The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

[moda0306]

Releasing a group from chattel bondage into wage slavery with no collapse of the established order is not "ending slavery." It's simply taking some of the sharp teeth off of it. It only slightly changes the nature of the "work on someone else's land or die" economics going on.

Add to that the disgusting amount of colonialism and exploitation of foreign populations and common resources, and I'd say white folks can quit straining to pat themselves on the back too hard for the social gains they want to take credit for.

[dualstow]

+1
( I neglected to put an eyeroll next to my "Funny how" sentence above. I hope it was apparent and considered implicit ).

[dualstow]

I don't know about anybody else but I'm finding it very entertaining watching Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders being forced to deal with the new upstart female congresswomen - specifically AOC, Omar, and that other Muslim woman who said "impeach the mf'er" on the day she was sworn in.

You're referring to Rashida Tlaib. According to the WSJ, she plans to introduce a resolution to do just that. Other Democrats are trying to rein her in, to give Mueller a chance to finish up. Tlaib wants to do it this month.

[Kriegsspiel]

.

[stuper1]

Releasing a group from chattel bondage into wage slavery with no collapse of the established order is not "ending slavery." It's simply taking some of the sharp teeth off of it. It only slightly changes the nature of the "work on someone else's land or die" economics going on.

Add to that the disgusting amount of colonialism and exploitation of foreign populations and common resources, and I'd say white folks can quit straining to pat themselves on the back too hard for the social gains they want to take credit for.

Could you please point us to a society created by non-white folks that is a better model for us?

It seems to me that every society has problems, mainly for one reason: each society is made up of humans, each of which has his or her own problems.

[moda0306]

Releasing a group from chattel bondage into wage slavery with no collapse of the established order is not "ending slavery." It's simply taking some of the sharp teeth off of it. It only slightly changes the nature of the "work on someone else's land or die" economics going on.

Add to that the disgusting amount of colonialism and exploitation of foreign populations and common resources, and I'd say white folks can quit straining to pat themselves on the back too hard for the social gains they want to take credit for.

Could you please point us to a society created by non-white folks that is a better model for us?

It seems to me that every society has problems, mainly for one reason: each society is made up of humans, each of which has his or her own problems.

The model has been pretty good for "us." If by us you mean western capital interests seeking RoR via exploitation of foreign resources. Of course, if you're the poor shlub sitting on those foreign resources without the wit or wisdom to suck them dry before said capital interests do, there's not much you can probably do to make a "better model" short of completely driving out those interests.

And any movement is only as good as outside influence allows it to be. For instance, while I don't agree with communist (the decentralized hippie kind) property norms, I am fascinated by the left-anarchism of Spain during the 1930's. That-said, it wasn't the most pragmatic move, as they managed to piss off the Communists (Stalinist-type), Fascists and democratic centrists.

Ultimately, you're right though. Every individual and society has their problems. The big problem is when you combine those problems with way too much power...which is why western whites should be far more concerned with the current abuses of their current political and economic arrangements than patting themselves on the back for ending slavery while finding vast swaths of new foreign territories to terrorize and exploit.

It's also the same exploitation of resources that's leaving poor whites in the lurch, and clamoring for crumbs rather than questioning the very premises of systems of economics/ownership that they were born into and took for granted. Workers of the world, Unite!

[jacksonM]

I don't know about anybody else but I'm finding it very entertaining watching Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders being forced to deal with the new upstart female congresswomen - specifically AOC, Omar, and that other Muslim woman who said "impeach the mf'er" on the day she was sworn in.

You're referring to Rashida Tlaib. According to the WSJ, she plans to introduce a resolution to do just that. Other Democrats are trying to rein her in, to give Mueller a chance to finish up. Tlaib wants to do it this month.

We live in interesting times.

[moda0306]

I don't know about anybody else but I'm finding it very entertaining watching Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders being forced to deal with the new upstart female congresswomen - specifically AOC, Omar, and that other Muslim woman who said "impeach the mf'er" on the day she was sworn in.

You're referring to Rashida Tlaib. According to the WSJ, she plans to introduce a resolution to do just that. Other Democrats are trying to rein her in, to give Mueller a chance to finish up. Tlaib wants to do it this month.

We live in interesting times.

Do we?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_t ... rack_Obama

According to a July 2014 YouGov poll, 35% of Americans believed President Obama should be impeached

In March 2012, Representative Walter B. Jones introduced H. Con. Res. 107, calling for Congress to hold the sentiment that certain actions of President Barack Obama be considered as impeachable offenses, including the CIA's drone program in Afghanistan and Pakistan.[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_t ... ge_W._Bush

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachme ... H._W._Bush

On November 5, 1997, Representative Bob Barr introduced a resolution, H. Res. 304, directing the House Judiciary Committee to inquire into impeachment proceedings[19]

On January 16, 1991, Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez introduced H. Res. 34, to impeach President George H. W. Bush for starting the Gulf War.

On March 6, 1987 Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez, Democrat of Texas, introduced articles of impeachment against President Ronald Reagan regarding the Iran Contra affair, leading to the joint hearings that dominated the summer. A special prosecutor was appointed.

[jacksonM]

You're referring to Rashida Tlaib. According to the WSJ, she plans to introduce a resolution to do just that. Other Democrats are trying to rein her in, to give Mueller a chance to finish up. Tlaib wants to do it this month.

We live in interesting times.

Do we?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_t ... rack_Obama

According to a July 2014 YouGov poll, 35% of Americans believed President Obama should be impeached

In March 2012, Representative Walter B. Jones introduced H. Con. Res. 107, calling for Congress to hold the sentiment that certain actions of President Barack Obama be considered as impeachable offenses, including the CIA's drone program in Afghanistan and Pakistan.[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_t ... ge_W._Bush

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachme ... H._W._Bush

On November 5, 1997, Representative Bob Barr introduced a resolution, H. Res. 304, directing the House Judiciary Committee to inquire into impeachment proceedings[19]

On January 16, 1991, Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez introduced H. Res. 34, to impeach President George H. W. Bush for starting the Gulf War.

On March 6, 1987 Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez, Democrat of Texas, introduced articles of impeachment against President Ronald Reagan regarding the Iran Contra affair, leading to the joint hearings that dominated the summer. A special prosecutor was appointed.

Not sure what your point is but mine was that the optics of a Muslim woman being elected to congress on a platform of impeaching the president is pretty interesting, especially if she succeeds. I tend to think there probably will be articles of impeachment eventually if for no other reason than to even the score at 1-1 after the impeachment of Clinton but it's hard to imagine the Dems are going to let Tlaib spearhead the movement on the grounds that he's a "mother*****". Somehow I don't think that will play well and will be worse for the Dems than impeaching Clinton was for the Repubs - unless there is some kind of real evidence beyond the equivalent of a blue dress with semen stains.

[moda0306]

We live in interesting times.

Do we?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_t ... rack_Obama

According to a July 2014 YouGov poll, 35% of Americans believed President Obama should be impeached

In March 2012, Representative Walter B. Jones introduced H. Con. Res. 107, calling for Congress to hold the sentiment that certain actions of President Barack Obama be considered as impeachable offenses, including the CIA's drone program in Afghanistan and Pakistan.[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_t ... ge_W._Bush

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachme ... H._W._Bush

On November 5, 1997, Representative Bob Barr introduced a resolution, H. Res. 304, directing the House Judiciary Committee to inquire into impeachment proceedings[19]

On January 16, 1991, Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez introduced H. Res. 34, to impeach President George H. W. Bush for starting the Gulf War.

On March 6, 1987 Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez, Democrat of Texas, introduced articles of impeachment against President Ronald Reagan regarding the Iran Contra affair, leading to the joint hearings that dominated the summer. A special prosecutor was appointed.

Not sure what your point is but mine was that the optics of a Muslim woman being elected to congress on a platform of impeaching the president is pretty interesting, especially if she succeeds. I tend to think there probably will be articles of impeachment eventually if for no other reason than to even the score at 1-1 after the impeachment of Clinton but it's hard to imagine the Dems are going to let Tlaib spearhead the movement on the grounds that he's a "mother*****". Somehow I don't think that will play well and will be worse for the Dems than impeaching Clinton was for the Repubs - unless there is some kind of real evidence beyond the equivalent of a blue dress with semen stains.

I'm not surprised at all that those who would be the most aggressive to impeach would be fringe folks. It doesn't surprise me at all that there would be one or two Muslim members of congress, nor that they might be the most aggressive to impeach Trump. What's far more interesting is that a complete clownish buffoon like Trump is President. Congresspeople never surprise me, but maybe that's cuz I'm from Michelle Bachman's district and know how crazy fringes can be.

[dualstow]

We live in interesting times.

Do we?

In March 2012, Representative Walter B. Jones introduced H. Con. Res. 107, calling for Congress to hold the sentiment that certain actions of President Barack Obama be considered as impeachable offenses, including the CIA's drone program in Afghanistan and Pakistan.[22]

Ha! I don't remember that! I couldn't find it on the specific Obama page, but found it on the general impeachment page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachme ... _officials

I'd never seen the Abkhazia Clinton-Lewinsky stamp before. Hilarious!

[jacksonM]

Do we?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_t ... rack_Obama





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_t ... ge_W._Bush

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachme ... H._W._Bush

Not sure what your point is but mine was that the optics of a Muslim woman being elected to congress on a platform of impeaching the president is pretty interesting, especially if she succeeds. I tend to think there probably will be articles of impeachment eventually if for no other reason than to even the score at 1-1 after the impeachment of Clinton but it's hard to imagine the Dems are going to let Tlaib spearhead the movement on the grounds that he's a "mother*****". Somehow I don't think that will play well and will be worse for the Dems than impeaching Clinton was for the Repubs - unless there is some kind of real evidence beyond the equivalent of a blue dress with semen stains.

I'm not surprised at all that those who would be the most aggressive to impeach would be fringe folks. It doesn't surprise me at all that there would be one or two Muslim members of congress, nor that they might be the most aggressive to impeach Trump. What's far more interesting is that a complete clownish buffoon like Trump is President. Congresspeople never surprise me, but maybe that's cuz I'm from Michelle Bachman's district and know how crazy fringes can be.

I think we are all waiting to see how crazy the Dems are going to get when it comes to impeachment, and that was my point about interesting times. It could end up being very good for TV ratings.

[moda0306]

As it is, congress barely gets anything done, and the time wasted on impeachment posturing compounds this. Perhaps it is time to redefine impeachable behavior so every freaking president isn't roasted by the opposing party?

^ This. It really is ridiculous, especially as all these guys could be strung up on war crimes. It's all theater to pretend congress is actually doing their job.

Although on a related note I would significantly increase the bar on some things within congress/presidency...

- Relinquishment of tax returns and full public financial statements for the last 5 years.
- Any net worth above $3 Million (or so) goes into a blind trust until 5-10 years after time served in office.
- Limit on private sector income 5/10 years after leaving office.

I had more but can't remember them.

Oh and Dick Cheney gets the guillotine I'm done now..

[jacksonM]

As it is, congress barely gets anything done, and the time wasted on impeachment posturing compounds this. Perhaps it is time to redefine impeachable behavior so every freaking president isn't roasted by the opposing party?

^ This. It really is ridiculous, especially as all these guys could be strung up on war crimes. It's all theater to pretend congress is actually doing their job.

I was getting ready to post something related to your other posts about the original sin of being born white but I won't do it now because this is an excellent point.

Illegally spread the Vietnam war into Laos and Cambodia without congressional authorization - no problem. Obstruct justice to cover up the break-in at the Democratic office in the Watergate hotel to dig up dirt on your opponents - well that's an impeachable offense and you need to resign - Richard Nixon.

Tell bold-face lies to the American people about the buildup to the war in Vietnam and then use a fabricated incident in the Gulf of Tonkin to get a resolution from congress authorizing war and that's no problem either - just decide not to run for the next election and be done with it - Lyndon Johnson.

[Libertarian666]

David Duke is singing Omar's praises on his official website. Ok then.

