Revisionist history

>> ^bcglorf:

Honestly I find less to blame in persecuted peoples who promote hate speech in an attempt to fight their persecutors than I find with persecutors who promote hate speech in an effort to villainize an entire population to the point where it's "overlooked" by world governments when they simply "relocate" those people they don't like away from prosperous land and into tenements.
I don't think I sufficiently denounced this folly before.
Harken back to 1940's Palestine, when the Arab majority was persecuting the Jewish minority. Remember 1949, when the Jewish survivors of the holocaust finally had enough of being persecuted in Palestine as well, and rose up to fight for their independence. Do you have the same difficulty condemning Israel's violence then?
Let's go further, can you cheer with me as the Jewish survivors of the holocaust fought for independence only to be faced by the united wrath of the entire Arab League of Nations. As they were outnumbered 100-1, by forces set on finishing what Hitler nearly accomplished only a few short years earlier, can you spare a cheer for their ultimate victory and survival?
I can understand attributing some leniency when a desperate people resorts to extremes. What I fail to understand is where absolutely non of that leniency is extended to Israel in any way shape or form. Hamas and Hezbollah aren't a direct existential threat to Israel, but they ARE proxies for the multiple nations that do have that potential.

Honestly I find less to blame in persecuted peoples who promote hate speech in an attempt to fight their persecutors than I find with persecutors who promote hate speech in an effort to villainize an entire population to the point where it's "overlooked" by world governments when they simply "relocate" those people they don't like away from prosperous land and into tenements.

I don't think I sufficiently denounced this folly before.

Harken back to 1940's Palestine, when the Arab majority was persecuting the Jewish minority. Remember 1949, when the Jewish survivors of the holocaust finally had enough of being persecuted in Palestine as well, and rose up to fight for their independence. Do you have the same difficulty condemning Israel's violence then?

Let's go further, can you cheer with me as the Jewish survivors of the holocaust fought for independence only to be faced by the united wrath of the entire Arab League of Nations. As they were outnumbered 100-1, by forces set on finishing what Hitler nearly accomplished only a few short years earlier, can you spare a cheer for their ultimate victory and survival?

I can understand attributing some leniency when a desperate people resorts to extremes. What I fail to understand is where absolutely non of that leniency is extended to Israel in any way shape or form. Hamas and Hezbollah aren't a direct existential threat to Israel, but they ARE proxies for the multiple nations that do have that potential.

@Psychologic, that was you? Yeesh. Of course Beck says "please don't use violence" every now and then, otherwise it would be so obvious what he's doing that even the brain dead news media will start to take notice.

It's what amounts to progress in our society. A century ago you could lynch black people, and people would look the other way. About 50 years ago, you could spew violent rhetoric all you liked, and hardly anyone would say "that's not right". Now you at least have to pretend to disavow political violence, or you endanger your status amongst the media elite.

It doesn't mean you actually scale back on the incitement of violence, naturally. You can give your 55 minutes of hate, and then say "even though I'm sure these people want to enslave and kill you, and will stop at nothing to do it, I'd kindly ask you to please not use violence, because they'll just use it as propaganda to further their agenda".

The purpose of Beck's show is to make people afraid and angry, and suggest that Democrats are an existential threat to the country, to freedom, and to their lives themselves. Add in the specifically violent rhetoric outlined in this video, and you've got a real problem.

If you wanted to nitpick what I said as being a gross generalization, Glenn Beck should have never been who you raised up as someone trying to tamp down on the violent rhetoric. He seems to be the chief culprit, not some level headed voice of reason trying to cool down the rest of the party.

>> ^blankfist:
Am I out of touch? How much has this war cost us? Military spending is 56% of the federal budget.

Military spending is more like 20% of the budget, and I do want that to shrink. But our government's national deficit isn't why the economy is tanking. On the contrary, our economy tanking is responsible for a healthy chunk of our national debt.

Obviously you don't believe they attacked us for our freedom, do you? I hope not.

No, I think they attacked us because they feel aggrieved for actions we've taken in the past. I also think they use hatred of us as their entire way of attracting and retaining followers -- we're a convenient scapegoat.

Sort of like libertarians and government.

I hope you realize there would be no threat if we weren't spreading hegemony abroad. If we weren't meddling in foreign affairs, we would've never experienced 9/11.
To ensure our safety, yes, I do believe we need to march out of the Middle East. It's just that simple. We should also march out of the 130+ countries overseas and close down our 700+ bases there. Remove Al Qaeda's incentive to attack us and you will have your peace.

I agree that if we had never meddled in the affairs of others, Al Qaeda would probably be attacking the Third Reich instead, or the Soviet Union, or whoever the world superpower is in that alternate reality.

In our timeline of events, I don't think withdrawing from everywhere would make Al Qaeda turn peaceful. On the contrary, I think they'd think they were winning, and keep right on stoking hate towards us, and looking to seek vengeance.

I do think our fixation on them as some sort of existential threat only made them stronger, and that using the US military on them is like trying to kill a gnat with a bazooka. This needed to be a public relations war and law enforcement effort more than a shooting war.

I want us out of Afghanistan. As near as I can tell the argument for staying is to help get their government established to the point where they can keep the Taliban and Al Qaeda at bay, but I'm not so sure that's doable with troops, unless the idea is to wipe out Al Qaeda (but they aren't in Afghanistan). But I don't have access to the same information the President has, and unlike Bush, I trust Obama's motives. I don't think he's in favor of fighting wars just to fight wars (or to secure oil rights, or to try to one-up his daddy).

So, I'm not going to scream out against it yet, but I do think he needs to talk more about it, and try to build up a consensus for it if it's really a necessary war. If it's not, he needs to start bringing it to a close.

^ Didn't your momma tell you "they started it first" isn't justification for anything?

This is about what kind of people we want to be.

Do we stick to our principles when the going gets tough, or do we ditch them the minute we bump heads with people without any principles?

The Republicans are right to call this an existential threat, they're just wrong about what the existential threat really is.

If the only way to win is to stop obeying the Constitution, the Geneva conventions, and just sheer human decency -- we've already lost.