Know your Enemy: Steve Bannon by Amy Goodman

Page 5 of 14 [ 207 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 14  Next

adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

03 Feb 2017, 6:41 am

EzraS wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
The alt-right is about as punk rock as is trump.

Punk is about being antiestablishment.

You guy have DC, contradictary terms.


Trump actually did run a pretty punk rock campaign; DIY, anti-establishment, f*ck the man, loud and crass but effective, it's all there.


Prepare to be contradicted without hesitation.

Ever notice how sports fans are often unwilling to listen to an objective analysis of why their team lost, instead go with "the other team are cheating b******s, the ref is clearly colluding, the whole system is corrupt"?


LOL that's a very apt analogy.


Thanks. I was discussing football with a friend earlier and something she said struck a chord.

It's really telling that Raptor, who has been all but labelled a Nazi by some posters, was the one who recognised I was trying to be objective in my analysis of the Alt-Right in the "Our New President" thread. I think it would be fair to say that objective vs biased, rather than "left" vs "right", is the the primary factor in a large percentage of PPR spats, and that it's an "omnipartisan" issue.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

03 Feb 2017, 6:47 am

adifferentname wrote:
marshall wrote:
Quote:
adifferentname wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
That is the response I recieved from adifferentname when I adsked why the musilm ban did not include the countries where the 9/11 terrorist can from.

I actually laugh out loud when I read that.
:lol:

No, that's what you chose to infer. I told you Obama was responsible for selecting them.

So what? That's not an argument for the policy. There has been no demonstration or argument that it is actually "keeping us safe". It seems political to me.


:roll:

It was a direct response to a question. I'm going to have to lead you through this by the nose, aren't I?

Very well. Here's that response in full, along with the question I was responding to.

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.

They are "countries of concern" for travelers entering because jihadist groups tend to recruit foreign nationals from all over. Stopping potential jihadists from traveling to these countries to participate in jihadist insurrections is entirely different than preventing terrorists attacks on US soil.

Terrorists willing to attack the US would be unlikely to fly directly to the US out of one those countries. The policy also doesn't stop terrorists of other nationalities. It just doesn't seem effective at all. It has encumbered plenty of completely innocent people though... people treated as if they are guilty of a crime merely for being born of a certain nationality.



feral botanist
Veteran
Veteran

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

03 Feb 2017, 10:54 am

adifferentname wrote:
EzraS wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
The alt-right is about as punk rock as is trump.

Punk is about being antiestablishment.

You guy have DC, contradictary terms.


Trump actually did run a pretty punk rock campaign; DIY, anti-establishment, f*ck the man, loud and crass but effective, it's all there.


Prepare to be contradicted without hesitation.

Ever notice how sports fans are often unwilling to listen to an objective analysis of why their team lost, instead go with "the other team are cheating b******s, the ref is clearly colluding, the whole system is corrupt"?


LOL that's a very apt analogy.


Thanks. I was discussing football with a friend earlier and something she said struck a chord.

It's really telling that Raptor, who has been all but labelled a Nazi by some posters, was the one who recognised I was trying to be objective in my analysis of the Alt-Right in the "Our New President" thread. I think it would be fair to say that objective vs biased, rather than "left" vs "right", is the the primary factor in a large percentage of PPR spats, and that it's an "omnipartisan" issue.




:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Do you actually read the things you write?



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

03 Feb 2017, 11:00 am

feral botanist wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
EzraS wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
The alt-right is about as punk rock as is trump.

Punk is about being antiestablishment.

You guy have DC, contradictary terms.


Trump actually did run a pretty punk rock campaign; DIY, anti-establishment, f*ck the man, loud and crass but effective, it's all there.


Prepare to be contradicted without hesitation.

Ever notice how sports fans are often unwilling to listen to an objective analysis of why their team lost, instead go with "the other team are cheating b******s, the ref is clearly colluding, the whole system is corrupt"?


LOL that's a very apt analogy.


Thanks. I was discussing football with a friend earlier and something she said struck a chord.

It's really telling that Raptor, who has been all but labelled a Nazi by some posters, was the one who recognised I was trying to be objective in my analysis of the Alt-Right in the "Our New President" thread. I think it would be fair to say that objective vs biased, rather than "left" vs "right", is the the primary factor in a large percentage of PPR spats, and that it's an "omnipartisan" issue.




:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Do you actually read the things you write?


