If anyone wants a transcript of both GW Bush and Obama's eulogy, NBC News has them for you to read through.

Obama: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/barack-obama/read-full-text-barack-obama-s-speech-john-mccain-s-n905721
GWBush: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/read-full-text-george-w-bush-s-speech-john-mccain-n905726

@Jinx

hey thanks for keeping this conversation going and not just making assumptions and allowing us both to come to a better understanding.

though i am not really surprised,i am gladdened.

in my opinion,i think this situation may be a problem with indentifying with labels and maybe putting too much weight on them to convey complicated and complex human interactions.

i would call myself a social justice warrior,but i would never identify as those who behave is the extremists do.but to imply that the responsibility is on ME,or any other critic,to redefine these radical social justice warriors as somehow not being representative of the majority,is a false dynamic,because that is how they define themselves.

basically the "No true scotsman" fallacy.which is employed ad-nauseum by these extremists.that somehow if you do not adhere to their radical agenda you are somehow not qualified to label yourself:feminist,anarchist (this has been directed at me),socialist, etc etc.

this is just a silly and binary way of breaking down peoples complex human perceptions and understandings to fit a narrow,and restrictive narrative,in order to achieve an agenda.

so while we all viewed GW bush's "if you're not with us,you're against us",as an inane and utterly stupid statement.how come there is little push back when the EXACT same tactic is used to silence someone who may not be 100% on board with a certain agenda?

does me posting this video automatically translate to me being "anti-social justice warrior"?

of course not! that is just silly,but in todays climate that is exactly how some people view complex situations,and it HAS to stop!

you brought up police.
good.
lets use that as an example.
the fact the americas militarized and dysfunctional police force has accounted for more police shootings than soldiers have died in iraq.do we REALLY need to be told that it is not ALL cops.

of course not.again,that is silly but it DOES mean that maybe there is a problem within the institution that needs to be addressed.

here is a perfect case for social justice warriors to bring this corruption and rot to the surface,and here we have black lives matter.which is receiving mixed coverage in the media,but they have gotten people talking and even some incremental reforms in the woks AND,just recently..6 cops fired from a cleveland precinct for shooting civilians.this is where social justice warriors are not only necessary but vital!

but what if.....

those cops who were feeling threatened,or intimidated by the criticism and examination of their institution coming from black lives matters decided to use a tactic right out of these extremists playbook?

maybe some doxxing?
exposing personal information about the protesters?
how about a few false accusations of rape?
maybe personal harassing calls to friends and family members of the black lives matter movement?
how about some false charges of harassment and sexual discrimination?

that would effectively shut down the black lives matter movement within weeks,and how would we respond to that kind of underhanded tactics?

we would be outraged.
we would be furious at the absolute abuse of power.a power bestowed by the state.

and our outrage would be justified.

do you see where i am coming from here?

in the example i have given,which may or not be the best analogy.we can easily see the abuse of power as a form of bullying to get a group that is a dissenting ideology..to shut..the fuck..up.

freedom of speech is NOT just speech you or i agree with,or happen to support,but it also speech that we may dislike,disagree and even find offensive.

but by allowing those we dislike or disagree to say their piece,allows us and everybody else to examine,discern and ultimately discard as ridiculous.or,converesly,find some merit that was previously hidden from us,due to our lack of knowledge or understanding.

i realize i am reiterating my previous point,but i think it is so very important.

free speech allows the free flow of ideas and dialogue and allows good ideas to be absorbed into the body politic and the bad ones discarded into the trash bin.

but there MUST be the allowance of the free flow of thought!

so when i post a video such as this i am not ridiculing actual socially conscious people.i am exposing bad ideas,supported by narrow minded people who wish to impose THEIR sense of how a society should be and attempt to circumvent the very slow process of discussion,argument and debate by hijacking the conversation and shutting down all dissent and disagreement with the most fascist tactics possible.

up until a month ago i was fairly ignorant to things like gamergate and whatnot.i thought i had a pretty fair understanding of what a social justice warrior was,and even included myself as one.

but then,quite by accident,i fell upon a few stories that highly disturbed me.one ,in particular was the case of greg allen elliot who was being criminally prosecuted for harassment on twitter.

now the case was finally resolved,and elliot was found not guilty.
so hooray for justice right?
free speech won in the end right?
or did it...did elliot actually win?
i am not so sure.

you see.
he was a web designer.
and once he was charged 3 years ago,he was banned from any internet use.so effectively he was jobless.
on top of that his defense cost 100k.
sounds like a loss to me.

now let us examine stephanie guthrie.a prominent toronto feminist and tedtalk speaker:
1.she made the accusation of harassment and brought the charges.
2.even though this all started with a man who created a game where anita sarkesians faced was punched,and was the supposed imetus for all this fuss,guthrie never laid charges against the creator of the game.though she did,along with her followers harassed and bullied this man until he closed down his account.so chock one up for feminism? i guess?
4.what guthrie found so reprehensible about elliot was that he had the audacity to question guthries rage and called for a calm interaction.(mainly because there are literally 100's of face-punching games).
5.guthrie and her followers found this call for calm offensive and doxxed elliot and proceeded to harass his employer,his family and ffirends.
6.elliot lost his job.his employer could not handle the harassment.so feminist win again? i guess?
7.when guthrie blocked elliot on twitter she continued to publicly accuse him of misogyny,bigot and even a pedophile.
8.she then brought accusations against elliot for criminal harassment,and that she "felt" harassed.
9.guthrie has paid ZERO for her accusations.she has suffered no accountability nor responsibility.

now the court case is over,and elliot has been vindicated and free speech is still in place for today.

but lets look at the bigger picture.
and let us imagine how easily this situation could be abused.
can we really look at guthrie vs elliot as ANY form of justice? or is it MORE liekly that guthrie was abusing a court system to punish a man she happened to disagree with?with ZERO consequences.

now maybe you agree with guthrie.
maybe you are one of those people that believe in your heart that words are weapons and people should be held accountable for those words.they should be stripped of wealth,work and home..they should be punished.

ok.
thats fine.
maybe you agree because it is a matter you support?
a racist pig loses a job for saying racists things.
or a bigot gets kicked out of his apartment for being a bigoted asshole.

but how about this..
hypothetically:
a devout chritian woman is protesting an abortion clinic with her children in tow.

and lets say a pro-choice atheist comes over to her and starts to berate her i front of her children.ridiculing her for her beliefs and saying jesus was a zombie.that she is a horrible person for believing in such a tyrannical deity,that this so-called all-loving entity punishes all no-believers in a lake of fire for all eternity.that as a mother,teaching her children to worship such a god is tantamount to child abuse.berating her so badly that her children begin to cry?

now what if that interaction was filmed?
then posted to youtube?
what if a "social justice warrior" of the religious flavor decided that berating person needed to pay for his words?
what if that person got doxxed?
and the end result was he loses his job (because corporations are notoriously controversy allergic),and maybe his landlord is notified and he is kicked out of his apartment?

would you be ok with all that?
because that is the EXACT same metric that radical social justice warriors use!

and what about false accusations?
you dont even have to be actually offended and /or harassed,you just have to accuse and the rest takes care of itself.

are you ok with that kind of creative abuse?

so when i bring things like this to the forefront and attempt to expose the underlying idiocy.what i just wrote is where i am coming from.

and yes.these radicals and their underhanded tactics need to be exposed and all the attention brought to them the better.

why? because what and how they are behaving is anti-democracy anti-freedom and anti-liberty.

and i am all for debating specific issues,and will gladly do so..with glee,but i will not and cannot respect what the radical elements are doing to an otherwise worthy cause.

and YOU should be calling them out as well.

i know this is long and i probably lost the plot somewhere,but this is very important,becuase it threatens all of us and if we simply ignore these nimrods they will just become even more entrenched,self-righteous and arrogant in their own little bubble worlds.

that bubble needs to be popped,and soon.

anyways.thanks for hanging (if you made it this far)
there will be danishes and punch in the lobby!

Ok, let's change the territory. Forget Muslims and Al Queada and the Middle East and all that.

Let's roll the clock back 30 years, and let's find a comparable scenario where we have stateless actors living in a country who's reluctant to extradite them (either through inability to locate them or because they don't really like the country asking for extradition). These actors are responsible for a number of atrocities committed in the name of a political cause that has some tacit support by the locals of this country.

So we have the IRA hiding in the Republic of Ireland for bombing civilians in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

Now let's assume the British have drones. Is it acceptable for them to drone strike targets within the Republic leading to civilian casualties? If not, why not?

Hell, let's go forward 20 or 30 years to when Iraq or Afghanistan have drones and the USA refuses to extradite the people that illegally invaded their country and then committed crimes against humanity there. Is it ok to drone strike Texas to get to GW Bush?

This is not a door we want to open. You're happy with it now because you're the ones holding the big stick, but legitimising international assassination because you don't get your way is a recipe for a nightmare.

Poor kid looks exactly like GW Bush.

You guys can be smartasses all you want, but it is sad that you're willing to extrapolate conclusions you're posting.

-----

1:30 to 2:11 --- He speaks about the Right to own property privately. He says the UN will not protect those rights.

4:13 to 4:37 -- The UN will not let us practice religion in the same way.

6:29 to end -- Describes lack of need for UN to talk to other countries. The UN is taking our sovereignty by acting as the middle man. 54 representatives vote for a measure to withdraw from the UN.
---------------------

By golly he must have wrote those things about blacks and AIDS!

I'd really like to draw the same conclusions but I really dont know what source material you all are watching... this is far from paranoia

PS: Why are do you mention Lew Rockwell at all, and ignore Murray Rothbard and Eric Dondero?

Rockwell has denied responsibility for the newsletters' contents to The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick. Rockwell twice declined to discuss the matter with reason, maintaining this week that he had "nothing to say."

Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters

Eric Dondero was a staffer who was fired.
http://www.dailypaul.com/196808/while-one-fired-fmremployee-passive-aggressively-betrays-rp-one-finally-clarifies

In 1993, Rothbard wrote about Malcolm X and discussed the possibility of a separate state for blacks, but concluded that it would "require massive "foreign aid" from the U.S.A.". He also described black nationalism as "a phony nationalism" that was "beginning to look like a drive for an aggravated form of coerced parasitism over the white population."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard218.html


You guys are starting to look silly and I'm starting to wonder just how hard you need to try to prove something that you say is so obvious. You know, like the clip of GW Bush giving the camera the middle finger. There has to be an actual slip up, not just your own interpretation of someone elses interpretation of something someone read.

>> ^bookface:

I agree with Chomsky that it's highly improbable the GW Bush administration engineered the entire thing from head to toe, and it was never leaked. If there was any conspiracy happening it was more likely that GWB and friends simply left the back door and looked the other way in terms of security. Why go through the trouble of orchestrating a highly elaborate international black op when you can just ignore guys like Richard Clark, and count the days until something goes down? Perhaps what W was thinking while sitting in that school house on 9/11 was, "Heck, I didn't think they'd make SUCH a ruckus." Of course I'm speculating but I suppose I'm making Chomsky's point, too.


This. (thanks @bookface)

Think of the Iran-Contra scandal. Was Reagan involved? "I Don't recall."

"funds for the Contras, or any affair, the President (or in this case the administration) could carry on by seeking alternative means of funding such as private entities and foreign governments.[47] Funding from one foreign country, Brunei, was botched when North's secretary, Fawn Hall, transposed the numbers of North's Swiss bank account number. A Swiss businessman, suddenly $10 million richer, alerted the authorities of the mistake. The money was eventually returned to the Sultan of Brunei, with interest.[48]<-wikipedia

I agree with Chomsky that it's highly improbable the GW Bush administration engineered the entire thing from head to toe, and it was never leaked. If there was any conspiracy happening it was more likely that GWB and friends simply left the back door and looked the other way in terms of security. Why go through the trouble of orchestrating a highly elaborate international black op when you can just ignore guys like Richard Clark, and count the days until something goes down? Perhaps what W was thinking while sitting in that school house on 9/11 was, "Heck, I didn't think they'd make SUCH a ruckus." Of course I'm speculating but I suppose I'm making Chomsky's point, too.

@blankfist, well, we need to start trying some new systems on for size, first and foremost, and that's not going to happen as long as people like you, Kubric, and the ultra rich and the trans-national finance institutions that they own are more than willing to strangle those new systems like babes in the cradle.

I don't want to hear any malarkey about "creating jobs" when that is the last thing that rich people or capitalists want to do. You weren't going to hire people to create jobs, you were going to hire people to do your work for you and make you richer.

Where capitalism does create jobs is in the sweatshops of the hell holes that dot the Pacific rim of Asia.

You've retreated into this cocoon of idealism that has completely skewed your view of reality. You've gone so far as to resurrect antiquated definitions of political and social movements and rebrand them to suit this idealistic, and very unrealistic, view of the world.

