Funny events in anti-woke world

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
571
305
68
No, you're distorting how the conversation went. My first post on the matter was that it was worth questioning the wisdom and morality of carrying this out with innocents present. Your immediate reply was to equate that position with letting the enemy know he's always safe around kids. You're the one who chose to delve into black and white reductionism.
Before your false equivalence with terrorist methods I clarified my position with the following:

"Quite simple, at some point it will become obvious to the targets. And let's be quite clear, you never know when that opportunity will arise. You will potentially allow the target to get away to an undisclosed location because there were no opportunities to strike and you'd actually need eyes on the target 24/7. Which is not that easy in hostile territory."

The point is quite clear and obvious, if you always avoid striking when terrorists are in the presence of innocent people they will notice the pattern and use them as shields. By questioning the morality of carrying out an assault in a building where children are present you're clearly suggesting it shouldn't be done. The eventual consequence is that terrorists will use them as shields. According to the last article I linked they already do that.

If the only available information we have is a briefing by the ones who carried it out and have an obvious interest in a certain line, then the rational thing isn't to just accept it and ask no questions. Had we applied that approach the last 20 times the US broke international law overseas, we wouldn't have found out about it.
I encourage journalists to investigate and ask questions. I do not agree with the methods of this forum to assume it's bullshit just because it was carried out by the US. Especially since we know two things which suggest efforts have been made; the fact they chose for on the ground intervention rather than a drone strike and the fact locals have reported the special forces did warn the inhabitants and told women and children to evacuate.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,370
6,495
118
Country
United Kingdom
Wonder what would happen if a bunch of leftwingers were to cheer him on because Rowling is a TERF?
Nonono, you don't understand. We left-wingers have a "hierarchy of distaste", by which we judge who to get annoyed by if two possibilities seem to clash.

Republicans are way up near the top; JKR is a fair bit lower down, right next to that lady who put a cat in a wheelie bin.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,370
6,495
118
Country
United Kingdom
Before your false equivalence with terrorist methods I clarified my position with the following:

"Quite simple, at some point it will become obvious to the targets. And let's be quite clear, you never know when that opportunity will arise. You will potentially allow the target to get away to an undisclosed location because there were no opportunities to strike and you'd actually need eyes on the target 24/7. Which is not that easy in hostile territory."

The point is quite clear and obvious, if you always avoid striking when terrorists are in the presence of innocent people they will notice the pattern and use them as shields. By questioning the morality of carrying out an assault in a building where children are present you're clearly suggesting it shouldn't be done. The eventual consequence is that terrorists will use them as shields. According to the last article I linked they already do that.
And what's the logical conclusion of this line of thought? You have put forward an argument that it is not desirable to avoid those casualties, because doing so affects the target's behaviour. That the deaths have a desirable impact.

It shouldn't need to be said but if you assign a tactical value to civilian deaths, and then consider that a price worth paying to get that tactical advantage, then.... that's perilously close to what we condemn the terrorists for.


I encourage journalists to investigate and ask questions. I do not agree with the methods of this forum to assume it's bullshit just because it was carried out by the US. Especially since we know two things which suggest efforts have been made; the fact they chose for on the ground intervention rather than a drone strike and the fact locals have reported the special forces did warn the inhabitants and told women and children to evacuate.
Didn't assume. Explicitly said "question" for a reason. You have defaulted to assuming the best at every step, though, which is not only equally presumptuous but also flies in the face of the track record.
 
Last edited:

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,514
7,106
118
Country
United States

Party of small gubbment, y'all. Inching closer to that beloved facism the right keeps rubbing their dicks to.
Lmao
Mommsen told The Iowa Torch that the bill’s purpose is “to showcase the great work our teachers do and continue the parent involvement that has begun since COVID.”
Just who the fuck is he trying to fool?
 

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
571
305
68
And what's the logical conclusion of this line of thought? You have put forward an argument that it is not desirable to avoid those casualties, because doing so affects the target's behaviour.