Do you intend to raise a specific objection, or are you just going to continue trolling?



feral botanist
Veteran
Veteran

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

03 Feb 2017, 1:50 pm

adifferentname wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
That is the response I recieved from adifferentname when I adsked why the musilm ban did not include the countries where the 9/11 terrorist can from.

I actually laugh out loud when I read that.
:lol:


No, that's what you chose to infer. I told you Obama was responsible for selecting them.

It's no wonder there are so many "misunderstandings" on this board with all these basic reading comprehension errors.

You're laughing at your own ineptitude.


No, I am laughing at the motivated reasoning and lack of selfawareness that I read in some peoples posts.



feral botanist
Veteran
Veteran

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

03 Feb 2017, 1:53 pm

adifferentname wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
EzraS wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
The alt-right is about as punk rock as is trump.

Punk is about being antiestablishment.

You guy have DC, contradictary terms.


Trump actually did run a pretty punk rock campaign; DIY, anti-establishment, f*ck the man, loud and crass but effective, it's all there.


Prepare to be contradicted without hesitation.

Ever notice how sports fans are often unwilling to listen to an objective analysis of why their team lost, instead go with "the other team are cheating b******s, the ref is clearly colluding, the whole system is corrupt"?


LOL that's a very apt analogy.


Thanks. I was discussing football with a friend earlier and something she said struck a chord.

It's really telling that Raptor, who has been all but labelled a Nazi by some posters, was the one who recognised I was trying to be objective in my analysis of the Alt-Right in the "Our New President" thread. I think it would be fair to say that objective vs biased, rather than "left" vs "right", is the the primary factor in a large percentage of PPR spats, and that it's an "omnipartisan" issue.




:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Do you actually read the things you write?


Do you intend to raise a specific objection, or are you just going to continue trolling?


:lol:

Seriously?

I am just young padawan to the master jedi of trolling.

I am humbled to even share a forum with you.

:lol: :lol: :lol:



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

03 Feb 2017, 3:19 pm

The feud with Arnold is a distraction.
The feud with Australia is a distraction.
Hastily approving a SEAL raid is a distraction: check out the alternative facts about the affiliations of the people who were killed, who their primary enemies are, and civilian casualties. This is the same village where we already apologized for striking a wedding party with a Hellfire missile. The groom survived that mistake, but was killed in the raid. He probably woke up in the middle of the night to gunfire and did what some of us would have done. Turns out it would have been smarter to hide under the bed, this time, but how could he know?

Outrage fatigue is real, and Bannon certainly knows it. It has become clear that they are using it strategically.

However, they just took action by executive order on an issue where Congress could have easily done its job. If he had asked for Iran sanctions, he would have had them on his desk first thing Monday morning. That would have made Congress look really good, and they are not happy to have missed the opportunity.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,951
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

03 Feb 2017, 5:28 pm

adifferentname wrote:
marshall wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Adamantium wrote:
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.


The alt-right has been labelled "political punk rock", which I think is rather apt. They're loud, they're crass, they're disruptive and they're effective. You don't have to like them, I'm certainly not a fan, but I disagree that they can't be engaged with meaningfully. Trolling is a behaviour, not a character archetype


Actually, this is EXACTLY the reason there is no dialog. The Brietbart mode of operation is to deliberate offend (i.e. troll) people in a way that makes them appear racist. And then they complain when they are called racists? I mean, if I go around as a white guy yelling "n***er, n***er, n***er" for attention I'd expect a reaction. It's just not serious political discourse.


Is there no dialogue because Breitbart and its readers are provocative, or have they adopted this behaviour because they weren't being included in the dialogue to begin with? Or is it perhaps a little of both?

That's the trouble with blind, partisan adherence. It seriously impedes the ability to think about things critically. Are you able to concede that, at the very least, it might be a little of both columns?


Are you serious?!?!?! Breitbart and their readers are behaving like racists only because they weren't included in the dialogue? If even so, how does that at all justify blatant racism and trolling?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

03 Feb 2017, 6:26 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
marshall wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Adamantium wrote:
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.


The alt-right has been labelled "political punk rock", which I think is rather apt. They're loud, they're crass, they're disruptive and they're effective. You don't have to like them, I'm certainly not a fan, but I disagree that they can't be engaged with meaningfully. Trolling is a behaviour, not a character archetype


Actually, this is EXACTLY the reason there is no dialog. The Brietbart mode of operation is to deliberate offend (i.e. troll) people in a way that makes them appear racist. And then they complain when they are called racists? I mean, if I go around as a white guy yelling "n***er, n***er, n***er" for attention I'd expect a reaction. It's just not serious political discourse.


