Republicans: continued

[Animavore]

Science, according to a Trump appointee at the Department of the Interior, is "a Democrat thing." Those words were reportedly used to justify the abrupt 2017 cancellation of a study into the health effects of mountaintop removal for coal-mining. At the time, then-Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke claimed that the study was canceled after a careful review of the grant process.

https://www.salon.com/2019/04/10/scienc ... _2iHXEnY8U

[JimC]

Science involves facing up to reality, never a "Republican thing"...

[Forty Two]

Ilhan Omar Never Stood a Chance

Ilhan Omar has courted controversy ever since she transformed, in the public’s conception, from a telegenic symbol of American pluralism to an actual person with actual opinions. In the months after her swearing-in to Congress, the Minnesota representative has been strident in her criticism of Saudi Arabia and Israel. Both are American allies, but it’s her position on the latter country that has prompted members of her own party to turn against her. The past two months have seen her accused varyingly of anti-Semitism, disloyalty to the United States, and, most recently, of downplaying the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The first criticism can be attributed to her suggestion that American support for Israel is “all about the Benjamins” — a seeming nod to the bigoted trope that rich Jews control the world. The second and third are more flagrantly Islamophobic in origin.

The backlash came to a head this week after footage surfaced of Omar speaking about Islamophobia at a Council on American-Islamic Relations event last month. “Far too long we have lived with the discomfort of being a second-class citizen and frankly, I’m tired of it and every single Muslim in this country should be tired of it,” Omar said to an audience gathered in Los Angeles. “CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something,” she said, gesturing as if to separate herself from ‘some people’, “and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.”

Conservatives seized on Omar’s characterization of 9/11 as “some people did something” to cast it as an effort to trivialize the attack. President Trump on Friday tweeted a video that intercut her repeatedly saying “some people did something” with footage of the 9/11 attacks, with the caption, “We will never forget!” Representative Dan Crenshaw, a Texas Republican, tweeted that her comments were “unbelievable.” Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel added that Omar is “anti-American,” while the New York Post on Thursday published a cover photo of airplanes colliding with the Twin Towers. “Rep. Ilhan Omar: 9/11 was ‘some people did something,’” the headline read. “Here’s your something: 2,977 dead by terrorism.” The photo echoed imagery from an Islamophobic poster displayed at the West Virginia statehouse last month, which pictured Omar in front of the collapsing World Trade Center. “‘Never forget,’ you said,” the caption reads. “I am the proof — you have forgotten.” Such an ungenerous interpretation of her remarks is only possible if one is inclined to believe that Omar sympathizes more with terrorists than her murdered countrymen. That she spoke them in the course of decrying Islamophobia makes it especially disconcerting that her political opponents would decontextualize them to fan the flames — she receives regular death threats on the basis of her faith, including from one New York man who threatened recently to “put a bullet in her fucking skull.”

continued: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/ ... klash.html

CAIR was founded in 1994, not "after 9/11" - and she implies that CAIR was founded because of the terrorist attacks on 9/11 (as if it was in opposition to those attacks) - that's not why it was formed. And CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a huge criminal case involving various organizations funding terrorist organizations.

In 2013, she said that she was tired of hearing people refer to Al Qaeta, Hizb[Allah and other terrorist organizations as if they were "bad things." And, she said that they "don't mean anything evil."

She voted against a bill that would deny life insurance benefits to radical Islamic terrorists who kill Americans. The bill was introduced in response to the 2015 San Bernardino shooting massacre, in which 14 people were shot and killed. The perpetrators – Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik – took out two life insurance policies totaling $275,000.

She lobbied in favor of leniency with a sentencing judge in an ISIS recruits case.

She has described terrorism as "a reaction to our involvement in other peoples' affairs." (referring to al-Shabab attack on a Kenyan shopping mall in 2013 that killed 70 and wounded 200).

Regarding her antisemitc comments - she's been criticized not just by Republicans, but Democrats too - see Juan Vargas, Democrat who said "It is disturbing that Rep. Omar continues to perpetuate hurtful anti-Semitic stereotypes that misrepresent our Jewish community." And, Omar's views on Jews is not surprising. She's actually rather tepid in that regard, given her adherence to Islam.

The real "context" of her "some people did something" comment is that she thinks Al Qaeta was just a reaction to western policies, and that they didn't mean any evil - they're a reaction.

