajafi, he hasn't posted in going on two months. Anybody heard from him?

by **pacino** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 22:44:41

Wow, did not know that. Hope he's alright. Maybe he's better without us?

by **phatj** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 23:09:29

He was at that time a new father, or about to become one, maybe he's just taking a sabbatical.

by **pacino** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 23:47:28

Ahh, having a real life. What a jerk.

by **Youseff** » Sat Feb 07, 2015 01:04:30

Obama said the Crusades were also bad and there's about 10,000 posts on Sean Hannity's FB page calling him Muslim. The Republican party is good.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Sat Feb 07, 2015 04:31:16

Bucky wrote:The Islam identification thing is mind-boggling and the trickle down effect is one of my least favorite things about facebook these days.

Then it gets tied to this fun meme:

..with (I guess?) the logical conclusion being 'Hey, we went to war against Germany didn't we? So we should go to war against Islam!"

i hate the world

What's the deal with Hitler's thumb?

by **Monkeyboy** » Sat Feb 07, 2015 04:52:10

Bucky wrote:The Islam identification thing is mind-boggling and the trickle down effect is one of my least favorite things about facebook these days.

Then it gets tied to this fun meme:

..with (I guess?) the logical conclusion being 'Hey, we went to war against Germany didn't we? So we should go to war against Islam!"

i hate the world

and in that Germany, how many were Jews? I mean, if we are going to start targeting people based on their religion, let's talk about the real road we are going down.

Archived

Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)