|
U-Know! Forum » Introducing... Chelsea Clinton |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
dhajjieboy 913 posts |
May 03, 2017, 23:24
|
||
|
Aw jeez..... Not this shit again..... {dhajjie slaps forehead and walks away....}
|
|||
|
phallus dei 583 posts |
May 04, 2017, 04:05
|
||
|
Locodogz wrote: Hmmmm by the same (somewhat convoluted) logic are you claiming that the many millions of Americans who voted for Hilary at the last election also "support" genital mutilation? Or is it just Chelsea by dint of her failure to denounce her parents? Please explain what aspect of the argument you find convoluted. For the sake of clarity, "genital mutilation" is being used by Digger and I as an allegory for the physical, environmental, political and economic mutilation of Muslim countries by the USA... If one (say an American) supported the overthrow of the Communist government of Afghanistan, only to have the void filled by the Taliban... and then supported the overthrow of Saddam, only to have the void filled by civil war and ISIS.. and then supported the overthrow of Gadaffi, only to have the void filled by ISIS... and then supported the attempted overthrow of Assad, which has again led to ISIS... then it should be abundantly clear by this point that America's "humanitarian intervention" is nothing but a recipe for the drastic degradation of the lives of the people in the countries that it is claiming to "save." In each of these cases, secular regimes have been replaced by barbarism. Certainly, any rational and morally inclined thinker needs to consider the results of policies that they either actively or passively support. Perhaps one can attempt to "rationalize" their support of Hilary Clinton by saying something like, "well, she advocates continuing a foreign policy that has already led to the deaths of millions, but the symbolic capital of having a woman president would override all that." Personally, I don't find that argument persuasive. To a degree, every American bears guilt for the crimes committed in their name by the "indispensable nation." Obviously, though, some are more guilty than others. Chelsea Clinton has benefited much more from her parent's crimes than have the average Joe and Jane who voted for Hilary. Chelsea Clinton should be held up for public condemnation. The millions of ordinary people who voted for a warmonger need to conduct their own period of self-reflection.
|
|||
Locodogz 254 posts |
May 04, 2017, 09:13
|
||
|
Nice attempt at obfuscation! My point was a simple one - if Chelsea is guilty of supporting "genital mutilation" (allegory, ahem(!) or not!) by her failure to decry her parent's actions, would you make the same accusation towards the many millions of americans who supported Hilary in the last election?
|
|||
|
phallus dei 583 posts |
Edited May 05, 2017, 04:25
May 04, 2017, 13:24
|
||
|
Locodogz wrote: Nice attempt at obfuscation! My point was a simple one - if Chelsea is guilty of supporting "genital mutilation" (allegory, ahem(!) or not!) by her failure to decry her parent's actions, would you make the same accusation towards the many millions of americans who supported Hilary in the last election? I made no attempt at obfuscation. I made what should have already been obvious even clearer. Those who support (either actively or passively) the destruction of secular Muslim nations by the West bear responsibility for the barbarism that inevitably occurs in the aftermath.
|
|||
|
dhajjieboy 913 posts |
May 04, 2017, 14:04
|
||
|
Thread status thus far: Spectacular ...>>>FAIL
|
|||
|
phallus dei 583 posts |
Edited May 08, 2017, 20:24
May 08, 2017, 20:23
|
||
|
Those bemused / annoyed by Chelsea Clinton's nauseatingly PC / intellectually inane comment that she would love to host a dinner party with James Baldwin, Franz Kafka, Shakespeare, Albert Camus, Jane Austin and Jane Jacobs to discuss "the balance between social responsibility and individual freedom, and how people and communities can evolve to be more inclusive, more kind, have a greater and broader sense of solidarity, while still respecting individual liberties" yada yada yada will no doubt find enjoyment in the New Yorker's recent satirical write-up of just such a meeting http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/chelsea-clintons-dream-dinner-party In totally appropriate fashion, it ends with another addition to the ever-growing Clinton body count...
