Know your Enemy: Steve Bannon by Amy Goodman

Page 2 of 14 [ 207 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14  Next

adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

02 Feb 2017, 5:13 am

feral botanist wrote:
If the ban is meant to protect us, why does it not ban people from the countries where the 9/11 terorists where from?


Trump's administration is apparently working from intel provided by Obama's administration to the DHS. The countries in question were categorised as "countries of concern" by Obama. Trump is acting on information about current, extant threats rather than against countries which previously posed one.

Whether the intel is accurate or fair is certainly up for debate, but Trump cannot be criticised for selection criteria dating back to 2015.



Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1020
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

02 Feb 2017, 6:14 am

adifferentname wrote:
That's a strong implication at the very, very least, a suggestion that....
...
This is still inference, not evidence.


So you are OK with implication, but not inference? Fascinating.

I am unimpressed by the narrative that it wasn't Bannon who unleashed the dogs, but Milo, and anyway the attack dogs aren't really anti-semitic, they are just going after the low hanging fruit. Sorry, these are not good people and I am not at all happy that a person who created that mess at Breitbart has a position of power and responsibility.


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

02 Feb 2017, 6:38 am

Adamantium wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
That's a strong implication at the very, very least, a suggestion that....
...
This is still inference, not evidence.


So you are OK with implication, but not inference? Fascinating.

I am unimpressed by the narrative that it wasn't Bannon who unleashed the dogs, but Milo, and anyway the attack dogs aren't really anti-semitic, they are just going after the low hanging fruit. Sorry, these are not good people and I am not at all happy that a person who created that mess at Breitbart has a position of power and responsibility.

I'm thinking the Trumpettes would feel differently about a Muslim who's "followers" made abusive and/or threatening comments towards a specific person. They are always accusing "moderate Muslims" of implicitly supporting extremism. It's kind of the same thing. Guild by association.



Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1020
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

02 Feb 2017, 6:41 am

adifferentname wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
If the ban is meant to protect us, why does it not ban people from the countries where the 9/11 terorists where from?


Trump's administration is apparently working from intel provided by Obama's administration to the DHS. The countries in question were categorised as "countries of concern" by Obama. Trump is acting on information about current, extant threats rather than against countries which previously posed one.

Whether the intel is accurate or fair is certainly up for debate, but Trump cannot be criticised for selection criteria dating back to 2015.


Saudi Arabia is the heart of Wahabism and the heart of the problem. It was in 2001 and still is today. We all know why it isn't on the list.


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.


Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1020
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

02 Feb 2017, 6:44 am

EzraS wrote:
Adamantium wrote:
EzraS wrote:
I'm wondering if they have practical knowledge of what they are standing behind.

They aren't standing behind Sharia, they're standing behind the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; All men are created equal; E Pluribus Unum. Don't tread on me. That sort of thing.


What about when the political motivations of an aggressive enemy are based solely upon a religion?


Their repulsive values don't represent all of the people who follow that religion. Their values aren't an excuse for abandoning our own values.


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

02 Feb 2017, 6:55 am

Adamantium wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
If the ban is meant to protect us, why does it not ban people from the countries where the 9/11 terorists where from?


Trump's administration is apparently working from intel provided by Obama's administration to the DHS. The countries in question were categorised as "countries of concern" by Obama. Trump is acting on information about current, extant threats rather than against countries which previously posed one.

Whether the intel is accurate or fair is certainly up for debate, but Trump cannot be criticised for selection criteria dating back to 2015.


Saudi Arabia is the heart of Wahabism and the heart of the problem. It was in 2001 and still is today. We all know why it isn't on the list.

They are rich and we buy their oil.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

02 Feb 2017, 8:03 am

How hard is it to understand that those 7 countries are engulfed in civil war with al-Qaeda/ISIS and that it's not a Muslim ban? You say yourself that it's a specific strain of Islam and these countries are where the jihadists are concentrated the most at this moment. Iran doesn't have a civil war in their country but it's directly involved in the civil wars in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.

It's such a weird contradictory logic these arguments are taking, well why didn't Trump ban Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? I don't know, did you want him too? It's not a Muslim ban, it doesn't even come close to one. The Foreign Minister of the Emirates supported it and echoed the same sentiments.

Personally I am more of the opinion of Steve Bannon and yourself ironically enough despite your demonization and think this specific strains of Islam Salafism/Wahhabism needs to be sent to the ash heap of history which would mean cutting the head from the snake in Saudi Arabia as this strain of Islam is at war with Western Civilization but it seems Trump values our Arab allies more than we do. It is the Arabs that are driving this conflict with Iran way more than Israel ever has, this is why getting off foreign oil is so important. So is Salafism is the problem, what is the solution? This is the main type of Islam in Saudi Arabia, there are at least 50 million adherents.