[rainbow]

Communism is essential a romantic perspective - not that dissimilar from Libertarianism really.

In fact, libertarian-communism is a form of communism.

It involves a stateless society with the abolition of money, prices, and wage labor and the distribution of wealth is based on self-determined needs. People would be free to engage in whatever activities they found most fulfilling. LOL.

The romance of it all.... yes, so romantic...

Money is abolished. How? Without a state? How can you "abolish" anything without a force to enforce the abolition? Without money, people barter - I'll make 10 loaves of bread and since I only need one each day, I'll "sell" 9 to my neighbors who are making other things with their time, and we trade. "Money" is just a customary or agreed thing that has representative value - you can't "abolish" it - people will just use lumps of gold or silver and pound them into shapes for easy estimation of weight.

And, so, you have no state, but some force to stop people from trading metals back and forth as money. And, someone "abolishes" prices - things don't have a price anymore! Wow! Everything is free? Oh -but, they aren't eliminating private personal property - so you'd then have to wonder how I would be prevented from "selling" my extra 9 loaves of bread to my neighbors in exchange for, say, lawn mowing - sweater sewing - and the occasional pot, pan or spoon that my non-baker neighbor likes to make. Abolished that -- the means of production of bread is in the hands of .... what? not the state, right? the "community?"

How does the community deal with the bread? Can I make my own bread? But, I can't make more than my own bread - I can't make the extra 9 loaves. Maybe I can, but with the abolition of price, I can't trade for them. I just have to give them away. If I don't give them away for free, then I'm putting a price on it. Prices have been abolished, though. So, I either eat the 9 loaves myself, or I let them rot.

If the "community" determines how much bread to make and where to distribute it (means of production), then I can't choose to make bread. But, libertarian communism says I can do whatever fulfills me - it's my choice. So, I choose to be a baker. But I'm producing then - I'm part of the production - so who is going to tell me what to bake and how much and who to give it to? The community? But I can bake the bread to be fulfilled, but it has no price, so I can't recover my costs or make a little extra over that for my time and trouble.

WAGE labor is abolished, but they didn't say anything about LABOR. What's non-wage labor called? It's either voluntary or slave, right?

Distribution is done by need (no specification of who makes the determination - there comes the community again - you know, the "patriarchal" community... lol) -- and there we have it - I can do whatever fulfills me, but I can't charge for it, I can't earn money, I can't put a price on anything, I do get to own personal property, but the "community" owns the "means of production" meaning I can't own a means of production. That's a lot of fucking "can'ts" associated with a "libertarian" or "anarcho" society without a State....

Romantic? Sounds like a fucking nightmare.

Gosh you are so clever.

Set up a strawman and knocked it over.

[Forty Two]

It's not a strawman. Libertarian communism is as I described.

If you think through any version of communism, it has similar failings. There is nothing romantic or ideal about it. By their own terms, not a single version of communism can result in anything but oppression and economic disaster.

[Brian Peacock]

It's not a strawman. Libertarian communism is as I described.

If you think through any version of communism, it has similar failings. There is nothing romantic or ideal about it. By their own terms, not a single version of communism can result in anything but oppression and economic disaster.

I think the point rainbow is making is that you argued against a point of your own design and execution.

[Forty Two]

It's not a strawman. Libertarian communism is as I described.

If you think through any version of communism, it has similar failings. There is nothing romantic or ideal about it. By their own terms, not a single version of communism can result in anything but oppression and economic disaster.

I think the point rainbow is making is that you argued against a point of your own design and execution.

...and that's not a strawman.

Anytime someone argues a point, they are arguing a point of their own design and execution. A strawman is when someone is engaged in a debate and attributes a given position to the opposition, and proceeds to defeat the misattributed position. I didn't attribute the position to rainbow. I argued my own position.

[pErvinalia]

In 2013, she said that she was tired of hearing people refer to Al Qaeta, Hizb[Allah and other terrorist organizations as if they were "bad things." And, she said that they "don't mean anything evil."

Let's see a quote with full context.

[pErvinalia]

It's not a strawman. Libertarian communism is as I described.

If you think through any version of communism, it has similar failings. There is nothing romantic or ideal about it. By their own terms, not a single version of communism can result in anything but oppression and economic disaster.

Rubbish. How does a direct democracy inevitably lead to oppression?