|
|||
|
dhajjieboy 913 posts |
May 09, 2017, 01:25
|
||
FAIL.
|
|||
|
phallus dei 583 posts |
May 09, 2017, 14:23
|
||
|
dhajjieboy wrote: FAIL. O mighty dhajjieboy, supreme arbiter of taste & wisdom, please help me, a lowly peon, understand what constitutes a FAIL. Does the condemnation of those who oppose America's growing authoritarianism - such as Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and Chelsea Manning - constitute a moral FAIL? What about supporting American policies which lead to the destruction of the Middle East and the spread of ISIS? Does the inability to engage sources and carry out rational debate reflect an intellectual FAIL? Does vulgar name calling and repeatedly locking public threads out of spite demonstrate a FAILure to reach a maturity level beyond that of a spoilt child? I seem to be confused...
|
|||
|
dhajjieboy 913 posts |
May 09, 2017, 15:19
|
||
|
I will let the fact that your's and howburn's threads seem to garner little to zero participation from this site's membership speak for itself. As far as locking threads 'out of spite'... Sorry....'FAIL' again.... The site's architects wisely allowed a 'Lock Thread' functionality that provides individual ability to lock threads that have run their respective courses or have been completely conscripted for personal agenda or vendetta. You seriously delude yourself in believing that i would have any personal interest in 'debating' your 'resources' that link almost invariably to anti-Zionist/Marxist/fundamentalist christian/Rupert Murdoch/Fox news/Extreme right-wing points of view.... The fact that you and howburn constantly link to these 'resources' show that the 2 of you have a profound lack of respect for this sites membership's collective intellects as well as making your respective agenda's completely apparent. FAIL. P.S.: were it with-in my ability, i would lock this completely presumptuous slander filled hatchet job of a thread too. Your world is closing around you both.
|
|||
|
phallus dei 583 posts |
Edited May 10, 2017, 14:33
May 10, 2017, 03:49
|
||
|
dhajjieboy wrote: I will let the fact that your's and howburn's threads seem to garner little to zero participation from this site's membership speak for itself. As far as locking threads 'out of spite'... Sorry....'FAIL' again.... The site's architects wisely allowed a 'Lock Thread' functionality that provides individual ability to lock threads that have run their respective courses or have been completely conscripted for personal agenda or vendetta. You seriously delude yourself in believing that i would have any personal interest in 'debating' your 'resources' that link almost invariably to anti-Zionist/Marxist/fundamentalist christian/Rupert Murdoch/Fox news/Extreme right-wing points of view.... The fact that you and howburn constantly link to these 'resources' show that the 2 of you have a profound lack of respect for this sites membership's collective intellects as well as making your respective agenda's completely apparent. FAIL. P.S.: were it with-in my ability, i would lock this completely presumptuous slander filled hatchet job of a thread too. Your world is closing around you both. Again, your talk is all shit and no substance. I link to a variety of sources, because unlike you, I don't have the naïve belief that certain news outlets are always either objectively "true" or "false." The world is much too complicated for that. Sources should be evaluated predominantly for the information they contain, not where they come from. Included among the sources I have linked to are Variety, the NYT, the BBC, Sky news, the London Review of Books, the New Yorker, and the United Nations... not what's typically considered to be "anti-Zionist, fundamentalist Christian, extreme right wing sources." In fact, I challenge to you point out when I have ever linked to any sources that fall under those headings. (Though to be fair, I do think Zionism should be opposed). The person who repeatedly insults the intelligence and political proclivities of the visitors of this site is you, who consistently supports viewpoints fundamentally at odds with what Cope has espoused in his music and linear notes, and who hurls vicious insults at anyone who disagrees with your narrow views. The reason U-Know does not live up to its potential - to be a forum for the discussion of "politics, righteous talk, and direct action" - is no doubt largely because of you, and your piss-poor approach to debate.
|
| Pages: 3 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