Calling Breitbart a 'haven of white sumpremcism/nationalism' is bullshit and evidence of your brain being rotted by mainstream media propaganda, do you remember Andrew Breitbart and would you say that about him? Show some evidence maybe instead of repeating talking points. Breitbart.com started after Andrew Breitbart helped launch the Huffington Post and had worked for Matt Drudge, I remember him fondly from watching him late at night on FNC's Red Eye program as he was a funny personable guy. It's smears and lies of a dead man's name when it is only one side that is acting like brownshirt fascists right now, one side that cannot acceppt the results of an election, one side not respecting the peaceful transference of power.

John Podesta chaired Hillary's campaign and would of likely had a very high ranking spot in the administration(I heard Secretary of State) had she won, he founded CAP which runs far left Think Progress website . He's also the guy who used '[email protected]' as his password and left his emails exposed for all the world to see, not to mention that whole satanic child sacrificing but lets not get into that.. :P

Unsurprisingly the actual outsiders are the ones being attacked in the administration, Trump was elected to bring change not take dictations from CNN and the left wing media. People like Kellyanne Conway, Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, and General Flynn are the brightest stars of the administration and why people voted for Trump; to remove them would be a betrayal. Milo Yiannopoulos evolved out video game/4chan sphere gaining prominance during the Gamergate controversy, just his existence as a gay British Jew(who constantly talks about loving black men) has been highly disturbing/confusing to the SJW crowd since they base the entirety of their arguments on their victimhood status.

Milo trolls and pushes buttons but I would not call him a white supremcist or antisemite in any sense, more than anything he is a free speeh advocate. Bannon hiring Milo was probably one of the smartest decisions he ever made since he brought in a whole new younger audience that had been politically charged in the years prior and got them involved in this election. The chans were also very supportive of the candidacy of Ron Paul, they were at the least a big part of the reason why he had such a social media presence.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

02 Feb 2017, 8:06 am

Adamantium wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
That's a strong implication at the very, very least, a suggestion that....
...
This is still inference, not evidence.


So you are OK with implication, but not inference? Fascinating.


Pardon?

Implication is the responsibility of the speaker, inference is the responsibility of the listener. They're not equivalent.

Quote:
I am unimpressed by the narrative that it wasn't Bannon who unleashed the dogs, but Milo


That "narrative" is Ben Shapiro's opinion on the matter. As he's best positioned of anyone to make that call, and he's got no obvious motivation to lie about it, I'm inclined to trust his judgement rather than that of people who wield a charge of "anti-semite" as a bludgeon, but only against political opponents they have a vested interest in bringing down.

Quote:
and anyway the attack dogs aren't really anti-semitic, they are just going after the low hanging fruit.


I described their behaviour as "anti-semitic trolling", so that part of the narrative is entirely of your own making. See how easy it is to mistakenly infer a message that best suits your preconceptions?

Quote:
Sorry, these are not good people and I am not at all happy that a person who created that mess at Breitbart has a position of power and responsibility.


So it boils down to your personal moral perceptions of what constitutes a "good" person. That's your opinion, and I respect it, but I don't believe you've provided a compelling argument to support the premise.

Adamantium wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
If the ban is meant to protect us, why does it not ban people from the countries where the 9/11 terorists where from?


Trump's administration is apparently working from intel provided by Obama's administration to the DHS. The countries in question were categorised as "countries of concern" by Obama. Trump is acting on information about current, extant threats rather than against countries which previously posed one.

Whether the intel is accurate or fair is certainly up for debate, but Trump cannot be criticised for selection criteria dating back to 2015.


Saudi Arabia is the heart of Wahabism and the heart of the problem. It was in 2001 and still is today. We all know why it isn't on the list.


Whereas this I agree with.

marshall wrote:
I'm thinking the Trumpettes would feel differently about a Muslim who's "followers" made abusive and/or threatening comments towards a specific person. They are always accusing "moderate Muslims" of implicitly supporting extremism. It's kind of the same thing. Guild by association.


If you were thinking, you would have realised the error of placing everyone who doesn't agree with your personal ideology in the category "Trumpettes".

There's a world of difference between "some of your readers are racist trolls" and "27 percent of British Muslims sympathise with the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks" or "10% of British Muslims agree that organisations which publish images of the Prophet Mohammad deserve to be attacked".

That's not guilt by association, that's explicit support from those respondents.

