The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Joe Bauer]

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

He's also nephew to Ferdinand Marcos!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!

MADE MY DAY!

AND MANY THOUGHT HERSHEY WALKER'S 2 FAKE POLICE BADGES WERE A JOKE!

[Joe Bauer]

4 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

He's also nephew to Ferdinand Marcos!

I've been forwarding your Santos pic Kirk.

To huge laughter.

[Matthew Koch]

 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

 

Who is pro censorship? Hands up! 

[W. Niederhut]

53 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Who is pro censorship? Hands up! 

I'm in favor of censoring;

1)  False advertising.

2)  Disinformation/advertising that damages the public health.

3)  The incitement of violence against the citizenry, government, and/or law enforcement.

Edited January 15, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Matthew Koch]

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

I'm in favor of censoring;

1)  False advertising.

2)  Disinformation/advertising that damages the public health.

3)  The incitement of violence against the citizenry, government, and/or law enforcement.

So the same as about 99% of the population, Wow, So virtuous.. I'm in favor of censoring child pornography, bet you are too! 

I'd be for censoring the word Qanon on this forum since it's only used by leftoids as ad homs against people who don't believe in debunked BlueAnon MSNPC conspiracies like Trumps taxes and his secret puppeteering by Russian oligarchs or that Putin changed the election. 

Edited January 15, 2023 by Matthew Koch

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

I'm in favor of censoring;

1)  False advertising.

2)  Disinformation/advertising that damages the public health.

3)  The incitement of violence against the citizenry, government, and/or law enforcement.

W.

I am in agreement mostly. Would you condone violence or incitement of violence against the state if you lived in Aleksandr Solzhenitzyn’s Soviet Union? Or Hitler’s Germany? 

[Benjamin Cole]

8 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

    You don't seem to understand the meaning of ad hominem arguments or "abusive" commentary.

    If you take the time to read my detailed response your post, (and John's concurrence) you will learn that I specifically addressed the issues that you and John raised.

    I went to considerable lengths to address the erroneous claim that Trump is a populist, and the related claim that Democrats have abandoned the working class-- focusing, in particular, on the issues of health care and tax policy.

    I also referenced the facts about Russia's multi-faceted interference in our 2016 election.  Russia's social media t-r-o-l-l-i-n-g was only one facet of the GRU cyber warfare on behalf of Trump and the right wing Trump cult.

Sadly, I agree with you that the populist wing of the 'Phants, or the populist wing of the Donks, is not earnest in its efforts to, broadly speaking, represent the middle and employee classes. 

I will say it was Trump who put tariffs on China, and strengthened border control. I agree with those two policies. 

On the Russiagate topic, we just have to agree to disagree. I have read the Mueller Report. I have also read Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Mate, and NYT'er Bret Stephens, the latter who called Russiagate an "elaborate hoax."  We have seen righteous witch-hunts before in the US. 

(It was Mueller who announced, two weeks after 9/11, that all 24 hijackers were hermitically sealed off from outside influences. LHO again?) 

OK, we disagree on the entire Russiagate topic, and Mueller does not strike me as trustworthy.

Given the Niagara of money spent on elections in the US, by seasoned experts and campaign managers, one might wonder if anyone can have influence. Mike Bloomberg spent more than $1 billion on his presidential campaign---do you even remember he ran? I barely did, until recently reminded. $1 billion down the toilet. With zero influence.

Conversely, when Trump ran in 2016, nearly the entire 'Phant infrastructure, including the Bush family (remember "Jeb!" ?) ran against him, and Trump still won the primaries easily, in a walkover. 

So, in a nutshell, Russian bots and whatnot accomplished diddly-squat. 

I reiterate everything John Cotter said about the Donks---that they have become unmoored from their historical role, and now largely serve upper-class, globalist and corporate interests---but add on this: The Donks have become coopted by, and are even enamored of,  the Deep State, or the national security complex. 

This is, as I am sure you know, a reversal of decades in which the Donks were more skeptical of the national security state than the 'Phants. 

This shift is encapsulated in commentary of Tucker Carlson vs. that of Rachel Maddow. It would have been nice if Maddow had delivered the recent JFKA story on the CIA. What is sad is that no one even expects her to. 

Egads----can you support either party? I cannot. 

I look forward to further conversations with you. We may disagree, and that is fine. We can agree to disagree and let it go at that.

I doubt my views expressed here will influence anything anywhere. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 15, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[W. Niederhut]

54 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

W.

I am in agreement mostly. Would you condone violence or incitement of violence against the state if you lived in Aleksandr Solzhenitzyn’s Soviet Union? Or Hitler’s Germany? 

Yes, but in those totalitarian police states resistance was often futile.

Solzhenitsyn described some rare instances of violent revolts in the Gulag Archipelago, but they were brutally repressed.

So, in general, the issue of ethically appropriate "censorship" of incitement of violence hinges on the nature of the censors and the targets of violence.

If an American demagogue is inciting violence against people who are black, Hispanic, Muslim, gay, liberal, etc., I believe that such stochastic terrorism should be censored.

In other words, I believe Elon Musk is a horse's ass.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Yes, but in those totalitarian police states resistance was often futile.