It shouldn't need to be said but if you assign a tactical value to civilian deaths, and then consider that a price worth paying to get that tactical advantage, then.... that's perilously close to what we condemn the terrorists for.
Firstly I never said we shouldn't avoid the casualties, however avoiding the risk to have casualties shouldn't be the be all end all. It is moral to carry out an assault which involves a risk insofar the risk is calculated and cannot be mitigated without risking a failure. This was very clearly part of the post;

"Quite simple, at some point it will become obvious to the targets. And let's be quite clear, you never know when that opportunity will arise. You will potentially allow the target to get away to an undisclosed location because there were no opportunities to strike and you'd actually need eyes on the target 24/7. Which is not that easy in hostile territory."

This is not saying it is desirable not to avoid casualties; this is explaining why it can be unavoidable lest you want the mission to fail.

Didn't assume. Explicitly said "question" for a reason. You have defaulted to assuming the best at every step, though, which is not only equally presumptuous but also flies in the face of the track record.
"But the US doesn't have a good track record in those respects, so I find it easy to believe they didn't care much."
"I originally said it's worth questioning, and then said it's possible the US made the right moves, but I just don't trust that's the case. "


Your assumption clearly lies on the US yet again doing the wrong thing.

Anywho, I suppose all we can do now is wait for reporters to dig around and confirm or dispute Biden's side of the story?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,370
6,495
118
Country
United Kingdom
Firstly I never said we shouldn't avoid the casualties, however avoiding the risk to have casualties shouldn't be the be all end all. It is moral to carry out an assault which involves a risk insofar the risk is calculated and cannot be mitigated without risking a failure. This was very clearly part of the post;

"Quite simple, at some point it will become obvious to the targets. And let's be quite clear, you never know when that opportunity will arise. You will potentially allow the target to get away to an undisclosed location because there were no opportunities to strike and you'd actually need eyes on the target 24/7. Which is not that easy in hostile territory."

This is not saying it is desirable not to avoid casualties; this is explaining why it can be unavoidable lest you want the mission to fail.
You specifically imagined a scenario in which no civilian casualties occurred, and speculated that this would lead the target to conclude they should surround themselves with civilians. You said that was undesirable and should be avoided.

How does that square?

Anywho, I suppose all we can do now is wait for reporters to dig around and confirm or dispute Biden's side of the story?
Pretty much. And it won't be Associated Press.
 

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
571
305
68
You specifically imagined a scenario in which no civilian casualties occurred, and speculated that this would lead the target to conclude they should surround themselves with civilians. You said that was undesirable and should be avoided.

How does that square?
Wait what? Which scenario in which no civilian casualties occurred? The only one I speculated is: "he walks away freely". Yes that is undesirable. No I speculated that if you continuously refuse to carry out an assault when there are bystanders it will become obvious all they need are bystanders to be safe. That's totally different.
And that's not even speculation because the AP article already mentions this is an IS tactic.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
Also a ... man ... of his word, it seems
Nice, living that griftin lifestyle with gusto. Or if it ain't a grift: Dort wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen.
Oh it's almost certainly a grift. Just as it's almost certain that Locke himself is a fucking damage case.
 

XsjadoBlayde

~ just another dread messenger ~
Apr 29, 2020
3,504
3,625
118

Well there it is folks. Say goodbye to any future election reasonability there may have been left.

WASHINGTON — The Republican Party on Friday officially declared the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and events that led to it “legitimate political discourse,” formally rebuking two lawmakers in the party who have been most outspoken in condemning the deadly riot and the role of Donald J. Trump in spreading the election lies that fueled it.

The Republican National Committee’s overwhelming voice vote to censure Representatives Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois at its winter meeting in Salt Lake City culminated more than a year of vacillation, which started with party leaders condemning the Capitol attack and Mr. Trump’s conduct, then shifted to downplaying and denying it.