[Svartalf]

Direct democracy can only work if a small minority of enfranchised and leisurely citizen can devote their time to ruling the vast majority who has to work, ergo the classes of uninvolved citizens, and non citizens are likely to be oppressed by the ruling caste deciding things in favor of themselves rather than in the general interest.

[Forty Two]

In 2013, she said that she was tired of hearing people refer to Al Qaeta, Hizb[Allah and other terrorist organizations as if they were "bad things." And, she said that they "don't mean anything evil."

Let's see a quote with full context.

https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics ... eda-586716

[pErvinalia]

Unless there was a video on there that my mobile browsers weren't showing, it shows nothing of the sort.

[Forty Two]

It's not a strawman. Libertarian communism is as I described.

If you think through any version of communism, it has similar failings. There is nothing romantic or ideal about it. By their own terms, not a single version of communism can result in anything but oppression and economic disaster.

Rubbish. How does a direct democracy inevitably lead to oppression?

Does direct democracy = communism?

But pure democracy where everybody voted on everything, including things are fundamental individual rights, would, of course, be oppressive. All civilized countries have procedural safeguards against ochlocracy. The criticisms of direct democracy are legion, and cross all political boundaries, from Plato 2500 years ago (you probably never read Republic), to Lani Guinier ("Tyranny of the Majority"), to Edmund Burke (Reflections on the Revolution in France - "The tyranny of a multitude is a multiplied tyranny."), to James Madison ("Federalist Papers"), John Adams ("Defense of Cosntittuional Government"), to Herbert Spencer ("Man Versus State"), to John Stuart Mill ("On Liberty"), to Alexis De Tocqueville ("Democracy in America"), Ludwig Von Mises ("Human Action"), etc.

leaders in various democratic countries realized that they could create numerous barriers to unrestrained majority rule, none of which would be clearly inconsistent with basic democratic principles. Thus, they could incorporate a bill of rights into the constitution (see the English Bill of Rights and the United States Bill of Rights); require a supermajority of votes—such as two-thirds or three-fourths—for constitutional amendments and other important kinds of legislation; divide the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of government into separate branches (see separation of powers); give an independent judiciary the power to declare laws or policies unconstitutional and hence without force of law (see judicial review); adopt constitutional guarantees of significant autonomy for states, provinces, or regions (see federalism); provide by statute for the decentralization of government to territorial groups such as towns, counties, and cities (see devolution); or adopt a system of proportional representation, under which the proportion of legislative seats awarded to a party is roughly the same as the proportion of votes cast for the party or its candidates. In such a multiparty system, cabinets are composed of representatives drawn from two or more parties, thus ensuring that minority interests retain a significant voice in government.

Although political theorists continue to disagree about the best means to effect majority rule in democratic systems, it seems evident that majorities cannot legitimately abridge the fundamental rights of citizens.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/democr ... #ref796551

[Forty Two]

Unless there was a video on there that my mobile browsers weren't showing, it shows nothing of the sort.

There is a video, and it shows exactly what I said.

[Brian Peacock]

It's not a strawman. Libertarian communism is as I described.

If you think through any version of communism, it has similar failings. There is nothing romantic or ideal about it. By their own terms, not a single version of communism can result in anything but oppression and economic disaster.

I think the point rainbow is making is that you argued against a point of your own design and execution.

...and that's not a strawman.

Anytime someone argues a point, they are arguing a point of their own design and execution. A strawman is when someone is engaged in a debate and attributes a given position to the opposition, and proceeds to defeat the misattributed position. I didn't attribute the position to rainbow. I argued my own position.

And that becomes a strawman when it's used to rebut, refute, or otherwise counter a point that wasn't made or articulated. That also qualifies as a non-sequitur as well. Two fallacies for the price of one!

I said that Communism was essentially a romantic perspective, and not dissimilar to Libertarianism in that respect. Subsequently, after you took exception to that, I offered you a link to the wiki article on romanticism - which I thought would be the end of the matter, but which you clearly cannot be bothered to read. In short, and by implication, the point is made that both Communism and Libertarianism are fundamentally utopian in their outlook; as ideas they both reject the circumstances of their time and seek to return to society something they both feel it has either lost or had taken away; to return society to a more harmonious, more natural, more benign state. As such they are without, beyond, or distinctly set aside from political thinking that locates its roots in the Enlightenment, with it's emphasis on reason, science, and an unvarnished appraisal of the facts at hand. Now argue against that premise.