Solzhenitsyn described some rare instances of violent revolts in the Gulag Archipelago, but they were brutally repressed.

So, in general, the issue of ethically appropriate "censorship" of incitement of violence hinges on the nature of the censors and the targets of violence.

If an American demagogue is inciting violence against people who are black, Hispanic, Muslim, gay, liberal, etc., I believe that such stochastic terrorism should be censored.

In other words, I believe Elon Musk is a horse's ass.

It was more or less a general question but, you have tailored your answer to the USA in recent years to some degree, which you are passionate about. We certainly know where stigmatising minorities can lead.
 

Von Stauffenberg could have been instrumental in concluding WW2 early, saving countless lives with one selfless act of courage. 
 

IMO if we feel resistance to tyranny is futile, then we doom ourselves to some tremendous suffering. We perhaps insult the dead who perhaps made the sacrifices for our freedom. American history begins with people like Alexander Hamilton standing up to a tyrant who dominated much of the globe at the time. Ghandi tactics wouldn’t have been successful everywhere. By not standing up to a bully, you embolden them and encourage more of the same. 
 

I also think that if the facility of censorship is granted, then you open a door for tremendous abuses of power, knowing the nature of politicians, rulers, etc. He who can define what is acceptable, has a tremendous responsibility. Dissent is something that JFK welcomed. 

[Matthew Koch]

38 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

So, in general, the issue of ethically appropriate "censorship" of incitement of violence hinges on the nature of the censors and the targets of violence.

If an American demagogue is inciting violence against people who are black, Hispanic, Muslim, gay, liberal, etc., I believe that such stochastic terrorism should be censored.

 

Oh so if it's white conservatives William is Okay with targeted violence like Antifa does.. So Virtuous!! 

Edited January 15, 2023 by Matthew Koch

[Benjamin Cole]

Should "stochastic terrorism," or the "othering" of Trump supporters also be censored? 

When one defines all or the majority of Trump supporters as racist or homophobic, is that also "stochastic terrorism"?

Ray Epps was the Arizona leader of the Oath Keepers and an ardent Trump supporter. 

The NYT described Ray Epps as a truly decent human, in a longtime marriage and who is a pet-lower. A photo showed a mild-mannered looking Epps with his wife. 

Some excerpts:

"In a daylong interview, sitting in his air-conditioned recreational vehicle with his wife, Robyn, and their two Shih Tzus beside him, Mr. Epps described himself as a father, a former Marine and a staunch but disillusioned conservative whose leaders had betrayed him."

...

"After leaving Arizona for the mountains months ago, the Eppses have not done much. They manage to spend time with their children — and some of their 37 grandchildren — but mostly keep to themselves."

He has 37 grandchildren. 

The ultra-woke NYT, after a day long interview, evidently did not find the slightest hint of racism or homophobia in Epps, an ardent Trump supporter. 

So, when people casually slur Trump supporters as racists and homophobes---should that be censored as a form of stochastic terrorism? 

Could not mentally imbalanced people, upon hearing that Trump supporters are racist homophobes, take matters (violently) into their own hands? 

So...who defines stochastic terrorism and can thus censor speech? 

https://web.archive.org/web/20230113043351/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/13/us/politics/jan-6-conspiracy-theory-ray-epps.html

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Matthew Koch said:

Oh so if it's white conservatives William is Okay with targeted violence like Antifa does.. So Virtuous!! 

Nice try, Mathew, but no cigar.

I mentioned the targeting of Mexicans, et.al., only in the context of contemporary stochastic terrorism in Trump's MAGA-verse-- as in the case of the Trump/Fox inspired El Paso Walmart Massacre of Mexican Americans.

I don't believe the targeting of any ethnic/cultural/religious/political group by demagogic stochastic terrorists is acceptable.

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

I also think that if the facility of censorship is granted, then you open a door for tremendous abuses of power, knowing the nature of politicians, rulers, etc. He who can define what is acceptable, has a tremendous responsibility. Dissent is something that JFK welcomed. 

Chris,

   There's a difference between dissent, per se, and toxic disinformation which damages the public health and welfare.

   Can you give us any examples of JFK "welcoming" hate speech or deleterious medical disinformation?

   As for censorship, it has already been pervasive in U.S. society for decades.  Just look at the 59-year censorship of the truth about the CIA/Joint Chiefs' conspiracy to murder President Kennedy!

[Matthew Koch]

6 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Nice try, Mathew, but no cigar.

I mentioned the targeting of Mexicans, et.al., only in the context of contemporary stochastic terrorism in Trump's MAGA-verse-- as in the case of the Trump/Fox inspired El Paso Walmart Massacre of Mexican Americans.

I don't believe the targeting of any ethnic/cultural/religious/political group by demagogic stochastic terrorists is acceptable.

That is incorrect as usual.. You know when it comes to misinformation you are a 'Super Spreader' the El Paso shooter was directly inspired from the Chist church shooter who wrote a manifesto about White Replacement and called for others to do mass shooting to fight back against it. Guess what Willam? He specifically mentioned that he didn't like Trump so did the copy cats. But once again there you go again with disingenuous tactics that are par for the course with dishonest leftist politics. Fox News inspired?!? Shameless, cliche and most importantly false..