Source: BBC Poll of British Muslims

45% disagreed that "Muslim clerics who preach that violence against the West can be justified are out of touch with mainstream Muslim opinion". It would be folly to assume they were responding to that question in the absolute literal sense, as it doesn't make contextual sense.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

02 Feb 2017, 8:10 am

Jacoby wrote:
Milo trolls and pushes buttons but I would not call him a white supremcist or antisemite in any sense, more than anything he is a free speeh advocate. Bannon hiring Milo was probably one of the smartest decisions he ever made since he brought in a whole new younger audience that had been politically charged in the years prior and got them involved in this election. The chans were also very supportive of the candidacy of Ron Paul, they were at the least a big part of the reason why he had such a social media presence.


Agreed. Milo is a crass provocateur, and an egomaniac to boot, but the worst you could reasonably accuse him of is being a troll.

Not so sure about the accusation of 'brain rotting', though. Might want to nip the ad hom in the butt.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

02 Feb 2017, 8:21 am

Also on Ben Shapiro, his dislike of Milo who is also Jewish probably stems more from the fact that he's virulently homophobic and a bigot in his own right. The whole 'controvery' with Michelle Fields was fraudulent as proven by video and it seems likely her and the other Breitbart staff that left got paid off. Watch the video if you don't believe me. They weren't collecting unemployment, believe me!



feral botanist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jul 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 881
Location: in the dry land

02 Feb 2017, 8:24 am

adifferentname wrote:

Whether the intel is accurate or fair is certainly up for debate, but Trump cannot be criticised for selection criteria dating back to 2015.



:lol: :lol: :lol:

Thats the best rational you can supply?
"Obama selected the countries"

Lets run with this.
Obama did...
ACA
Supported LGBTQ rights
Proposed Merick Garland for SCOTUS
Stopped DAPL

Shall I continue.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

02 Feb 2017, 8:51 am

feral botanist wrote:
adifferentname wrote:

Whether the intel is accurate or fair is certainly up for debate, but Trump cannot be criticised for selection criteria dating back to 2015.



:lol: :lol: :lol:

Thats the best rational you can supply?
"Obama selected the countries"

Lets run with this.
Obama did...
ACA
Supported LGBTQ rights
Proposed Merick Garland for SCOTUS
Stopped DAPL

Shall I continue.


To make a series of irrelevant points? Why change the habit of a lifetime?



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

02 Feb 2017, 8:56 am

adifferentname wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
adifferentname wrote:

Whether the intel is accurate or fair is certainly up for debate, but Trump cannot be criticised for selection criteria dating back to 2015.



:lol: :lol: :lol:

Thats the best rational you can supply?
"Obama selected the countries"

Lets run with this.
Obama did...
ACA
Supported LGBTQ rights
Proposed Merick Garland for SCOTUS
Stopped DAPL

Shall I continue.


To make a series of irrelevant points? Why change the habit of a lifetime?


This guy doesn't seem like he's very serious about discussing anything.



Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1020
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

02 Feb 2017, 9:04 am

adifferentname wrote:
So it boils down to your personal moral perceptions of what constitutes a "good" person.

That's pretty much how it works.

I think trolls are a cancer in liberal democracy. You cannot engage in meaningful political dialog with trolls. They destroy every public sphere they are permitted to operate in. Fine in stand up comedy, toxic to civil discourse.

You accuse me of demonizing Bannon for linking to a couple of left wing sources about Bannon. This is more of your habitual hyperbole. It doesn't wash. Every source that isn't right wing holds the same view of what he has done at Breitbart. I understand that from your extreme partisan perspective you disagree, and you are certainly entitled to your personal moral perceptions of what constitutes a good person. Your views don't invalidate the perceptions of everyone else or everyone who doesn't agree with you.

I'm not interested in being told my brain is rotting, that trolls are people too, or that white nationalists are wonderful people who have been misunderstood. I am capable of drawing my own conclusions about the reliability of media sources, and I can evaluate the behavior of trolls and racists without assistance.

I am not interested in having a conversation which consists of ideological battle over every point of political orientation or perspective, I am interested in understanding Bannon. I welcome any links or quotes about him from any source, but won't be engaging in more pointless "my perspective is right, so yours is wrong" battles or point scoring, name calling time wasting polemics.


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.


feral botanist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jul 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 881
Location: in the dry land

02 Feb 2017, 9:05 am

Jacoby wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
adifferentname wrote:

Whether the intel is accurate or fair is certainly up for debate, but Trump cannot be criticised for selection criteria dating back to 2015.



:lol: :lol: :lol:

Thats the best rational you can supply?
"Obama selected the countries"

Lets run with this.
Obama did...
ACA
Supported LGBTQ rights
Proposed Merick Garland for SCOTUS
Stopped DAPL

Shall I continue.


To make a series of irrelevant points? Why change the habit of a lifetime?


This guy doesn't seem like he's very serious about discussing anything.



You two are awesome!

I find myself actually laughing out loud when I read your posts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance