You are quite welcome.
In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Many thanks!
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
*quality *doublepromote
for the rape.

Many thanks!
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
*quality *doublepromote
for the rape.

>> ^Yogi:

I wonder if Hannity will feature this on his show...maybe have some of the ladies on to talk about the movie.


He would have some "wrongly accused" jarheads on to talk about how it was consensual, and "they were asking for it, anyway".

>> ^legacy0100:

Country is going to shits.


It is but this isn't an indication of that. Our Army would've done this in any War had women been featured prominently in it. Heck read about how Russian and US soldiers treated the French and German women of the countries they liberated. The surprising thing isn't that this happens, it's that it happens constantly and the men in charge do nothing. This is why this has to come out, and shine a light on this stuff. It's sad but we're humans and we need to be shamed into doing the right thing sometimes. It's an ongoing process that needs to happen.

I feel terrible that the women who serve have ever feared the men who they serve with and are meant to be protecting them like a sister in the field. People say that feminists have overstayed their welcome or something, well here's your issue feminists, this is something that you can't overreact to.

If my employer told me I had to work with a plastic bag on my head, I'd tell them to fuck off. Apparently if the US military wants you to pointlessly kill yourself, you're not allowed to say no.

I agree with quite a bit of what you said, and I should have been more clear. Democrats for the most part do not acknowledge that Affirmative Action is not improving racial tensions. I haven't seen any credible reports that demonstrate it is helping. But they generally insist it is.

And it is a fact that the US military capability is significantly reduced when funding is cut by significant amounts. That may be an acceptable outcome for you, and if so, we can agree to disagree about differing opinions. I'm talking about the Democrats who often say to do it, and then pretend it won't have an impact on military capability. Cutting defense funding for example would have very likely precluded the US from taking Bin Laden out because it took a lot of resources that likely wouldn't have been available. Good chance we wouldn't have had the intelligence, the Seals personnel available to pull it off, basing rights necessary, etc. etc. That stuff gets conveniently forgotten. I'm fine with a disagreement about if more of an isolationist policy would be beneficial for the US, that kind of thing. But some liberals pretend they can have it both ways. We can have just as robust and capable military/intelligence unit with significantly less funding if it's cut too much.

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. But I do agree with you - the definition of a conservative is narrowing to absurd proportions, and they're broadening the definitions of liberal, socialist, and communist. Obamacare isn't socialism, or communism. It's a few ticks to the left of what we currently have.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^heropsycho:
The only thing that proves is the Democratic party is more splintered, and the GOP is more disciplined. There are plenty of facts the Democrats flat out reject. One issue for example I'm against the Democrats on is Affirmative Action. I think it was a necessary instrument to force racial integration in the beginning, but now it's doing more harm than good. Affirmative Action doesn't seem to be doing a much good, and the cost is having whites constantly assuming a minority only got the job because of a quota, even when it's not true. Yes, there's still racism in the workplace and hiring, but Affirmative Action isn't the way to combat that any longer.
I think most in the Democratic Party are against cutting social safety net spending in the long run even though it is necessary. The cuts in military that would be necessary to prevent having to do that would result in a military that both the Democrats and Republicans would find unacceptable whenever the crap hits the fan. The Democratic Party does also seem to gloss over how bad social programs get gamed by those who don't truly need it.
Both sides are guilty of choosing the facts that suit them.
But, I will agree it's significantly worse on the GOP side. That's why I feel like they're pushing me to vote Democrat. You can call me a lot of things, but it's disingenuous to label me a liberal or conservative. But it seems that the definition of conservative is narrowing as it's pushed farther to the extreme right, and what is labelled liberal is ever expanding.
Obamacare as a perfect example - it's deemed to be an extremely liberal/Socialist policy, and I for the life of me can't see how. It's a very mild liberal reform. It's not the gov't option, or single payer. It's a few clicks to the left on the dial from where we were. Raising the top income tax bracket rate a few percentage points makes this country socialist? Please.
>> ^NetRunner:
At least you recognize there's some asymmetry, but "both sides" aren't guilty of the same thing.
It's sorta like saying punching someone in a bar, and committing murder are the same thing. Technically they are a breach of the same moral edict (don't harm people), but the difference of intensity is so large it puts them into qualitatively different criminal categories.
For example, can you name anything that's the left's equivalent to global warming denial?
Keep in mind, it has to truly be equivalent -- it has to be a belief contrary to an overwhelming majority of experts, and has to be believed (or denied) by virtually everyone who calls themself a liberal. Furthermore, it needs to be a core belief of the liberal movement. It needs to be an issue where saying the (heretical) truth about an issue could get you drummed out of the Democratic party and the broader political movement.
I can't name any issue like that. Can you?
>> ^heropsycho:
I'll agree it's more so on the right, but both sides are guilty of this.
>> ^NetRunner:
It's this kind of behavior from the right that really has me worried. It's one thing for people to be skeptical about information from a particular source, but what we're seeing from the right today is a blanket rejection of all information that comes from outside their own partisan network of sources.



Your two examples of "facts" liberals reject are actually opinions.
This is a statement of fact: "Hiring quotas are illegal in the U.S."
This is a statement of opinion: "I think it was a necessary instrument to force racial integration in the beginning, but now it's doing more harm than good."
And of course, some liberals agree with you. Possibly even several Democrats with seats in Congress.
My point is, conservatives frequently deny verifiable factual information, which is different from spin. Everyone "spins" for sure, but that's minimizing and rationalizing facts that seem to contradict a larger political argument. Conservatives are fond of simply denying the facts themselves.
Conservatives spinning global warming would sound like "Global warming won't be so bad, think of the boom in agriculture when you can grow bananas in Ohio!" Liberals denying the facts on Affirmative action would sound like "Affirmative action doesn't negatively affect any white people, and anyone who says otherwise is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy to reinstate slavery!"
And to your point about cohesiveness, some liberal somewhere saying something like that doesn't mean that liberals and conservatives should be considered equally guilty. Most liberals don't feel that way, whereas the cohesiveness of the conservatives means it's hard for me to find one who doesn't think global warming is some sort of hoax perpetrated for liberal political gain.
A big frustration for me as a self-proclaimed liberal is that I'm already a moderate in the middle. I'm not the left pole in hardly any political debate. And yet there are a ton of people (more in media than around here) who self-consciously try to position themselves "in the middle" by staking out positions to the right of me, and to the left of the Republicans. But doing that doesn't land you in the middle, it lands you way out on the right...because these days "liberal" just means "not a conservative", not that you're some sort of real left-wing ideologue.

Requiring the application of historical standards to fascism is like claiming a country that allows women to vote isn't a real democracy. How the athenians did things, or how the italians did things shouldn't matter to us; we live in the real world, not the past.

I can't allow comparative politics. Whether other states are more or less militaristic, more or less authoritarian than the US doesn't concern us. Let's look at what it actually is.

The US is smotheringly authoritarian. Try walking down the street without modestly covering your genitalia, try openly using unapproved drugs. Obama believes the state owns your body chemistry, and has the sole authority to decide how you may or may not alter it. This is one of the most authoritarian principles imaginable.

The US overflows with militaristic sentiment - everywhere there is glorification of the armed forces. Politicians regularly campaign on US military strength. Military culture indoctrinates recruits to believe those who haven't served aren't real citizens, ask them, they'll tell you.

All language is metaphor (this is literally true). I don't have a particular grudge against fascists; it's any authoritarian or tribalist I hate. I'm going to continue to refer to modern political figures as fascists, because the term does fit and because the associations it produces are fitting.

What the hell? I'm in the US military, and we never had anything near this awesome. Once Puddle Of Mud came, but who wants to see them?

I gave up on Clancy when I was 16. I don't remember which book it was but there was a scene at the start where two full grown US military spook types meet in a bar somewhere in SE Asia, Bangkok maybe. They have a 'some damn fool said you were the best' type conversation then start good naturedly sparring with their knives, as you do. He describes the 'whirling, twisting' playfight -- for AGES (with a full on army boner no doubt).

Then he adds that a crowd (of natives) had gathered and were whooping and cheering them on delightedly. When the boys (let's call them JAKE and CLINT) have got it out of their system the crowd disperse, sad the fun is over. Then our heroes get back to planning who the US gov wants them to go and assassinate.

Clancy deals in right wing wet dreams. Interesting that his lot are starting to sell the same bullshit but now against US citizens - OWS. Couldn't play this game though. Pretending to shoot Castro in the head at the start of Black Ops made me feel queasy already. I mean Castro is a royal dick but millions of kids being taught to shoot real people by intellectually and morally questionable GAMES PRODUCERS?

All a bit dark.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

We're debating why we were attacked by a handful of radical folks
Pht - I can answer that in one word. Isreal. Next?
...whether or not our military engagement, specifically since WWII, has been productive in any measurable way...
Productive to who and in what way?
You see - to a leftist - your question is unanswerable. Like Ron Paul, leftists view any military intervention by the United States as unproductive. By their very natures it is literally impossible to supply a leftist with any response that they will find satisfactory. Leftists come from a particular philosophy and perspective that disallows the word 'productive' to be used in the same sentence as 'American military engagement'. Heck to this day there are leftists who even question whether the US should have gotten involved in WW1 or WW2 or not.
Other people with other perspectives are not quite so closed-minded about whether or not a military action was 'productive' or not because they allow other definitions of 'productive' to be satisfied. But to a Proglibdyte, ANY US military action is viewed as unproductive.

Bollocks. I'm a socialist and I firmly believe that not only was America right to get involved in WW2, it was right to get involved in Libya recently.