Is there no dialogue because Breitbart and its readers are provocative, or have they adopted this behaviour because they weren't being included in the dialogue to begin with? Or is it perhaps a little of both?

That's the trouble with blind, partisan adherence. It seriously impedes the ability to think about things critically. Are you able to concede that, at the very least, it might be a little of both columns?


Are you serious?!?!?! Breitbart and their readers are behaving like racists only because they weren't included in the dialogue? If even so, how does that at all justify blatant racism and trolling?


:roll:

Try again, Bill. Seriously, read what I said very carefully and see if you can tell me where you're going wrong. I'd be genuinely impressed if you can.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,951
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

03 Feb 2017, 6:29 pm

adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
marshall wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Adamantium wrote:
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.


The alt-right has been labelled "political punk rock", which I think is rather apt. They're loud, they're crass, they're disruptive and they're effective. You don't have to like them, I'm certainly not a fan, but I disagree that they can't be engaged with meaningfully. Trolling is a behaviour, not a character archetype


Actually, this is EXACTLY the reason there is no dialog. The Brietbart mode of operation is to deliberate offend (i.e. troll) people in a way that makes them appear racist. And then they complain when they are called racists? I mean, if I go around as a white guy yelling "n***er, n***er, n***er" for attention I'd expect a reaction. It's just not serious political discourse.


Is there no dialogue because Breitbart and its readers are provocative, or have they adopted this behaviour because they weren't being included in the dialogue to begin with? Or is it perhaps a little of both?

That's the trouble with blind, partisan adherence. It seriously impedes the ability to think about things critically. Are you able to concede that, at the very least, it might be a little of both columns?


Are you serious?!?!?! Breitbart and their readers are behaving like racists only because they weren't included in the dialogue? If even so, how does that at all justify blatant racism and trolling?


:roll:

Try again, Bill. Seriously, read what I said very carefully and see if you can tell me where you're going wrong. I'd be genuinely impressed if you can.


My comment stands, unless you can prove I'm not getting what you said.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

03 Feb 2017, 6:55 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
marshall wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Adamantium wrote:
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.


The alt-right has been labelled "political punk rock", which I think is rather apt. They're loud, they're crass, they're disruptive and they're effective. You don't have to like them, I'm certainly not a fan, but I disagree that they can't be engaged with meaningfully. Trolling is a behaviour, not a character archetype


Actually, this is EXACTLY the reason there is no dialog. The Brietbart mode of operation is to deliberate offend (i.e. troll) people in a way that makes them appear racist. And then they complain when they are called racists? I mean, if I go around as a white guy yelling "n***er, n***er, n***er" for attention I'd expect a reaction. It's just not serious political discourse.


Is there no dialogue because Breitbart and its readers are provocative, or have they adopted this behaviour because they weren't being included in the dialogue to begin with? Or is it perhaps a little of both?

That's the trouble with blind, partisan adherence. It seriously impedes the ability to think about things critically. Are you able to concede that, at the very least, it might be a little of both columns?


Are you serious?!?!?! Breitbart and their readers are behaving like racists only because they weren't included in the dialogue? If even so, how does that at all justify blatant racism and trolling?


:roll:

Try again, Bill. Seriously, read what I said very carefully and see if you can tell me where you're going wrong. I'd be genuinely impressed if you can.


My comment stands, unless you can prove I'm not getting what you said.


But I won't be at all surprised if you evade. Let's try something different.

1: You want me to defend a position that I have not espoused. Provide a quote of me justifying racism.
2: You implied I said Breitbart was "behaving like racists". Again, quote me doing so.
3: What percentage of Breitbart readers behave like racist trolls? What is the extent of the problem? Show evidence to support your answer.
4: Explain why you used hyperbole and rhetoric in a bid to misrepresent me instead of taking the time to concoct a reasonable argument.

Your posts are bereft of intellectual honesty, Bill, and this was no exception. I can confidently predict that your response to this will be no different.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,951
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

03 Feb 2017, 8:00 pm

adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
marshall wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Adamantium wrote:
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.