You've gone so far as to call yourself a liberal and to accuse GW Bush of being a leftist.

That is a disconnect with reality that I think you would do well to reevaluate.

I can't give you a better system than capitalism, but that does not mean that one does not exist, that one can not be found, established, perfected. Things are better for the people of Venezuela, Brazil, and Bolivia since they've moved to a more socialistic system. Few could argue otherwise.

There is a better way. It's out there, waiting to be born.

Watching that god-damned monkey (GW Bush) pretend that he knew what he talked about raises my blood pressure to...oh...critical mass.

Calling GW Bush say, 'Cowboy' made pretty good sense, 'cause that was his attitude. And he owns a ranch. This... is racist, or something similar. All those Baldwins are so classy.

We should start a new meme about what certain celebrity's hands should have written on them.

GW Bush: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Kanye: Stay seated, stay calm, stay quiet.

That's all I got off the top of my head... I'm sorta upgrading a server at the moment.

Face it, in the current American political discourse, the words "liberal" and "progressive" are almost interchangeable.

Unless somebody is in the mood to toy with semantics and claim that GW Bush was too "liberal."

Or that forming an aliance to declare independence from a mother country is "conservative."

Piss on em.

Those are the same fucksticks who thought GW Bush was a good idea.

>> ^Doc_M:
if they DO pass it, they'll anger an enormous number of voters, more or less sealing their fate in 2010.

despite my feelings about alex jones' wingnut positions on the trilateral commission, bilderberg, and the cfr...

i'm upvoting because the essential message the vid infers is, as 'the who' so succinctly put it, 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'

here are some legitimate gripes i have with obama and habeus corpus:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Guantanamo-Bagram-Is-there-much-difference
http://www.videosift.com/video/BBC-Investigation-of-Abuse-At-Bagram-Air-Base
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/11/bagram/

imho, the difference between bush and obama is black and white, literally... although obama can pronounce 'nuclear' ... i believe that his message of change wasn't much more than to convince the american people and the world that he was some sort of harry potter, who could fix all that was wrong simply with a wave of his big black wand

in reality, and from primarily an international perspective, he's the usa's global apology card, primarily to a western europe both worried and not-a-little-angry with america because 1. it gave them 8 years of gw bush, 2. was the sole remaining superpower in the vacuum left by the ussr's collapse, and was now viewed not as the cold war's 'great balancer' but as a post-cold war threat to both global security and international parity, and 3. through the burgeoning of instant mass communication afforded by the internet, the uneducated and largely impolite rabble of europe and the us were better able to ruffle each other's feathers, both innocently and maliciously

this two-way estrangement between the decades-long, erstwhile allies needed and continues to need to be smoothed over, and what better way than to present the world--at least on the surface--a polar opposite to bush and his ilk... a well-spoken, apparently sincere man of intelligence whose humble platitudes and defacto apologies at least try to serve as a soothing balm to the inflamed passions, old rivalries, petty grievances, and genuine concerns that had long lain dormant during the cold war, but were coaxed back to their previous vigor with the ill breath of the three enumerated items in the previous paragraph, which reput would be: 1. american arrogance, 2. a nascent eu's competitiveness and envy, and 3. the ignorance and polemics of the internet's unwashed masses

so... who 'won't get fooled again?'

>> ^quantumushroom:
I don't give a damn about how Barack eats his burger.
I do take issue with the 500,000 jobs lost this month, an "improvement" over last month's job loss of 600,000.
8.9% unemployment rate? Hasn't been that high in 30 years.
None of this is an accident. An angry marxist radical, Dear Leader has only contempt for free markets and freedom.
Somebody tell Stink Uyger of Young Turds: this Obama presidency is a total fking disaster for the "common man" and it's just begun.


The only problem with your rhetoric is, the unemployment rate and job losses are a direct result of our former president, not our current one. When are you guys going to get this straight? I suppose it's Obama's fault that no WMD's were found in Iraq too? You're right none of it is an accident. And you have your beloved GW Bush to blame. So suck on that.

If by "common man" you mean anyone that makes over 250k a year, then yes it's a disaster. Boo hoo, so sad.

Also, it's pretty sad when the only thing they can find to bitch about is the condiments Obama has on his burger. However, I'd expect nothing less than this petty bullshit from Faux Newz. As always, keep it classy guys.