Typical "rightist" attitude. You can't see any nuance or context. The left opposed Americas intervention in Vietnam, in Iraq and guess what? They turned out to be fucking right. Hell, I don't even remember that much left wing opposition to gulf war 1, other than the likes of Bill Hicks pointing out the ridiculous position you were in was largely of your own making.

As for "American exceptionalism", the USA had some grand ideals, and should be commended for that. But the reason it occupies the place it does in the world today is down to geology (it was rich in natural resources) and geography (America has never had a strong belligerent neighbour). So really, more down to good luck than good management.

We're debating why we were attacked by a handful of radical folks

Pht - I can answer that in one word. Isreal. Next?

...whether or not our military engagement, specifically since WWII, has been productive in any measurable way...

Productive to who and in what way?

You see - to a leftist - your question is unanswerable. Like Ron Paul, leftists view any military intervention by the United States as unproductive. By their very natures it is literally impossible to supply a leftist with any response that they will find satisfactory. Leftists come from a particular philosophy and perspective that disallows the word 'productive' to be used in the same sentence as 'American military engagement'. Heck to this day there are leftists who even question whether the US should have gotten involved in WW1 or WW2 or not.

Other people with other perspectives are not quite so closed-minded about whether or not a military action was 'productive' or not because they allow other definitions of 'productive' to be satisfied. But to a Proglibdyte, ANY US military action is viewed as unproductive. Someone could wax eloquent on the subject, but to a dyed-in-the-wool leftist who views the US military as the chief evil of the modern world, it is an anathema.

"they hate our freedom"

As I said before - the primary reason they are hostile is Isreal. However, from a cultural perspective the Islamic world DOES hate our freedom. The Muslim world wants Sharia Law as the method of governance for the entire world - and stuff like the US Constitution is viewed (at best) as a secular affront to Islam that is viewed with latent hostility or (at worst) a "Christian" modern Crusade to be viewed as a military enemy.

So basically the argument is, the US president can't stop the US military industrial complex from engaging in torture and kidnappings. Even the murder of US citizens is outweighed by the pros of Obama's reign?

Wow. Glad I'm not a US citizen if voting there really means choosing between one killer or the other.

"We are not going to apologize for any small role we may have played in helping to remove a dictator who made his people suffer for 20 years, carried out horrific acts and didn't care about democracy. He is gone now, and thank God for that."
- Bertie Ahern, in May of 2003, discussing the US military's use of Shannon Airport as a stopover point for operations in Iraq.

"We were always dead against the war."
- Bertie Ahern, in December of 2003, discussing the war in Iraq

>> ^hpqp:

It's no secret that OBL was trained by the CIA during Russia's invasion of Afghanistan, as a part of the proxy wars between USSR and USA during the cold war.
As for the evidence, you might like to start with the links I've already provided you with. Twice. Oh well, "Third time's the charm" for you superstitious types: http://www.debunking911.com/

_{(Btw, if you're going to defend your questionable beliefs, try linking articles that are a tad more convincing than the conjecturing ramblings filled with leading questions of a Srebrenica-massacre-denialist and defender of a renowned war criminal.)}>> ^marbles:
>> ^hpqp:
Yes, why do truthers keep avoiding the evidence and logic?

I'm not avoiding anything. Please share all credible evidence backing the official theory. No such evidence exists.
And logic? Maybe you should do some research on who Osama bin Laden aka Tim Osman really was.
Osama bin Laden: Made in USA



And it's no secret that al-Qaeda was a database of "freedom fighters" of a CIA proxy army. It's also no secret they were given 6+ billion dollars in the 80s by the CIA and Saudi Intelligence to fight the Soviets over Afghanistan under the invented threat of Communism. Now here's where that "logic" comes in.

When did OBL stop working for the CIA?
OBL was immediately blamed for 9/11 (within a few hours after the attacks) and now we are fighting wars under the invented threat of Muslim jihadists.

Why were some of the alleged hijackers living with CIA and FBI informants?

Why were some of the alleged hijackers training at US military bases?

Why did Anwar al-Awlaki dine at the Pentagon just months after 9/11?

What was ISI Chief Mahmud Ahmad (who wired $100,00 to Mohammed Atta) doing at the Pentagon the week leading up to and morning of 9/11?

Oh, I'm looking for "logical" answers here.

And for "evidence" supporting the official story, don't be a chicken shit. List your best supporting evidence. Of course, I know this is impossible for you. For it would require you to actually construct a coherent argument.
Maybe instead of letting debunking.com do your thinking for you, you should try getting all the facts and confirm them for yourself.

And my "questionable beliefs" are grounded solidly on credible evidence and sound logic, so question away. The link was to an article, not a guy. I'm glad you can google, but if you want to refute the article, try to avoid using logical fallacies (after all).

_{(Btw, "conjecturing" isn't an adjective. You can google that too! It's funny, you keep accusing me of "conjecturing", but you're too much of a chicken shit to demonstrate it!)}