The alt-right has been labelled "political punk rock", which I think is rather apt. They're loud, they're crass, they're disruptive and they're effective. You don't have to like them, I'm certainly not a fan, but I disagree that they can't be engaged with meaningfully. Trolling is a behaviour, not a character archetype


Actually, this is EXACTLY the reason there is no dialog. The Brietbart mode of operation is to deliberate offend (i.e. troll) people in a way that makes them appear racist. And then they complain when they are called racists? I mean, if I go around as a white guy yelling "n***er, n***er, n***er" for attention I'd expect a reaction. It's just not serious political discourse.


Is there no dialogue because Breitbart and its readers are provocative, or have they adopted this behaviour because they weren't being included in the dialogue to begin with? Or is it perhaps a little of both?

That's the trouble with blind, partisan adherence. It seriously impedes the ability to think about things critically. Are you able to concede that, at the very least, it might be a little of both columns?


Are you serious?!?!?! Breitbart and their readers are behaving like racists only because they weren't included in the dialogue? If even so, how does that at all justify blatant racism and trolling?


:roll:

Try again, Bill. Seriously, read what I said very carefully and see if you can tell me where you're going wrong. I'd be genuinely impressed if you can.


My comment stands, unless you can prove I'm not getting what you said.


But I won't be at all surprised if you evade. Let's try something different.

1: You want me to defend a position that I have not espoused. Provide a quote of me justifying racism.
2: You implied I said Breitbart was "behaving like racists". Again, quote me doing so.
3: What percentage of Breitbart readers behave like racist trolls? What is the extent of the problem? Show evidence to support your answer.
4: Explain why you used hyperbole and rhetoric in a bid to misrepresent me instead of taking the time to concoct a reasonable argument.

Your posts are bereft of intellectual honesty, Bill, and this was no exception. I can confidently predict that your response to this will be no different.


Then pray tell, what is your position that I have so wrong?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

03 Feb 2017, 8:16 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Then pray tell, what is your position that I have so wrong?


adifferentname wrote:
1: You want me to defend a position that I have not espoused. Provide a quote of me justifying racism.
2: You implied I said Breitbart was "behaving like racists". Again, quote me doing so.
3: What percentage of Breitbart readers behave like racist trolls? What is the extent of the problem? Show evidence to support your answer.
4: Explain why you used hyperbole and rhetoric in a bid to misrepresent me instead of taking the time to concoct a reasonable argument.


This is an opportunity to engage in productive discourse, Bill. If you require a safety net, be assured that it would be impossible for you to disappoint me.



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,546
Location: Long Island, New York

03 Feb 2017, 8:18 pm

The Guardian

Quote:
We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years,” he said in March 2016. “There’s no doubt about that. They’re taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face – and you understand how important face is – and say it’s an ancient territorial sea.”


Quote:
On the day Trump was inaugurated, China’s military warned that war between the two countries was a real possibility.

“A ‘war within the president’s term’ or ‘war breaking out tonight’ are not just slogans, they are becoming a practical reality,” an official wrote on the website of the People’s Liberation Army.


Quote:
But you know what, we’re in a war. We’re clearly going into, I think, a major shooting war in the Middle East again.”


Considering the person involved this is probably calculated trolling. But there is some truth in the cliche "if you play with fire, you get burned". The US-Asian wars win, lose and draw have been historically very costly in American lives. The Chinese have hundreds if not thousands more years foreign policy experience then we do. China has three times or so the population of America and probably the ability to do major to catastrophic damage to the American homeland via cyber warfare. With all the real danger from radicalized jihadists Chinese spies probably present more fifth column type danger. Most Chinese-Americans like the Japanese-Americans back in WWII are loyal Americans but unlike Japanese-Americans 75 years ago Chinese students, workers etc are in our top universities and industries. Another words war with China is something that should avoided at almost all cost.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person. - Sara Luterman


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

03 Feb 2017, 8:25 pm

adifferentname wrote:
But I won't be at all surprised if you evade. Let's try something different.

1: You want me to defend a position that I have not espoused. Provide a quote of me justifying racism.
2: You implied I said Breitbart was "behaving like racists". Again, quote me doing so.
3: What percentage of Breitbart readers behave like racist trolls? What is the extent of the problem? Show evidence to support your answer.
4: Explain why you used hyperbole and rhetoric in a bid to misrepresent me instead of taking the time to concoct a reasonable argument.

Your posts are bereft of intellectual honesty, Bill, and this was no exception. I can confidently predict that your response to this will be no different.


Not dropping names, but you'll find some people to be very challenged when it comes to using the simplest of search functions to find things to back thier assertions and instead resort to trolling those who do with accusations of being anal, vindictive, and rude.
Carry on... :salut:


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley