|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2015 1:06 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Conservatives ignoring US foreign policy in the region are just as bad as leftists who ignore the role of fundamentalist Islam in the region. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2015 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obama spoke out against the neo-McCarthyism displayed among Republican Presidential candidates.
| Quote: |
| When I hear folks say that maybe we should just admit the Christians and not the Muslims, when I hear political leaders, saying there would be a religious test for which a person feeling from a war-torn country is admitted, when some of those folk themselves come from families of people who fled political persecution—that’s shameful. That’s not American. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion. |
Unfortunately, Obama is wrong on one point: McCarthyism is as American as chattel slavery, native American genocide, Jim Crow, etc.
The screening process for Syrian refugees is long and intense. The standards are so tight that only 2% are males of combat age. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
Obama spoke out against [url=/politics/archive/2015/11/paris-backlash-governors-reject-syrian-refugees/416151/]the neo-McCarthyism[/url] displayed among Republican Presidential candidates.
| Quote: |
| When I hear folks say that maybe we should just admit the Christians and not the Muslims, when I hear political leaders, saying there would be a religious test for which a person feeling from a war-torn country is admitted, when some of those folk themselves come from families of people who fled political persecution—that’s shameful. That’s not American. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion. |
Unfortunately, Obama is wrong on one point: McCarthyism is as American as chattel slavery, native American genocide, Jim Crow, etc.
The screening process for [url=/4116619/syrian-refugees-screening-process/]Syrian refugees is long and intense[/url]. The standards are so tight that only 2% are males of combat age. |
McCarthy was right. Those very communists subsequently gained total control of Hollywood, the media, and academia and are presently at the helm of the ship itself, which is why the Western world is being invaded from all corners, turned into mud, and driven into the ground. It’s also why “McCarthyism” has become a pejorative that is repeated nonstop, so it can be imbedded into the minds of brainwashed citizens, the “useful idiots.” They will then thoughtlessly forward this message on because they are programmed to hate themselves and have no loyalty to the cultures and societies that allowed them to exist in the first place. They want to bring in millions upon millions who have no allegiance to or interest in the West’s foundational belief systems and will contribute to their own destruction because they are purveyors of a deranged ideology. Obama was groomed by these very people.
Over a hundred French civilians are slaughtered by Muslims on the streets of Paris, and the initial reaction from Kuros is to push the anti-White/anti-Western narrative he’s been conditioned with; bumping a Breivik thread and trying to insert slavery and Indians into the discussion. If you had previously been taking what this gentleman says seriously, which is probably few here, there is no longer an excuse to keep doing so. This is a weak-minded and sick individual. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Four Ways to Save Europe
| Quote: |
....
But seriously, what can be done to save Europe? Here are four ideas, besides the obvious ones, such as no more mass inundations of Islamic refugees.
My first proposal is to ban cousin marriage. Many Muslim patriarchs force their female children to marry a cousin from the Old Country in order to provide another visa for the clan. It’s male chauvinism, immigration fraud, and icky incest rolled into one. European countries should make couples get a DNA test proving they are no closer related than third cousins.
Second, every country needs a National Immigration Safety Board, modeled upon the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, to issue authoritative reports upon the causes of catastrophes stemming from immigration snafus. The NTSB was made independent of the Department of Transportation in 1974 because Congress found that other government agencies were too politically compromised by their mission to promote transportation to be trusted to tell the truth about the causes of airline crashes.
Similarly, much can be learned from honestly analyzing what could have prevented tragedies such as 11/13/15 in Paris and the marathon bombing in Boston.
Here in the U.S., for instance, there has never been an investigation into why refugee status was granted to the Tsarnaev family and to their friend Ibragim Todashev. The latter was gunned down by an FBI agent while writing a confession of helping Tamerlan Tsarnaev ritually murder three Waltham, Mass., weed dealers on the tenth anniversary of 9/11. Todashev’s father is a fairly powerful local official in the Putin regime; so why does being a hereditary member of the Russian deep state get you asylum in the U.S.?
Third, most European countries currently offer immigrants modest payments, typically several thousand dollars, to leave. For example, in 2007 France began giving immigrants 6,000 euros to head home. Therefore, the principle of bribing unsuccessful foreigners to vacate the premises is already in place. But the amount of money on the table has been too small to make a dent in the size of the problem population.
So offer bigger buyouts to permanently leave the E.U.
Fourth, Europeans need to adapt their legal system to the nonindividualistic culture of Muslims. For example, the threat of a jail term might not deter a Muslim terrorist who expects to flee back to Syria and/or collect his 72 virgins.
Cultures with more experience dealing with Muslims, whether Hindu or other Muslims, typically wind up using various forms of collective punishment to persuade senior Muslims to control their young bravos. For example, the movie Slumdog Millionaire depicts the 1992 communal riots in Bombay in which Hindu mobs chastised Muslims by burning down their neighborhoods.
Europeans don’t want to regress to South Asian levels of barbarism. Fortunately, there are civilized, bureaucratic ways to incentivize Muslim extended families to police their own violent youths. Notice that the criminality of Muslim neighborhoods in Europe is less like the Hobbesian anarchy of Baltimore than like a perennial low-level insurrection. The pimps, car burners, and terrorists of the banlieues are acting with the tacit approval of their community leaders.
In Arab countries, except sometimes during the Arab Spring, disorganized street crime is surprisingly rare. That’s because Arabs know how to police Arabs. It’s not a pleasant subject to look into, but they don’t achieve law and order purely through police brutality. Besides using torture, police forces in Arab countries target criminals’ elders. When the senior members of the clan stand to lose from their grandsons’ viciousness, they find ways to keep them in line.
For example, several of the Muslim outrages in France in 2015, such as November’s slaughter, the August attack on the train foiled by the American soldiers, and the massacre at the kosher supermarket last January, were organized in the Brussels suburb of Molenbeek, which is less impoverished than you might expect: Muslims aren’t bad at running small businesses, so they have something to lose. If young Mohamed runs amok, the patriarch of his clan should have his beautiful launderette confiscated and he be deported.
But demographic diversity requires legal change. Due to mass migration, Europeans can’t stick with their outdated tradition of punishing only guilty individuals. Instead, whites must learn from the various cultures who have all found that the way to deter Muslim violence is to pre-emptively threaten to punish any and all Muslims merely affiliated with wrongdoers with fines, confiscation, and deportation.
Sure, this new legal doctrine of collective responsibility would be a betrayal of the proud Western European tradition of individualism. But the alternative – keeping Muslims out of Europe – seems unthinkable to today’s leaders such as Dr. Merkel. Thus Europeans must adopt the kind of cunning devices that rulers of Muslims have everywhere else found necessary. |
http://takimag.com/article/four_ways_to_save_europe_steve_sailer/print#axzz3rrVQ7Rqu |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
McCarthy was right. Those very communists subsequently gained total control of Hollywood the media,
|
Names and movies please.
| Quote: |
It’s also why “McCarthyism” has become a pejorative that is repeated nonstop, so it can be imbedded into the minds of brainwashed citizens, the “useful idiots.” They will then thoughtlessly forward this message on because they are programmed to hate themselves and have no loyalty to the cultures and societies that allowed them to exist in the first place.
|
They are not loyal to their society and are "brainwashed" because they have formed different political opinions than you?
P.S - Is this Titus? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
McCarthy was right. Those very communists subsequently gained total control of Hollywood the media,
|
Names and movies please.
| Quote: |
It’s also why “McCarthyism” has become a pejorative that is repeated nonstop, so it can be imbedded into the minds of brainwashed citizens, the “useful idiots.” They will then thoughtlessly forward this message on because they are programmed to hate themselves and have no loyalty to the cultures and societies that allowed them to exist in the first place.
|
They are not loyal to their society and are "brainwashed" because they have formed different political opinions than you?
P.S - Is this Titus? |
No. Communism was a legitimate threat in the 1950s and people like McCarthy were well aware of it. This form of American communism was/is a Fabian style slow drift that was redefined culturally as “liberalism.” It swept to power using the 1960s boomer youth generation as foot soldiers and infiltrated every form of culture and media. This narrative has since become standard in the West as a result of powerful dual-citizen media oligarchs (who are in control of other arms of power like banks, NGOs, international organizations, etc.) who push it on the masses as a means of control. This is why you hold liberal viewpoints, and why you view those who don’t as “racist” and backwards. While these viewpoints appear rational at face-value to you and many others, they are simply Marxist-esque tricks and framing that play off of Northern Europeans’ individualist sensibilities and moral nature. It is actually a very harmful ideology that was imposed from the top down to subvert the West. Most people are completely unaware that have been socialized into this mindset since it is so pervasive and regulated; it has itself turned into “McCarthyism” on steroids, policing citizens’ speech and behavior to keep them within the Overton window of acceptability. The internet has changed this but there are still many like yourself who have yet to actualize this programming for themselves. The goal is to make Westerners weak and disloyal to their ethnic group so it will be easier (and even acceptable to some) to do things like resettle hostile foreigners in their lands, among other things.
I don’t want to take this thread further off-topic so I will point you in a direction you can choose or not choose to take. The best resource that will explain much of this in detail is in a book titled “The Culture of Critique.” It is available in PDF format online. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2015 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ad Hominem Fallacy
| Quote: |
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem
| Quote: |
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say." |
|
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
Islamic State’s Goal: “Eliminating the Grayzone” of Coexistence Between Muslims and the West
| Quote: |
By the time the attack was over, 132 people had been killed and hundreds more wounded in what was the worst terrorist attack in France’s modern history. In a statement issued online, ISIS claimed responsibility, stating that its operatives had “set out targeting the capital of prostitution and vice.”
It is tempting to view such violence as senseless and nihilistic. However, taking into account the Islamic State’s history, it is clear that such a determination would be a mistake. By launching increasingly shocking attacks against Western targets, the Islamic State is pursuing a specific goal — generating hostility between domestic Muslim populations and the broader societies that they live in.
Despite its dire connotations, such a strategy is achievable for the group. In fact, some group members have successfully implemented it before, in Iraq, when the Islamic State’s predecessor organization, al Qaeda in Iraq, purposely provoked a sectarian civil war in that country following the 2003 U.S. invasion.
In a 2004 letter to Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, laid out his proposal for provoking such a conflict, calling for terrorist attacks against the Shiite majority population that would lead to a harsh crackdown on the Sunni minority. In such a scenario, his group could then coerce the Sunni population into viewing it as their only protector. “If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war,” Zarqawi wrote, “it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger and annihilating death.”
The climax of this depraved strategy came in 2006, when an attack by al Qaeda in Iraq operatives succeeded in destroying the Al-Askari mosque in Samarra, one of the holiest sites in Shiite Islam. The attack, which shocked Shiite Muslims across Iraq, ultimately succeeded in triggering a full-blown civil war that has not fully abated to this day.
The Islamic State has little hope of achieving that level of disastrous success in Western Europe or North America. But what the group is seeking to accomplish nonetheless mirrors its strategy of divide-and-conquer in Iraq. Through increasingly provocative terrorist attacks, hostage executions, and videotaped threats, the Islamic State is consciously seeking to trigger a backlash by Western governments and citizens against the Muslim minorities living in their societies. By achieving this, the group hopes to polarize both sides against each other, locking them into an escalating spiral of alienation, hatred and collective retribution. In a such a scenario, the group can later attempt to pose as the only effective protector for increasingly beleaguered Western Muslims.
Following the deliberately shocking attacks in Paris, some nativist politicians in both Europe and the United States have already responded with calls to collectively punish Muslims en masse through discriminatory migration policies, restrictions on religious freedoms, and blanket surveillance by law enforcement.
While politically popular among some, such measures, effectively holding Muslims collectively to blame for the atrocities in Paris, would be self-defeating. The Islamic State is deeply unpopular among Muslims. Like their non-Muslim compatriots, French Muslims recoiled with disgust at the recent atrocities in Paris. Indeed, several of them were killed in the attacks.
As such, it would be both perverse and counterproductive to lump them together with ISIS and blame them for the group’s actions. Similarly, it would be absurd to treat refugees, many of whom are fleeing the Islamic State’s draconian rule in Iraq and Syria, as though they too are responsible for the crimes of the group. Doing so would grant the Islamic State a propaganda coup, implicitly endorsing the group’s narrative of Muslims and Westerners collectively at war with one another.
Instead, in response to an attack intended to sow xenophobia, Western countries should reaffirm unity for their own Muslim populations and honor their best values by continuing to accept refugees without religious discrimination. Simultaneously, they should also recommit to the military effort against Islamic State enclaves in Iraq and Syria, making clear that there is no contradiction to embracing Muslims at home while fighting terrorists abroad. Such an approach would show resilience in the face of violence, while fatally undermining ISIS’ Manichean narrative of “a world divided into two camps.” |
[emphasis added]
When Bin Laden attacked the United States on 9-11, he wanted it to lash out. After the United States attacked Afghanistan, it attacked Iraq. Bin Laden had triumphed. ISIS arose as an indirect result of the Iraq War.
As we consider ISIS's goals, Western states should wisely ponder why it was ISIS attacked France, and what it hoped to gain. Then, the West should deny ISIS whatever it truly seeks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2015 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
[url=/2015/11/17/islamic-states-goal-eliminating-the-grayzone-of-coexistence-between-muslims-and-the-west/]Islamic State’s Goal: “Eliminating the Grayzone” of Coexistence Between Muslims and the West[/url]
| Quote: |
By the time the attack was over, 132 people had been killed and hundreds more wounded in what was the worst terrorist attack in France’s modern history. In a statement issued online, ISIS claimed responsibility, stating that its operatives had “set out targeting the capital of prostitution and vice.”
It is tempting to view such violence as senseless and nihilistic. However, taking into account the Islamic State’s history, it is clear that such a determination would be a mistake. By launching increasingly shocking attacks against Western targets, the Islamic State is pursuing a specific goal — generating hostility between domestic Muslim populations and the broader societies that they live in.
Despite its dire connotations, such a strategy is achievable for the group. In fact, some group members have successfully implemented it before, in Iraq, when the Islamic State’s predecessor organization, al Qaeda in Iraq, purposely provoked a sectarian civil war in that country following the 2003 U.S. invasion.
In a 2004 letter to Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, laid out his proposal for provoking such a conflict, calling for terrorist attacks against the Shiite majority population that would lead to a harsh crackdown on the Sunni minority. In such a scenario, his group could then coerce the Sunni population into viewing it as their only protector. “If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war,” Zarqawi wrote, “it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger and annihilating death.”
The climax of this depraved strategy came in 2006, when an attack by al Qaeda in Iraq operatives succeeded in destroying the Al-Askari mosque in Samarra, one of the holiest sites in Shiite Islam. The attack, which shocked Shiite Muslims across Iraq, ultimately succeeded in triggering a full-blown civil war that has not fully abated to this day.
The Islamic State has little hope of achieving that level of disastrous success in Western Europe or North America. But what the group is seeking to accomplish nonetheless mirrors its strategy of divide-and-conquer in Iraq. Through increasingly provocative terrorist attacks, hostage executions, and videotaped threats, the Islamic State is consciously seeking to trigger a backlash by Western governments and citizens against the Muslim minorities living in their societies. By achieving this, the group hopes to polarize both sides against each other, locking them into an escalating spiral of alienation, hatred and collective retribution. In a such a scenario, the group can later attempt to pose as the only effective protector for increasingly beleaguered Western Muslims.
Following the deliberately shocking attacks in Paris, some nativist politicians in both Europe and the United States have already responded with calls to collectively punish Muslims en masse through discriminatory migration policies, restrictions on religious freedoms, and blanket surveillance by law enforcement.
While politically popular among some, such measures, effectively holding Muslims collectively to blame for the atrocities in Paris, would be self-defeating. The Islamic State is deeply unpopular among Muslims. Like their non-Muslim compatriots, French Muslims recoiled with disgust at the recent atrocities in Paris. Indeed, several of them were killed in the attacks.
As such, it would be both perverse and counterproductive to lump them together with ISIS and blame them for the group’s actions. Similarly, it would be absurd to treat refugees, many of whom are fleeing the Islamic State’s draconian rule in Iraq and Syria, as though they too are responsible for the crimes of the group. Doing so would grant the Islamic State a propaganda coup, implicitly endorsing the group’s narrative of Muslims and Westerners collectively at war with one another.
Instead, in response to an attack intended to sow xenophobia, Western countries should reaffirm unity for their own Muslim populations and honor their best values by continuing to accept refugees without religious discrimination. Simultaneously, they should also recommit to the military effort against Islamic State enclaves in Iraq and Syria, making clear that there is no contradiction to embracing Muslims at home while fighting terrorists abroad. Such an approach would show resilience in the face of violence, while fatally undermining ISIS’ Manichean narrative of “a world divided into two camps.” |
[emphasis added]
When Bin Laden attacked the United States on 9-11, he wanted it to lash out. After the United States attacked Afghanistan, it attacked Iraq. Bin Laden had triumphed. ISIS arose as an indirect result of the Iraq War.
As we consider ISIS's goals, Western states should wisely ponder why it was ISIS attacked France, and what it hoped to gain. Then, the West should deny ISIS whatever it truly seeks. |
You just don’t get it. While you have some notion that Western leadership is corrupt and even criminal in its policies against its own citizens and others throughout the world, you soak up this propaganda and put your fingers in your ears and ‘la-la-la’ to yourself so you don’t have to face reality.
| Quote: |
the Islamic State is consciously seeking to trigger a backlash
holding Muslims collectively to blame for the atrocities in Paris, would be self-defeating
it would be absurd to treat refugees … as though they too are responsible
Western countries should reaffirm unity for their own Muslim populations
accept refugees
recommit to the military effort against Islamic State enclaves in Iraq and Syria
no contradiction to embracing Muslims at home while fighting terrorists abroad |
So many MSM articles like this have been printed since the attack in Paris (though they're nothing new), trying to make a fictional “backlash” from the native population the issue, absolving Islam and Muslims of responsibility, and promoting more war, more influxes of “refugee” invaders, more of the same damn stuff that put the West in this situation in the first place. The liberal delusion, truly remarkable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2015 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The liberal delusion, truly remarkable. |
👌🏻
Though, not "liberal" in many disturbing ways.
I would guess today's version (American, at least) of liberalism, or maintaining a republic, may coincide with past concerns of why and how those two entities are to be maintained. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2015 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| As we consider ISIS's goals, Western states should wisely ponder why it was ISIS attacked France, and what it hoped to gain. Then, the West should deny ISIS whatever it truly seeks. |
There's been alot of this mealy-mouthed 'let's not give ISIS what they want' cant on social media over the last few days. Apparently, saying anything critical about Islam or suggesting that the current immigration invasion will make us all less safe is 'doing what ISIS want!' Almost all Islamists celebrate the ongoing demographic transformation of Europe. Conquering Europe via mass immigration is one of their long-held aims. Stopping it and reversing it is absolutely not what they want, if that was even relevant to how we should respond. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Any group with members willing to kill themselves for their cause are a group that has the deepest of beliefs. You can disagree with that belief but you should respect it.
This whole issue, is related to a series of events, etc. that goes back decades. There wouldn't be an issue were not for the west's machinations in the region for their oil going back decades or just simple imperialist desires.
America has military bases and ships, etc. that surrounds Iran. Britain created the current Israel/Palestinian conflict that America is protracting.
Bin Laden started targeting America when we put military bases on what is considered holy lands, Saudi Arabia, who host their holiest cities.
All of this goes back to western in intervention in the region. These groups don't target Mexico or Barbados or Togo because these countries don't have any negative involvement in the region. Its simple. Stop making it complex.
Its not about religion if you strip all away. Its about minding your own business. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| As we consider ISIS's goals, Western states should wisely ponder why it was ISIS attacked France, and what it hoped to gain. Then, the West should deny ISIS whatever it truly seeks. |
There's been alot of this mealy-mouthed 'let's not give ISIS what they want' cant on social media over the last few days. Apparently, saying anything critical about Islam or suggesting that the current immigration invasion will make us all less safe is 'doing what ISIS want!'
[SNIP] |
I wanted a pause to assess the truth of whether "apparently saying anything critical about Islam . . . will make us all less safe . . ." was some sort of actual trend in the media.
Well, here is what CNN did: https://theintercept.com/2015/11/20/cnns-punishment-of-refugee-defending-journalist-highlights-media-abdication/
| Quote: |
CNN [in November] suspended its global affairs correspondent, Elise Labott, for two weeks for the crime of posting a tweet critical of the House vote to ban Syrian refugees. Whether by compulsion or choice, she then groveled in apology.
. . .
Labott’s crime wasn’t that she expressed an opinion. It’s that she expressed the wrong opinion: After Paris, defending Muslims, even refugees, is strictly forbidden. I’ve spoken with friends who work at every cable network and they say the post-Paris climate is indescribably repressive in terms of what they can say and who they can put on air. When it comes to the Paris attacks, CNN has basically become state TV (to see just how subservient CNN is about everything relating to terrorism, watch this unbelievable “interview” of ex-CIA chief Jim Woolsey by CNN’s Brooke Baldwin; or consider that neither CNN nor MSNBC has put a single person on air to dispute the CIA’s blatant falsehoods about Paris despite how many journalists have documented those falsehoods).
Labott’s punishment comes just five days after two CNN anchors spent six straight minutes lecturing French Muslim civil rights activist Yasser Louati that he and all other French Muslims bear “responsibility” for the attack (the anchors weren’t suspended for expressing those repulsive opinions). The suspension comes just four days after CNN’s Jim Acosta stood up in an Obama press conference and demanded: “I think a lot of Americans have this frustration that they see that the United States has the greatest military in the world. … I guess the question is — and if you’ll forgive the language — is why can’t we take out these bastards?” (He wasn’t suspended.) It comes five days after CNN anchor Christiane Amanpour mauled Obama on-air for not being more militaristic about ISIS (she wasn’t suspended); throughout 2013, Amanpour vehemently argued all over CNN for U.S. intervention in Syria (she wasn’t suspended). |
So is it liberal cant, or corporate oligarchical manipulation, that we should fear following the terrorist attacks?
Lobbyists, in Strategy Session, Conclude That Refugee Crisis “Helps Us” Defeat Regulations
| Quote: |
In an audio recording of a strategy session obtained by The Intercept, major trade association lobbyists discussed how the refugee crisis has changed the political dynamics in Washington to their advantage.
In the conference call held last week, lobbyists representing a number of high-polluting industries agreed that the battle between Congress and President Obama on refugee policy will give them the cover they need to attach a legislative rider to the omnibus budget bill that rolls back newly expanded clean water regulation.
. . .
“We’re suddenly not the big issue,” said one call participant. “I mean, this is all going to turn on refugees.”
“I think that helps us,” said another call participant. “I think it helps us with the White House being on defense,” another legislative strategist on the call said.
The remarks were made during a political strategy call hosted last week by energy utility industry lobbyists. A recording was sent to The Intercept by someone on the call. |
For those keeping score,
The Senate finally repealed Obamacare
An anti-net neutrality rider may be applied to the budget bill
And a rundown on all the riders trying to be attached
But on the other hand, the Big Banks lost one
So there's one for liberal cant, but a couple for corporate oligarchical fear (aka neo-liberalism) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus2
Joined: 06 Sep 2015
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| Obama spoke out against the neo-McCarthyism displayed among Republican Presidential candidates. |
McCarthy was right. Did you know that? He was right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus2
Joined: 06 Sep 2015
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
P.S - Is this Titus? |
No, he isn't me. I don't have much time for internet debating anymore. Nice to know I'm remembered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus2 wrote: |
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| Obama spoke out against the neo-McCarthyism displayed among Republican Presidential candidates. |
McCarthy was right. Did you know that? He was right. |
Well this is rather boring. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