On Friday, the party went further in a resolution slamming Ms. Cheney and Mr. Kinzinger for taking part in the House investigation of the assault, saying they were participating in “persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse.”

It was an extraordinary statement about the deadliest attack on the Capitol in 200 years, in which a mob of Mr. Trump’s supporters stormed the complex, brutalizing police officers and sending lawmakers into hiding. Nine people died in connection with the attack and more than 150 officers were injured. The party passed the resolution without discussion and almost without dissent.


The censure is the latest and most forceful effort by the Republican Party to minimize what happened and the broader attempt by Mr. Trump and his allies to invalidate the results of the 2020 election. In approving it and opting to punish two of its own, Republicans seemed to embrace a position that many of them have only hinted at: that the assault and the actions that preceded it were acceptable.

It came days after Mr. Trump suggested that, if re-elected in 2024, he would consider pardons for those convicted in the Jan. 6 attack and for the first time described his goal as aiming to “overturn” the election results.

For Republicans in Washington, the party’s actions threatened new division as their leaders try to focus attention on what they call the failings of the Biden administration.

Senator Mitt Romney, Republican of Utah, wrote on Twitter, “Shame falls on a party that would censure persons of conscience, who seek truth in the face of vitriol. Honor attaches to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for seeking truth even when doing so comes at great personal cost.” He did not mention that the party chairwoman who presided over the meeting and orchestrated the censure resolution, Ronna McDaniel, is his niece.


The party’s far-right flank has been agitating to boot Ms. Cheney and Mr. Kinzinger out of the House Republican Conference for months, a push that Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the minority leader, has tried to brush aside. And their formal censure is sure to stir up those efforts again.

The Republican Party declared the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and events that led to it as “legitimate political discourse.”


“We need to move on from that whole discussion and, frankly, move forward and get the House back in 2022,” said Representative Mike Garcia, a California Republican facing a difficult re-election campaign in a newly configured district.

Most House Republicans tried to ignore the actions of the party on Friday, refusing to answer questions or saying they had not read the censure resolution. Representative Dan Crenshaw, Republican of Texas, called it “dumb stuff,” while Representative Mark Green, Republican of Tennessee, lamented the distraction from “this abysmal administration’s record.”

Democrats, however, were incensed, especially at the censure resolution’s description of the Capitol attack as “ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse,” and the ongoing legal investigations of Mr. Trump in New York and Georgia “Democrat abuse of prosecutorial power.”

“The Republican Party is so off the deep end now that they are describing an attempted coup and a deadly insurrection as political expression,” said Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland and a member of the special House committee investigating the Capitol attack. “It is a scandal that historians will be aghast at, to think that a major political party would be denouncing Liz Cheney for standing up for the Constitution and not saying anything about Donald Trump’s involvement in the insurrection.”

Representative Adam Schiff, Democrat of California and who is also on the committee, said, “their party has degenerated into a cult to the former president, unwilling to acknowledge the truth, and I think they condemn themselves with their resolution.”


In his own defense, Mr. Kinzinger said, “I have no regrets about my decision to uphold my oath of office and defend the Constitution. I will continue to focus my efforts on standing for truth and working to fight the political matrix that’s led us to where we find ourselves today.”

The resolution speaks repeatedly of party unity as the goal of censuring the lawmakers, saying the party’s ability to focus on the Biden administration was being “sabotaged” by the “actions and words” of Ms. Cheney and Mr. Kinzinger which indicate “they support Democrat efforts to destroy President Trump more than they support winning back a Republican majority in 2022.”

More practically, the moves of the party in Salt Lake City will make it easier for the Republican apparatus to abandon Ms. Cheney and throw its weight and money behind her main primary challenger, Harriet Hageman.

The censure resolution declares that the party “shall immediately cease any and all support of” both lawmakers “as members of the Republican Party for their behavior which has been destructive to the institution of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Republican Party and our republic, and is inconsistent with the position of the Conference.”

Mr. Kinzinger has already announced he won’t seek re-election, as have several other House Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Trump for inciting the attack on the Capitol. Ms. Cheney, however, has vowed to stand for re-election.

Representative Adam Kinzinger has already announced he won’t seek re-election, as have several other House Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Trump.


Earlier this week, the Wyoming delegation to the Republican National Committee submitted a so-called “Rule 11” letter, formalizing party support for Ms. Hageman. The existence of the letter was reported by The Washington Post.


The letter allows the Republican National Committee to send resources to the Wyoming branch of the party to spend on Ms. Hageman’s behalf — essentially designating her as the party’s presumptive nominee. The designations are common in Republican politics, but typically are used to support incumbents who may be facing token primary challengers. Florida’s delegation, for instance, filed a similar letter months ago that allowed the national committee to funnel resources to support the re-election campaigns for Gov. Ron DeSantis and Senator Marco Rubio.

Ms. Cheney, who faces an uphill battle in her re-election bid against a Republican Party aligned with Mr. Trump, said party leaders “have made themselves willing hostages” to Mr. Trump.

“I do not recognize those in my party who have abandoned the Constitution to embrace Donald Trump,” she said. “History will be their judge. I will never stop fighting for our constitutional republic. No matter what.”

Ms. Cheney’s spokesman, Jeremy Adler, condemned the Wyoming G.O.P. leadership and its chairman, Frank Eathorne, for directing resources to Ms. Hageman. Mr. Eathorne did not respond to messages Friday; other members of the Wyoming delegation declined to comment.

“Frank Eathorne and the Republican National Committee are trying to assert their will and take away the voice of the people of Wyoming before a single vote has even been cast,” Mr. Adler said.

Ms. Cheney has a commanding financial advantage over Ms. Hageman, according to federal campaign finance reports released earlier this week. Ms. Cheney entered 2022 with nearly $5 million in campaign cash, while Ms. Hageman reported just $380,000.

The censure resolution was watered down from an initial version that called directly for the House Republican Conference to “expel” Ms. Cheney and Mr. Kinzinger “without delay.” That demand was dropped. However, the language condemning the attack on “legitimate political discourse” was then added.


William J. Palatucci, a Republican National Committee member from New Jersey, said those changes were made “behind closed doors.” The final language was officially circulated to committee members early Friday morning. He called it “cancel culture at its worst.”

“The national committee attacking Liz Cheney is distracting and counterproductive,” he said. “We should be spending our time shooting at Democrats, not Republicans.”
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA

Well there it is folks. Say goodbye to any future election reasonability there may have been left.
I'm pretty sure most of us saw this coming. The GOP has only one value: win, no matter the cost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XsjadoBlayde

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
571
305
68

Well there it is folks. Say goodbye to any future election reasonability there may have been left.
Republicans truly want America to become a banana republic. Maybe they should replace the Elephant with a Banana.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
17,001
9,696
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅

Well there it is folks. Say goodbye to any future election reasonability there may have been left.
"It's okay, because we're the ones who did it, and only Republicans can ever be legitimate rulers of this country."

It's time for Republicans to just admit that power means more to them than democracy.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,514
7,106
118
Country
United States

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,226
3,949
118
Wealthy California town declares its sprawling mansions to be a mountain lion reserve to block affordable housing development

That looks like the premise of a bad comedy which includes some decent scenes of obnoxious rich people getting eated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,308
6,588
118

Party of small gubbment, y'all. Inching closer to that beloved facism the right keeps rubbing their dicks to.
If not very carefully set up and run, the right might not be the only ones rubbing their dicks to them.

This is of course a truly horrible idea dreamt up by an idiot. Everyone with an iota of sense will know it is intended and would be used to name and shame teachers, and drive them out of their jobs. People may not want to become teachers because they don't want their daily jobs under such permanent scrutiny. I do not believe this bill will ever pass, but if it did I strongly suggest it would end with a school staffing crisis.