S'funny. I'm a "white people" and I've yet to feel bashed by anything in his posts. <shrug>
Do you believe he's white? So if he's not, he's running around these forums, bashing white people, with relative impunity. That is racism and he does it frequently.
Do you believe he's white? So if he's not, he's running around these forums, bashing white people, with relative impunity. That is racism and he does it frequently.
I don't particularly care for people who use their ethnic status and such to maintain itself, the ones you're obliged to carry water for.
Don't try and qualify it by pretending like there are just some white people you hate. You hate all white people. I think you also might hate Jews too, they are a group of people that protect their wealth and status, something you detest.
Pretty sure not white people are white nationalists, much as the latter prefer that to be the case.
Pretty sure not white people are white nationalists, much as the latter prefer that to be the case.
I agree that what Clinton and Obama did in Syria was abysmally stupid, but everyone should agree that peace talks in the Middle East are merely a tactic in the eternal war. And as bad as is a civil war - the absolute worst kind of war - there's at least a moral argument for giving someone the tools to fight for his own freedom. So it's not completely one-sided ethically.There are the anti war Democrats. Did you have a nice long 8 year vacation?
You know, as you sat idly by while Clinton convinced Obama to start this mess in Syria?
she used her sharpest language yet to describe the "failure" that resulted from the decision to keep the U.S. on the sidelines during the first phase of the Syrian uprising.
It's bad enough Obama let Clinton disrupt peace talks and arm 'rebels', thereby escalating the conflict, the bloodshed, and the humanitarian crisis. Her (your?) grand ideal was to actively wage war in Syria with US forces. To turn Syria into the next Libya. This interventionist war for regime change started many years ago Amazing how silent you can be so long as we can pretend to wash our blood stained hands of it.
Having said that, I oppose US forces in Syria and Iraq. We do not belong there. The local governments have ISIS on the ropes without us on the ground. Trump would be a damned fool (he is) to involve us any further in a campaign that is already being won. More foolish yet if any action we take resulted in us camped out playing police to maintain order. Security of the region must be upheld by regional actors. Any action we take should be to bolster and strengthen their governments.
But you must admit, putting down ISIS to restore order would pale next to the humanitarian cost you stayed silent on, and whose architect you voted for. When there are "anti war" protests, we'll know for what hollowed partisan principles they truly stand.
I agree that what Clinton and Obama did in Syria was abysmally stupid, but everyone should agree that peace talks in the Middle East are merely a tactic in the eternal war. And as bad as is a civil war - the absolute worst kind of war - there's at least a moral argument for giving someone the tools to fight for his own freedom. So it's not completely one-sided ethically.
Morally, I prefer an Iraq - go in, overwhelm the bad guys, allow the good guys to build a free society. Much less loss of innocent life. However, practically speaking there isn't much difference between Iraq and Syria. If we must intervene - and no American President seems to be able to resist the lure - then I much prefer the Obama approach of giving thegood guysarguably least bad guys weapons and letting them fight it out amongst themselves.
Is there any mainstream media source that advocates for an isolationist policy with regards to the Middle East? To me it seems that the press has turned into a cheerleader for war. What a colossal shift from 50 years ago. Rather shameful.
I don't believe there any "least bad guys" in Syria. In that region, power can only be held by extreme violence against all opposition. Failure to do so will result in loss of power and control. I don't think America should intervene. If we do, the atrocities of the winners (and there will be many horrific atrocities) will be America's. At this point, it is in America's best interests for the civil war to be won and for there to be stability. Militarizing the underdogs therefor is counterproductive and simply prolongs the civil war.
I honestly don't know what that means.
You think white nationalists think Jews are pseudo white nationalists? And that white nationalists prefer for Jews to be pseudo white nationalists?
Is there any mainstream media source that advocates for an isolationist policy with regards to the Middle East? To me it seems that the press has turned into a cheerleader for war. What a colossal shift from 50 years ago. Rather shameful.
Separate groups of people are free to believe they're the best race, such as some germans and japanese during ww2 era. Each claim is only connected to its subset of advocates and have little to do with other such claims.
People who think like this also tend to believe others of their race either are or should be like them, and thus if they're criticized for degeneracy it means all members of their race are criticized. Ponder how your argument fits into this.
Seems an exercise in futility to clue conservatives in why it's not in their interest to throw their lot in with the white nationalists.
Keep in mind the additional +14% non-college white and +10% college shift for R & D this election, respectively. If rural america had marketable skills, maybe it can cut back on the massive white welfare program that's half the budget.
But without enough dead browns for the OP types to cheer, how will all-important white welfare be justified?
You call war "white welfare" you were not denouncing degenerates and white nationalists were not misunderstanding your denouncement as a blanket generalization. You WERE making a blanket generalization and continue to make blanket generalizations of white people as a group.
You continually make it about white vs brown
I agree, but I also agree with Woolfe about the imperative that ISIS not win. I'm not sure there are any least bad guys from the standpoint of Western values, but there are certainly some most bad guys, and ISIS are they. Unfortunately our options are ISIS exporting terrorism, Assad exporting terrorism, or Hillary's new best buds exporting terrorism. Reasonable, peaceful Syrians simply don't have the fire to take over the country.Is there any mainstream media source that advocates for an isolationist policy with regards to the Middle East? To me it seems that the press has turned into a cheerleader for war. What a colossal shift from 50 years ago. Rather shameful.
I don't believe there any "least bad guys" in Syria. In that region, power can only be held by extreme violence against all opposition. Failure to do so will result in loss of power and control. I don't think America should intervene. If we do, the atrocities of the winners (and there will be many horrific atrocities) will be America's. At this point, it is in America's best interests for the civil war to be won and for there to be stability. Militarizing the underdogs therefor is counterproductive and simply prolongs the civil war.
As far as any of the media being anti-war, there's a shift now that Trump is President: the mainstream media has once again discovered that war is bad. They are quite binary that way, and though they haven't quite forgotten the hit in credibility they took over Iraq (ironically, on both sides of the issue, anti-war early on and then pro-war later) Trump should remain unpopular enough that opposing any Trump-led war should be safe. Personally . . . war is a terrible thing, but it's not the most terrible thing. Islamic lands tend to have things worse than war. I'd be satisfied if the mainstream media just learned that war (at least in the Islamic nations) is generally stupid and not in America's interests. Rotating oppressors does not gain us any love.
Remember back to before the actual invasion - the mainstream media were almost universally against the war. We did not for instance hear any mainstream media discussions of whether or not Democrats McDermott, Bonior and Thompson had violated the Logan Act by visiting Iraq and holding news conferences supporting Saddam, or when Rockefeller visited Jordan and Syria on the same anti-war errand. They paid a price, with people like Donahue losing his show and virtually all the alphabets losing big ground to Fox News. People wanted "something done", and the more the better. Consequently the mainstream media became much more supportive, but even then we had people like Peter Arnett declaring that the war plan had failed. When US forces stopped to regroup - because they had been more successful than anyone dare plan and had consequently outrun their tail - many mainstream media outlets painted it as a failure. The New York Times in particular was famous for its "we're losing the war we're losing the war we're losing the war we're losing the war - hey, we won! We're losing the peace we're losing the peace we're losing the peace" coverage during the initial ground war, overwhelmingly negative in spite of Franks' incredible success (and in spite of the Times' overwhelming support for the invasion in the months leading up to it.) Thus the mainstream media managed to lose audience and credibility for being both too anti-American and too pro-American in the same war. That was my point, that the mainstream media was initially very much against the war, switched to being cheerleaders because of the resultant hit to audience and respect, and became anti-war again as soon as it was safe to do so.I would dispute this theory of media bias. If this was true, I have to wonder why media coverage of the Iraq war was initially so overwhelmingly positive, in spite of the fact that it turned out to be an unpopular war and there was much to criticize about it. The New York Times in particular has been singled out as running coverage that was heavily biased in favor of the war, but the truth is they weren't alone.
War is a big ratings boost for news media, so obviously they cover it. The problem is that their access and information are controlled by the military, so they end up either reporting the military's version of events or not reporting much of anything, which is unacceptable to their business model. Typically after the the initial invasion is over and the dust settles, and human rights groups and other outsiders start to parse through what happened, then other sources are available and coverage may turn more negative. But so far as the initial primary military action, the news coverage typically sounds like a pep rally for the war and the military.
I predict that if Trump takes us into a ground war in Syria, that we'll see some editorials opposing the war, probably on good grounds, but the actual coverage of events on the ground will once again be largely positive, for the same reason that it was for Bush's war.
Remember back to before the actual invasion - the mainstream media were almost universally against the war. We did not for instance hear any mainstream media discussions of whether or not Democrats McDermott, Bonior and Thompson had violated the Logan Act by visiting Iraq and holding news conferences supporting Saddam, or when Rockefeller visited Jordan and Syria on the same anti-war errand. They paid a price, with people like Donahue losing his show and virtually all the alphabets losing big ground to Fox News. People wanted "something done", and the more the better. Consequently the mainstream media became much more supportive, but even then we had people like Peter Arnett declaring that the war plan had failed. When US forces stopped to regroup - because they had been more successful than anyone dare plan and had consequently outrun their tail - many mainstream media outlets painted it as a failure. The New York Times in particular was famous for its "we're losing the war we're losing the war we're losing the war we're losing the war - hey, we won! We're losing the peace we're losing the peace we're losing the peace" coverage during the initial ground war, overwhelmingly negative in spite of Franks' incredible success (and in spite of the Times' overwhelming support for the invasion in the months leading up to it.) Thus the mainstream media managed to lose audience and credibility for being both too anti-American and too pro-American in the same war. That was my point, that the mainstream media was initially very much against the war, switched to being cheerleaders because of the resultant hit to audience and respect, and became anti-war again as soon as it was safe to do so.
I call it white welfare as a contrast to conservatives' favorite target of black welfare, to keep it simple so even the dumbest of bigots can see it's they who get the most and best handouts.
What handouts am I getting? I cannot seem to find any. No one gives me a discount or money break on anything. I am sure you get more handouts than me.
Remember back to before the actual invasion - the mainstream media were almost universally against the war. We did not for instance hear any mainstream media discussions of whether or not Democrats McDermott, Bonior and Thompson had violated the Logan Act by visiting Iraq and holding news conferences supporting Saddam, or when Rockefeller visited Jordan and Syria on the same anti-war errand. They paid a price, with people like Donahue losing his show and virtually all the alphabets losing big ground to Fox News. People wanted "something done", and the more the better. Consequently the mainstream media became much more supportive, but even then we had people like Peter Arnett declaring that the war plan had failed. When US forces stopped to regroup - because they had been more successful than anyone dare plan and had consequently outrun their tail - many mainstream media outlets painted it as a failure. The New York Times in particular was famous for its "we're losing the war we're losing the war we're losing the war we're losing the war - hey, we won! We're losing the peace we're losing the peace we're losing the peace" coverage during the initial ground war, overwhelmingly negative in spite of Franks' incredible success (and in spite of the Times' overwhelming support for the invasion in the months leading up to it.) Thus the mainstream media managed to lose audience and credibility for being both too anti-American and too pro-American in the same war. That was my point, that the mainstream media was initially very much against the war, switched to being cheerleaders because of the resultant hit to audience and respect, and became anti-war again as soon as it was safe to do so.