At least she has one defender who is a past leader of a Democrat-founded group!

[dualstow]

Ha!
That joke would work better if she weren't also a Democrat, but that's beside the point. Still:
Ha!

David Duke is singing Omar's praises on his official website. Ok then.

At least she has one defender who is a past leader of a Democrat-founded group!

[Libertarian666]

Ha!
That joke would work better if she weren't also a Democrat, but that's beside the point. Still:
Ha!

David Duke is singing Omar's praises on his official website. Ok then.

At least she has one defender who is a past leader of a Democrat-founded group!

I think it works much better BECAUSE she is a Democrat. After all, which party is always calling their opponents KKK supporters?

[dualstow]

Yup.

[PP67]

This may be a combination of you-find-what-you’re-looking-for and/or fake news but I found this video more than a bit disturbing.

I’d love better minds than mine give me their opinion.

Thanks!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h5iv6sECGU&app=desktop

[Kriegsspiel]

This may be a combination of you-find-what-you’re-looking-for and/or fake news but I found this video more than a bit disturbing.

I’d love better minds than mine give me their opinion.

Thanks!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h5iv6sECGU&app=desktop

My first take is that it isn't as sinister as that guy painted it. It seems like they're essentially making their own political party and running against other parties, right? Other than the campaign finance stuff, nothing they're doing is illegal as far as I know. They're swampy ilike everyone else is in national politics, with the "man behind the curtain" aspect, as is seemingly every other politician. The fact is, people vote for them if they persuade them to vote for them.

[jacksonM]

This may be a combination of you-find-what-you’re-looking-for and/or fake news but I found this video more than a bit disturbing.

I’d love better minds than mine give me their opinion.

Thanks!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h5iv6sECGU&app=desktop

My first take is that it isn't as sinister as that guy painted it. It seems like they're essentially making their own political party and running against other parties, right? Other than the campaign finance stuff, nothing they're doing is illegal as far as I know. They're swampy ilike everyone else is in national politics, with the "man behind the curtain" aspect, as is seemingly every other politician. The fact is, people vote for them if they persuade them to vote for them.

I'm pretty sure that if you look hard enough you can probably find youtube videos showing convincing and unequivocal proof that Donald Trump is a puppet of Vladimir Putin.

Having said that, I think you need look no further than college campuses to realize that a certain mindset has taken hold and it can be quite scary listening to what is coming out of the mouths of people like AOC and company. My granddaughter is currently dating a guy in his third year of college working on a degree in mechanical engineering and when I have sat down to talk with him he sounds like a broken record of leftist talking points. I'm actually quite interested in his field of study, which is robotics, but when I attempt to engage in conversation it always turns political and if I have anything to say in response, he literally turns away as though to tell me he isn't interested and is totally tuning me out. The other day he informed me that climate change was actually much worse than we have been led to believe because certain people are deliberately suppressing the evidence for the benefit of oil companies. My experience investigating the subject being much the opposite, I found that to be quite an astounding claim but it was obvious to me that he thought he was speaking the absolute truth and there was nothing more to say.

So yes, I do get the feeling that there is really something going on here but I'm not big on these kinds of grand conspiracy theories.

[dualstow]

Alt-Left screams in pregnant Chelsea Clinton’s face and blames her for the Christchurch mosque massacre.

[dualstow]

Trump aside, the other side is appearing increasingly sane.
Of course, there are fine horrible people on both sides.

[stuper1]

Do you remember when Trump said something like that: that there are good people on both sides. He was speaking of people divided on whether Confederate statues should remain standing. However, the media made it sound like he was talking about white supremacists. The media lies, which is related to the left eating itself, because liars always have to circle back to cover their tracks.

[dualstow]

Do you remember when Trump said something like that: that there are good people on both sides.

That's what I was referencing. I even put the "fine' in, crossed out, to make it extra obvious.

He was speaking of people divided on whether Confederate statues should remain standing. However, the media made it sound like he was talking about white supremacists. The media lies, which is related to the left eating itself, because liars always have to circle back to cover their tracks.

I think he had just been asked about Charlottesville when he made that comment, although I honestly don't remember.